NEWS ABOUT GM ISSUES • January 2009

2009: Jan • Feb
2008: Jan • Feb • Mar • Apr • May • Jun • Jul • Aug • Sep • Oct • Nov • Dec
2007: Jan • Feb • Mar • Apr • May • Jun • Jul • Aug • Sep • Oct • Nov • Dec
2006: Jan • Feb • Mar • Apr • May • Jun • Jul • Aug • Sep • Oct • Nov • Dec
2005: Jan/Feb/Mar • Apr/May/Jun/Jul • Aug/Sept/Oct • Nov/Dec • 2004 • 2003

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

30 January 2009

Govt halts marketing of genetically modified food crop

CNN-IBN (India), 30 January 2009. By Shalini.

[Photo caption: India's first genetically modified food crop BT brinjal has been temporarily halted]

New Delhi: With new scientific studies now finding genetically modified foods not fully safe for human consumption, the government has put a 'temporary halt' on the commercialisation of BT brinjal [aubergine], the move prompted by the Supreme Court's special representative at the Centre's Genetic Engineering Approval Committee.

Dr Pushpabhargava said, "I have fears that there are vested interests. Any study that does not suit them are just dismissed."

However, Bhargavas intervention has not stopped biotech company Mahyco from going ahead with field trials showing here a clear clash of interests.

Mahyco, the company that will sell BT Brinjal is also conducting the crucial tests that will declare BT Brinjal safe.

Mahyco says, "Studies showed that there is no significant difference between conventional brinjal and BT brinjal when the products were fed to rats. There is no allergenicity or toxicity seen."

Meanwhile, Mahyco's arguments have been rubbished by scientists at the international level.

French scientists found 'discrepancies' in their analysis - saying they were ignoring data that showed labs rats developing reproductive problems.

The Australian scientists found that the study has not been carried out for long enough to assess longterm effects.

Which leads to the question are monitoring mechanisms in place? Minister for science and technology Kapil Sibal said, "We have a very elaborate process before we put any product genetically modified into the market."

But despite these promises, there seems to be an unseemly haste and lack of transparency in carrying out the experiments, leading both farmers and consumers to ask what Dr Bhargava is asking... is there a vested interest?

Hungary to defy European Commission call to scrap ban on GMO crops

Hungary Around the Clock / realdeal.hu, 30 January 2009.

Hungary will keep its ban on GMO (genetically modified organisms) maize imports and the planting of GMO seeds, Agriculture Ministry undersecretary Zoltán Gogös announced.

The European Commission recently called on Hungary to entirely lift its GMO ban.

Last week the EU's executive arm backed proposals that would grant standard ten-year licences for the two GMO maize types. Hungary, one of the region's biggest grain producers, became the first country in Eastern Europe to ban GMO crops and foods in 2005, when it outlawed the planting of MON 810 maize seeds, which are marketed by the US biotech company Monsanto.,

The call on Hungary to reverse its stance on the issue comes both from lobby interests and the fact that the EU did not recognise scientific evidence presented by Hungary, Gogös said.

The pro-GMO camp said that Hungary could make good use of the new technology to provide an answer to the worrying structural surpluses of the Hungarian cereal sector in view of future CAP reform.

FDA to Approve Genetically Engineered Animals;
Treat Them as Corporate Intellectual Property

Natural News (USA), 30 January 2009. By David Guttierez.

The FDA has adopted new rules allowing companies to sell genetically modified animals and their products on the market, and affirming that the DNA of such animals is private property that can be held under patent.

To be approved, any genetically modified animal product must be proven to the FDA's satisfaction to be safe for human use in a process similar to that undergone by new drugs. Clinical trials like those needed for drugs will not be required, however. The FDA must also show that any genetically modified animal is healthy.

No FDA approval will be required for cloned animals or those intended only for research or as pets.

The new rules immediately drew harsh criticism from a wide spectrum of opponents. Experts objected to the FDA's decision to allow the approval process to remain secret in order to protect the financial interests of companies that hold patents on genetically modified animals and their DNA. Environmental and consumer advocates also criticized the rules for ignoring the potential environmental impacts of genetically modified animals.

"Drugs don't go out and breed with each other. When a drug gets loose, you figure you can control it. When a bull gets loose, it would be harder to corral," said Jaydee Hanson from the Center for Food Safety.

Others criticized the FDA's decision to not require labeling of genetically modified animal products as long as there is no change in composition in the final product.

"Consumers have the right to know if the ham, bacon or pork chops they are buying ... have been engineered with mouse genes," said Jean Halloran, director of food policy initiatives at Consumers Union.

Already, companies are lining up to introduce a wide variety of modified animals, from salmon that grow twice as fast as normal to pigs with meat high in omega-3 fatty acids, cows resistant to mad cow disease and animals that produce pharmaceutical products such as insulin in their milk. Researchers have also expressed interest in engineering animals that grow human organs for transplant.

29 January 2009

Q & As on ISAAA - behind industry's GM "Global Status Report"

GM Freeze (UK), 29 January 2009.

International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA)
- Global Status Reports on GM Crops

Full GM Freeze Briefing (including references) available here:
http://www.gmfreeze.org/uploads/ISAAA_Q&A_2009.pdf
- plain text below.

1. What Is ISAAA?

ISAAA claims "to contribute to poverty alleviation, by increasing crop productivity and income generation, particularly for resource-poor farmers, and to bring about a safer environment and more sustainable agricultural development". It aims "to contribute to poverty alleviation, by increasing crop productivity and income generation, particularly for resource-poor farmers, and to bring about a safer environment and more sustainable agricultural development". It has centres in N America, Africa and Asia.

These claims need to be assessed against what has actually occurred in the development of GM crops in the last 12 years. The majority of GM crops being grown on large scale, highly mechanised farms in North and South America by a small number of farmers. ISAAA also say that their objectives include "building of partnerships between institutions in the South and the private sector in the North, and strengthening of South-South collaboration". A glance at their financial supporters (see below) suggests that the interests of private sector links in the North are at the heart of ISAAA's activities.

2. Who funds it?

All the major biotech corporations including Monsanto, Bayer, Syngenta and Du Pont. The corporate backers also include Nestle. See http://www.isaaa.org/inbrief/donors/default.asp for a full list. The list includes Lord Sainsbury's charity the Gatsby Charitable Foundation and the UK's Biotechnology and Biological Research Council (BBSRC).

3. Who runs it?

Canadian Clive James (who authors the annual Global Status Report) is the Chair. Prior to ISAAA he was Deputy Director General at the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) in Mexico, where he worked for GM proponent Norman Borlaug. The Global co-ordinator is Randy A Hautea, who is based at the International Rice Research Institute in The Philippines. Other board members include Paul S Teng, a former Monsanto employee who is a biotech academic, and Jennifer Thompson, a leading light in promoting GM crops in Africa. See http://www.isaaa.org/inbrief/structure/default.html for a full list of Directors.

4. What is the global status report and why is it published?

The Global Status Report claims to be a compilation of GM crop cultivation to tell the world about its "consistent and substantial benefits" (see below). However, there are significant questions about the accuracy of the data they issue (see questions 5 to 9 below). It is published to generate publicity for GM crops and to give the impression that they are a success when their impact to date remains limited and many scientific, social and economic concerns remain to be answered. There is also much public opposition to their use and development.

The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology (IAASTD) published in 2008 found no compelling evidence of the benefits of GM crops:

"The application of modern biotechnology outside containment, such as the use of GM crops, is much more contentious. For example, data based on some years and some GM crops indicate highly variable 10-33% yield gains in some places and yield declines in others."

Promises of drought tolerant crops, salt tolerance, nitrogen fixing crops and nutrient enhanced crops have not produced any commercial crops to date. Genetic engineering to produce these changes in plants has proved to be more complicated than the single gene transfers/insertions in the GM crops that are currently grown commercially, which are mainly herbicide tolerant, insect resistant, or a combination of both.

5. Where does the data come from?

The sources of data used in the global status report are unclear. For instance, the on-line PowerPoint presentation of the 2007 Global Status Report cites the source as "Clive James 2007". Aside from the US, very few governments record the area of GM and non-GM crops separately, so data are collected per crop, ie maize areas include GM and non-GM crops. Thus ISAAA must generally rely on industry data for seed sales to calculate how many hectares were planted. China poses more difficult problems because the seeds come from several public institutions and the 2007 figures also included poplar trees for the first time.

6. Are the ISAAA figures reliable?

In some countries data may be reliable, but in the past few years ISAAA information has been challenged or found to be inaccurate, for example:

•

In 2006 the Global Status Report claimed GM rice was being grown in Iran, which was challenged by the International Rice Research Institute. The 2007 report did not mention GM rice in Iran.

•

In 2005, the area given for GM maize in The Philippines (where no official statistics were gathered) was also challenged.

•

The 2005 data for GM cotton in South Africa (where no official statistics were gathered) were challenged because the actual area appeared to be 20 times less than ISAAA's claimed 100, 000 hectares.

•

ISAAA's handling of Government data on planting has been criticised for increasing US areas by 2-9%.

•

GM Freeze analysed ISAAA figures for GM maize planting in the EU for 2007 compared with Monsanto's figures in their post market monitoring report. We found that the ISAAA exaggerated the actual area by a factor of four.

Other sources (for example the Natural Environment Research Council website ) made claims that 25% of arable land was under GM crops. GM Freeze analysis found that the real figure was only 2.4% of the world's farmland growing GM crops in 2007.

Overall independently verifying ISAAA data is impossible but it is advisable, based on the examples above, to treat all the data with caution as with any figures derived from largely industry sources.

7. How does a country become a GM nation?

ISAAA appear to take any area (however small) to qualify as country growing GM crops. Thus even a field of GM crops grown as a publicity stunt could qualify.

8. What happens if GM countries stop growing GM crops?

In the past ISAAA have been keen to include new additions to the list of GM countries, however, they have been slow to chart any negative steps. For instance:

•

on joining the EU, Romania ceased to grow GM soya. This went unrecorded by ISAAA.

•

In 2008 no GM maize was legally grown in France following the suspension of the license for Mon810. In 2007, Monsanto reported that France grew 22, 135 Ha of Mon810 in 2007. EuropaBio (the EU Trade Body for the EU) has already published data on 2008 planting in the EU in which they ignored the French ban and claimed a 21% increase in the area of GM maize in the EU despite their figures showing a decrease from the 2007 figure. How the ISAAA report for 2008 will deal with this reduction in EU area will be interesting.

9. Don't non-GM crops vastly outweigh GM cultivation worldwide?

Despite ISAAA's best efforts to massage the data to show GM crops in the best light, there is no escaping the fact that over 97% of land grows non-GM crops, showing that the world is not relying on, or even choosing, GM. There are no commercial GM varieties of wheat, barley, rice, potatoes, cassava, sorghum, millet or sweet potatoes. Aside from the USA where some GM papaya and squashes are grown, there is no commercial growing of GM vegetables or fruit. ISAAA reported that China grew GM papaya, tomatoes, sweet pepper and petunias, but then included these in a list of crops, which were being "field-tested". Only in soya beans does GM dominate the world's total crop. The majority of these crops are used for animal feed and agrofuel production (bio diesel and ethanol), not to feed people, so a better comparison would be to the acreage of global pastureland, rather than that of food crop production.

10. What other problems are there with dependence on GM?

There are worrying trends in some countries where GM soya has become a huge export-lead business. In Paraguay, soya is now grown on around 85% of arable land - not a good example of sustainable farming practice. Strong resistance to GM crops arises from concerns about contamination in centres of biodiversity of native landraces, crops or wild relatives of crops (eg soya in China, rice in Thailand, potatoes in the Andes and maize in Mexico). Confirmation of contamination of Mexican landraces of maize came last year.

Weed resistance is a growing problem in the USA and Argentina, where a number of weeds have developed resistant to Monsanto's Roundup. As a result, pesticide use on GM crops has increased in the USA. Other farming problems include insect resistance, reduced nutrient uptake and harm to farmland biodiversity. There are also many unresolved questions about the health impacts of GM crops arising from the significant changes that occur when plants are genetically engineered, including new allergens and toxins and changes to nutritional composition of the crop.

There is a growing list of impacts associated with GM soya monocultures, especially in South America. These include exposure to pesticides sprayed from aircraft, poor nutrient small farmers losing their land to large landowners and companies and major reductions in rural employment.

---

Comment by TraceConsult™

In what seem to be regular intervals the ISAAA publishes the "official" latest global figures showing the expansion of GM crop cultivation. The organization tries to lend itself the air of a neutral information body but this analysis by GM Freeze, the British interaction platform between NGOs and industry, suggests that ISAAA's neutral status may not be so neutral after all and that by far not all disseminated information meets the gold standard of truth.

One wonders what the motives are for the "spiffed up" data.

We have our own examples to add to the ones listed above in item 6:

So far ISAAA's reporting on Roundup Ready soybeans in Brazil Ýhas never been in compliance with the figures of local industry. We daresay that the figures of this pivotally important soy producer had to be "polished" a little to demonstrate the desired trend, which is that conventional soybeans are on their way out. But after having been predicted "soon" finished for eight years now, the last Brazilian crop still harvested 25 million tons of conventional, i.e. GM-free, soybeans. For lack of commercial opportunities, only just under 7 million tons of these remained segregated IP systems. But even that is more than 10 percent of the entire total crop volume.

Fighting hunger with flood-tolerant rice

CNN, 29 January 2009. By Peter Ornstein.

DAVIS, California - If every scientist hopes to make at least one important discovery in her career, then University of California-Davis professor Pamela Ronald and her colleagues may have hit the jackpot.

Ronald's team works with rice, a grain most Americans take for granted, but which is a matter of life and death to much of the world. Thanks to their efforts to breed a new, hardier variety of rice, millions of people may not go hungry.

About half the world's population eats rice as a staple. Two-thirds of the diet of subsistence farmers in India and Bangladesh is made up entirely of rice. If rice crops suffer, it can mean starvation for millions.

"People [in the United States] think, well, if I don't have enough rice, I'll go to the store, " said Ronald, a professor of plant pathology at UC-Davis. "That's not the situation in these villages. They're mostly subsistence farmers. They don't have cars."

As sea levels rise and world weather patterns worsen, flooding has become a major cause of rice crop loss. Scientists estimate 4 million tons of rice are lost every year because of flooding. That's enough rice to feed 30 million people.

Rice is grown in flooded fields, usually to kill weeds. But rice plants do not like it when they are submerged in water for long periods, Ronald said.

"They don't get enough carbon dioxide, they don't get enough light and their entire metabolic processes are thrown off. The rice plant tries to grow out of the flood, but when it does, it depletes its sugar reserves. It starts to break down its chlorophyll, important for photosynthesis. It grows really quickly, and then when the flood recedes, it just dies. It's out of gas."

Normal rice dies after three days of complete flooding. Researchers know of at least one rice variety that can tolerate flooding for longer periods, but conventional breeding failed to create a strain that was acceptable to farmers.

So Ronald and her colleagues -- David Mackill, senior scientist at the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines and Julia Bailey-Serres, professor of genetics at the University of California-Riverside -- spent the last decade working to find a rice strain that could survive flooding for longer periods.

Mackill identified a flood-resistant gene 13 years ago in a low-yielding traditional Indian rice variety. He passed along the information to Ronald, who isolated the gene, called Sub1, and introduced it into normal rice varieties, generating rice that could withstand being submerged in water for 17 days.

The team relied on something called precision breeding, the ability to introduce very specific genes into plants without the associated baggage of other genes that might tag along in conventional breeding.

"This can be a problem for farmers, " Ronald said. "The varieties that were developed from conventional breeding were rejected by farmers because they didn't yield well or taste good."

Using precision breeding, scientists introduced the Sub1 gene three years ago into test fields in Bangladesh and India. The subsequent rice harvests were a resounding success.

"The results were really terrific, " said Ronald. "The farmers found three- to five-fold increases in yield due to flood tolerance. They can plant the normal way. They can harvest the normal way and it tastes the same. Farmers had more food for their families and they also had additional rice they could sell to bring a little bit of money into the household."

"The potential for impact is huge, " agreed Mackill in a statement on the IRRI Web site. "In Bangladesh, for example, 20 percent of the rice land is flood prone and the country typically suffers several major floods each year. Submergence-tolerant varieties could make major inroads into Bangladesh's annual rice shortfall."

The researchers anticipate that the flood-tolerant rice plants will be available to farmers in Bangladesh and India within two years. Because the plants are the product of precision breeding, rather than genetic modification, they are not subject to the same regulatory testing that can delay release of genetically modified crops.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture conferred one of its highest research awards last December on Ronald, Mackill and Bailey-Serres for their work on submergence-tolerant rice.

But Ronald has no plans to rest on her laurels.

"I feel a great sense of gratitude that I was able to contribute in this way, " she said. "But the farmers have asked us, 'Can you develop varieties that are drought tolerant, salt tolerant? Can you develop varieties that are insect resistant?' There are always more things to work on."

---

Comment by GM Watch:

This story has been appearing prominently on pro-GM websites and listservs and could easily be taken for a remarkable GM success story. In fact, it's the very opposite.

The CNN article (below) talks about how the team that bred this flood-tolerant rice, led by University of California-Davis professor Pamela Ronald, were trying to remedy conventional breeding's failure to create a flood-tolerant rice strain that was acceptable to farmers.

It also says that they identified a flood-resistant gene in a low-yielding traditional rice variety, isolated the gene (called Sub1A) and introduced it into normal rice varieties, thus generating rice that could withstand being submerged in water for 17 days.

It also quotes Pamela Ronald as saying, "The varieties that were developed from conventional breeding were rejected by farmers because they didn't yield well or taste good." The precise introduction of the Sub1A gene into acceptable varieties avoided this problem.

This flood-tolerant rice was invoked as a GM success story by former UK Government Chief Scientist, David King in a BBC programmere late last year. But in fact it is not GM. It was created via the non-GM biotech process known as marker assisted selection (MAS) - normal breeding informed by knowledge of the genome.

As Peter Melchett noted in commenting on King's deceptive claims, it's "an example of the kind of innovative non-GM plant breeding that is making a lot of progress" in areas where GM has had little success.

Marker assisted selection is not, as the article below suggests, an alternative to conventional breeding, it is a refinement - a means of speeding up conventional breeding methods through making them more precise, which is why it's referred to as "precision breeding" in the article.

Melchett also notes that the UC Davis team "initially tried to develop the rice using both MAS and GM techniques. While the MAS worked well and quickly, GM failed initially, for unknown reasons. The scientists were moving a rice gene into another type of rice, so this failure simply underlines the inherent uncertainty and lack of precision in GM technology."

Much later on the scientists did apparently get the GM process to work finally, but to do that they had to attach the gene they wanted to transfer - sub1A - to a very powerful promoter. The "promoter" is what determines in what parts of the plant, when, and to what extent, the introduced gene (in this case, sub1A) functions (called "expression").

Peter Melchett explains, "The promoter they used is from an ubiquitin gene and it is turned on at a high level in many tissues of the plant, most of the time.

This contrasts with the normal (native) promoter of the sub1A gene, which is turned on only when needed in the plants and at the correct levels. Therefore, while the sub1A gene, run by the ubi promoter may nominally function, it is much more likely to have negative side effects in the plant because of its incorrect expression (called ectopic expression)."

As Melchett goes on to note, "These effects could be harmful to health or the environment, or just have adverse effects on the agronomic properties of the crop (for example, it could cause the crop to grow poorly under some conditions, as has happened in practice with some other GM crops)." (Who can we trust on GM food?) http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/09/david-king-gm-crops

In other words, while the likes of David King are promoting this flood-tolerant rice as a GM success story that shows the limitations of conventional breeding, it actually shows non-GM plant breeding using MAS works much better and faster than GM, and is less likely to throw up negative side effects.

This reality is acknowledged by a number of leading biotech scientists who have worked with GM - see 'Non-GM biotechnology is the future': http://www.bangmfood.org/quotes/24-quotes/32-non-gm-biotechnology-is-the-future

USB: USDA ARS Scientist Prepares to Release Drought-Tolerant Soybean Variety

Grainnet, January 29 2009.

St. Louis - The United Soybean Board (USB) and soybean checkoff are pleased to congratulate Tommy Carter, PhD., and his team of researchers as they prepare to release a line of drought-tolerant soybeans.

In addition, the soybean checkoff is proud to have played such a major role in helping fund the project in partnership with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service (USDA-ARS).

"In 1980, when I started this type of research, we all knew drought-tolerance was important to farmers.

"But from the research side, we didn't know anything about drought-tolerance or if we could do anything about it genetically, " Carter said.

"Because of climate change, there's been more awareness recently in the scientific community that drought research is a priority.

"The United Soybean Board [through soybean checkoff research programs] has been the one who was there the whole time, starting in 1998."

Carter, a plant geneticist with USDA-ARS located at North Carolina State University, began his quest for drought-tolerant soybeans some 25 years ago.

Over the past 11 years, the soybean checkoff has expanded this work, providing Carter and his team a total of over $7 million.

Over that time, the project has utilized an average of just under $650, 000 per year in checkoff funding, which is used strictly as funding for research.

Checkoff funds do not compensate researchers.

"In the 1990s, USB asked farmers what was important and they said drought tolerance, so the soybean checkoff began the funding, " Carter said.

"It's been hard to get much support from other sources because studying drought-tolerance in soybeans is so risky.

"But USB stuck with it through thick and thin because it's so important."

Drought awareness is just as important for farmers now as it was then, says Rick Stern, USB Production Program Chair and a soybean farmer from Cream Ridge, N.J.

"There is somebody on our committee every year who is hit by drought, " Stern said.

"Drought doesn't care about whom it picks on; it hits somebody new every year."

Carter combed the thousands of exotic soybean lines that are housed at the USDA Soybean Germplasm Collection in Urbana, IL.

Finally, he identified a rare drought-tolerant trait, thereby narrowing down the field to five that could pass the drought-resistance test consistently.

"One day, we went out to the field, which contained plots of all these different types of soybeans, after it hadn't rained in about two weeks and five of the plots hadn't wilted, " Carter said.

"So over the next five years, we investigated what made those specific types not wilt.

"We're looking for those rare exceptions in soybean traits that are slow-wilting."

Carter then faced the problem of getting them to yield acceptably. After one final round of trials, Carter says he'll release the winner this year.

Carter says that under drought conditions, where conventional soybeans may yield only about 30 bushels per acre, his line will yield four to eight bushels per acre better, depending on the region.

At the same time, this line produces well under wet conditions.

"Tommy Carter has had great success with this project, " Stern said.

"He's constantly hitting the goals that he tells us he's going to meet every year."

According to Carter, drought is the top environmental limitation to soybean yield.

His team, he says, is trying to become the first to demonstrate progress in soybean performance under drought conditions.

Carter's team of researchers consists of eight scientists from six state universities.

Tom Rufty and Tom Sinclair both represent North Carolina State; Larry Purcell and Pengyin Chen are from the University of Arkansas.

Then there is Felix Fritschi, University of Missouri; Jim Specht, University of Nebraska; Jim Orf, University of Minnesota; and Roger Boerma, University of Georgia.

Carter also enlisted the help of collaborators Randy Nelson, who is the curator of the USDA Soybean Germplasm Collection, and USDA geneticists Perry Cregan and David Hyten.

For more information, call 888-235-4332.

GM crops: Scientific proof needed in future studies

Irish Farmers Journal (letters), 29 January (dated 31) January 2009.

Dear Sir,

In the Irish Farmers Journal edition of 17 January, I argued that the saleability of GM crops will depend on the results of future studies detailing their effect on every human organ and activity as these studies have yet to be done.

In last week's IFJ, Mr. Morris responds by relaying an anecdote involving consumers of 'organic' food in Hawaii becoming ill as this food had contained slug larvae carrying a rare disease. I don't think that this, in any way, contradicts my point but appears to make the point – well no-one's perfect.

One reason why GM foods may be further from perfection than the consumer could tolerate is the unintentional damage caused by the GM process itself, here explained by Latham J.R. et al (2006). "These genome-wide mutations can number from hundreds to many thousands per diploid genome. Despite the fact that confidence in the safety and dependability of crop species rests significantly on their genetic integrity, the frequency of transformation-induced mutations and their importance as potential biosafety hazards are poorly understood".

It would appear foolish to assume that such damage has no practical consequences.

Mr. Morris points to the studies which have not found health problems. These studies viewed together do not demonstrate the safety of any GM food; however under present regulations they don't have to, they merely have to avoid being scientifically proven to have caused health problems using "generally available scientific data" and thus the lack of relevant information does not impede GM progress.

Mr. Morris calls for a new committee which would 'develop evidence-based policies in a democratic manner'.

I don't believe that a new jury looking at the same evidence would serve a useful purpose unless it had the authority to instruct further work be done to develop that of those such as Pusztai and Malatesta (2002), which are among those studies which did find damage to GM fed animals.

Apparently, a problem sometimes arises in finding an animal which will consume a sufficient proportion of a particular food in its normal diet to be able to identify the 'GM effect'. However, if an individual who was quite satisfied of the safety of the GM process were to volunteer himself and his young family to engage in an experiment where all food consumed was subjected to genetic engineering, the problem may be overcome.

Most people would find exposing children in this way alarming.

How much less horrified do we expect the consumers of our produce to be if we effectively paint them into the above picture by feeding them of an ever-increasing proportion of their food as GM or GM contaminated.

Yours sincerely,

Nick Cullen
Ballysax
The Curragh
Co. Kildare, Ireland.

GM technology: An overdue and welcome start to objective scientific debate

Irish Farmers Journal (letters), 29 January (dated 31) January 2009.

Dear Sir,

Dr Paddy Wall's article on GM plant technology, published on 10 January, is an overdue and welcome commencement to a rational, objective scientific debate on the topic, which it is hoped, will follow.

Separate from studying the scientific elements of the debate, another aspect demands immediate attention, lest an unjust precedent becomes permanent, by which any benefits arising from GMO will be permanently hi-jacked by a few powerful, well-placed corporations.

There is an inherent injustice in the concept that they may retain exclusive rights indefinitely, to the technology, to the materials required for production, to the varieties / types of plants, seeds, etc.

At present, they control production, release, distribution and sale of all these, as well as deciding whether crops grown can or cannot be capable of propagating a new crop. In addition, they have been known to proceed against non-client farmers whose crops were accidentally cross-pollinated from 'their' DNA, and inevitable consequence incidental to normal biological process.

They have the effrontery to claim this to be 'Theft of their property'.

The law that permits any person or corporation to have such exclusive privilege is bad law, unfair to all others, and should be changed.

Ironically, that particular feature of plant life is expecially worrying to those who fear the consequences of taking intrusive liberties with nature because the same incidental contamination by cross-pollination from GM crops will make it impossible to preserve any 'non-GM' plant in the future.

The contribution of science and scientists to human welfare over time has been immense.

Dramatic improvements in productive capacity of plant and animal life have resulted, largely from selective breeding for targeted properties.

Therefore, it is difficult to condemn exploration of new areas just because some object.

Past progress would not have been achieved under such restriction.

Coninuing research and development of new products/processes/technologies is necessary; it is frequently very expensive due to disappointments and failure.

Those who do it deserve to be well rewarded, if only to ensure the practice continues!

Common sense and the common good demand that a just solution be found which not only does so, but also terminates the current, continuing gross abuse of the global population by greedy global commerce, no less guilty of of damage to society than the authors of the current catastrophic recession.

National and international laws should protect the public from these abuses, and failure anywhere to do so should provoke revolution by the masses.

I wonder are there any who would concur withe these views?

I cannot conclude without complimenting [sic] Dr Wall on his success in extricating our food industry from the worst consequences of the pig meat scandal.

We are undeserving, but fortunate to have one of such international recognition in his field to man the 'bearna baoghal' [meaning 'gap of danger' in Irish – Ed]. His initiative here also deserves thoughtful response by all concerned, and it could confirm his entitlement to the accolade 'he did the state some service'.

Liam Cashman
Woodview
Glanmire, Co. Cork, Ireland

---

Comment from GM-free Ireland:

Liam Cashman's outrage at GM crop patents is right on target.

But his characterisation of Paddy Wall's article in the 10 January issue of the Irish Farmers Journal as the "commencement to a rational, objective debate on the topic" is a bit rich. The GM-free Ireland Network has been spearheading public awareness and debate on GM food and farming since 2003, while the Journal's coverage was extremely thin and demonstrably biased. Moreover, we published our video interview of Patrick Wall on GMOs last December, weeks before the Journal finally decided to get involved in the debate!

GM-free Ireland has organised numerous local community discussions, film screenings, press conferences, workshops, seminars, expert briefings, and national and international conferences on GM issues over the years. We provide daily international news coverage at http://www.gmfreeireland.org/news/, and participate in related national TV and radio debates, County Council presentations, Joint Oireachtas Committee [Senate / Parliament] hearings, and discussions organised by the European NGO Network on Genetic Engineering, the World Congress on the Future of Food and Agriculture, Slow Food International / Terra Madre, the European Parliament, and the European Commission.

These include:

•

Conference:
The Revitalisation of Irish Farming.
Cultivate Centre, Dublin, 13 May 2003.
Hosted by Global Vision Consulting.
Press release: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/press/press1.php

•

Workshop:
Forging a GM Policy for Ireland.
Convergence Festival, Dublin, 26 April 2004.
Hosted by Global Vision Consulting.
Proceedings: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/events/workshop1/index.php

•

National Future of Food Forum:
Leading experts warn Ireland on risks of GM food and farming.
Hosted by Euro-Toques Ireland, Macreddin, Co. Wicklow, 4 July 2004.
Press release: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/press/press12.php

•

Prime Time TV debate:
Focus on Global Debate over GM farming.
RTE 1, 31 March 2005.
Watch the show at http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0331/primetime.html

•

Media briefing and press conference:
Declaration of 1, 000 Irish GM-free zones.
Buswell's Hotel and the Convergence Festival, Dublin.
Hosted by GM-free Ireland. Earth Day, 22 April 2005.
Press release: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/press/GMFIearthday2005.pdf

•

Press conference:
Call to ban GMO potatoes
Hosted by GM-free Ireland.
Buswell's Hotel, Dublin, 22 February 2006.
Transcript: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/potato/GMFIpc22Feb2006.pdf
Press release: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/potato/pressconference.php

•

Press conference:
Call for Ireland to conserve its GMO-free status.
Co-hosted by GM-free Ireland and the European Parliament Independence/Democracy Group.
European Parliament Office, Dublin, 10 May 2006.
See related press release: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/press/GMFI25.pdf

•

The Green Ireland Conference:
Branding for food, farming and ecotourism.
Co-hosted by GM-free Ireland and An Taisce.
Kilkenny Castle, 16-18 June 2006.
Proceedings: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/conference/index.php

•

Briefing on Food Safety and GMOs:
Is the European Food Safety Authority downplaying the health risks of genetically modified food?
Co-hosted by GM-free Ireland and the European Parliament Independence/Democracy Group.
European Parliament Office, Dublin, 15 June 2007
Proceedings: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/EUP.php

•

GMO debate at TCD:
That Genetically Modified Food Should be Considered Safe to Eat and Ethical to Produce.
Hosted by the Trinity College Historical Society.
Trinity College Dublin, 6 February 2008.
See Irish Examiner article: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/news/2008/feb.php#TCD

•

Press conference:
Irish Government Slammed for ABIC GM Food Conference.
Hosted by GM-free Ireland and the European Parliament Independence/Democracy Group.
University College Cork, 24 August 2008.
Press release: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/press/GMFI41.pdf

•

Video interview with Prof Patrick Wall:
Reforming the European Food Safety Authority.
Produced by GM-free Ireland.
Dublin, 2 December 2008.
Press release: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/press/GMFI44.pdf
Interview transcript: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/efsa/GMFI-PatrickWall-interview.pdf
Watch the video (in three parts):http://www.gmfreeireland.org/efsa/index.php

Most of these events were either not attended or barely covered, if at all, by the Irish Farmers Journal.

28 January 2009

Why I planted genetically modified maize on my Welsh farm

The Guardian (UK), 28 January 2009. By Jonathan Harrington.

[Photo caption: Jonathon Harrington: 'We should not deny the millions of people who might benefit from this science by demanding that it be stopped']

I find myself accused of a number of heinous acts including "infecting" Wales with GM, acting irresponsibly and possibly of breaking the law. Not bad for a Welsh peasant who simply wishes to try - with the support of the scientific community - to facilitate the introduction of a new and valuable technology into Welsh agriculture.

So what is the precise nature of my supposedly "ill-informed", "illegal" and "irresponsible" behaviour? The seeds I planted are maize varieties on the EU's "common list" of approved crops. As such, my legal advice is that it is lawful to plant them within the EU. But according to some of my detractors those rules apparently do not apply in Wales.

Then there is the charge that I have "infected Wales with GM". With what I ask? Genetic modification is a process as opposed to a product and as such cannot be bought or sold any more than "keyhole surgery". The analogy of GM technology as a contagion is simply false.

It can of course be used for a variety of purposes: to give plants immunity from pest attack or resistance to disease or more recently the ability to withstand drought. There are a number of potential benefits the technology could offer Welsh farmers if the assembly government showed a more positive attitude towards it.

Of these, maize is possibly the crop with the most potential for us to exploit in that we could use a range of different herbicides which would, for example, not drain into our beautiful river systems. These would also allow us to establish grass leys during the growing season so absorbing the considerable amounts of nitrogen not taken up by the maize crop. This in turn would reduce the often excessive amounts of soil eroded onto our roads and rivers and thereby reduce pollution and conserve our valuable arable land for future production.

Have I removed consumer choice? Again, I believe not. That choice was taken away several decades ago - unless you choose to survive entirely on wild fruit and nuts. We are all either wearing or consuming plant products that have been bred using technology that involves artificially manipulating plant genes. I can't think of a single crop plant in the UK that has not been bred by artificially mutating its genes using chemicals or radiation. The group of techniques that are commonly referred to as genetic manipulation are simply more precise and safer ways of doing the same thing.

What about the danger of my plants cross-pollinating with other plants and varieties? This is a potential outcome, but since nobody in the UK produces maize for seed and there are no other plants in the UK that are sufficiently closely related to maize to cross-pollinate with it this cannot be a justifiable accusation.

So what have I achieved by my actions? Well I have at last brought the issue to the minds of many people who sought to sweep it under the carpet. And I have done this without endangering anyone and without touching the public purse.

More importantly, the stance of the Welsh Assembly and others is helping to deny a valuable technology to millions. Like most new technologies, GM comes with some potential downsides but these are far outweighed by the enormous advantages it offers: the potential to increase dramatically both yields and the quality of crops harvested. In over 10 years of its use around the world millions of meals have been made from GM plants but no health problems have been reported.

Moreover, GM crops are still in their infancy and future potential gains are extremely exciting. Think of the many thousands of people in Asia who suffer blindness from a lack of vitamin A in their diet - rice, their primary source of carbohydrate, contains no vitamin A. Yet the insertion of genes into rice plants could help reduce this appalling condition dramatically, and this has been made available free of charge by its developers.

Then there are the many farmers who would prefer not to spray their crops with an insecticide when they could grow a variety - say of cotton - resistant to certain pests. We should not deny the millions of people who might benefit from this science by demanding that it be stopped.

If the politicians we employ wish to persist with their ostrich-like attitude then I am sure that the weight of scientific evidence will eventually show them for the luddites they are. For those of us who live in the real world we need to take advantage of every piece of technology we can find to develop our agriculture and help to feed the nearly 1bn of our fellow human beings who are short of food.

Jonathon Harrington is chartered biologist working in the field on advanced crop technologies. He also has a small farm in the Black Mountains of Wales. He is a consultant for Cropgen, an organisation that promotes crop biotechnology.

---

Comment from GM-free Ireland:

Harrington's link with Cropgen says it all: CropGen is a biotech industry-funded lobby group led by a scientific panel whose aim is to 'make a case for GM crops' worldwide. Cropgen describes itself as, 'An education and information initiative for consumers and the media on the subject of crop biotechnology'. Until the end of 2003, CropGen was run by PR company Countrywide Porter Novelli. Since then it has been run by Lexington Communications which also represents the UK biotechnology industry funded lobby group the Agricultural Biotechnology Council (ABC), as well as Monsanto, BASF, Dow AgroSciences, DuPont, Syngenta, and the Crop Protection Association.

See the LobbyWatch profile of CropGen at http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=33&page=C

Comment by "regaffairs" on The Guardian web site:

The legal advice is wrong - the crops can be planted only with authorisation and monitoring which has not been done. They can't enter the food chain without labelling - again, this has not been done. If Harrington's scientific understanding is as in accurate as his legal knowledge then that probably explains his simplistic view that "GM are not harmful". The EU safety procedure is a sham - the safety assessment carried out by paid cronies of the biotech industry. There are real safety concerns - anyone in doubt can google the GM potato AMFLORA and take a look at the dubious safety results which have nevertheless been passed by the safety committee.

Harrington's stance would be more believable if he was not a paid consultant of several biotech firms - Monsanto, Syngenta. Look into the background of those that believe "passionately" and you'll always find a financial link. In contrast to those who oppose it who simply want to protect nature, the next generations, and the safety and choice of our food supply.

There are plenty of scientists who oppose GM. This because we are perhaps better informed than J. Harrington, who seems rather naive in his arguments.

See many other comments on The Guardian web site:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/28/gm-wales-jonathon-harrington

Big Ag or Big Change?

MetroActive.com, 28 January 2009. By Stett Holbrook.

MOST OF President Obama's cabinet picks have been spot on and generally fall in line with his campaign pledge to be an agent of change. The one dud is his pick of Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack for secretary of agriculture.Before he tapped Vilsack for ag, there was a lot of hope in sustainable and local agriculture circles that Obama would select someone who would take this country's agriculture policy in a very different direction, one that puts people and quality food above commodities and costly subsidies for agribusiness. The selection of Vilsack does not appear to represent change we can believe in. And make no mistake, we need a change. We have become a nation of obese junk-food eaters who are increasingly disconnected from the food we eat, food that's largely grown at the expense of the environment and the people who produce it.

"As governor of one of our most abundant farm states, he led with vision, " Obama said during the announcement of Vilsack's selection, "promoting biotech to strengthen our farmers in fostering an agricultural economy of the future that not only grows the food we eat, but the energy that we use." That last bit about energy is cause for concern. Obama and Vilsack are both big supporters of biofuelsógrowing crops to produce fuel; i.e., corn for ethanol. Of course, reducing our use of oil is a worthy goal, but the trouble with growing acres of corn for fuel is not only does it take a lot of land out of food production, but the use of petroleum-based fertilizers to grow all that corn undermines efforts to find petroleum alternatives.

Andrew Kimbrell is the executive director and founder of the Center for Food Safety, a nonprofit organization that challenges harmful food-production technologies and promotes sustainable alternatives. Writing in the Huffington Post, Kimbrell says that for those who have health and environmental concerns about genetically engineered (GE) crops, cloning and industrial agriculture, it would be difficult to pick someone with a worse track record than Vilsack. He says that under Vilsack the state of Iowa invested millions of dollars of taxpayer money in dubious biotechnology startups like ProdiGene, a pharmaceutical corn developer.

"Iowa's investment in ProdiGene was particularly unfortunate, " says Kimbrell. "The company not only proved a financial failure, but in 2002, an Iowa cornfield that became contaminated with the company's genetically engineered pharma corn had to be destroyed. One hopes Mr. Vilsack has learned from this experience. He also supported (some say instigated) a bill in 2005 that pre-empted cities and counties from regulating GE crops more strictly than the state or federal government."

The American Farmland Trust, a nonprofit group that works to protect farmland and the environment, is keeping pressure on Vilsack and Obama to deliver the change we need. Among other things, they're calling for:

•

The recognition that agriculture can play a critical role in reducing greenhouse gases.

•

Mitigation against the loss of strategic agricultural resources and the development of green infrastructure to support local agricultural economies.

•

The protection and promotion of regional food system programs.

•

The creating of a "farmer corps" to stimulate green jobs in the agricultural economy and encourage a new generation to enter agriculture.

•

The support of local food in school cafeterias. No more Tater Tots!

I'm willing to give Vilsack the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he will surprise us and truly take this country's agriculture in a new direction. I'll be watching carefully.

Gates' political lobbying / Site sabotage

The Guardian - Eco Soundings, 28 Jaunary 2009. By John Vidal.

Planting seeds

Bill and Melinda Gates hate controversy, but the world's top philanthropists do seem to be moving ever deeper into political lobbying. They've just given the Danforth plant science centre in St Louis $5.4m (GBP3.8m) to help them persuade African and other poor countries to "overcome regulatory hurdles" and allow the field testing of bio-fortified GM crops. So what is Danforth? Just a "charity" set up and funded by Monsanto.

Site sabotage

There are always casualties in the continual low-grade war being fought between corporations and their critics, and the web is now a favourite battleground. Two weeks ago, aviation protest group Plane Stupid had its site summarily taken down after someone ratted to its server that it might be libelling the aviation industry. Now nuclearspin.org, a site that investigates the push for new nuclear power stations, has been subject to a sophisticated, sustained hacking attack. "It's clear the hacker went to considerable time and effort to find and exploit a weakness in the software, " says Andy Rowell, one of site's editors. "Perhaps whoever was behind it doesn't like people examining the ethics, economics and greenwashing of the nuclear industry." Both sites have now been restored.

Monsanto India Q3 Net Profit falls to Rs 12.36 Crore

Equity Bulls, 28 January 2009, [shortened].

Monsanto India Ltd has announced the financial results for the quarter ended on 31-DEC-2008. The Net Sales was at Rs.6561 lacs for quarter ending on 31-DEC-2008 against Rs.6604 lacs for the quarter ending on 31-DEC-2007. The Net Profit / (Loss) was at Rs.1236 lacs for the quarter ending on 31-DEC-2008 against Rs.1798 lacs for the quarter ending on 31-DEC-2007.

Full text at: http://www.equitybulls.com/admin/news2006/news_det.asp?id=44900

DuPont posts $629 million quarterly loss, trims outlook for '09 news.

domain-B, 28 January 2009 [shortened].

E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co, the third largest US chemicals manufacturer reported a net loss of $629 million, or 70 cents a share a reversal on its fourth quarter 2007 performance when the company posted a earnings of $545 million, or 60 cents a share.

The company said, excluding costs from a restructuring program it would have lost 28 cents a share which is worse that what analysts had predicted at 20 cents a share for the latest period.

Du Pont has also revised downward its earning forecast for 2009 in a range between $2 to $2.5 a share as against the earlier projection of between $2.25 and $2.75 a share.

The company has also exceeded its goal of cutting 4, 000 contractors in a bid to reduce costs on expectations of continuing weak demand.

Ellen Kullman, the company's new chief executive said that they do not underestimate the difficulties presented by the current environment.

Du Pont's US sales plummeted 15 per cent to $1.9 billion on a 22 per cent decline in volumes while revenues dropped 20 per cent in Europe and slipped 13 per cent in Canada and Latin America. Sales suffered 15 per cent in the Asia Pacific region.

The loss in the agriculture unit, which makes pesticides and genetically modified seeds, nearly doubled to $164 million from $89 million a year earlier. Agriculture was the only segment to register an increase in full year earnings.

Full text at: http://www.domain-b.com/companies/companies_d/DuPont/20090128_DuPont.html

27 January 2009

BASF develops alternative to GM crops

Financial Times, January 27 2009. By Clive Cookson in London.

BASF, the German chemical group, said that it had developed a new generation of genetically altered crops, by precisely manipulating the plant's own DNA without inserting foreign genes.

The technology, known as "directed mutagenesis", produces new traits such as herbicide resistance, which are very similar to those achieved through conventional genetic modification of plants. But because no genes are added, it is likely to avoid the political and regulatory objections that have delayed the introduction of GM crops, particularly in Europe.

BASF is collaborating with Cibus, a privately-owned US plant science company, which originally discovered how to carry out directed mutagenesis.

The two companies have produced strains of canola (oilseed rape) that tolerate BASF's Clearfield herbicides. Their biggest commercial target is Monsanto's Roundup Ready seeds, which dominate the GM business.

The idea is that farmers will sow herbicide-resistant canola and later spray the growing plants with Clearfield to kill weeds in the field without harming the crop.

BASF expects to have its new herbicide-resistant canola crops on the market as soon as 2013, said Dale Carlson, a senior plant scientist with the company. That is much quicker than commercialising a new GM trait, because the regulatory process is less demanding.

"Even in the countries such as the US, where GM is widely accepted, the regulatory process for GM crops can take several years longer than for directed mutagenesis, " said Stephen Evans-Freke, Cibus chairman.

"In Europe, it can make the difference between approval and non-approval."

But Elise Kissling, of BASF Crop Protection, said the announcement should not be seen as a step away from GM. "We are not against GM and will continue to develop GM traits, but we want to give growers a choice, " she said.

BASF Crop Protection had sales of €3.1bn ($4bn) in 2007 - out of the total group turnover of €58bn. Its best-known GM product is a potato that resists blight. Mr Evans-Freke said a group of private investors had spent $40m to $50m over the past eight years funding research at Cibus, which is based in San Diego.

Cibus technology, which has the trade name Rapid Trait Development System, uses the plant's own genetic machinery to change its DNA in a specific way.

For example, BASF scientists specified two "letters" out of billions in canola's genetic code, which they wanted to change to make the plants resistant to Clearfield herbicides. Directed mutagenesis enabled them to do this within a year.

Cibus expects soon to announce successful field trials with other crops including rice and sorghum, said Mr Evans-Freke.

---

Comment from Dr Michael Antoniou
Reader in Molecular Genetics
King's College, London, UK:

The targeted/directed mutagenesis approach via the Rapid Trait Development System does appear at face value like a "clean" system for introducing small changes to the plant genome in a very specific manner at a very precise location; hence directed mutagenesis. For example you can change a few base units of the EPSPS gene in a plant to make it look like the Agrobacterium equivalent and therefore make it resistant to glyphosate/Roundup. Again at face value this is done without leaving behind any foreign bits of DNA or antibiotic resistance marker genes, etc.

However, there are two things that can result in potential problems from non-specific gene disruptions.

Firstly, the directed mutagenesis agent (short synthetic DNA complementary to the area in the plant genome you are trying to modify) can have what are known as "off-target effects"; that is, it can inadvertently modify other regions of DNA as well as the region of choice. This will cause undesirable mutations with unknown consequences, although these could in principle be mapped. The level of off-target effects with this system are not mentioned.

Secondly, the whole procedure is based on plant tissue culture just like regular GM and therefore prone to the highly mutagenic effects and unexpected outcomes that this produces.

Finally, from an environmental perspective, producing herbicide resistant crops will only bring about further damage; that is, this is still very much in the old, industrial agriculture mind-set that we need to get away from.

We should also bear in mind that the Rapid Trait Development System will only be able to alter very short stretches of DNA within a desired gene target sequence. It is therefore quite limited in scope. One could in principle target more than one gene with different GRON units in a given round of mutagenesis but this is not mentioned in the specification of the technology as published. Assuming that only one gene can be modified at a given time means that multiple rounds of mutagenesis will be required to introduce more than one new trait. The more rounds of mutagenesis the greater the accumulation of additional undesired mutations.

Briefly, this is my take. It sounds good superficially but falls into the same category as regular GM crops as being unnecessary and with as yet unpublicised potential problems from unintended mutagenic effects/events.

---

Note from GM Watch:

Regarding unintended mutagenic effects from GM crops, see:

Transformation-induced Mutations in Transgenic Plants: Analysis and Biosafety Implications, by Allison Wilson, PhD, Jonathan Latham, PhD and Ricarda Steinbrecher, PhD.: http://www.econexus.info

New England's largest dairy co-op quits hormone

Times Argus Staff, January 27 2009.

MONTPELIER (AP) ó After 15 years of debating the issue, New England's largest dairy cooperative says it will phase out using milk from cows treated with a synthetic [read: genetically engineered] hormone.

Agri-Mark, which is based in Methuen, Mass., says it's responding to market demand in asking member farmers to stop treating cows with bovine somatatropin, or BST, a Monsanto Corp. product.

BST can boost milk production in cows by about 15 percent, but has come under fire from consumer groups worried about its impacts on humans and cows.

Last year, Wal-Mart said it would no longer sell milk under its own label from cows treated with the hormone.

Vilsack: A Poisonous Choice

PeaceRebelGirl, 27 January 2009 by Barbara Raisbeck.

Six Reasons Monsanto's Buddy, Former Iowa Governor Vilsack, for USDA Head a Terrible Idea

•

Former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack's support of genetically engineered pharmaceutical crops, especially pharmaceutical corn:
http://www.gene.ch/genet/2002/Oct/msg00057.html
http://www.organicconsumers.org/gefood/drugsincorn102302.cfm

•

The biggest biotechnology industry group, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, named Vilsack Governor of the Year. He was also the founder and former chair of the Governor's Biotechnology Partnership. http://www.bio.org/news/pressreleases/newsitem.asp?id=2001_0920_01

•

When Vilsack created the Iowa Values Fund, his first poster child of economic development potential was Trans Ova and their pursuit of cloning dairy cows.

•

Vilsack was the origin of the seed pre-emption bill in 2005, which many people here in Iowa fought because it took away local government's possibility of ever having a regulation on seeds- where GE would be grown, having GE-free buffers, banning pharma corn locally, etc. Representative Sandy Greiner, the Republican sponsor of the bill, bragged on the House Floor that Vilsack put her up to it right after his state of the state address.

•

Vilsack has a glowing reputation as being a schill for agribusiness biotech giants like Monsanto. Sustainable ag advocated across the country were spreading the word of Vilsack's history as he was attempting to appeal to voters in his presidential bid. An activist from the west coast even made this youtube animation about Vilsack http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hmoc4Qgcm4s The airplane in this animation is a referral to the controversy that Vilsack often traveled in Monsanto's jet.

•

Vilsack is an ardent support of corn and soy based biofuels, which use as much or more fossil energy to produce them as they generate, while driving up world food prices and literally starving the poor.

To learn more about this vitally important issue:

Tom Vilsack's Kind of Agriculture: Another Shill for Monsanto:
http://www.counterpunch.org/cummins12182008.html

You Said NO to Vilsack: http://www.organicconsumers.org/vilsack.cfm

Obama Picks Pro-Ethanol, Agribusiness Ex-Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack to Head Agricultural Dept.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/12/18/obama_picks_pro_ethanol_former_iowa

Monsanto partners with N.C. biotech firm

Charlotte Business Journal, January 27 2009.

Monsanto Co. said Tueday that it has entered into a three-year collaboration with Triangle-based firm GrassRoots Biotechnology Inc. to source novel genetic elements that can enable crops to express desirable traits.

These elements include genes and promoters, which are segments of DNA that determine when and where a trait is expressed in a plant. Monsanto said it plans to use promoters sourced from GrassRoots in a range of crops, including corn, soy, cotton and canola.

The goal of the research is to boost and protect crop yield, as well as identify genes that help plants fight environmental stresses, such as nitrogen deficiency.

Based in Research Triangle Park, GrassRoots is a startup co-founded by Philip Benfey, a Duke University professor and leader in plant biology research. Financial terms of the deal weren't disclosed.

Steve Padgette, vice president of biotechnology for Monsanto, said in a statement that the availability of more of these genetic elements can leverage Monsanto's gene library and lead to new seeds with more characteristics, such as higher yield and tolerance to insects and weeds, he said.

Officials with the N.C. Research Campus in Kannapolis have said Monsanto has talked about being part of the UNC Nutrition Research Institute.

Dr. Steve Zeisel, institute director, told the Charlotte Business Journal that the company plans to locate about a dozen scientists at the Kannapolis location.

Monsanto has a goal of doubling yields in core crops by 2030.

Creve Coeur, Mo.-based Monsanto Co. (NYSE: MON) develops insect- and herbicide-resistant crops and other agricultural products.

26 January 2009

Farmers Call For Restructuring of Global Food System

Organic Consumers Association / treehugger, 26 January 2009. By Jeff Nield.

A coalition of peasant farmer groups are protesting their meaningful exclusion at the High Level Conference on Food Security taking place in Spain on January 26-27. In response to their exclusion 49 groups, including La Via Campesina, GRAIN, and ETC Group have signed a declaration, "Accelerating into disaster - when Banks manage the Food Crises".

The joint statement points out that the forum, and other high-level forums like it, are dominated by the World Bank, IMF and WTO, as well as transnational companies such as Monsanto. The groups are outraged that the small farmers, who grow 80% of the world's food, are "left only a few minutes on the floor to give their position."

They claim that the policies of these institutions and companies have failed with over one billion people now going hungry worldwide. The groups believe it's time for an alternative vision in the concept of food sovereignty.

Small farmers and social movements from all over the world promote a model based on food sovereignty and orientated towards peasant-based agriculture and artisan fisheries, prioritizing local markets and sustainable production methods. This model is based on the right to food and to the rights of peoples to define their own agricultural policies.

The food crisis should not be an opportunity to make more money through the sale of fertilizers, agrochemicals and genetically modified seeds. Agribusinesses cannot be allowed to attempt to profit from the desperation of over a billion people. They must be excluded from dealing with the food crisis - agribusiness and international financial and trade agencies cannot be relied upon to solve a problem they themselves have caused.

We call for an end to the development of new initiatives such as the High Level Task Force or Global Partnership. Other such initiatives in the past - such as the World Food Council and the International Alliance Against Hunger - have failed. We call for one single space inside the UN to deal with the food crisis with the full participation of social movements and small holder food producers.

The full declaration including the list of signers can be found at La Via Campesina http://www.viacampesina.org/main_en/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=672&Itemid=1. More information on the food sovereignty movement can be found at IPC Food Sovereignty. http://www.foodsovereignty.org/new/

Secret GM farmer faces prosecution calls

GM Free Cymru press release (Wales, UK), 26 January 2009.

A farmer and agricultural consultant living within the Brecon Beacons National Park is facing possible prosecution following the secret planting of GM maize by himself and two friends during the 2008 season. Environmentalists and consumer groups have asked for the full weight of the law to be used against him, which could lead to a GBP 5, 000 fine or even a term of imprisonment.

Mr Jonathon Harrington of Pen-y-Lan Farm, Tregoyd, near Brecon has announced that he planted the GM maize varieties MON810 x DKC4442YG and MON810 x Novelis last spring, following importation of the seed from France. He shared the seed with two friends, and he claims that all three of them planted and harvested the fodder maize last year before turning it into silage and feeding it to farm animals (1). Those actions in themselves are not illegal, since the named GM maize varieties are on the European "Common Seed Catalogue". However, since the harvest has been marketed and has entered the food chain, there are regulatory requirements that all those responsible for GM "releases" into the environment and the food chain must have in place measures to ensure traceability, labelling and monitoring for undesirable effects. It appears that Mr Harrington and his neighbours have no such measures in place -- and that constitutes a serious breach of EU and British law. The Welsh Assembly had no details whatsoever about the plantings until Mr Harrington spoke this month to a Welsh journalist.

Mr Harrington has gone on the record as claiming that his real reason for importing, planting, growing and harvesting the GM crops has nothing to do with farming but everything to do with politics. He simply wanted to demonstrate, he says, that the idea of a GM Free Wales bears no relation with the real world in which certain GM crops are registered for use throughout the countries of the EU.

Speaking for GM Free Cymru, Dr Brian John said: "This grubby little stunt shows just how dangerous people like Mr Harrington can be. He is clearly entirely out of tune with anti-GM sentiments and policies in Wales, and is prepared to put his own personal zeal for GM crops above the democratic wishes of the people or above the cross-party support for GM-free policies within the Welsh Assembly. Does this man not realize that the strong anti-GM position in Wales is underpinned by science and is seen as a key component in the country's "clean, green and wholesome" marketing strategy for farm produce? He has planted a GM crop which was bound to fail; as an agronomist he must have known that the two MON810 hybrids used were intended for those parts of Europe that have much drier and warmer summers. But he must also have known of the unique dangers associated with these crops. They are BT varieties with their own built-in insecticides which are known to poison "non-target" insects and to have a damaging effect upon soil micro-organisms and water supply. To have planted these within the Brecon Beacons National Park -- with its sensitive and legally protected environment -- is utterly irresponsible and selfish. He MUST be prosecuted on this score alone.

"But things get even worse when we look at the possible health and safety aspects of this case. MON810 maize is banned in France, Greece, Hungary and Austria, with good reason -- studies have shown that it causes damage to the internal organs of animals consuming it in feeding trials, and a landmark recent study has also shown that it negatively affects reproduction. Other BT crops have caused thousands of animal deaths in India. BT maize is a prolific producer of pollen, meaning that cross-pollination with other maize crops is inevitable. Honey will also be contaminated. And yet Mr Harrington and his friends have fed this GM silage to their own (and maybe other farmers') animals, apparently in a state of denial about the dangers involved."

GM Free Cymru members are also furious that Mr Harrington's GM crop planting is both opportunistic and cynical. They claim that the planting must have been carefully planned in conditions of great secrecy, with both Monsanto and CropGen (for whom Mr Harrington works as an advisor and consultant) involved in the provision of seeds and legal advice. The perpetrators knew that in 2008 there was a "window of opportunity" prior to the formal adoption in Wales of the Environmental Liability Regulations, which will make GM crop farmers strictly liable for any damage suffered by other farmers, beekeepers, local people and the environment.

"All in all, " concluded Dr John, "this has to be the single most irresponsible and insensitive action we have ever seen in our years of monitoring GM developments in the UK. We have therefore asked all those bodies involved with the enforcement of GM regulations in Wales to deal with this matter expeditiously and forcefully. If they do not, Mr Harrington (or somebody else) will do this again. Wales's GM Free aspirations will be worthless, and we will be into a phase of GM contamination by stealth. That, of course, is exactly what the GM industry wants."

ENDS

Contact:

Dr Brian John
GM Free Cymru
Tel: + 44 (0)1239-820470

Notes:

(1) Mr Harrington has still not provided certificated test results from a GM test laboratory to prove that the MON810 varieties were planted as claimed. Neither has he given any details of the acreage planted, or the planting locations. Neither has he indicated the route followed by the GM maize silage into the food chain, or what labelling might have been used to ensure that all consumers were made aware of the fact that they were involved in a GM marketing episode. When asked, Welsh Assembly civil servants said that they knew nothing of any monitoring plan or system for informing beekeepers and farming neighbours about GM crops in their vicinity.

Buzz, buzz - BOOM!

Öko-test (Germany), January 2009. By Brigit Hinsch.

GM is spreading more and more, and now it has reached honey. In our test, a whopping 11 out of 24 honeys were contaminated with GM pollen - mainly those from South America. Only three products were rated "very good".

Originally, honey is pure and natural. Collected by bees, enriched with enzymes and concentrated, it matures to a unique product in the bee hive. But pure and natural no longer prevails in large parts of our environment - and that is, after all, where the bees are busy.

The possible impacts of this could be followed in 2008 in the media: For instance, in spring due to the insecticidal seed treatment agent clothianidin 500 million bees died in [the German state of] Baden-Württemberg. Another example is the case of a Swabian beekeeper who destroyed his whole honey harvest because it contained pollen of the genetically modified corn MON810. The Administrative Court had declared the honey as 'non marketable', however, the judgement is not yet absolute.

Besides dextrose and fructose, honey contains numerous valuable ingredients that not only determine colour and taste, but have beneficial health effects as well. Just recently a study confirmed that honey can fight germs effectively. Since most of the ingredients are sensitive to heat and partly to light as well, honey has to be processed gently; only thus its quality is retained for a long time. As a check serves i.e. Hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF) that develops during storage at high temperatures. A second indicator is the activity of the bee enzyme invertase. It indicates even short-term heatings, but also reflects the honey's maturity.

We wanted to know about the current quality status of honey and sent eighteen conventional honeys and six canola honeys to our laboratories. Included this time were also six honeys from domestic production.

The test result... is alarming, because only three brands got a "very good". Many brands got an "average" result and six products passed as "poor" or "failed".

Almost half of all honey brands contained pollen from genetically modified plants. The majority of those were pollen from the widespread Roundup Ready soybean. The oil plant produces only a little nectar and is therefore not a typical honey flower, but bees will fly off with its pollen all the same. Honey from Central and South America carries the greatest risk, because plenty of GM soy is growing there. At the same time these countries produce the majority of the world's honey supply - and the main share of the German honey market, too.

GM soy is found in "Sommerblütenhonig Feine Auslese" from Langnese. This honey passed only as "poor". In the previous test "ÖKO-TEST Klassiker & Konkurrenten" from September 2008 we did not test the honey brands for genetically modified ingredients, because at that time the scope of the problem was underestimated. Its rival, the Mexican Lacandona Creamy Wild Flower Honey from GEPA is GM free.

Mind you, in our tests honey from German beekeepers, products from Southeast Europe as well as Fairtrade honeys were not contaminated. The reason for the latter could be that small beekeepers produce their honey in less contaminated areas than large apiaries.

Among the canola [oilseed rape] the laboratory discovered GM pollen in Bihophar Canadian Canola-Clover Honey - not surprising since Canada is cultivating predominantly GM canola.

Pesticides were detected almost exclusively in German products. In most cases we found the insecticide thiacloprid in canola honey or honey with a great proportion of canola.

Sadly, higher pesticide residues can be found even in Allos' Organic Canola Honey. Because consumers presume organic honeys to be free from pesticides and following the BNN's [German association for organic foods and other products] benchmark for organic foods we had to mark this honey down.

Residues of bee pharmaceuticals used by apiarists to fight pests (such as mites), as well as the insect repellent DEET were found, if at all, only as traces.

Honey quality doesn't look all that promising, either. We find it particularly irritating, when a label claims more than what actually can be found in the jar. The Dreyer Canola Honey, for example, states on the label that it is "cold extracted" - which implies a very gentle extraction - but in fact has less invertase than is prescribed in the regulations for cold-extracted honey. Honig Müngersdorff's D.I.B.-Canola Honey also slips up: It contains more water than is permitted.

The cold-extracted Hoyer Gourmet Meadowflowers Organic Honey drops away completely. It blunders at not one, but two criteria of the honey regulations. What's more, it contains a lot of pollen from rape and mustard, but only very little from meadow flowers. Accordingly, its taste is just faintly reminiscent of meadow flowers.

Honeys that didn't get any special praise still comply with the minimum standards of the honey regulations - their quality, however, can be quite inconsistent.

Inspectors detected a strong aftertaste reminiscent of paddock rather than meadow in Liquid Gut & Günstig Honey and in Dr Krieger's Honey. The experts stated that the aftertaste was natural and therefore not a fault as such, but producers should try to avoid this when bottling the honey.

Honey producers' reaction

Corporate honey producer Breitsamer wrote that beekeepers are the victims of gene technology. They themselves do not use any genetically modified material, do not cultivate GM plants, and have no interest in herbicide resistant plants. Furthermore, bees cannot be controlled, because they search for nectar over an area of 50 square metres.

Lidl noted that the intake of genetically modified soy pollen is wholly coincidental, and that it can vary considerably even within the same batch; with quantities also being very small.

Alnatura reported that honey was usually obtained from areas not used for farming, where soy is rarely grown anyway. With the help of a tightly controlled program for sampling and analysis it should be possible to avoid contamination with GMO.

Producer Allos confirmed our result, but clarified that the pesticides present weren't ones used by their beekeepers, and that their honey would still be produced using organic principles.

Dr. Krieger's said they had tried the honey again and hadn't been able to make out that supposed aftertaste.

Honey - a borderline case in food legislation

Nobody wants GM technology in honey - naturally this includes bee keepers. On the other hand, findings show that the peaceful coexistence of conventional and GM agriculture is impossible, and becoming increasingly so. In this respect, our evaluation is more of a political nature, and not due to a lack of care by the producers.

The legal situation does not offer any support for the classification of GM technology in honey. This is because the modified gen remnants in pollen are not capable of reproduction, and therefore are not genetically modified organisms (GMO).

GM-technology legislation, however, refers expressly to GMO. This means that the constituent genes in honey need neither be approved nor labelled. Verdicts like that of the Administrative Court in Augsburg (FRG) on genetically modified maize MON810, demonstrate however, that other legal interpretations exist. Background: MON810 does not currently have approval for food use. A frequently-used lever is the threshold of 0.9 percent, above which products must be labelled. Since honey only contains approximately 0.1 to 0.5 percent pollen, labelling is not required. Laws shmaws: For the most part consumers are kept in the dark.

High Level Conference on Food Security criticised

GM Watch, 26 January 2009.

Farmers and Social Movements have today (26 Jan 2009) issued a statement criticising the High Level Conference on Food Security in Madrid on the 26 and 27 of January because it excludes the main stakeholders in the debate on the food crisis from meaningful participation.

It is a forum dominated by the World Bank, IMF and WTO, as well as transnational companies such as Monsanto, and it is an outrage that they are given space on the panels of discussion while representatives of small farmers - who produce 80% of the world's food - are left only a few minutes on the floor to give their position.

International agricultural policy has been dominated by the policies of these international institutions for the last thirty years, and in spite of their pledges to halve hunger by 2015 through the Millennium Development Goals it has continued to increase worldwide, reaching over one billion people this year.

Contrary to the impression that is given by confused officials, a solution to the crisis exists and is easy to implement if there is sufficient political will. Peasant based agriculture and livestock raising and artisanal fisheries can easily provide enough food once these small-scale food producers can get access to land and aquatic resources and can produce for table local and domestic markets.

The full declaration signed by 49 organisations, "Accelerating into disaster - when banks manage the food crisis", is available online at http://www.foodsovereignty.org. Or see: http://www.viacampesina.org/main_en/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=672&Itemid=1

COMMENT from Robin Maynard, campaigns director of the Soil Association: It is deplorable, but predictable, that the very institutions and agribusiness companies that have done so much to undermine global food security, presume to put themselves forward as the solution to the problems they've exacerbated, if not directly caused.

Soil Association website: http://www.soilassociation.org/foodsecurity

25 January 2009

US prepares to block influx of GM food

New Scientist magazine, issue 2692, 25 January 2009.

AFTER a decade of exporting its genetically modified crops all over the world, the US is preparing to block foreign GM foods from entering the country - if they are deemed to threaten its agriculture, environment or citizens' health, that is.

The warning was given to the US Department of Agriculture, which polices agricultural imports, by its own auditor, the Office of Inspector General (OIG): "Unless international developments in transgenic plants and animals are closely monitored, USDA could be unaware of potential threats that particular new transgenic plants or animals might pose to the nation's food supply."

The OIG expects the number of GM crops and traits, and the number of countries producing them, to double by 2015, raising the risks of imports of GM crops unknown to the USDA.

The report urges the USDA to strengthen its links with countries where research is exploding, such as China, India and Brazil. China, for example, is ready to launch the world's first commercial GM rice, but it has yet to be approved by the USDA. Problems will arise, says the OIG, when new GM products enter the US undeclared - the USDA would be unprepared to test or even identify them.

The OIG cautions against blocks on imports that could be seen as trade barriers, however. In 2006, the World Trade Organization ruled in favour of the US, arguing that the European Union's stringent regulations on GM crops were anti-free trade.

Top chefs push Obama to improve food policy

Associated Press, 25 Jan 2009

WASHINGTON (AP) - Visiting one of his favorite Chicago restaurants in November, Barack Obama was asked by an excited waitress if he wanted the restaurant's special margarita made with the finest ingredients, straight up and shaken at the table.

"You know that's the way I roll, " Obama replied jokingly.

Rick Bayless, the chef of that restaurant, Topolobampo, says Obama's comfortable demeanor at the table - slumped contentedly in his chair, clearly there to enjoy himself - bodes well for the nation's food policy. While former President George W. Bush rarely visited restaurants and didn't often talk about what he ate, Obama dines out frequently and enjoys exploring different foods.

"He's the kind of diner who wants to taste all sorts of things, " Bayless says. "What I'm hoping is that he's going to recognize that we need to do what we can in our country to encourage real food for everyone."

Phrases like "real food" and "farm-to-table" may sound like elitist jargon tossed around at upscale restaurants. But the country's top chefs, several of whom traveled to Washington for Obama's inauguration this week, hope that Obama's flair for good food will encourage people to expand their horizons when it comes to what they eat.

These chefs tout locally grown, environmentally friendly and - most importantly - nutritious food. They urge diners, even those who may never be able to afford to eat at their restaurants, to grow their own vegetables, shop at farmer's markets and pay attention to where their food comes from.

Dan Barber, chef at New York's popular Blue Hill restaurant and a frequent critic of the country's food policy, says a few small gestures from the president and first lady Michelle Obama could accomplish what many of the chefs have been working toward for years.

"I recognize that I'm an elitist guy, " says Barber, who cooked a $500-a-plate meal for incoming Obama aides and other guests at a small charity fundraiser the night before the inauguration. "Increasingly raise awareness, but don't do it through chefs like me. ... My advice would be more of a symbolic nature, and to not underestimate what can be done through the White House."

Barber said good food needs more publicity, and he hopes Obama and his wife will advertise what they are eating and what they are feeding their children, 10-year-old Malia and 7-year-old Sasha.

Many high-end chefs like Barber believe that most food in the United States is over-processed, over-subsidized and grown with no regard to the environment, making it harder for small farms to make a profit selling more natural, nutritious food.

Barber cooks with food grown at his farm, the Stone Barns Center for Food and Agriculture in Pocantico Hills, N.Y. At the pre-inauguration fundraiser, organized along with several other dinners by food guru Alice Waters, passed hors d'oeuvres included carrots, lettuce and cauliflower - untarnished and raw, delicious in their natural form. Sweet beets had been recently chiseled from Stone Barns' frozen ground, and hog snouts left over from slaughter were used as a garnish on a plate of Maine sea scallops.

Most of the chefs say they realize food policy and government support for larger corporate farms won't change any time soon. Congress, with Obama's support, overwhelmingly enacted a $290 billion farm bill last year that directs many subsidies to the largest agricultural players.

But Obama has already given chefs like Barber a small reason to hope. At his confirmation hearing, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack made an overture to the growing number of food groups and experts who have criticized government subsidies for large corporate farms, saying he will seek to work "with those who seek programs and practices that lead to more nutritious food produced in a sustainable way."

"There's a lot of work that can be done in this area, " Vilsack said after he was sworn in.

Other chefs in town for the inauguration and Waters' dinners had many suggestions to improve food policy. Daniel Boulud, the veteran New York chef of the restaurant Daniel who has cooked for at least five former presidents, said he thinks the Department of Agriculture should form an agency that exclusively oversees small farms. Lidia Bastianich, a New York-based Italian chef who has starred in several cooking shows on public television, says the government needs to encourage regulations and incentives to small farmers to give them the opportunity to compete against the "big giants."

Chef Tom Colicchio, the lead judge on the popular cable television series "Top Chef, " agrees. He says foods that are genetically engineered should be labeled as such and fewer subsidies should go to corporate farms.

But despite loftier goals, Bayless, the Chicago chef, says the Obamas could make a world of difference if they just publish what they are eating every day.

"Everyone's going to want to be like the Obamas, " he said.

GMOs: on nontarget
Cataloging the unintended consequences and effects of gene tinkering

Gristmill, 25 January 2009. By Erik Hoffner (guest contributor).

Here's a new database, http://www.Nontarget.org, that catalogs the unintended (nontarget) effects of the uncontrolled experiment being conducted with all life on earth: that is, GMOs.

When foreign genes are introduced into an organism, creating a transgenic organism or GMO, the results are almost always unpredictable. As the site says, "The intended result may or may not be achieved in any given case, but the one almost sure thing is that unintended results -- nontarget effects -- will also be achieved ... These facts have been, and are being, widely reported in the scientific literature. While they are correcting our understanding in important ways, they are not at all controversial."

Keep the pressure on WWF

GMWatch, 25 January 2009.

WWF's GM soya debate officially winds up today, but that's no reason to let WWF [World Wide Fund for Nature] off the hook.

Consider what happened to an attempted protest around the 3rd Round Table on Responsible Soy last May. It was caught on camera and the resulting video (in 2 parts) is worth watching in full for a sense of how utterly non-transparent and non-inclusive of the people most directly affected by GM soy, the Round Table on Responsible Soy (RTRS) is: http://www.grain.org/videos/?id=174

The RTRS has 32 members from industry, banks and supermarkets, including the major crushers ADM, Bunge and Cargill, and 9 large-scale producers. Also part of the RTRS is WWF - the biggest and most instantly recognisable environmental group in the world.

The RTRS protest took place because GM soy monocultures are having a devastating impact on the environment, on small farmers and on indigenous people, in Latin America. At the same time there is strong consumer opposition to GM soy, particularly in Europe.

All of this is a PR nightmare for the big players who want to hide their culpability for the real impact of GM soy, and to obscure the whole GM issue by turning up the volume on issues around climate change and so-called sustainability. They hope that people will lose sight of the GM issue behind the green smokescreen of "sustainable [GM] soy".

But there can be no sustainability with GM crops. GM soy expansion is a threat to biodiversity in Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil and Bolivia. GM soy is much more environmentally damaging than other crops because of its unsustainable production requirements.

As the Argentinian agronomist Walter Pengue and the Berkeley agro-ecologist Miguel Altieri have noted: "The production of herbicide-resistant soybean leads to environmental problems such as deforestation, soil degradation, pesticide and genetic contamination. Socio-economic consequences include severe concentration of land and income, the expulsion of rural populations to the Amazonian frontier and to urban areas, compounding the concentration of the poor in cities. Soybean expansion also diverts government funds otherwise usable in education, health, and alternative, far more sustainable agroecological methods." (GM Soybean: Latin America's New Coloniser http://www.grain.org/seedling/?id=421).

These problems are intrinsic to GM soy production, as a just published article on "Twelve years of GM soya in Argentina - a disaster for people and the environment" also makes clear:
http://www.grain.org/seedling/?id=578

As some of you have pointed out, WWF could just as well start discussing sustainable nuclear power plants, deforestation, human trafficking or child labour, BECAUSE THEY HAVE BECOME A MAJOR MARKET REALITY (one of the arguments given for holding the GM soy debate).

If WWF are seen to endorse "sustainable" GM soy, that will undermine both European opposition to GMOs and the growing concerns over the social and environmental devastation caused by GM soy.

Sadly, this is far from the first time WWF has opted to keep bad company. CounterPunch editor Jeffrey St. Clair accuses WWF of backing nearly every trade bill to come down the pike, from NAFTA to GATT and of sidling up to some very unsavoury government agencies advancing the same neo-liberal agenda across the Third World. Likewise, Brian Tokar has observed how (in 1997) WWF were associated with 19 corporations cited in the National Wildlife Federation's survey of the 500 worst industrial polluters. These companies included such recognized environmental offenders as Union Carbide, Exxon, Monsanto, Weyerhaeuser, Du Pont, and Waste Management. http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair02032007.html
http://www.swans.com/library/art14/barker07.html#49

For massive grain conglomerates like ADM, who have never done anything whatsoever for sustainability and do not have the best relationship with growers, it makes perfect sense to partner with WWF and other willing NGOs, or to set up their own greenwashing groups with pseudo-NGOs:
http://www.adm.com/en-US/news/_layouts/PressReleaseDetail.aspx?ID=39
http://www.aliancadaterra.org.br/

In their response to your letters of protest re. the GM Soy Debate, WWF talk about the "successful completion of the RTRS process." The fact is that unless it gets strengthened to (1) totally reject GM soy and (2) have real teeth in its protection of the rainforest, the land, indigenous people and small farmers, it will be a success only for the ADMs and Monsantos of this world.

If you've already been in contact with WWF, please tell them once again that WWF (including its national organisations) needs to take a far stronger line on GM soy (see below), and that it is an accomplice to greenwashing through the RTRS.

If they haven't written to you, you can let them known your concerns at their continued involvement in greenwashing here: http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/who_we_are/offices/index.cfm or here: http://www.panda.org/faq/visitor_emailadmin.cfmlink

Note:

See related GW Watch article of 15 December 2008 "WWF still accomplish to greenwashing": http://www.gmfreeireland.org/news/2008/dec.php#WWF

Farmer's secret GM crop defies green rulebook
• Calls for prosecution of agricultural 'saboteur'

The Observer, 25 January 2009. By Caroline Davies.

Environmentalists are calling for the prosecution of a farmer who claims to have sabotaged Wales's GM-free status by secretly planting and harvesting genetically modified varieties of maize and feeding them to local sheep and cattle.

In a political stunt that has infuriated the National Assembly for Wales, Jonathan Harrington, 53, an agronomist who advises farmers on how to grow crops, claims to have imported two varieties of GM maize from Spain, planted them on his land and given seeds away to two other farmers who also planted the banned crops. Wales has been GM-free since 2000 and markets its milk, meat and vegetables accordingly.

As the Welsh assembly considers its legal options, GM-free campaigners condemned Harrington as "grossly irresponsible". Plant scientist Brian John of GM Free Cymru said: "To plant it, then deliberately push it into the food chain is absolutely insane." Friends of the Earth Cymru said: "The concern is that it has entered the food chain without any control, traceability or labelling. Even if it is a small quantity, it means Wales is not GM-free any more."

An unrepentant Harrington said he had resorted to the secret planting after the Welsh assembly, which voted unanimously for GM-free status in 2000, refused to have any meaningful discussions over its policy. He said: "Out of frustration I went and bought some varieties of maize bred to be resistant to a pest called the European corn borer and which are grown widely in Spain, France, Germany and the Czech Republic."

The varieties he chose were on the EU common variety list, and as such it is legal to grow them anywhere in Europe.

The Welsh assembly admitted that despite its policy, which has otherwise been strictly adhered to throughout the principality, it has no actual legal power to ban GM crops in Wales.

However, anti-GM campaigners believe Harrington can be prosecuted for not complying with stringent regulations that require monitoring, labelling and traceability of GM crops.

Not only does he claim to have planted the maize at his farm at Tregoyd, near Hay-on-Wye; he claims two other farmers, whom he refuses to name, also planted the same maize.

"It was a poor summer, so they didn't do terribly well. But we did have enough for silage. So, it has been used in animal feed, for Welsh lamb and Welsh cattle, " he admitted. "I've no qualms, no regrets at all. I am waiting for the backlash, and am very happy morally, ethically and legally, if need be, to defend my actions."

The assembly said in a statement: "The Welsh assembly government believes that the introduction of GM crops could undermine some of our achievements and future ambitions for Welsh agriculture. We are committed to close monitoring and control of any proposals for GM crops in Wales. However, we cannot legally ban GM crops in Wales because we have to work within a European legal framework.

"Our policy is to take a precautionary and restrictive GM crop policy stance which is in line with our commitment to sustainable agriculture. We believe it has broad public support and reflects the Welsh assembly government's legal duty to act responsibly within the UK and EU legislation."

Brian John condemned Harrington's stunt as political sabotage. "If he has, as he claims, planted it and it has entered the food chain, and he has no monitoring in place, then clearly he's broken the regulations and he should be prosecuted, absolutely, " he said. "We think this is grossly irresponsible. Wales's GM-free status is very important."

24 January 2009

Fighting GMO contamination around the world

GRAIN, Seedling, January 2009.

Ever since GMOs were first introduced in the mid-1990s, farmers' groups and NGOs have warned that they would contaminate other crops. This has happened, just as predicted. In this article we look at how communities in different parts of the world that have experienced contamination are developing strategies to fight against it.

When GM crops are planted they contaminate other crops with transgenic material. In places where GM crops are grown on a large scale, it has already become almost impossible to find crops of the same species that are free of GM material. And the contamination spreads even to areas where GM crops are not officially permitted. [1] The GM Contamination Register, managed by GeneWatch UK and Greenpeace International, has documented more than 216 cases of GM contamination in 57 countries over the past 10 years, including 39 cases in 2007. [2]

Monsanto and the other biotech corporations have always known that their GM crops would contaminate other crops. Indeed, it was part of their strategy to force the world into accepting GMOs. But around the world people are refusing to lie down and accept genetic modification as a fact of life; instead they are struggling against it, even in places subject to contamination. In fact, some communities experiencing contamination are developing sophisticated forms of resistance to GM crops. These usually begin with short-term strategies to decontaminate their local seeds, but often seek over the long term to strengthen their traditional food and agricultural systems.

We look at the experiences of communities in different parts of the world in dealing with GM contamination to see what insights they can offer others faced with similar situations. Each situation is unique, and gives rise to different processes. Common to all of them is the primary importance of collective action - of communities working at the grassroots to identify their own solutions and not depending on courts or governments, which, without strong social pressure, tend to side with industry.

The experience of communities in Mexico

For the indigenous peoples of Mexico and Guatemala, maize is the basis of life. In the creation story of the Maya, maize was the only material into which the gods were able to breathe life, and they used it to make the flesh of the first four people on Earth. For other peoples of Mexico, maize is itself a goddess. The plant has been the fundamental food of Mexicans for centuries, and thousands of varieties provide an amazing range of nutrients, flavours, consistencies, recipes, and medicinal uses.

In January 2002, researchers at the University of California in Berkeley announced their discovery that local varieties of maize in the highlands of Oaxaca state had been contaminated. Other communities of small farmers carried out tests on their own crops and were shocked to find that they too had been contaminated. For these people, it was a deep blow to their culture. They could not sit back: something had to be done.

At first, though, they did not know what to do. GMOs were new to them. They started by bringing together the nearby communities that might also have suffered contamination, as well as NGOs that they were close to. Workshops were held and people were mandated by their local assemblies to discuss on behalf of their communities. The strategy was thus collective from the beginning. This is the first point to be noted about the Mexican experience.

One fundamental point of agreement reached early on was that this GM contamination needed to be viewed as part of a war. It was not an accident or an isolated issue, but part of a war against farmers and indigenous peoples - in their words, a war against the people of maize. They needed to respond accordingly - defending not just their seeds but their livelihoods, their cultures, their whole way of life.

Initially, though, there were few practical ideas about how to decontaminate their maize and prevent further contamination. Concern was expressed that the communities might not have the technical capacity to deal with such a complex problem. But these communities and the NGOs working with them had a great deal of experience in finding grassroots solutions to the problems affecting them, and so, rather than look to outside experts, they turned the question upside down, focusing not on GM maize, which they did not know, but on their own varieties of maize, which they knew intimately.

They began by sharing their own knowledge of maize and what maize needs to be healthy. The most basic point was that to keep their maize alive and well they had to sow it and eat it. In many communities, traditional maize was disappearing because people were sowing it less. The first step in defending their maize was thus to plant more of it. It was also felt, in response to GMOs, that seeds were dangerous when their history was not known. So it was agreed that seeds should be planted only when their history was known, or when they came from a source that was well known to them.

As the communities put these principles into practice, they began to pay closer attention to the crops in their fields, and became aware of all kinds of serious malformations. They tested the deformed plants and found a high rate of contamination, so they began watching for these plants and weeding them out.

Another thing they knew about maize is that it out-crosses, so, to prevent GM contamination, they would have to keep GM maize from crossing with their maize. They began by implementing simple techniques such as planting trees around their fields. Some of the techniques they developed could be applied everywhere, whereas others were specific to certain communities. But the important thing was that they were setting up a system to avoid contamination.

There was much discussion about what to do with contaminated plants. It was strongly felt that if a very old variety has been in your family for generations and all of a sudden becomes contaminated, this maize should not simply be destroyed. Contaminated maize is sick and needs to be cured, not killed. It may take a year or 100 years to cure it, but it has to be done, because the maize has been with their communities for generations.

The peasant communities of Mexico have probably developed the deepest strategies of any communities facing GM contamination around the world. There are many lessons that can be drawn from their struggle, with perhaps the main ones being:

1)

The need to look at GM contamination as part of a wider attack on farmers and local communities. Defending your crops means also defending your land and your water, and this requires strong communities, strong collective decision-making processes, and strong networks with other groups at the national and even international level. Such a wide approach allows more people to participate in the struggle. Even if not everyone can take care of the seeds, there are other things that they can do.

2)

The importance of not being beholden to time frames. For the Mexcian communities, GM contamination is part of a war waged against them that is permanent, and so their approach has to be long-term and capable of being permanent. Their decision is to defend their maize, no matter how long it takes. As they see it, when deadlines are brought in, people are faced with what they cannot do, and usually little can be done in the short term, so they compromise. This the Mexican communities refuse to do.

3)

The importance of looking at the issue from your own perspective. The communities in Mexico spent a lot of time in the early workshops discussing spirituality and their views on deities and creation. They talked about the rituals that could protect maize. Those invited from outside to participate had a hard time explaining the technicalities of genetic engineering, because the concept appeared so absurd. But, in the end, the communities arrived at their own core understanding of genetic engineering as a method of taking control over agricultural livelihoods, and this core understanding was far more important than the technical information.

4)

The need for the communities to control the process. In Mexico, communities were able to maintain control over the processes because they were their own processes from the very beginning. When they had control over the initial tests, they kept the results to themselves for a long time because they wanted to discuss first among themselves what steps to take. And the fact that decisions were taken collectively, by many people, has helped to prevent big mistakes from being made. Mistakes are always going to happen but when a lot of people are involved chances are much lower that there will be fundamental mistakes. When the contamination was uncovered by university scientists, the processes followed were totally different.

5)

The need to emphasise social struggles over legal struggles. Among the Mexican communities, there was a lot of discussion about biosafety laws, seed laws and other relevant laws. At a recent workshop dedicated to laws, a time line was presented of all the various laws that the Mexican government has passed in the last 15-20 years. From this picture, the communities came to a clear conclusion that the legal route was not an important route for their struggle. You may lose the lawsuit but if there is enough social pressure you may win in other ways. For them legal options are only effective when there is enough social pressure on authorities. So the tactic is not discarded, but it is not central.

An invasion of illegal GMOs into Thai farms

GM contamination was first reported in Thailand in 1999 after cotton samples from field research conducted by BIOTHAI and the Alternative Agriculture Network (AAN) were found to be contaminated with Bt cotton - a genetically engineered cotton variety produced by Monsanto. In 2004, tests made by Greenpeace revealed that a local farmer's plantation in Khon Kaen province was contaminated by GM papaya. That farmer was one of 2, 600 who had bought papaya seedlings from the Department of Agriculture's research station where field trials of GM papaya were being conducted. At first, the government denied that GM crops were being grown in Thailand, but the contamination was so widespread that it reached another province, Ubol Ratchatani, where at least 90 farms had also received papaya seedlings. Most recently, in 2007, Chulalongkorn University's Faculty of Science and BIOTHAI found GM contamination in maize, soya and cotton samples that they tested from provinces all over the country.

The Thais believe that a two-pronged approach is necessary to address this situation. On the one hand, pressure should be put on the government to implement policies that protect the country from GM contamination. The Thai Working Group Against GMOs, which BIOTHAI coordinates, has organised numerous activities to keep the national moratorium on GMOs in place. They have sent petition letters, organised demonstrations in front of government offices, and pushed for a dialogue with top officials, including the deputy Prime Minister and Secretaries of Health and Agriculture. These efforts had an impact : on 25 December 2007, the Thai government announced its rules on GMOs which include, among other things, a mandatory public hearing prior to field testing, and a recommendation that approval from the local people in the field test area, as well as from independent NGOs and the academic community, should be obtained. From the perspective of BIOTHAI - which is currently running a campaign to develop a People's Biosafety Law - this was an important victory.

On the other hand, the Thais are working to increase local capacity to develop systems to detect contamination and deal with its impacts. The Khao Kwan Foundation (KKF), one of the founding organisations of AAN, has been mobilising farmers' knowledge to identify contaminated seeds and to control or eliminate them. The KKF runs trainings and workshops on seed breeding and selection, which indirectly deal with contamination.

KKF believes that farmers are able to notice anything abnormal in their crops, because of their in-depth knowledge of seeds and their skill in selection. Whether it is the colour, the hardness or the smell, every variety has peculiarities that farmers who have been working on seeds know in detail. So any alterations will be easily detected, even before the plant starts to flower. Daycha Siripatra, founder of KKF, says: "This is the principle of local adaptability. We've made our seeds recognise their environment and use that environment to express their potential. An alien seed, like a GMO, will not automatically thrive in our area and, even if it grows, farmers will be able to notice it right away, just from its appearance."

Filipino farmers deal with contamination

In 2002, the Philippines had the (dis)honour of being the first country in Asia to authorise the commercialisation of GMOs, when it approved the release of Monsanto's Bt maize amid nationwide protests. Since then, genetic contamination has been reported in maize-growing areas throughout the country.

In the north-western province of Isabela, a local variety of white glutinous maize grown by farmers for food has reportedly been contaminated by GM maize. No gene testing has been done but farmers identify the contamination by the yellow kernels that appear in the otherwise white maize. In Bayambang, Pangasinan, farmers typically plant maize after rice. But now they are complaining that they have lost practically all the traditional maize varieties in the province due to contamination by hybrid and GM maize. They also fear for their health, as there have been incidents of children being taken to hospital for incessant vomiting after accidentally eating GM maize. There was also a report of a farmer's cow that became sick and eventually died after being fed with Bt maize.

In Bukidnon, in the southern Philippines, some communities are responding to contamination by separating the lower-priced yellow kernels from the higher-priced white ones before selling to the market. In Capiz, another major maize-producing province in Central Philippines, farmers are saying that almost all the province's maize-growing area is contaminated with GM maize and that they can no longer find traditional varieties to grow.

MASIPAG is a national farmers' network with a maize programme that collects and improves traditional varieties throughout the country. Recently, the group's back-up farm in San Dionisio, Iloilo (not far from Capiz) was contaminated. The area is a major producer of hybrid maize, and about three years ago mass cultivation of GM maize began by way of a contract growing scheme managed by local elites.

At least three native varieties used for farmer breeding in the back-up farm were immediately contaminated by the GM maize. At harvest, it was observed that there were yellow grains mixed with maize ears of pilit-puti and mimis - these are traditional varieties used by farmers for food. The area planted with maize on the back-up farm was only 50-100 metres from the nearest maize farms. Bamboo trees along the creek serve as natural barriers, but since the neighbouring fields are sloping, MASIPAG believes that pollen from the GM maize could nevertheless have been carried to these fields by the wind.

Researchers at the farm say that in the first year of planting after GM maize was introduced, they found 7-12 yellow grains in every maize ear. The following year, no maize was planted. This year, a small portion of the farm was again planted with white maize, adjacent to another farm planted with GM maize. Of the 50 grains counted in the average ear, only 18 were white and the remaining 32 were yellow. MASIPAG tried to explain the situation to the neighbouring farmers, but they are facing debt problems because of the contract growing scheme and are unable to stop growing GM maize.

In 2008, MASIPAG organised a national maize assessment meeting that brought together farmers from across the country. They agreed that it seems impossible to stop contamination, and that, while much is still unknown, it is crucial that they deal with the post-contamination situation. They believe that a range of approaches is needed to ensure that seeds will remain in their hands. One proposal is to develop visual indicators for detecting contamination. Some of the indicators initially identified include: abnormalities in the colour, size and appearance of maize kernels, and deformities in leaf formation.

Another idea is to collectivise monitoring at the community level. Each farmer could help to map out who plants GM maize and where. The map would be shared with the community and would allow farmers to time their planting so as to avoid contamination. Farmers believe that time isolation can potentially minimise, if not totally prevent, contamination by cross pollination. They also see that stronger links among maize farmers - and sharing sources of uncontaminated seeds - in different provinces will greatly help to minimise the impacts of contamination.

At government level, meanwhile, the push to promote GMOs continues. At a "2008 National Biotechnology Week", held very recently, two Cabinet officials stressed the need to harness biotechnology "to boost the country's food production, develop cheaper but effective medicines, and upgrade the production of commodities using higher-yielding crops with higher nutritional content". The Environment Secretary, Lito Atienza, went as far so to express his confidence in the "immeasurable benefits" of using biotechnology to protect the environment and to address the problems of food insufficiency.

Yet just a week before this, RESIST - a national network of farmers, NGOs and academics - held a forum to present and discuss the first results of their case studies of farmers' experience with Bt and Round-up Ready maize from three provinces in the country's main arable regions. Initial findings point to a worrying trend: yield and income from these two GM maize varieties did not improve significantly (in most cases they were the same with ordinary hybrids), but at the same time a recurring increase in pest incidence, chemical use, and debt was observed. Loss of genetic diversity due to contamination was also reported due to indiscriminate planting of these GM maizes, occasionally with subsidies from the government's maize programme.

Contamination on the Canadian prairies [3]

The province of Saskatchewan, in western Canada, is one of the country's main producers of wheat and canola [oilseed rape], Canada's most important export crops. Compared with other provinces, it is also home to a large number of organic farmers, many of whom produce grains and canola for export markets. But the large-scale introduction of GM crops is threatening their ability to produce certified organic crops.

Soon after Monsanto introduced GM canola into the province in 1996, organic farmers began having their crops rejected by organic buyers because tests were showing GM contamination. Today, with even the conventional seed supply completely contaminated by GMOs, it is virtually impossible to grow certified organic canola in the province. This has been a big loss to organic farmers, for whom canola is an important crop in their rotations. But the importance of canola is nothing compared to that of wheat, which is grown by nearly every organic farmer in the province. So in 2001, when Monsanto came forward with an application to introduce GM wheat, Saskatchewan's organic farmers decide to take a stand. They warned that the contamination that would surely ensue from the release of GM wheat would wipe out organic agriculture in the province.

In Canada, there are no regulations to make the corporations that profit from GM seeds liable for the damage that their introduction causes to others. The only possible avenue is to seek damages in the courts. In 2001, the Saskatchewan Organic Directorate (SOD), the umbrella group for Saskatchewan's organic farmers, decided to take collective legal action for an injunction against the introduction of GM wheat and for compensation for losses stemming from the introduction of GM canola. In early 2002, SOD formally launched a class action suit against Monsanto and Bayer. A class action is a lawsuit filed by a group of people, in this case all certified organic grain farmers in Saskatchewan, against an entity such as a corporation. It is supposed to facilitate access to justice for common people, to provide a way for people to be heard in court even if they don't have the resources of a big corporation. It allows people not only to pool their resources but also to reduce risks, because, if you lose a class action, costs are not awarded against you, which means that you don't have to pay the legal bills of the other side, which can add up to millions of dollars.

While their case was before the courts, SOD was also active with a broad coalition of groups at the local and national level fighting the introduction of GM wheat. Together they were able to generate a lot of public pressure, to the point where, in May 2004, Monsanto withdrew its application. At this point SOD dropped the injunction against GM wheat from its class action but continued with its claims for compensation for the contamination caused by GM canola.

In Saskatchewan, a class action suit has first to pass through a hearing to determine whether it is legitimate before it can go before the courts. For the SOD case, the judge at the hearing ruled that the class action was not valid. SOD then appealed against the judgement, both at the provincial level and at the Supreme Court of Canada, only to have both appeals denied. The only legal option left was to pursue the claims through an individual action, but it was felt that the risks were too high and the chances of victory too narrow, given their experiences with the class action.

"We don't feel it was a complete loss", says SOD director, Cathy Holtslander. "We did a lot of really good work during the time that the legal action was active. The uncertainty that our case created in the corporate sector may have caused GM corporations to hold back from further introductions. People learned a lot about the issue of contamination and the issue of liability. They way things are now, because nobody is liable, the weakest players in the chain - the farmers - bear the costs."

Now the corporations are pushing ahead with the introduction of GM alfalfa, another essential crop to organic farming in Saskatchewan, and GM wheat is back on the table with the rise of biofuels. The SOD and its allies are preparing for a new round of struggle.

Notes:

1. See video interview conducted by GRAIN with Meriem Louanchi in November 2008 about the situation regarding GM contamination in Algeria: http://www.grain.org/videos/?id=195

2. GM Contamination Register Annual Report, 2008: http://tinyurl.com/79osjp

3. The section on Canada is based on an interview conducted by GRAIN with Cathy Holtslander in November 2008. This video interview can be viewed on GRAIN's website:
http://www.grain.org/videos/?id=195

The new weapons of genetic engineering

GRAIN, Seedling, January 2009.

Over the last few years biotech laboratories and industry have developed two new techniques - artificial minichromosomes and transformed organelles - which, the industry claims, will allow it to overcome the problems it has faced until now with GMOs, especially their low efficiency and genetic contamination. But basic biology and maths indicate that, contrary to what the industry claims, the new technology will not prevent genetic contamination in plants. In fact, as the two technologies converge, the frightening possibility arises that contamination will reach a new level of toxicity, and occur not only within organisms of the same species but also between species as different from each other as plants and bacteria, or plants and fungi.

From its very beginning, genetic engineering has faced two tremendous barriers. First, there is the undeniable fact that the theory that each gene is responsible for a single characteristic (one gene-one trait), if it is true at all, holds true for only some genes. The more that is learnt about the functioning of cells and organisms, the more flexible and multiple the links between gene and function are found to be. [1] Second, there is the complex and powerful self-regulating capacity of chromosomes and genomes, which leads them to expel, delete or "silence" genetic material which is not part of their normal make-up. Mutations occur very often in nature, and most of the time the genetic material itself triggers mechanisms that "correct" or delete these mutations. The result is an amazing and stubborn stability of form and function. [2]

Three major practical effects derive from this: multiple and unexpected side-effects from genetic engineering; a very low rate of successful, stable expression of the engineered traits; and an overwhelming difficulty in genetically engineering traits that involve several genes. The biotech industry has addressed the first problem by not releasing engineered organisms with obviously harmful side-effects and by denying side-effects when they have occurred in the field or lab, or in animals and human beings. Industry has also been very careful to avoid acknowledging that fewer than one per cent of their attempts at genetic engineering are successful in any way. They are also reluctant to admit that none of the attractive initial promises of biotechnology - that it would make all plants capable of fixing nitrogen and acquiring phosphorus, that it would produce plants tolerant of drought, salt and heavy metals, and that it would manufacture new vaccines - has been delivered. A key factor in explaining this is that all these characteristics or products involve gene complexes; by contrast, almost all current biotech products are based upon single genes (plants that are tolerant of herbicide and plants that contain Bt toxin are two good examples).

As well as harming their public image, these failures have serious practical consequences for the companies, as they reduce their efficiency and limit their potential profits. Not surprisingly, the industry has long sought new approaches to overcome these limitations. Biotechnologists and the biotech industry are now saying that a major breakthrough has taken place: they are now able to build small artificial chromosomes that carry multiple genes and become fully functional once inserted into a cell. Due to their small size, these artificial chromosomes are called "minichromosomes". It is claimed that they will make the engineering of complex traits possible and that they will dramatically reduce side-effects, as they will not disrupt the native genetic material of the engineered organisms. [3]

A second important development has also taken place, with much less media coverage: the genetic engineering of cell organelles, such as chloroplasts and mitochondria. Because there may be multiple organelles (up to hundreds) per cell, this technique would allow a much stronger expression of the engineered traits. As GE organelles are not transferred through pollen, the industry also claims that genetic contamination of plants would be prevented.

There is still much that is unknown. New research is uncovering a remarkable level of complexity in the web of interactions between genetic material, whole organisms and the environment, which raises questions about how efficient the new technologies will be. Looked at from a commercial point of view, however, it is certainly true that, even if it works only partially, the technology will open up for the industry a whole new world of biotech products and patents. This is because it extends the range of patentable "inventions" beyond genes and traits to chromosomes and complete physiological processes. [4]

What are artificial minichromosomes?

Artificial minichromosomes are small chromosomes built by incorporating genes into a DNA molecule that initially contains only the units that regulate the replication of chromosomes (called telomeres); those that initiate the replication, and those that ensure the right distribution of chromosomes in new cells (called crentromeres). [5] Multiple genes can be added to these two basic units and, to render them functional, there is no need to include the regulating DNA that makes up more than 90 per cent of most natural chromosomes. The biggest artificial minichromosomes built so far carry between a dozen and 20 genes but, in theory, there is no limit to the number of genes that can be included in one single artificial chromosome. Artificial minichromosomes can be built and inserted into all kind of species, from yeast and bacteria, to higher plants, insects, mammals and humans. In fact, in the early years bigger advances were made in developing artificial chromosome technology for animals and humans than for other species, but more recently the technology for plants, yeasts and bacteria has been catching up. [6]

There are natural minichromosomes too, and they are encountered widely among different species and kingdoms. They may be present in the nucleus, as well as in the cell "organelles" that are responsible for photosynthesis, energy processing and other fundamental processes of life. They characteristically lack regulating DNA and may exist in highly variable numbers of copies in the same cell. The role and functioning of natural minichromosomes is little understood, but they may be important in the process of adjusting to very different or changing habitats and conditions.

One characteristic of natural and artificial minichromosomes that has attracted the attention of biotechnologists is that they seem to be more "independent" from the rest of the genetic material than larger nucleus chromosomes. That is, their expression seems not to be determined by - and seems to have little influence on - the behaviour of other chromosomes. When foreign genes are inserted, the genetic material of the artificial minichromosomes is not "silenced" or "deleted", as often happens with genes inserted into existing chromosomes. Once inserted into the cell, artificial minichromosomes also remain physically independent from other chromosomes and genetic material; they are not incorporated into the native DNA and therefore do not cause mutations in the native DNA. Industry and labs developing and using the technology thus claim that minichromosomes will avoid the side-effects of genetic engineering because there will be no disruption of genetic material. [7]

What are transformed organelles?

Organelles - also called plastids - are tiny structures that exist within animal and plant cells. They are the sites where fundamental processes take place, such as photosynthesis and cell respiration. They include chloroplasts, ribosomes and mitochondria. There are multiple copies per cell, each with their own DNA. If a foreign gene or an artificial chromosome is inserted into an organelle, the cell will multiply it, producing new cells with multiple copies of the inserted gene. Under certain conditions that can be induced, plant cells also increase the number of copies of their organelles. This way GE organelles have the potential to secure multiple copies of the inserted DNA and hence a very high level of expression of the engineered genes, in theory much higher than the improved level that can be reached through minichromosomes. [8]

Although efforts to transform organelles - especially chloroplasts - have been going on for the last decade, they have succeeded in only a few plant species. It is still done "the old way", inserting foreign genes in the organelle DNA, and hence it still faces many of the serious limitations of that approach. [9]

[Box] The main corporate players

The development of artificial minichromosomes and transformed organelles has followed the same pattern as earlier biotech developments: from publicly funded basic research to fully private application and use, with growing concentration in the hands of a few corporations. Two labs have led the way in research into artificial minichromosomes: one headed by Dr Daphne Preuss at the University of Chicago, the other headed by Dr James Birchler at the University of Missouri.

Dr Preuss, who joined the University of Chicago in 1995, worked with her team in the development of methods to build artificial chromosomes. In 2000 she founded Chromatin Inc. as a way of marketing minichromosomes. In 2004 Unilever became the first major corporation to invest in the new firm. In 2007 Chromatin granted Monsanto a non-exclusive licence for the use of minichromosomes and, just four months later, did the same with Syngenta. Both agreements include funds for research, but the amounts involved and the terms of the agreements have been kept secret. All along, Chromatin has continued to receive public funding. Chromatin lists on its web page twelve patents as its own. Six of those patents, however, were actually granted to the University of Chicago (1) and four others are shared with the University. Neither party has disclosed whether the University of Chicago has transferred its rights to Chromatin Inc.

Dr Birchler has long been a professor and researcher at the University of Missouri. His work on artificial chromosomes has been funded by the National Science Foundation, the US Department of Agriculture, and Monsanto. (2) He recently strengthened his links with Monsanto by becoming scientific adviser to Evogene, a biotech company based in Israel that specialises in computer-assisted identification of commercially promising genes. Monsanto currently owns 13.6 per cent of Evogene and will have a 20 per cent stake within 3 years. (3) Evogene will grant Monsanto exclusive licences over identified genes. Monsanto will, in turn, use the technology developed by Birchler or Preuss to engineer those genes into plant varieties.

Transformed organelles have been developed by several University labs, and the privatisation processes have been similar. One of the leading labs, headed by Dr Pal Maliga of Rutgers University, is currently funded by public sources as well as by Monsanto. Another prominent laboratory is headed by Dr Henry Daniell at the University of Central Florida. Dr Daniell has raised record amounts of public money, and the work of his lab is "protected" by over 90 patents. In 2002 Dr Daniell set up a private firm, Chlorogen, to commercialise transformed chloroplasts.( 4) In 2005 Chlorogen signed a major agreement with Dow AgroSciences to produce veterinary drugs in plant cells. (5) The company closed in September 2007, selling its technology to undisclosed parties. (6)

Monsanto and Bayer seem to be the corporations to have done most to develop fully commercial applications for both technologies. Monsanto has been very active: it has co-funded, invested, reached research agreements and licensed applications from a variety of university research groups and has also carried out in-house research. It has been busy signing agreements and obtaining licences from biotech firms, including Chromatin, Evogen, Asgrow and BASF. It is already testing gene stacking through minichromosomes, and it expects to release commercially what it calls its SmartStax "platform" in 2010. On its web page for investors, Monsanto has highlighted the potential use of the technology to lower environmental requirements. (7)

Bayer is focusing its action in the field through Icon Genetics Inc. Founded by two University professors in 1999, Icon Genetics focuses on producing pharmaceuticals through plants. Throughout its life, it has managed to obtain important public grants and has displayed a highly diversified portfolio of agreements with pharmaceutical companies. It was bought by Bayer in 2006. Its products are mostly based on chloroplast engineering, but the company is also working on the engineering of other organelles. It holds at least one patent over a method to produce minichromosomes. It recently opened a new factory in Germany to produce biotech drugs in tobacco plants. (8)

Syngenta has licensed minichromosome technology from Chromatin Inc., and it has already stacked tolerance to glyphosate, rootworm resistance and European corn borer resistance in maize. (9) It holds at least one patent over a method to engineer organelles. Biofuels is one of its main areas of interest. Novartis, Calgene (owned by Monsanto), Pioneer Hi-Bred, and Assgrow are also using the new technologies.

Notes for box section:

1 - They are US Patents 6156953, 6900012, 6972197, 7015372, 7119250, 7132240.

2 - University of Missouri College of Arts and Sciences press release, 29 September 2005. http://rcp.missouri.edu/articles/birchler_chromosome.html

3 - Evogene-Investor Conference, September 2008. http://www.evogene.com/investors_presentations.asp

4 - "About Dr. Henry Daniell", Daniell Lab for Molecular Biotechnology Research, University of Central Florida College of Medicine, 2008. http://daniell.ucf.edu/people/daniell

5 - "Dow AgroSciences, Chlorogen to co-develop chloroplast transformation technology for plant cell culture and crop improvements", Dow AgroSciences press release, 16 September 2005.
http://www.dowagro.com/newsroom/corporatenews/2005/20050916a.htm

6 - "Biotech Startup Chlorogen Shuts Down, Starts Selling Off Its Technology", BioSpace, 12 September 2007. http://www.biospace.com/news_story.aspx?NewsEntityId=69496

7 - See http://www.monsanto.com/pdf/investors/2008/12-09-08.pdf

8 - "Pilot plant for future-oriented technology opens in Halle", Icon Genetics press release, 16 June 2008. http://www.icongenetics.com/html/5948.htm

9 - See Syngenta's Research & Development front page on its website.
http://www.syngenta.com/en/about_syngenta/researchanddevelopment.html

[End of box]

What can be done with these technologies?

The biotech industry expects to solve some of its major hurdles by using minichromosomes. First, they will be able to insert several genes in a cell and thereby expect to make complex traits a feasible target for genetic engineering (although the actual feasibility is still to be seen: complex traits are exactly that and the presence of multiple genes does not guarantee the expression of a complex trait). Minichromosomes will also make "gene stacking" possible: several of the current single genes present in GM crops could be accumulated in one variety, providing a new opportunity to reap profits out of them. "Gene stacking" is currently possible, and is being done by companies such as Monsanto and Syngenta, but the time and work it requires make it far less profitable. Second, artificial minichromosomes should make genetic engineering more efficient by decreasing the type of side-effects that make so many engineered organisms unviable. Third, they will be by-passing many genetic control mechanisms so that the engineered genes will obtain higher and more stable levels of expression.

If the industry is to be believed, artificial minichromosomes will make the engineering of complex traits possible, which means that it will possible to produce almost any substance through genetic modification. What does this mean for the future of genetic engineering? The industry puts forward two versions. When it is being careful about its public image, it presents this new technique as an effective and safe technology for - yet again - saving the world from hunger and environmental problems. Daphne Preuss, a leading scientist from the University of Chicago, who is now the president of Chromatin Inc., has made presentations for the Gates Foundation and the United Nations on how this technology could herald a breakthrough for African agriculture. [10] However, when discussing the possible applications of the new technology in patent applications, the biotech industry deals with the genetic engineering of crops for food production as only a secondary target, the main goal being pharming (the production of drugs and chemicals through engineered crops). Companies want to create GE plants that will produce drugs, human and animal proteins, and biofuels, as well as specific industrial raw materials, including toxins. Other possible uses include "the production of nutraceuticals, food additives, carbohydrates, RNAs, lipids, fuels, dyes, pigments, vitamins, scents, flavours, vaccines, antibodies, hormones, and the like." [11]

The idea of using crops to produce drugs is an interesting one for industry for two reasons: crops can be employed more efficiently in this process than animals or bacteria, with a larger output achieved with fewer resources; and it is easier for the drugs produced to be delivered orally to people and animals. [12] Other types of organisms have not been discarded, however. Bacteria remain an important target, because they are easier to engineer and they can be more easily used to produce high-value molecules in small quantities; they may, however, face important regulatory problems. Other species being transformed and tested as possible drug factories are insect larvae and moss.

The application of minichromosomes does not end there. As well as promising higher yields, nitrogen fixation and resistance to salt, drought, heavy metals, viruses, insects, diseases and changes in climate - or any combination thereof - companies are consistently claiming in their patent applications to have the ability to alter plant architecture and physiology, including the process of photosynthesis. In the words of WIPO patent 2007/030510, it may be possible to obtain "resistance or tolerance to drought, heat, chilling, freezing, excessive moisture, salt stress, mechanical stress, extreme acidity, alkalinity, toxins, UV light, ionising radiation or oxidative stress; increased yields, whether in quantity or quality; enhanced or altered nutrient acquisition and enhanced or altered metabolic efficiency; enhanced or altered nutritional content and makeup of plant tissues used for food, feed, fiber or processing; physical appearance; male sterility; drydown; standability; prolificacy; starch quantity and quality; oil quantity and quality; protein quality and quantity; amino acid composition; modified chemical production; altered pharmaceutical or nutraceutical properties; altered bioremediation properties; increased biomass; altered growth rate; altered fitness; altered biodegradability; altered CO2 fixation; presence of bioindicator activity; altered digestibility by humans or animals; altered allergenicity; altered mating characteristics; altered pollen dispersal; improved environmental impact; altered nitrogen fixation capability". [13] There is, it would seem, a huge range of biologically possible alterations, and industry will establish its targets by seeing which GE modifications are most profitable.

The genetic engineering of organelles offers another set of rewards for the biotech industry, especially through the engineering of plant chloroplasts. The most important of these is much higher levels of productivity of whatever substance the engineered plant will make. If, for example, each cell holds tens of chloroplasts and each chloroplast holds over 200 copies of the foreign DNA, the potential production of the engineered substance will, in theory at least, be many times more than it is with the use of current techniques. And tests have, indeed, shown "hyperexpression" of the transgenes.

A second important promise for industry is the stable passing on to the next generation of the foreign DNA. Organelles are transferred through the so-called "maternal inheritance" as identical copies. A female animal will transfer identical copies to all its offspring and a plant to all the seeds it produces, without changes from one generation to the next. Industry claims that this will ensure the stability of the GE traits from generation to generation. They also claim that, as pollen grains and semen cells do not carry GM organelles, there is no possibility of them being accidentally transferred to other organisms. In other words, GM organelles will be a powerful biosafety tool for preventing genetic contamination, they say. [14]

An obvious powerful development would be to put these two techniques together. The different research groups that have been developing the new techniques do not seem to be talking much to each other, but some of the big biotech companies are working hard to combine the techniques and to use them together, mostly in plants. Bayer has been very active through Icon Genetics Inc. They already claim widespread success in engineering plastids, and have at least one patent related to minichromosomes. Monsanto, which was the first company to engineer chloroplasts, has funded research on minichromosomes at the University of Missouri and has signed a licence agreement with Chromatin Inc., one of the leading players in the new field, for the use of its minichromosome technology. Syngenta is also working with both technologies, although it seems less actively involved than Bayer and Monsanto.

What can be expected from all this?

Artificial minichromosomes and GE plastids are advancing fast, especially for plant species, and some of their field applications are already available. Their impact - independently or working together - may well be huge. The production of all types of molecules and chemicals is now within reach and economically promising, and for various biotech companies the opportunity is too attractive to let pass. It seems inevitable that in the not too distant future we will have multiple GE crops producing toxic substances. Due to their possible application in biofuels and industrial inputs, such toxic crops will eventually cover large areas. Because biotech companies claim that engineered organelles will contain genetic contamination, they will probably manage to introduce the new crops into the field without proper tests or regulation.

The new technologies are, however, far from safe. It may well be true that engineered plastids will not be transferred through pollen in 99 per cent of cases but, given the huge number of pollen grains that any plant can produce, one per cent transfer is enough to produce widespread contamination. Toxic genes will be disseminated at a lower speed than is the case with current transgenes, but they will still be disseminated. [15]

There is another route for genetic contamination by artificial chromosomes: widespread transfer through bacteria. Bacteria are readily able to acquire DNA from other bacteria [16] and to transfer it to other bacteria and micro-organisms, and to plants. The pathogen Agrobacterium tumefaciens is used in the genetic engineering of plants because it is particularly effective at doing this, but all bacteria have the potential to do the same. Artificial minichromosomes share important characteristics with bacterial DNA, and it is to be expected that bacteria will be able to incorporate some of their genes and transfer them to other bacteria, micro-organisms and plants. So artificial minichromosomes will create new forms of contamination, between species and, more alarmingly still, between kingdoms.

Industry acknowledges other dangers too. Icon Genetics, which is owned by Bayer, indicates in one of its patent applications that not only will the transgenes in chloroplasts lead to the production of different drugs and chemicals, but the hyperproduction of those substances can be highly toxic for the plants, to the point of endangering their development and survival. Instead of seeing this as a good reason for stopping the development of the technology, Icon Genetics is using this as a justification for developing different forms of Terminator-type technology. They are developing plants with genes that will control the expression of other genes at almost any point of development. The control can be switched on and off by externally applying substances as diverse as DNA, RNA, lactose, tetracycline, arabinose, ethanol, steroids, copper ions and so on. [17] Once this technology is accepted, nothing will stop industry from using it to produce Terminator seeds.

It must not be forgotten also that both new technologies will significantly broaden the scope of patentable "inventions". Gene patenting will be expanded to the patenting of chromosomes, organelles and entire physiological processes. Given the wide and diverse potential applications of minichromosomes and transformed plastids, patents and patent claims will multiply quickly and aggressively. The web pages for the laboratory of Dr H. Daniell at the University of Central Florida states that "Dr Daniell's chloroplast genetic engineering technology is protected by more than 90 US and international patents". [18] Industry is not lagging behind. In a list of patents published at MolecularFarming.com, two thirds of those related to pharming to have been filed or granted since 2001 are in the hands of major biotech companies. [19]

We urgently need to monitor these new developments closely and to strengthen social opposition to these and other forms of genetic engineering. Far from solving the many problems caused so far by genetic engineering, artificial chromosomes and transformed organelles create new dangers, exacerbate industrial concentration and corporate control, and open the way for serious and perhaps irreparable damage to all forms of life on our planet.

Notes:

1 - See, for example: "Now: The Rest of the Genome", New York Times, 11 November, 2008.

2 - Rachel Shulman, "New gene-silencing pathway found in plants", American Association for the Advancement of Science: Eurekalert, 17 November 2008, http://tinyurl.com/6q3fqv

3 - University of Missouri College of Arts and Sciences press release, 17 December 2007, http://tinyurl.com/a32fpp; entry in Yenra online encyclopaedia, 24 September 2003, http://tinyurl.com/ay2r9v

4 - Weichang Yu and James A. Birchler, "Minichromosomes: the next generation technology for plant genetic engineering", University of Missouri, Division of Biological Sciences, August 2007, http://tinyurl.com/7k26mn

5 - See, for example patent WO 2007137114 20071129 at http://tinyurl.com/8bxone

6 - Arnaud Ronceret, Christopher G. Bozza and Wojciech P. Pawlowski, "Naughty Behavior of Maize Minichromosomes in Meiosis", The Plant Cell, American Society of Plant Biologists, 2007, http://tinyurl.com/9vhxup

7 - "Transplastomics: a convergence of biotechnology and evolution", WordPress.com blog, posted 16 November 2008, http://tinyurl.com/82rs2d

8 - Melinda Mulesky, Karen K. Oishi, David Williams, "Chloroplasts: transforming biopharmaceutical manufacturing", Biopharm international, 1 September 2004, http://tinyurl.com/8em3je

9 - See Patent Storm, US patent 7235711, 26 June 2007, http://tinyurl.com/9de8y3

10 - See http://tinyurl.com/7hafo7

11 - WIPO Patent No.2007/030510, http://tinyurl.com/a9crbb

12 - Melinda Mulesky, Karen K. Oishi, David Williams, "Chloroplasts: transforming biopharmaceutical manufacturing", Biopharm international, 1 September 2004, http://tinyurl.com/8em3jelink

13 - WIPO Patent N&o.2007/030510, http://tinyurl.com/a9crbb

14 - Bao-Rong Lu "Transgene escape from GM crops and potential biosafety consequences: an environmental perspective", International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, Collection of Biosafety Reviews, Vol. 4, 2008: 66-141, http://tinyurl.com/7nn3h7

15 - "Transplastomics: a convergence of biotechnology and evolution", WordPress.com blog, posted 16 November 2008. http://tinyurl.com/82rs2d; "Researchers attach genes to minichromosomes in maize", Biology News Net, 14 May 2007. http://tinyurl.com/92xlsk

16 - Entry giving definition of "plasmid" at Answers.com, http://tinyurl.com/7yn9tb

17 - Icon Genetics and Stefan M¸hlbauer, WIPO patent application (WO/2005/054481) "Controlling gene expression in plastids", 16 June 2005, http://tinyurl.com/a5nzcc

18 - "About Dr. Henry Daniell", Daniell Lab for Molecular Biotechnology Research, University of Central Florida College of Medicine, 2008, http://tinyurl.com/7mn99a

19 - "Molecular farming and plant pharming/biopharming - Chloroplast transformation method and Chloroplast engineering patents", MolecularFarming.com, http://tinyurl.com/7fbobc

Twelve years of GM soya in Argentina - a disaster for people and the environment

GRAIN, Seedling, January 2009.

Genetically modified (GM) soya was introduced into Argentina in 1996 without any kind of debate either in Congress or among the public. Since then, its cultivation has spread across the country like wildfire. Today more than half of the country's arable land is planted with soya. No other country in the world has devoted such a large area to a single GM crop. Argentina provides a unique opportunity to investigate the consequences for a country of intensive GMO cultivation.

With this year's planting season well under way, it is estimated that Argentina will be planting soya on a record 18 million hectares, about half of the country's farming land. Almost all of the soya planted today is Monsanto's Roundup Ready (RR), a type of soya that has been genetically modified to be resistant to the Roundup herbicide - largely composed of glyphosate - which is also manufactured by Monsanto. So what have the consequences been for the people and for the country?

Perhaps those who have suffered most have been small farmers and peasant families. Even before RR soya was introduced, the Argentine government adopted policies that favoured big farmers, deciding that farming units smaller than 200 hectares were "uneconomical", and predicting that at least 200, 000 farmers would have to leave the land. [1] Since then, government policies have not changed. Thousands of peasant families have been evicted violently from their land for trying to resist the advance of soya. Members of the Movimiento Campesino de Santiago del Estero (Mocase), a peasant movement in northern Argentina linked to Via Campesina, and of the Movimiento Nacional Campesino Indígena suffer constant harassment for trying to halt the advance of the soya front.

[Graph] Argentina soybean production http://www.grain.org/seedling/?id=578
Click here to get a large image http://www.grain.org/seedling_files/s_argentprd.jpg

The families that manage to stay on the land have also been badly affected, particularly by chemical contamination, which has grown worse in recent years. When it introduced RR soya, Monsanto promised that there would be a dramatic decline in herbicide use. As RR soya had been genetically modified to be resistant to glyphosate, Monsanto argued that it would be possible to kill all weeds by applying the herbicide just once, early on in the planting season. In fact, this advantage never materialised as strongly as the company predicted. Instead of falling, national consumption of glyphosate has risen dramatically: Argentina is estimated to have used 200 million litres of glyphosate in 2008, compared with 13.9 million litres in 1996. [2] In other words, while the Argentine soya harvest has increased fivefold during the period, consumption of glyphosate has increased fourteenfold.

The intense application year after year of a single herbicide - glyphosate - has led to the emergence of weeds that have become resistant to this chemical. Some of the better known of these "super-weeds", as they are popularly called, are: Hybanthus parviflorus (Violetilla), Parietaria debilis (Yerba Fresca), Viola arvensis (Violeta Silvestre - Field pansy), Petunia axillaris (Petunia), Verbena litoralis (Verbena), Commelina erecta (Flor de Santa Lucía - Slender dayflower), Convolvulus arvensis (Correhuela - Field bindweed), Ipomoea purpurea (Bejuco - Morning glory), Iresine difusa (Iresine) and recently Sorghum halepense (Sorgo de alepo - Johnson grass), which, because it is a difficult weed to control, has caused considerable alarm among farmers. [3]

To deal with these weeds and also with "volunteer" soya - that is, soya that sprouts out of season - soya farmers have started spraying the land with stronger herbicides before planting. It is estimated that today 20-25 million litres of 2, 4-D, 6 million litres of atrazine (banned in the European Union in 2004 because it contaminates groundwater) and 6 million litres of endosulfan (a highly toxic organochlorine insecticide) are used on the soya fields each year.4 Experts quoted in a study by Friends of the Earth believe that an additional 25 million litres of non-glyphosate herbicides will be required each year to control Johnson grass. [5]

The soya farmers make little effort to prevent chemicals being carried by the wind into the homes and on to the land of the rural population. 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. Even though there are no official statistics for the overall picture, organisations have collected detailed information on hundreds of cases and have repeatedly complained to the authorities. [6]

Urban dwellers, too, have been indirectly hurt by the soya boom. The export model dominated by soya has threatened the country's food sovereignty. Argentina used to produce plentiful quantities of cheap meat, dairy produce, lentils, beans and other vegetables. Mixed farming, with livestock and crops in rotation, provided good yields. Soya monocropping has changed all that. The number of dairy farms fell 50 per cent between 1988 and 2003, from 30, 000 to 15, 000. [7] National production of most staple foods has declined sharply. Argentina, which used to be called "the granary of the world", is having to import food. People are even going hungry. It is not only food crops that have been affected: cotton production has fallen by 40 per cent in the province of Chaco and 78 per cent in the province of Formosa.

While the majority of farmers have been greatly harmed, the adoption of GM soya has clearly strengthened some groups within the country. Big farmers, many of whom are linked to "pools" of financial investors, have greatly extended their control over the farming sector. Financial returns on soya are not high per hectare, so, in order to make large amounts of money, the pools have been leasing vast stretches of land from thousands of small and medium-sized farmers, many of them dairy cattle farmers or food producers, driven out of business by the export-oriented economic policies.

One of the advantages of GM soya for big farmers is that it facilitates "no-till" farming - that is, farming without ploughing the land, which means that they need few labourers. Indeed, it is estimated that only one labourer is required for every 500 ha of soya. So the farmers are able to farm intensively, using gigantic machines. They pay little attention to the long-term health of the soil, particularly if they are leasing the land and returning it to its owners once its fertility has been exhausted. Huge profits are possible by farming this way: one of the bigger producers, Grupo Los Grobo, which has 150, 000 ha under soya, has an annual income of US$400m and expects to double its turnover this season. [8]

The price Argentina pays for these few financial groups' high profits is the mortgaging of its long-term future. Each year more than 200, 000 ha of native forest are felled as the agricultural frontier advances. [9] With the intense monocropping come leaching, erosion and soil degradation. It has been estimated that the deforestation results in 19-30 million tonnes of soil being washed away each year. Moreover, soya cultivation extracts nutrients from the soil and absorbs water, embedding them in the crop. In practice, this means that 1 million tonnes of nitrogen and 160, 000 tonnes of phosphorus are "exported" each year, along with 42.5 billion cubic metres of water. [10] These are serious losses. Argentina will need these resources in the future for its agricultural development.

The costs of the soya boom have rippled out beyond the country's borders, for 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. Indeed, a recent investigation by the University of Kansas shows that RR soya has an average yield that is 6-10 per cent lower than that of conventional soya. [11]

Prospects

"Superweeds" created by ecological imbalances inherent in monocropping with a GM crop, long predicted by ecologists, are jeopardising the long-term economic and environmental viability of RR soya. But instead of rethinking the whole agricultural model and encouraging farmers to return to mixed farming, where natural balances make it far easier to control weeds, the Argentine authorities are offering their full support to Monsanto, which is planning over the next five years to introduce a new form of GM soya. The new soya will have a gene inserted into it which makes it resistant to dicamba, a herbicide that kills broadleaf weeds.

According to Robert Hartzler, a weed specialist at Iowa University, dicamba brings its own problems. [12] The compound's volatility means that it will kill off broad-leaved plants on fields and in houses up to half a kilometre away, which will undoubtedly cause yet further serious problems for the rural population. Monsanto is confident that resistance won't become a serious problem, but Hartzler is not so sure. "I don't think we can say that resistance won't develop", says Hartzler, "but it is a much lower likelihood than with other herbicide classes. But then, that's what they originally said about glyphosate." [13]

Another technical fix and another swathe of problems for Argentina's communities. How long will this madness prevail?

[Box] Rural and Urban Women for Food Sovereignty

In November 2008 the third meeting of Rural and Urban Women for Food Sovereignty was held in Santa Fé in Argentina. One of the working groups decided to hold their two-day seminar on the railway line owned by the private company Belgrano Cargas, which is used during harvest to transport soya beans. It was a protest, the women said, against the "soya model" and against the privatisation of the railways. For 48 hours they halted all traffic on the line, causing losses to the rail company estimated at US$200, 000.

These are extracts from the document that the women issued to explain their action:

ï The soya model contaminates our environment and, by concentrating land and the means of production, expels peasant communities from the land they have occupied for many years, increasing the vulnerability of all, but particularly of women and children.

ï You only have to look along the edges of the so-called "roads of production" to catch a glimpse of the life to which expelled people are condemned. They are forced to live in dark, forgotten places, where the only light comes from gambling dens and bars.

ï The women are economically and sexually exploited, not only by men but by a whole ideological system validated by our society.

ï To attack women is to attack food sovereignty, since women produce 80 per cent of the food that the world consumes. It is for this reason that the struggle for food sovereignty, the struggle to stay on the land and recover our capacity to produce what we eat, is also a struggle to regain sovereignty over our bodies.

ï As we women are responsible for feeding our families, we have to be to be at forefront of the struggle to replace a model of consumption, commercialisation and production that fills the coffers of transnational companies at the expense of the well-being of our people.

ï We are fighting for a new economy that respects people and nature, that includes everyone and guarantees the just distribution of all production so that everyone can live a life of dignity, happiness, autonomy and sovereignty.

ï NO TO MONOCULTURE! YES TO TRAINS FOR ALL (BUT NOT FOR SOYA)!

[End of box]

Going further (with videos, protests and analysis)

•

Campaña Paren de Fumigar http://www.grr.org.ar/campanapdf/index.php

•

Soja para Hoy, Hambre para mañana http://sojahambre.blogspot.com/

•

Redaf http://redaf.org.ar/noticias/?p=329

•

Fundación Proteger http://www.proteger.org.ar/soja

•

La Soja Mata http://www.lasojamata.org/es

•

Instituto de Investigaciones Gino Germani http://www.iigg.fsoc.uba.ar/pub_rural.htm

•

GEPAMA http://www.gepama.com.ar/

•

Video Hambre de Soja http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xu9kc_hambre-de-soja

•

RR, La cosecha Amarga http://www.rrlacosechaamarga.blogspot.com/

Notes:

1 - Lilian Joensen, Stella Semino and Helena Paul, "Argentina: A Case Study on the Impact of Genetically Engineeered Soya", The Gaia Foundation, 2005.

2 - Secretaría de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sustentable, "El avance de la frontera agropecuaria y sus consecuencias", March 2008.

3 - Walter A. Pengue, "El glifosato y la dominación del ambiente", Biodiversidad, July 2003; Monsanto, "Se confirma la resistencia de un biotipo de Sorghum halepense a glifosato en Tartagal, Salta", 16 August 2006. http://tinyurl.com/7wdzcu

4 - Friends of the Earth, "Who benefits from GM crops? The rise in pesticide use", January 2008, p. 19.

5 - Ibid., p. 20.

6 - Diego Domínguez and Pablo Sabatino, "La muerte que viene en el viento. Los problem·tica de la contaminación por efecto de la agricultura transgénica en Argentina y Paraguay", November 2008.

7 - Secretaría de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sustentable, "El avance de la frontera agropecuaria y sus consecuencias", March 2008.

8 - "Los Grobo esperan duplicar su facturación el próximo año", Clarín, 28 February 2008, http://tinyurl.com/8l7tfw

9 - Secretaría de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sustentable, "El avance de la frontera agropecuaria y sus consecuencias", March 2008.

10 - Walter A. Pengue, "'Agua virtual', agronegocio sojero y cuestiones económico ambientales futuras", Instituto Argentino para el desarrollo económico, Realidad Económica No. 223, 24 November 2006, http://tinyurl.com/9p52ng

11 - Silvia Ribeiro, "øQuiere bajar la producción? °Use transgénicos!", La Jornada, Mexico, 19 July 2008, http://tinyurl.com/8asylc 12 - Heidi Ledford, "Geneticists create 'next generation' of GM crops: Soya beans could be treated with alternative herbicide", Nature, 24 May 2007, http://tinyurl.com/7gatxz

13 - Ibid.

23 January 2009

Bayer: LibertyLink soybeans coming

Delta Farm Press (USA), January 23 2009 [shortened]

Mid-South and Southeastern soybean growers should have ample opportunity to test Bayer CropScience's new glyphosate herbicide-resistant alternative technology now that the company has officially launched its LibertyLink soybeans.

The LibertyLink trait is being released at a good time, according to weed scientists. Weeds that are resistant to glyphosate, the herbicide active ingredient applied on Roundup Ready soybeans, have been confirmed in 19 states, and several states have reported weed resistance to multiple chemistries, including ALS, PPO and triazine herbicides.

Full text: http://deltafarmpress.com/soybeans/bayer-libertylink-0122/

Comment by GM Watch:

Liberty is the toxic glufosinate herbicide that the European Parliament has just voted to ban]

Nearly a billion people go hungry every day - can GM crops help feed them?
• Leading scientists met last night to debate whether genetically modified crops can feed the world's hungry. The issue, it seems, is as divisive as ever

The Guardian science blog (UK), 23 Jan 2009. By Ian Sample.

The Science Museum in London is running an exhibition until the end of May called Future Foods. It attempts to give a balanced view of the pros and cons of genetically modified crops, which are back on the agenda in the light of fears over a major food crisis. It does a good job too.

As part of the exhibition, the museum organised a debate at the Dana Centre to give the public a chance to debate GM crops and the food crisis with some key scientists. I chaired the event and picked up on a few issues I thought might be worth sharing.

The panel of experts included Bob Watson, the chief scientist at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), who in previous incarnations has been a Nasa scientist, an adviser to the White House and chief scientist at the World Bank. He was joined by Tim Lang, professor of food policy at City University in London. Tim used to be director of the London Food Commission, director of Parents for Safe Food, and has also spent time as a hill farmer in Lancashire. Rodomiro Ortiz, director of resource mobilisation at the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre in Mexico, completed the panel.

I've been at GM debates before, sometimes on a panel and sometimes in the audience, and I've always been disheartened by the deeply polarised views I hear. There are those who overstate how useful GM crops could be, while others write off the entire technique, claiming it is inherently dangerous. It's hard not to feel the truth is somewhere in between.

Tim Lang spoke first and stressed that our way of producing food has to change from the post-1940s push for quantity. Yes, of course quantity is still important, he said, but water usage, environmental impact and nutritional content have to be considered now more than ever. Tim doesn't see GM as a technical fix that will put food in the mouths of the hungry, especially while it is in the hands of multinationals. He called for public ownership of GM technology, with the transparency and distribution of benefits that comes with it.

Rodomiro spoke next, describing the work his organisation is doing to genetically modify wheat to grow under drought conditions. The crops are in trials at the moment and if they are a success, similar strains of rice, maize and barley could be next.

Bob Watson spoke last. He began by explaining that today the amount of food available per capita has never been higher, how costs are still low, and yet still around 900m people go to bed hungry every night.

The major problem, said Watson, is not one that GM crops will solve. He stressed the need for good roads to get crops to markets, and simple technologies that will help reduce post-harvest losses in Africa, which currently stand at between 30 and 40%. "GM is a totally oversold technique, " he said.

The debate that followed covered some interesting ground, but it seemed easier to identify the problems than the solutions. How can we ensure GM foods are safe when some countries do not have sufficient procedures for testing and evaluating any health issues, let alone the impact of novel crops on the environment? How do you ensure that farmers in the developing world can plant higher-yielding GM crops without becoming dangerously reliant upon a company that has the power to hike prices or withdraw seeds without notice? The problems are recognised, but I'm not sure anyone at the meeting had concrete ideas about how to solve them.

Though GM crops are common in many parts of the world now, they are still absent from the UK and resistance to them is strong in many parts of Europe. Sir David King, the government's former chief scientist, said last year that Africa's ills are largely down to Western do-gooders who oppose GM in favour of organic food. He argued that organic food is a luxury Africa cannot afford and that modern agricultural technology is needed urgently.

It's striking that the views of King and Watson are so diametrically opposed. If these two have such differing positions, is it any wonder that the public is confused?

You will soon be able to watch last night's entire GM food debate online.

Global Governance of Food & Ag: Time for a New Roman Forum?

ETC Group communiqué, 23 January 2009. www.etcgroup.org

Today ETC Group releases a new Communiqué on global governance of food and agriculture ahead of the High Level Meeting on "Food Security for All", chaired by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and Spanish Prime Minister Rodriguez Zapatero (Madrid, January 26-27).

A summary appears below and the full report is available for free download from:
http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=715

Issue:

The main (and much-needed) goal of the Madrid High-Level meeting is to reorganize the intergovernmental management of food and agriculture. At the last food crisis in 1974, OECD states savaged the UN's unified system and carved it into four warring factions. In the midst of today's food crisis, the four remain underfunded, weakly governed and dismayingly competitive. The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and the biggest "loner" in the crowd, the World Food Program (WFP), are all either suffering from harsh external reviews or major program reorganization. Complicating the problem, UN Secretary-General Ban-Ki Moon's High-Level Taskforce on the food crisis sees Madrid as an opportunity to segue into the secretariat for the G-8's proposed Global Partnership for Food and Agriculture. This top-down Partnership would substantially weaken G-77 policy influence in UN food fora by constructing an amorphous "compact" dominated by major governments, agribusiness, mega foundations, and multilateral food and financial institutions with just enough CSOs to mute protests against the presence of Monsanto and Gates. Also in Madrid, at the invitation of the Spanish premier, Jeffrey Sachs will be pedalling his proposal for a new vertical fund to draw down corporate and foundation money.

Fora:

Madrid could be a surprisingly important step along the High-Level road to a new governance system. Till now, governments' response to the food crisis hasn't lacked fora but it has lacked governance. The High Level Forum in Rome last June moved onto the HLF on Aid-Effectiveness in Ghana last September, then to the HL food portion of the General Assembly and back to FAO's High level ministerial conference in November. Any keen food-watchers who don't have chronic nosebleeds by now will still have to soldier on to another High-Level session at FAO in November - accompanied, possibly, by a World Food summit involving Barack Obama and/or a still larger Madrid gathering next year. As the HLFs thunder on, the CGIAR is massively restructuring its 15 independent institutes into a single legal entity which will likely be headquartered in Rome. Meanwhile, IFAD is looking for a new president after a heartening 60% increase in funding and the WFP seems more enamoured with the World Bank than with its sister agencies in Rome.

Policy:

The G-8's Global Partnership is bad governance and smacks of the desperate creation of the utterly-useless World Food Council in the 1974 food crisis. The WFC was finally euthanized in the early 90s. Instead of hastily cobbling together something new, Madrid should look at the four main agencies (FAO, CGIAR, IFAD, WFP) and get them working together. Trying to reorganize these institutions one by one is like trying to teach an elephant to dance one foot at a time. Before inventing a new organization, Madrid must make three decisions: (1) agree to an immediate meta-evaluation of the four organizations; (2) agree to coordinate the regular meetings of the four governing bodies to jointly review the meta-evaluation; and (3) agree to restructure the regular biennial FAO Regional Conferences to allow governments, the four agencies and other concerned parties - most especially, organizations of small farmers, fishers, livestock-keepers and indigenous peoples - to make proposals for the overhaul of the UN's "failed estates." To stimulate debate, the six charts in this brief report propose merging the CGIAR with FAO into a new Food and Agriculture Conference and bring IFAD and WFP along with the merged FAO/CGIAR together in a New Roman Forum for Food, Agriculture and Rural Development. We hope our draft proposal is sufficiently detailed and adequately incomplete to stir the ire of every interest group and launch a reorganization of our crippled infrastructure.

Download the full report:

http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=715

22 January 2009

5 Food Films That Deserved an Oscar Nomination

Greehugger.com, 22 January 2009. By Jeff Nield.

Now that this year's Oscar nominations are out, debate will rage about which films deserved it, which actors should have received a nod, and who should (or shouldn't) win. While these food films flew under the Academy's radar, at least when it came time to nominate, that doesn't mean they all didn't deserve a nod, or at least a closer look.

If you watch all of these films you'll understand where our food system stands today, a little bit about how it got that way, and you'll have some insight into what it might look like in the future. There's a scary, uncertain future built on greed and there's a bright, progressive future built on community. I reckon we end up with the latter, and I hope these films help you make choices to become a part of that future.

Read on for the list, including a clip from each film.
(available here http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/01/5-food-films-deserved-oscar-nomination.php)

The World According To Monsanto

When TreeHugger Kimberley reviewed French journalist Marie-Monique Robin's film back when it was released, she summed up the biggest concerns with Monsanto quite nicely.

"Monsanto claims that their genetically modified seeds will solve the food crisis, especially in developing countries, where it will provide significant economic benefits, higher quality and better yield. Nevertheless, the film compellingly shows the unsettling possibilities of genetic contamination of conventional or local varieties of seeds by their genetically-engineered cousins, pointing to a horrific future where global plant biodiversity is nil and farmers are not able to grow anything but genetically contaminated food.

"It's a terrifying thought. But perhaps Monsanto's agenda is even simpler than all their lofty claims put together. As one farmer puts it, 'The reason they do it is control. They want to control seed. They want to own life. I mean, this is the building blocks of food we are talking about. They are in the process of owning food, all food.'

I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, but The World According to Monsanto is a frightening film that makes it clear that there are people in the world that see everything as a market opportunity. And, what could bring more wealth and power than controlling food?"

The revelations in this film are too many to mention. But, one of the most telling scenes shows George H.W. Bush visiting a Monsanto laboratory during his time in the Reagan administration. He jokes with the Monsanto management about how they should talk to him if they have any trouble getting permits to test GMO crops because he's in the deregulation business. Add to that the almost unbelievable career path of Michael Taylor who must be dizzy from all his time in the revolving door between Monsanto and Bill Clinton's FDA and USDA - who is incidentally a current member of Obama's transition team - and the future looks very scary indeed.

Watch this film to get informed, take a deep breath, and keep reading to the bottom of the list for some positive inspiration.

King Corn

King Corn is the closest thing we have to a film companion to The Omnivore's Dilemma, Michael Pollan's investigation into the American food system. In the film Curt Ellis and Ian Cheney drive to Iowa to plant, grow and harvest an acre of good ol' American industrial corn. As Lloyd explained when he reviewed the film when it was released on DVD, their hope to follow the crop all the way through the food system quickly fades as their corn disappears into the maw of the industrial food machine soon after harvest.

A review of King Corn on Grist, written by Nicole de Beaufort, demonstrates the potential power of this film.

After gently drawing viewers in with the narrators' earnest quest, King Corn lays bare some of the causes and effects of our relationship with corn: what happens on feedlots, how high fructose corn syrup changed our diet, and how one well-meaning but misguided bureaucrat altered our collective fate because he dreamed of "fields of plenty."

The film forces us to question why our national farm policy perpetuates untold devastation to people, places, and things -- ultimately shortening our lives and widening the prosperity gap. If King Corn manages to gain the audiences and backing of An Inconvenient Truth, it has the power to focus our nation's attention on changing the way we feed ourselves.

A must see film for anyone trying to understand how the U.S. food system works and why America grows so much corn.

Our Daily Bread

Our Daily Bread blew my mind. Shot in a similar style to other non-narrative films like Baraka or Manufactured Landscapes, director and cinematographer Nikolaus Geyrhalter takes the camera inside the industrial food system to offer an unfiltered look at how most of our food is produced.

Manohla Dargis writes in the New York Times:

"It's hard to imagine what a voiceover could possibly add. Part of the film's brilliance is how it lays out the images and their wells of meaning with such cool deliberation, showing rather than telling through the long tracking shots of which Mr. Geyrhalter is a master and which underscore the ongoing, mechanized flow of work. Much like his scrupulous use of perspective, which directs your gaze toward the center of each image, the tracking shots reveal the filmmaker's artistry as well as a deliberate ethics. In "Our Daily Bread" Mr. Geyrhalter wants us not only to look at the world we have made with care and with consideration, but also to contemplate a reality newly visible that is all too easy to ignore and just as impossible to look away from."

Geyrhalter's film is hypnotic, although for some it may be unbearable to watch. (The squeals of the piglets in the above clip are close to heartbreaking.) I spent much of the film with a dropped jaw and was constantly puzzled by what the people in the film were actually doing.

Unless you know where every bit of your food comes from chances are that some of it is produced using the methods shown in this film. Powerful stuff.

Two more to go; read more about food fights and what Cuba is doing well when it comes to food.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/01/5-food-films-deserved-oscar-nomination.php?page=2

Techno-fix or false solution? What technological controversies for solving environmental problems will we see in 2009?

The Ecologist, 22 January 2009. By Jim Thomas.

Somebody somewhere has to have a cunning plan to fix our environmental problems and save the world - right? Jim Thomas sorts through the big tech ideas you'll be reading about this year

Almost every day sees new technologies being proposed to fix old problems. 2008 witnesses global technology fights over the rapid development of biofuels, protests against 'clean coal technology and GM crops staging a come-back of sorts. In all three cases, 'solving climate change' was presented as the excuse for gambling on high-risk technologies. That theme is likely to continue. Here are a selection of technological controversies on the drawing board. See if you can sort through the silver bullets, technofixes and false solutions that are sure to keep cropping up this year...]

Geo-engineering

Three years ago, the idea of re-engineering the Earth's climate was considered politically unacceptable. In 2009 though, geo-engineering, intentional large-scale manipulation of the climate, is poised to enter mainstream climate policy discussions. High-risk projects are now gaining a shocking respectability as panic rises over climate change. They include polluting the upper atmosphere with sulphur nanoparticles to reflect sunlight back to space or changing the chemistry of the ocean to absorb more carbon dioxide. Former climate change sceptics such as Newt Gingrich and several right wing think tanks have started to promote geo-engineering as a painless quick-fix which would bypass the need for emission reductions. This summer, the UK Royal Society will publish a report purporting to weed out the good geo-engineering schemes from the bad.

Unfortunately, it will be written mainly by geo-engineering enthusiasts. Despite a global moratorium on one ocean geo-engineering technique, fertilising the ocean to grow CO2-gobbling plankton, India may launch a pilot scheme this year and private geo-engineering company Climos threatens to take to the seas in 2009 or early 2010.

GM insects

If the thought of GM pollen spreading on the breeze worries you, then watch out - the latest GM products have wings! In 2009, Oxford based Oxitec intends to become the first company to sell genetically modified insects for large scale release. Oxitec has developed a GM pink bollworm (moth larvae) that it claims will mate with natural bollworms (a cotton pest) and render them sterile. However, Oxitec's plans don't stop there. This also looks to be the year when it will proceed with a large scale trial release of genetically modified mosquitos also intended to spread sterility in wild populations.

To continue reading this article and many more from The Ecologist - the world's leading environmental magazine:

Buy the February issue of the Ecologist on sale now at these newsagents:
http://www.theecologist.org/pages/archive_detail.asp?content_id=1899

Subscribe to our print or digital version of the Ecologist:
http://www.theecologist.org/pages/subscribe.asp

Search the contents of the February issue of the Ecologist:
http://www.theecologist.org/pages/current.asp

New Mexico's traditional chilies are threatened by GMO seeds

The Ecologist, 22 January 2009.

New Mexico's chilli farmers are under threat. The film 'Red, green of GE?' hears from those concerned about the potentially devastating effects GMO crops would have on the New Mexico chilli.

In 2008 New Mexico state, USA, funded research into developing the feasibility of genetically engineered chilli seeds. New Mexico governor Bill Richardson signed a resolution that will invite GM green chilli seeds into the state, threatening traditional seeds cultivated by Native American and Hispanic families.

The film, 'Red, Green or GE?' hears from the voices of those who oppose such measures that are being proposed because of the threat to chilli production from various diseases and an unstable agricultural market.

Watch the film: http://www.theecologist.org/pages/archive_detail.asp?content_id=2060

Open Letter to EC Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas

Commissioner Stavros Dimas
Environment Commissioner
European Commission

22nd January 2009

Dear Mr Dimas,

Commission betrayal re Environment Council conclusions

We have noted from the press coverage over the last couple of days that the Commission proposes approval for two GM maize varieties -- Bt11 and 1507 -- and is pushing for the removal of the MON810 bans imposed by the Governments of France, Greece and Hungary. It appears that you are pressing ahead with these proposals at an accelerated pace, and are setting in motion the legal procedures required to force nation states with new and valid scientifically-based concerns about these GM varieties to accept the highly questionable advice of EFSA and to bow to the will of the Commission.

This is a profoundly anti-democratic act on the part of the Commission, and it is also cynical. We remind you that on 4th December 2008 the Environment Ministers of the nation states came to a series of far-reaching conclusions regarding the GM approvals process; and in taking this action you are side-lining or dismissing these conclusions, and acting as if the December 4th Meeting had never happened. This is, to put it mildly, disrespectful and insulting -- and shows that in the Commission we have an executive that has forgotten its duty to act in accordance with the wishes of the elected governments of the European Union.

When an executive seeks to usurp the authority of the member states and the European Parliament, that is a very serious matter indeed, and leads us to ask whether the EC, as presently constituted, is now to be considered trustworthy or fit for purpose.

We are quite certain that in taking this action, the Commission is minded to do the bidding of the US Government, the WTO and the biotechnology corporations -- and in so doing it is prepared to place at risk the safety of European consumers and the integrity of the European environment.

May we remind you that in 2006, at a time when EFSA was being widely criticised for excessive secrecy, for bad science and for "facilitating the approvals process" you made certain very specific commitments to the reform of the approvals system? (1) May we also remind you that no reforms have subsequently been put in place?

May we further remind you of some of the conclusions of the 4th December meeting of Environment Ministers?

1.

There was a re-statement of the precautionary principle as a guiding principle in GMO assessments, on the basis that it has been inadequately used -- or disregarded -- in past decisions.

2.

There was a commitment to a strengthening of the environmental impact assessment for GMOs and a strengthening of monitoring requirements.

3.

There was a commitment that pesticide-producing GM crops (such as Bt11, 1507 and MON810) should be treated (in the assessment and approval process) in the same way as chemical pesticides.

4.

Member states, competent authorities and EFSA were assured that they would from now on have the right to make specific assessments of the impacts of GMOs in specific geographical areas / ecological niches.

5.

Responding to the new research on damaging health effects associated with GM varieties, Ministers demanded that if new information becomes available with regard to the risk of the GMOs to human health, the competent authority must prepare an assessment report and indicate how the conditions of the consent should be revised or the consent terminated.

6.

For the first time, Ministers specified a role for independent scientists, scientific organizations and NGOs in the GMO assessment process. An important role was accepted for organizations expert in ecological issues. Ministers also asked for effective coordination and cooperation between scientists.

7.

For the first time, socio-economic effects arising from the cultivation and / or marketing of GMOs must now be considered as relevant to the assessment process.

8.

It was implicit in the drafted document that EFSA'a powers were to be substantially reduced, and EFSA was instructed to revise its GMO assessment procedures by 2010. Henceforth there was a commitment to a key role for member states, including states other than the applicant state.

9.

There must now be greater protection from GMOs for special areas -- National Parks and other protected or designated areas. There was an acceptance that GM Free Zones coinciding with these protected areas could be declared and would be respected by the EC as valid.

10.

The Ministers insisted on a reform of the secretive and corrupt assessment process that has until now been operated by EFSA. Member States and the Commission must henceforth ensure that systematic and independent research is conducted on the potential risks involved in the marketing and growing of GMOs. The necessary resources must be secured for such research by the Community and Member States. Most importantly, independent researchers must be given access to all relevant dossier material, while respecting intellectual property rights. Finally, Member States and the Commission must collect and exchange information on this research.

11.

Finally, regions and local communities will henceforth have the right to declare GM-Free zones.

There were other conclusions as well, but those itemised here are the key ones which have a bearing on your proposed actions. It is absolutely clear that all eleven of these conclusions are now being flouted by the EC in a manner that is both precipitate and arrogant. We urge you therefore to withdraw these proposals immediately, and to accord due respect to the wishes of those whom you were appointed to serve.

We look forward to receiving your confirmation that you will now act as requested in this letter.

Yours sincerely

Dr Brian John
GM Free Cymru [Wales]

Notes:

(1) Statement by Commissioner Dimas at the Vienna conference on "co-existence" in April 2006: "EFSA cannot deliver a sound scientific opinion on GMOs; they only examine short term effects and they do not take into account the opinions of member states; there is [also] the question of whether scientific opinions relied solely on information supplied by companies which produce GMOs."

Stavros Dimas

Member of the European Commission, responsible for Environment "Co-existence of genetically modified, conventional and organic crops: Freedom of choice"

Conference on GMO co-existence
Vienna, 05 April 2006
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/06/224&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

Commission proposes practical improvements to the way the European GMO legislative framework is implemented

European Commission press release, Brussels, 12 April 2006.

1. Commission proposes practical improvements to the way the European GMO legislative framework is implemented, press release IP/06/498, Brussels, 12 April 2006

2. http://www.bmgf.gv.at/cms/site/detail.htm?thema=CH0255&doc=CMS1141813863564

3. http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/gmo/gmo_opinions/1439_en.html

Today the European Commission gave its support to an approach proposed by Health and Consumer Protection Commissioner Markos Kyprianou and Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas on further steps to improve the scientific consistency and transparency for Decisions on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). The measures proposed aim to bring about practical improvements which will reassure Member States, stakeholders and the general public that Community decisions are based on high quality scientific assessments which deliver a high level of protection of human health and the environment. These improvements will be made within the existing legal framework, in compliance with EC and WTO law, and avoiding any undue delays in authorisation procedures.

In light of recent practical experience acquired with the placing on the market of GMOs, the Commission has decided that practical improvements could be made to the system to improve the scientific consistency and transparency for Decisions on GMOs and develop consensus between all interested parties. These improvements will be made within the existing legal framework, in compliance with EC and WTO law, and avoiding any undue delays in authorisation procedures.

(2) http://www.foeeurope.org/press/2009/Jan21_EC_pushes_for_new_GM_crops_in_Europe.html

Industry GM Crop Figures Massaged:
EU Four times too high for 2007 - 2008
ISAAA data due out soon

GM Freeze, 22 January 2009.

Data on the area of GM crops recently obtained by GM Freeze shows that the annual global summary of GM cultivation exaggerated the area grown in the EU by more than four times.

Every year the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) publishes a "global status" report on commercial growing of GM crops around the world [1]. In 2007, countries which had only small areas of crops were reported in the ISAAA report as < 0.05million hectare [2]. The report used a figure of 0.45million hectare for the EU to come up with an overall global area - more than four times the actual figure of 110, 808 hectare grown in 8 member states.

The EU figures were for the only GM crop grown commercially, Monsanto's GM maize Mon810, and were contained in post release monitoring report on the crop [3] released to GM Freeze in January 2009. In Romania, ISAAA's figures were more than 150 times the area grown as reported by Monsanto, and in Poland 143 times larger.

Based on the data given in the Monsanto report, GM crops were grown on just 0.06% of the EU's agricultural land [3]. France suspended the growing of Mon 810 maize in October 2007, which was confirmed in January 2008 thus preventing cultivation last year.

ISAAA is due to report its 2008 figures in the near future.

Commenting Pete Riley of GM Freeze said:

"ISAAA are certainly adept at massaging their data to make the GM industry look more successful than they are. The way they have used to EU data to inflate them by a factor of 4 is unacceptable. We simply cannot rely on ISAAA figures to give an accurate picture - the 2008 data should be taken with a large grain of salt. However, one thing is very clear - GM crops are not dominating global agriculture in the way the biotech companies would wish them to be. Politicians need to take note and ensure they increase funds for agroecological research, which avoids dependence on GM seeds and agro-chemicals."

ENDS

Calls to Pete Riley 0845 217 8992 or 07903 341 065

1. See http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/37/pptslides/default.html

2. Table showing ISAAA figures for GM crops in EU and those given in the Monsanto Monitoring Report for Mon810 maize.

EU Country	Monsanto area ha	ISAAA area million ha	ISAAA as % Monsanto
Czech Republic	5, 000	< 0.05	1, 000 %	(10 X)
France	22, 135	< 0.05	225 %	(2.25 X)
Germany	2, 685	< 0.05	1862 %	(18.6 X)
Portugal	4, 263	< 0.05	1, 173 %	(11.7 X)
Poland	327	< 0.05	15, 290 %	(152 X)
Slovakia	900	< 0.05	5, 555 %	(55.5 X)
Spain	75, 148	0.1	133 %	(1.33 X)
Romania	350	< 0.05	14, 286 %	(142 X)
Total	110, 808	< 0.45	406 %	4 X

The total area of agricultural land in the EU is 192.273 million ha (110.849 million hectare arable). GM crops occupied only 0.06% of agricultural land (0.1% of arable land) in 2007.

Globally (based on 2007 ISAAA figures) GM crops occupied just 2.4% of world agricultural land (see http://www.gmfreeze.org/uploads/GM_crops_land_area_final.pdf

3. Under Article 31 of EU Regulation 1829/2003, marketing consent holders for GMOs are required to produce a monitoring report on how the crop has behaved and whether any unexpected events had occurred. Monsanto's report on Mon810 maize was obtained by GM Freeze from Defra in January 2009 following the meeting of ACRE on 4th December where it was discussed.

GM research trials: Case by case risk assessment

Irish Farmers Journal (Letters), 22 January (dated 24 January) 2009. By Shane Morris.

Dear Sir,

In his response to Professor Patrick Wall's article on GM food [see "Is genetic engineering good or bad? below under 10 January – Ed.], Nick Cullen, as an organic farmer, must know that claiming an entire food production method is unsafe is wrong [see his letter to the IFJ: "The GM debate: We still don't know the long-term effects of GM crops" below under 15 January – Ed.].

His attempt to claim that 'GM foods', in their entirety, could be unsafe is as incorrect as claiming all 'local organic food' is dangerous just because three people are currently seriously ill in Hawaii, due to contracting rat lugworm disease from locally produced organic food.

To ensure food safety, a case by case risk assessment of products, irrespective of the technology or method used to produce them, is required.

Mr Cullen also sadly attempts to scaremonger using non-peer reviewed, preliminary research results.

The principal author of the Austrian study which Mr Cullen cites, Professor Zentek, has informed the science community that he is re-writing the work before submission to scientific peer-review and he is not al all happy with the premature conclusions drawn by Greenpeace and others.

In addition, serveral publicly-funded scientific organisations have reviewed his results so far and found them lacking (European Food Safety Authority, 4 December 2008: "On the basis of the data presented, the GMO panel is of the opinion that no conclusions can be drawn from the report." EFSA does not consider the Austrian study to be of scientific value due to flaws in methodology, a number of statistical errors, and inconsistent evaluation of data.

The government agency, Food Standards Australia New Zealand, stated that "the results show no differences of biological significance in reproductive performance or longevity of mice fed a diet containing GM corn, compared with mice fed a conventional corn diet."

As for renewal of licenses for already approved GM crops, Mr Cullen seems to think that a full safety assessment must be redone, even in cases where no evidence of concern has been raised, as is the case with T25 GM maize. This would be like having everyone redo their driving test each time they renewed their driving license or changed their car.

However, Mr Cullen should find solace in Minister Brendan Smith's recent statement that the Government is "discouraging cultivation of GM crops" (Dáil Éireann [the Irish Parliament], 3 December, 2008).

This heralds the fact that Ireland's hopes for a 'knowledge-based' economy are dead and gone. Such a short-sighted scientifically unsupported policy, developed without consultation, excludes the basic research and development tool of GM crop field trials. Over 2, 400 scientific GM research trials have been completed in the EU and they have reported no negative impacts on health or the environment.

France alone has sanctioned 588 GM crop trials. These trials are essential for basic scientific inquiry. To prevent GM crop trials outright is one step removed from burning books.

Discouraging GM research trials would contradict the Government's Strategy for Science, Technology and Innovation (2006 to 2013) which identified the importance of building a capability in agri-biotechnology in order to assess, harness and adopt new technological innovations, stating: "Potential areas for application include animal and plant sciences, food innovation, forestry and wood chain and other non-food crops, as well as risk evaluation of GMOs and their implications for agri-food". This goal would be impossible if GM crop research trials are banned.

Seemingly, Fianna Fáil [i.e. the center-right party currently in coalition government with the Greens], who [sic] previously allowed research trials of GM crops in Ireland, have no conceded the à la carte scientific illiteracy of the Greens. Like most irrational positions, it is one of contradictions. While Irish publicly-funded GM technology to prevent potato blight sits on a lab shelf, the Government is happy to allow the usage of over 250, 000 pounds of toxic fungicide annually on Irish potatoes against blight. Greens in Government elsewhere in Europe have allowed GM crop research trials to take place. The Greens in power in Germany allowed over 40 such GM crop trials.

Public research into GM crops, as called for by Prof Wall, is seen to be of growing importance for many countries, including our EU partners. Cuba, the ultimate public sector state, has had 59 GM field trials and is bringing to market a GM corn developed via Cuban public research that will reduce pesticide use. China has just committed to investing $3, 500m of new public funds into GM crop research.

The rejection of GM crop research trials, based on nothing but ignorance, makes a joke out of Ireland's claim to be a leading science location and agricultural innovator.

Science policy in Ireland has been reduced to throwing the baby out with the bathwater without any public consultation with sectors of society (e.g. farming, agri-food industry, forestry, bioenergy) whose livelihoods and competitiveness will be negatively affected over the coming years due to political myopia on 'GM issues'.

The Irish Government urgently needs an advisory 'foresight' committee on agri-biotechnology so that it can develop evidence-based policies in a democratic manner in this strategic area.

Maybe Mr Cullen, the organic movement and other anti-GM folks might join in this initiative so that the best of GM, organic and other agri-technologies can be brought together to provide safe, sustainable and competitive options for Irish food producers and consumers.

Comment by GM-free Ireland:

The author of the above letter, Shane Morris, is an employee of Agri-Food Canada, an agency of the Canadian Government which filed a WTO Trade Dispute against the EU for its reluctance to approve GM food and farming. He is also a student of "science communication" at University College Cork.

Morris has been internationally condemned for co-authoring a paper that has been described as a "flagrant fraud", and for attempting to shut down the GM-free Ireland and GM Watch web sites, after they published reports about the scandal.

Morris's efforts backfired via a flurry of criticism including a complaint to the UK High Commissioner for Canada [http://www.gmfreeireland.org/morris/soilassociation1.php], renewed calls for his paper to be withdrawn [http://www.gmfreeireland.org/morris/soilassociation2.php], expert photographic evidence concluding that the authors' scientific claims were "untrue" [http://www.gmfreeireland.org/morris/lies.php], a description of his paper by a leading Cambridge University ethics researcher as "flagrant fraud" [http://www.gmfreeireland.org/morris/flagrant.php], a Private Eye article describing Morris's libel threats as "heavy handed" [http://www.gmfreeireland.org/morris/cornfakes.php], and an accusation by the Soil Association that he engaged in "personal abuse" [http://www.gmfreeireland.org/morris/soilassociation3.php].

In November 2007, 26 British MPs in the UK House of Commons – including the former UK Environment Minister Michael Meacher – tabled an Early Day Motion deploring "the continuing efforts by an employee of the Canadian Government, Shane Morris, to close down websites in the UK and Republic of Ireland which have, along with Dr Richard Jennings of Cambridge University, said that research which claimed that consumers prefer GM sweetcorn published by this employee and others and given an Award for Excellence, is a flagrant fraud": http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=34547&SESSION=891

In December 2007, five Irish Senators asked the Leader of the Senate to request the Government to formally intervene to stop "the extraordinary interference by an agent of the Canadian Government in political discourse in this country":
http://www.senatordavidnorris.ie/blogger/2007/12/order-of-business-6th-december-2007.html

In January 2008, 40 leading experts wrote an open letter to the editor and editorial board of the British Food Journal (BFJ), demanding that Shane Morris' "wormy corn" paper be retracted and that the Journal withdraw its "Award for Excellence for Most Outstanding Paper in 2004". The letter was signed by forty scientists, including leading experts in the areas of science policy and research ethics, and by two Members of Parliament in the UK, including Britain's former Minister of the Environment. The signatories include experts from Britain, Canada, the US, Norway, France, Italy, Brazil, Venezuela, Indonesia and Japan, all of whom have been disgusted by the failure of the British Food Journal to retract a paper which, as they note, "has brought science and the BFJ into disrepute." The full text of the letter may be viewed at
http://www.gmfreeireland.org/morris/retraction.php

For more information on Morris, see http://www.gmfreeireland.org/morris/

EU OKs more genetically modified corn

Medill Reports (Chicago, USA), 22 January 2009. By Bridget Macdonald.

[Picture caption: U.S. Corn: Biotechnology Varieties. In 2008, the majority of corn planted in the United States was from genetically modified seed, including herbicide and insecticide resistant varieties, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.]

The European Union Commission recommended Wednesday that farmers be allowed to plant two new varieties of genetically modified corn, an endorsement that if approved, could ease restrictions against U.S. corn and corn traits.

The EU Commission's recommendation breaks ground for use of Bt-11, developed by Syngenta AG, and TC-1507, developed by a joint venture between Pioneer Hi-Bred International, a subsidiary of DuPont Co., and Mycogen Seeds, a unit of Dow Chemical Co. The EU has not allowed the cultivation of any new genetically modified crops since it approved a strain of corn developed by Monsanto Co. in 1998.

Genetically modified corn accounted for 80 percent of all the corn planted in both the U.S. and in the state of Illinois in 2008, up from 73 and 74 percent respectively in 2007, according to Mark Schleusener, a statistician for the Illinois Department of Agriculture.

The nod from Europe is a step in the right direction, according to Mark Lambert of the Illinois Corn Growers Association. Although there is government support for genetically modified crops in the U.S., "[the EU] has been using biotech as a false barrier to trade, " he said. Approval from the EU Commission will open the doors for American corn, which Lambert said is essential to meet global food demand. The EU accepts some corn from the United States, but only for use as animal feed, not for human consumption. Any processed food containing genetically modified corn must be clearly marked.

"If something is labeled GMO, it's a death sentence, " said Dr. Marty Sachs, a research geneticist at the Maize Genetic Stock Center. For the EU, "the issue is mostly protectionist rather than scientific or safety. [The EU] would like to keep our technology and companies from infringing upon theirs, " he said.

Sachs theorized that the E U Commission has "erred on the side of caution" in the wake of food scares, such as mad cow disease, but said there is nothing dangerous about genetically modified corn.

Geneticists developed Bt strains of corn using protein from a soil-born bacterium that occurs throughout the world, Sachs said. The protein has insecticidal properties. "When you have a caterpillar munching on the leaves, they ingest it and it kills them, " he said, adding that Bt's toxicity is specific to certain pest insects and is innocuous when consumed by other animals.

"Organic farmers use Bt as a spray on their crops, " Sachs said. "It enables farmers to grow corn without using harsher insecticides or chemicals."

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service oversees the approval of genetically modified crops in the United States using tests that Sachs called "reasonable" compared to the EU's strict standards. U.S. breeders must demonstrate that their crops are as safe as a conventional equivalent through a process he said takes only a couple of years.

Despite the apparent backing of the EU Commission, Lambert said suspicion of genetically modified crops is embedded in European culture and will be hard to overcome. But he said biotechnology has done a lot for the environment by significantly reducing the tonnage of pesticides used in agriculture, a factor that might help win over the "green" mentality that has become prevalent abroad.

Illinois, which vies with neighboring Iowa for the No. 1 ranking in U.S. corn production according to the USDA, would reap the benefits of a more lenient agricultural policy abroad. "If they have actually accepted that farmers can grow these crops in Europe, it will prevent them from using that standard to bar importing products with same traits, " Sachs said.

From a global perspective, the EU Commission's decision is good news for farmers around the world, who Lambert said have been at a serious disadvantage.

"A lot of countries don't have the agencies and watchdog groups we do to ensure proper testing is done. In lieu of having expertise, they look to the U.S. or the EU, " he said.

21 January 2009

GMOs, agroecology and manipulated rights

Press release AMA la Vita (Accademia Mediterranea per l'Agroecologia e la Vita,
Mediterranean Academy for Agroecology and Life),
21 January 2009.

"GMOs, Agroecology and Manipulated Rights", by Giuseppe Altieri

- Letter to the Italian minister Zaia and to the European ministers.

To the European Ministries of Agriculture, Health and the Environment
To the National Constitutional Courts and the European Court of Justice
To the National and Regional Governments and their respective Parliaments

GMOs, Agroecology and Manipulated Rights.

A "self-defence" Civil Moratorium from Italy on the violation of Constitutional and Natural Rights.
Urging to move as soon as possible to Organic Farming and impose a World Ban on GMOs

While the European Court of Justice declares itself against the secret about GMOs plantations (maybe because someone is going to authorise them?), the presence of GMOs in foods - even in Organic products - still remains "secret" and hidden by "tolerance" thresholds which are not indicated on labels. Within the precautionary principle and the Constitutional inviolable rights (articles 32 and 9 of the Italian Constitution), a legal action of the Italian and European governments is urgently needed because of the current danger of serious personal injury and the risk of irreversible environmental contamination, which were both ascertained by numerous and recent independent scientific studies; it is therefore necessary to adopt zero tolerance policies for GMOs in organic products and in all other foods, as provided for by the new EU regulation 834/2007 concerning organic production, otherwise GMOs would be openly and illegally "hidden".

Furthermore, GMO cultivations must not be authorised in Europe as they would irreversibly contaminate organic and traditional farming, thus violating "the pre-existing rights of existence". Just when the USA protectionism has announced that it will offer strong incentives in favour of national products, why ever should Italy cultivate and eat GMOs, giving up the most imitated agro-food tradition in the world? The weapons of the law and EU Agri-environmental payments - i.e. more than 100 billions euros for 2007-2013 regional development programmes - compensating for non-revenues and higher costs by law, in addition to 20% of "transaction" costs deriving from the purchase of services considered useful for the organic farmers' firms, give today a unique chance of implementing a general European agro-ecological reconversion, which is threatened by a planned GMO barbarian invasion that would cause an irreversible destruction of organic farming and agro-food traditions. It is necessary to introduce criminal liabilities for those who contaminate Italian organic and traditional products and every kind of seeds, i.e. for GMO patent holders, distributors and traders, making them pay for damages and land reclamations. Otherwise there will be nothing left for farmers and consumers to do but try to destroy GMO cultivations in "self-defence", as already happened in other countries.

By agro-ecologist Giuseppe Altieri (Copyright Artecology, 20th February 2009, all rights reserved)

Agernova - AMA la Vita (Accademia Mediterranea per l'Agroecologia e la Vita,
Mediterranean Academy for Agroecology and Life)

---

Impossible coexistence of GMOs and the new EU Regulation on Organic Farming

From 1st January 2009 the new EU Regulation 834/2007 allows organic products to contain GMO "accidental" contaminations up to 0.9%, even without requiring that any special indication be shown on labels. After crossing the "tolerance threshold of consumers", who opted en masse for an organic diet exactly to avoid GMOs and pesticides, the EU Commission - which was not completely satisfied with its "violation of pristine BIO purity" - started just on cue the procedure which could authorise the sowing of two GMO maize varieties. At the same time, Regions are preparing plans of "mixed" cultivation - incorrectly defined "coexistence plans" - relying on supposed sowing distances of GMOs from traditional cultivations. These are aimed to limit the resulting "natural" (not accidental) and above all irreversible contaminations within the supposed "tolerance" thresholds. All this according to unknown theories. Coexistence would prepare the Italian farming environment - which was declared part of UNESCO's heritage - for the disappearance of GMO-free cultivations, although the Constitutional Court legitimised GMO-free regions in 2005 in order to safeguard the "pre-existing right" of traditional productions, which are still free from GMOs, and refused the coexistence with GMOs abrogating law no. 5 on "Coexistence" sending it back to Regional governments. Regional governments should at most guarantee only a possible "coexistence on the shelves" with imported GMO products for consumers really intending to eat them, in order to guarantee "the free movement of goods" (even of dangerous products? [Editor's note]). In any case these products should be labelled properly, otherwise how could people choose them? Why should GMOs be hidden in foods? Maybe because consumers do not want to eat them? Exactly for this reason any GMO presence should be indicated on labels, in order to defend the consumers' right to be informed and the freedom of choice, as guaranteed by the Courts of Justice. As long as organic production could not be contaminated, the cultivation of GMOs in Italy or Europe could not even be imagined. If GMO cultivations were authorised, on the other hand, 100% GMO-free cultivations of a certain kind would no longer be possible within a very wide area. This would be against the rights of (Co)-Existence and Freedom of organic farmers and consumers, who cannot be forced to tolerate or eat GMOs.

Dangerous "tolerances" and "manipulation of the rules"

The immobilism of sector associations, which seem to be resigned to accepting illegitimate "tolerances" of GMOs in organic products, is surprising. The 0.1% threshold (1 gramme per kilo) - as requested by the President of AIAB (Italian Association for Organic Farming), Carlo Petrini and the so-known "Free from GMOs" coalition, headed by Mario Capanna - is not in fact the GMO detectable limit and therefore cannot assure consumers of GMO absence. Analysis techniques (Real-time PCR) can in fact detect even a single particle of transgenic DNA (GMO) present in an analysis sample by causing its replication through very sensitive enzymes for enough time. Therefore, the detectable limit of GMO presence or absence is theoretically always equivalent to the proportion of the single transgenic DNA weight which could be present in an analysis sample to the total weight of the same kind of DNA from the sample itself, i.e. values next to 0.0026% or even less, according to ISPRA (Italian Institute for the Protection and Environmental Research). 0.1% is just the limit of quantitation (LOQ) of GMOs present in an analysis sample. Lower values are reported as "below 0.1%" within the detection or "qualitative" limit of presence/absence (LOD). It is not anyway possible to certify the "absence" of GMOs through values of detected presence which are below an arbitrarily established value considered as the limit of detection. This is obviously not the correct one since the presence of GMO has been "detected". In this case, after eluding the Politics, Science and Ecoethics of the natural laws of Life, GMOs would also elude logical and mathematical laws. But they will not manage to get away from human consciousness and the law, which reveal the clumsy attempt to "manipulate" the rules to hide GMO contaminations in all foods, which are not accidental but rather the result of precise intentions.

False information in the press and "psychological manipulation"

Published statements on alleged GMO contaminations in organic products "which were already authorised in the past" are of grave concern and cause bewilderment, ruining the reputation of Organic Farming. Any Research Institute for Animal Health could confirm that regulation no. 1829/2003 introducing GMO "tolerance" thresholds of 0.9% without requiring special labelling was not actually concerned with organic products. These were ruled in fact by a previous regulation (2092/1991), which excluded any GMO contaminations, including accidental ones, and which was abrogated by the new EU regulation that came into force only on 1st January 2009. Previously, if a certifying authority had tolerated GMO "accidental" contaminations in organic products, it would have acted arbitrarily and illegitimately, thus breaking the pact with consumers, since all necessary procedures to avoid GMO contaminations would not have been followed, as provided for by Regulation 2092/1991 and confirmed by the new EU regulation 834/2007, according to which "GMOs and products produced from or by GMOs should not be used in organic farming" (article 9). Furthermore, Bonino stated that "GMOs are already circulating in our fields", but this is incorrect. In Italy, in fact, GMO release into the environment is totally forbidden, with zero tolerance in all sowing seeds. The destruction of contaminated maize fields, which were found by the Italian authorities thank to rigorous testing of all seed batches imported, is still vivid in everyone's memory. So far Italian regulations and controls have avoided culpable or wilful contaminations in the only possible way: ZERO tolerance to GMOs. Any authorised level of GMO presence - in organic products and sowing seeds - would make controls and necessary decontaminations impossible. In this way contaminations would irreversibly spread into the environment. The false propaganda about unavoidable contaminations is trying to create the psychological conditions for GMO tolerances to be accepted in organic products as well, as if Italy were already irreversibly polluted.

"Trojan quibbles" and "Insecurity"
Reports for GMO barbarian invasions (and not only)

As happened for "tolerated" residues of pesticides, dioxins and many other polluting substances that are dangerous for human health and the environment, we are facing the usual "Trojan quibble" of "tolerance thresholds", whose aim is to thwart controls and elude liabilities to citizens and organic and traditional farmers, in case of contaminations of cultivations and foods and/or damage to health and the environment. This quibble is necessary to have the subsequent barbarian invasion of GMO cultivations authorised. In this way - since there is no specific law of national preservation - GMOs would be "free to contaminate" also organic products from 1st January 2009, but not to violate Constitutional rights. And it is not a coincidence that right now transgenic cultivations receive positive "opinions" from the EFSA in Parma, i.e. the European authority that should guarantee food safety, whose remarks rely only on the reports provided by the multinationals producing GMOs and not on independent studies demonstrating exactly the contrary. Even Veronesi, the Italian Minister of Health, instead of advising people to eat organic fruit, pompously announced the creation of a GM-tomato that "prevents" cancer only because it produces a little bit more vitamins, just when Dr Samorindo Peci, from Cerifos Interuniversity association, urged him to initiate research on "promoter" viruses (35 S and V 40).

These are pathogens that are "artificially" introduced in the DNA of GMOs and bring with themselves the foreign DNA fragment (transgene). Such pathogens were found in the DNA of viruses associated to lymphomas and leukaemias of some patients. Five years of research carried out by Dr. Manuela Malatesta demonstrated liver, kidney and testicles abnormalities in rats fed with GMOs, thus confirming the serious risks for human health which were already pointed out by other - always ignored - researchers. In this regard, the book "La sicurezza degli OGM" (GMO safety) by Arpad Putzstay [Pusztai], EDILIBRI, Milano 2008, is recommended reading. The Italian Research Institute for Food and Human Nutrition (INRAN) has recently observed abnormalities of the immune system caused by GM-maize. This produces no less than 43 altered proteins, including an allergenic one. Prof. Jurgen Zentek demonstrated that guinea pigs fed with GM-maize for consecutive generations significantly lose their faculty to reproduce, thus becoming sterile. However, the EU "Comixture" in Brussels has been approving GMO importations for years, without qualified majorities of ministers, who probably do not want to directly assume responsibility for putting their citizens' health at risk, thus shifting it onto the "scientific" opinions of the EFSA, which are based only on reports "manipulated" by GMO agrochemical-pharmaceutical multinationals. In a clear conflict of interests, those multinationals have been poisoning us for decades, presenting reports and (in)-tolerance thresholds to pesticides, herbicides and other toxic and not biodegradable chemical substances, which are often mutagenic and carcinogenic and accumulate in food chains causing dramatic and manifest consequences. This is also the case with a number of chemical drugs, which are regularly recalled from the market because of serious damage and disastrous consequences for the population, due to "side effects" and "contraindications". According to the precaution principle, independent studies need to be taken into consideration more than those presented by those who want to sell a product, thus imposing the elimination of "natural" competition.

Institutional means and the Constitutional right for a prompt Moratorium on GMOs.
Zero tolerance and responsibilities for contaminators

The new regulation on organic farming actually guarantees that "100% GMO-free" private trademarks can be available on the market (otherwise impossible in the case of GMO cultivations in Italy), and allows European States to keep national and conventional organic products free from GMOs in favour of health safety (Precaution Principle), Correct Information and citizens' Freedom of choice. Furthermore, at the thirtieth point of the preamble the regulation declares: "For the sake of clarity and coherence, it should not be possible to label a product as organic where it has to be labelled as containing GMOs, consisting of GMOs or produced from GMOs2. At the same time, how is it possible to allow GMOs to be "hidden" and authorise the tolerance limit with no label also in organic products? Can this regulation be legitimate without a national protection law? On the Italian newspaper La Repubblica, Emma Bonino stated that the EU regulation guarantees that consumers will "surely/safely" eat some GMOs hidden in all foods. Is this the kind of safety that the EFSA wants to guarantee?

If we want to safeguard organic products and the whole of Italian farming, they must be kept free from GMOs, creating - if necessary - a National Organic trademark, as provided for by the new European Regulation, and introducing a total ban on GMO cultivations in Italy. It is also necessary to introduce criminal liabilities for those who contaminate Italian organic and traditional products and sowing seeds of any kind, i.e. for GMO patent holders, distributors and traders, following the EU polluter-pays principle, in defence of Italian consumers and producers. It is GMOs that contaminate "natural" products, not vice versa. The situation calls for an urgent Civil Moratorium asking for the immediate cessation of importation and production of GMOs and GMO derivatives and enforcing the Provision of National Preservation, on the basis of the results demonstrated by recent independent research on the serious risks for human health and the environment. These are both considered inviolable rights by articles 32 and 9 of the Italian Constitution and their defence is not delegated to international treaties. Waiting for a decree from Zaia, Minister for Agricultural, Food and Forestry Policies, we ask organic farmers for a further guarantee to be given from 1st January 2009: a label indicating 100% GMO-free products, "cultivated in Italy" if possible.

Before it is too late also for Europe

Instead of proposing further useless GMO experimental cultivations, the results of which are widely available in the scientific literature and which can only contaminate the environment deceiving citizens into promising them "some quintals more" (whereas the contracts they sign will also bind their children and grandchildren to pay rights on GMOs), why not promote more independent research on the real and current dangers of GMO foods for human health? And together with possible volunteers, why cannot first of all GMO producers (on the basis of their own reports on the alleged harmlessness, high nutritional values and cancer preventive properties of GMOs) and scientists and politicians who reassure us eat GMOs for 10 years? In the meantime, in Italy we will grow and eat our organic products "as a precaution", so that science can compare long-term effects of organic, conventional and GMO diets. However, our current knowledge of the laws of Nature and Ecoethics allows us today to call for a World Ban on GMO productions, since such products pose a major threat to life and freedom on earth, together with an immediate abolition of patents on living material, which is the heritage of Nature and Humanity. On the basis of the unscientific reductionism of GMO technology, multinationals are "creating living beings" as never happened before during all the evolutionary history of our Planet. They are violating the laws of Nature and Life and propagating GMO substantial "equivalence". This is happening although Science demonstrated 30 years ago that an artificial modification of a DNA segment of an organism affects its whole physiological equilibrium, with dangerous and unforeseeable consequences, such as the production of new unknown substances. The lawyer Druker, from the Alliance for Bio-Integrity - an association of scientists, religious leaders and consumers which sued the Food and Drug Administration in order to obtain compulsory safety tests and labelling of GMO products in 1998 - stated the following: "If the truth about the results obtained from scientific analyses had been told, none of the genetically modified foods would have ever be authorised to enter the American market between 1992 and 1995 and be exported from there to the European market and the rest of the world, and the world population would not have been exposed to this grave risk. It is therefore a legalised genocide".

Inviolable Constitutional Rights (Health, Environment and Freedom) and even the laws of Nature are threatened. Extreme prudence is therefore of the essence, and the purity of Italy should be safeguarded from GMO pollution. Obscure forces and "non-decisions" are taking advantage of some quibbles or technical/legal vacuum (for example, the correct procedures that should avoid GMO accidental contaminations of extra-European origin have not been delineated yet) and are trying - violating European and Constitutional provisions - to create an irreversible state of fact leading to a point of no return. We will therefore be forced to accept GMO contaminations in all foods and to give up our ancestors' traditions forever. However, since it is a decision with irreversible consequences for national agro-alimentary sovereign powers, Directive 2001/18/EC provides for the obligation of a consultative popular referendum before any decision concerning the release of GMOs into the environment may be taken. We hope that minister Luca Zaia will not miss the chance to call upon the population to decide to close Italy to GMOs, rescuing the European paralyzed politics from distress. Even though it is at least strange to put the inviolable right to health and the precautionary principle to a referendum, since it would imply only a consultation and not an abrogation, why should the opinion of the constitutionally sovereign people not be taken into consideration? 80% of the Italian citizens absolutely do not want to eat GMOs, and that does not mean that they want to eat them without knowing.

GMOs should be stopped for the future of our children, who risk seeing cultivated fields transformed into "death camps" - patented ones, even.

"Gupta cavat lapidem" (Horace) ... With the best patience possible, until we are in time to and pending institutional actions, let us make our appeals of legitimacy in competent bodies.

"It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare; it is because we do not dare that they are difficult" (Seneca)

Prof. Giuseppe Altieri
Massa Martana, 21st January 2009

European Commission pushes for new GM crops in Europe

Friends of the Earth Europe press statement, 21 January 2009.

Brussels -- The European Commission has today issued proposals for two new varieties of genetically modified (GM) maize to be grown in Europe despite outstanding safety concerns.

In a proposal sent to EU member states, the Commission also says it wants to force Greece, Hungary and France to drop their national bans on a similar GM maize [1].

National governments will be asked to vote on the proposals in February. A vote on whether the ban which is currently in force in Hungary be allowed to stand will be taken at the March meeting of European Environment Ministers.

Helen Holder, GMO coordinator at Friends of the Earth Europe said: "The Commission is making no sense. Barely a month ago European Environment Ministers called for serious improvements to GMO laws. The Commission itself has demanded a two year review of how the safety and environmental impacts of GM crops are assessed. European countries should reject these proposals and ensure that the risks and impacts of these GM crops are fully understood before they are allowed onto our farms and into our food and the environment."

In December EU countries called for wide ranging improvements to the EU's GMO laws, [2] including:

•

that pesticide-producing GM crops (Bt crops) should be assessed under EU laws for chemical pesticides and not just under laws for GMOs;

•

that the socio-economic impacts of GM crops be assessed over the next 18 months - something which has so far not been done

For more information please contact:

Helen Holder, Friends of the Earth Europe GMO coordinator
+32 (0)2 542 0182, +32 (0)474 857638 (mob.), helen.holder@foeeurope.org

Francesca Gater, Friends of the Earth Europe Communications Officer
+32 2542 6105, +32 485 930 515, francesca.gater@foeeurope.org

Notes:

[1] The Commission it proposing to:

•

authorise the cultivation of two pesticide producing (Bt) maize crops; Bt11 (produced by Syngenta) and 1507 (produced by Pioneer)

•

remove national bans on Monsanto's MON810 pesticide-producing (Bt) maize

[2] Environment Council Conclusions on GMOs, 4th December 2008.

Vilsack: Was he put at the USDA to aid a corporate takeover of the US Food Supply?

OpEdNews.com (USA), 21 January 2009. By Lynn Cohen-Cole.

Vilsack may have been put in place to aid the corporate take over of the US food supply.

To put it simply, 2009 is the planned date for major corporate moves to begin the take over the US food supply. They are after control of all animals through the USDA's regulation called NAIS, and over seeds through "seed contamination" regulations buried in the FDA, and they have backed up both with Homeland Security regulations set for "surge capacity" warrantless attacks on farms for seizure and destruction of all animals, crops and equipment based on "bioterrorism" or disease outbreaks. Monsanto has influenced and likely helped write NAIS and the seed regulations.

Food safety is the excuse being put forward by agribusiness that is responsible for diseases like Mad Cow and bird flu, is blocking inspections, is subverting Country of Origin labeling by mixing meats together, and feeds the animals pesticide-laced genetically engineered feed, raises them in Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), fills them with steroids, hormones and antibiotics, all of which end up called "food."

The USDA is quoted by a farmer as saying "We don't need any farmers and ranchers in this country. We'll just import our food." That is, they are planning to outsource farming and ranching, the ultimate basis of food security for any nation. NAIS is about the take over of animals and the wiping out of all private animal stock. Please look at that. Realize the scope of it, consider the implications.

Agribusiness, in league with Monsanto and biotech, is preparing to do what is already happening in Asia - eliminate normal animals and replace them with genetically engineered - PRIVATIZED - ones.

The excuse will be dread diseases - diseases they created themselves and which they don't inspect for or fix any conditions to avoid. Instead, they continue to lower contamination standards. These are avoidable diseases and easily tested for. In Japan, every head of cattle is tested, in Europe, one of four. Here in the US, the USDA won't even allow farmers to test for Mad Cow. Farmers are screaming because the USDA is set to allow imported animals, including the chance of bringing in Mad Cow, hoof and mouth, and other diseases into the country - a disease we no longer have here.

But the diseases are valuable to industry. They are the means to declare emergencies and be "forced" to wipe out farmers' animals. NAIS is the means to locate every single one (with DNA samples being taken and given to ....?) belonging to farmers who can bear the unbearable bureaucracy, fees, massive invasion of privacy, limitations on movement (a child with bunny couldn't take it to school, a horseback rider couldn't go on a trail ride, without informing the government and paperwork having to filled out within 24 hours) or there are draconian penalties, even for infractions, like (no joke) the chicken crossing the road.

And all of that doesn't even touch what it means to be forced (and often it is happening without people agreeing to it at all) to sign onto Premises ID, a portion of NAIS that signs our farmland away to ... no telling. After the bailout, all idea of sanity and decency has lost hold and it is clear we are in the grip of international moves that no longer preference the US but now are colonizing us as well.

So, please, in approaching anything about the USDA, understand that Vilsack IS Monsanto at the USDA. And Monsanto wants NAIS (it is genetically engineering whole animals now and those patents are meaningless unless all normal animal biodiversity is eliminated as competition, just as is true of seeds where it is eliminating seed companies, seed cleaners, seed cleaning equipment and putting in place laws that criminalize seed collecting).

Farmers and ranchers are standing up for us and the literal protection of our food supply when they make the following demands. They need our help. They are asking for these rules to be rescinded immediately. But what is needed is much more.

1. Major organizations in the US - farming, health freedom, organic, food safety, animal rights, constitutional, environmental, economic justice, and so many more ... - need to join in a single lawsuit to stop these regulations entirely. They not only are set to destroy all normal animals and eliminate all means to produce, own and use normal seeds but include opening the door wide to genetic engineering - GE-drug crops, GE-industrial chemical crops - and more.

2. These organizations - R-CALF, OCA, PETA, HSUS, CFS, FWW, ACLU, AMNESTY, and truly endless more - need to demand that the new Justice Department immediately initiate a massive criminal investigation into corporate corruption at the USDA, FDA and Homeland Security.

And for individuals, you can help by signing a petition seeking help from the left and right: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/seeking-your-combined-help-to-save-desperate-american-farmers-our-farmland-our-animals

EU executive presses forward on GM crop cultivation

Reuters, 21 January 2009. By Jeremy Smith.

BRUSSELS -- The European Union's executive backed proposals on Wednesday to allow two genetically modified maize types to be grown in Europe, to be submitted to a vote by national EU biotech experts next month, an official said.

The crops are Bt-11 maize, engineered by Swiss agrochemicals company Syngenta, and 1507 maize -- jointly developed by Pioneer Hi-Bred International, a unit of DuPont Co and Dow AgroSciences unit Mycogen Seeds.

The proposals, authored by the European Commission's environment unit, would grant a standard 10-year license for the two maize varieties -- and also be the EU's first authorizations for genetically modified crop cultivation since 1998.

But to achieve that, the experts' committee would have to reach a consensus deal under the EU's weighted country voting system; highly unlikely, officials say, since the bloc's 27 member states hardly ever agree on biotechnology issues.

"The written procedures have gone through, " the Commission official said, referring to the Commission's internal steps for endorsing legal proposals.

The draft authorizations were likely to be discussed by national experts next month, the official said.

The committee is next scheduled to meet on February 16.

20 January 2009

The UK Government paper, A Vision for Science and Society, is no clear picture

The Ecologist, 20 January 2009. By Guy Cook.

A Vision for Science and Society, in today's technological vista, sounds an honourable aim. Guy Cook reads between the lines of this new UK government paper

In an era of climate change, genetic engineering, biofuels and debates over alternative energy sources, nothing could matter more for the environment than the choices made by government and society between available technologies. So in principle, the recent government document A Vision for Science and Society should be welcomed by all those concerned.

Unfortunately, the promise is not fulfilled. The problem is inherent in the title itself. The document fails to address the key difference between science (which develops knowledge of the natural world) and technology (which applies that knowledge). While it claims to be about the former, it is actually about the latter. Though not discussed, the distinction is clearly accepted by the authors, who use the phrase 'science and technology' 24 times. One has to suspect the avoidance of this issue is a strategic choice for a government intent on ignoring legitimate, environmentally aware assessment of new technologies, positioning it as opposition to science itself. They are not the same thing.

The natural sciences pursue rational, objective, evidence-based, disinterested knowledge of the natural world. Their achievements are immense. Yet their strength and authority rest upon their own clear delineation of what they can and cannot do. To misrepresent these self-imposed limits is to undermine this strength and may weaken this authority. They do not consider the political, commercial, ethical, philosophical, social and aesthetic dimensions of decision making. (This is not to say that scientists do not have wise contributions about these aspects of decision making - many clearly do - nor that scientists do not study the philosophy and ethics of science.)

Thus, for example, science can tell us what will happen when a nuclear bomb explodes, but not whether countries are right or wrong to have nuclear weapons. That decision must consider other criteria. The British Government's decision to maintain Britain's nuclear-weapon capability - an instance of a policy informed by science - is a political rather than a scientific one. Once the science and technology is confused, it is easy to characterise opposition to a technology as deriving from lack of scientific knowledge, or antagonism towards science.

Although the document wisely acknowledges the fallacy of the 'deficit view' of the public understanding of science - by which opposition to new technologies is attributed to ignorance and prejudice to be remedied by science education - it does not put this principle into practice. Throughout the document, the overwhelming emphasis is upon the 'need for all citizens to understand the nature of science better', but not on the corollary of this exhortation: the need for those applying scientific knowledge in new technologies to understand better the nature of social, economic, political, ethical and philosophical factors in their decision making.

This is not to deny the supreme importance of developing public understanding of science, but to acknowledge that there are many more dimensions to decision making. New technologies and their implementations encounter legitimate ethical opposition, alter employment opportunities and patterns, redistribute wealth, affect markets, have psychological effects, change political processes. For these reasons, the voices of experts other than natural scientists and of all citizens who have views, should be heard. Though we are told that 'since 2000 the emphasis on public engagement has been on two-way dialogue', there are no details in the document of how scientists and technologists might listen to other kinds of expertise, or to the public more generally.

Nor is there any suggestion that a new technology, though scientifically informed and viable, might not be adopted in the light of consultation. The aspiration to 'two-way' communication is simply not borne out. We are told 'national policy consultations can be opportunities for mass public education about science and associated issues'. But education - though desirable - is not the same as consultation.

From the outset, the report makes assertions and begs questions. Its simplistic opening sentence 'science improves the quality of daily life' sets the tone. Few would disagree that technologies such as dentistry, lightening conductors, and vaccination have improved the quality of life. Yet in the case of other technologies, such as weapons of mass destruction, the opposite is true. The problem for policy makers is not such simple extreme cases, but those where there are substantial and rational arguments on both sides. The document does not however offer details of how such technologies are to be assessed. While understanding of the science is an essential and major contribution to such decisions, it is not and should not be the only voice. To make it so, is both detrimental to science itself, undermining its independence and neutrality, and to other legitimate voices which should have a much greater share in the debate.

Although the government asked for comments on the document, and set up online mechanisms for their submission, the website (http://interactive.dius.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/) now seems only to showcase those comments supporting its line.

What is needed is not a one-sided vision or a fake consultation, nor the use of a misrepresented science to browbeat those with legitimate arguments into submission. Government thinking itself needs to take a lesson from the natural sciences and aim for precision, clarity, assessment of evidence, and an open mind about what it will find out. On that basis, there could be a genuine consultation in which, while science is applauded for its advancement of knowledge, the implementation of that knowledge is subjected to thorough critical assessment and scrutiny.

Nothing is more important for the environment than policy on technology. In this bland 'Vision, ' an opportunity has been missed. It is hopelessly partial - in both senses of the word. It demeans science, patronises society, and also bodes badly for the future of the environment.

Guy Cook is professor of language at the Open University and co-edits Applied Linguistics

Govt in talks to buy BT cotton seed

The News, January 20 2009. by Shahid Shah [shortened].

KARACHI: Pakistan is in the process of signing a $1bn agreement for the purchase of BT cotton seed from Monsanto, a seed developing company of the United States, to increase its production by 40 per cent.

BT (Bacillus thuringiensis) is a live microorganism that kills unwanted insects from forests and agriculture crops. Provided in the cotton seed, it boosts the yield and protects the crop from most of the pest attacks.

Currently, farmers are using BT cotton seed on around 2.7 million acres of land against total cotton cultivation over 8 million acres in the country. BT cotton seed being sold in the country was smuggled and therefore illegal, said Federal Textile Adviser Dr Mirza Ikhtiar Baig.

BT cotton seed being produced and consumed in Pakistan is from its first generation and plant insects can develop resistance power against it. Experts say once BT cotton lost its resistance, the insect could damage the crop and the seed itself. BT cotton seed requires continuous improvement in order to cope with growing immune power of insects.

Full text at: http://www.thenews.com.pk/print1.asp?id=157968

19 January 2009

Pre-inauguration reality: A farmer's letter and the death of American farming

OpEdNews (USA), 19 January 2009. By Linn Cohen-Cole.

What follows is a living nightmare of one farmer in Wisconsin, a founder of the Seed Savers Exchange, a leader in trying to stop NAIS, a man trying to protect Amish by going pro se in court for them, a man who goes out to his barn in sub-zero temperatures at night for weeks, helping to deliver lambs. He is a farmer who has raised flax for years and now, suddenly, this year, because of Monsanto helping the FDA to write seed regulations, his seed cleaning equipment is defined as a source of "seed contamination" and he can't sell flax seeds.

Included under that regulation are all seed used as food, so raw seed - flax, poppy, sesame; all sprouting seeds - wheat, alfalfa, beans, greens, etc.; all seed pressed into oil - corn, soy, canola [oilseed rape], sunflower, etc.; all seed used for animal feed. And now you have only a glimpse at how Monsanto's infiltration of our government affects control of seeds and criminalizes quite normal and clean small farming. This is only on the crop side. NAIS is more monstrous by far on the animal side. And SWAT team attacks are happening on the dairy side.

Obama picked Vilsack. Vilsack is Monsanto. Monsanto helped design NAIS which can provide it a means of wiping out animals stocks and substituting GMO animals - which it will own with patents. Monsanto is attacking hundreds of farmers in Illinois right now, Obama's state, right now. Our food supply itself is under threat and Obama has opened the door. He didn't "listen" to the grassroots but tramped on them in support of the most evil corporation on earth - the one responsible for altering nature itself, corrupting government to set that loose, and dumping pesticides throughout the earth. Obama's inauguration is no day for celebration by farmers or by anyone who eats or wishes for a real democracy or cares about a healthier world or saving forests or wants to stop global warming - because they are all immensely threatened by Monsanto.

Read on at:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Pre-inauguration-reality--by-Linn-Cohen-Cole-090119-205.html

Please sign the petition and let others know:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/seeking-your-combined-help-to-save-desperate-american-farmers-our-farmland-our-animals

Commentary: Vilsack not the right choice for ag secretary
• The Senate should put the brakes on Tom Vilsack as secretary of agriculture.

The Progressive Media Project, Jan 19 2009. By Jim Goodman.

Wednesday's confirmation hearing for Obama's nominee was a lovefest. But it shouldn't have been.

More than 60, 000 supporters of organic farming have sent e-mails opposing Vilsack's nomination. With a world food crisis, food safety problems and a growing demand for local and organic food, the time was right for a real change in national food policy.

Obama could have picked someone who was knowledgeable about organic farming and local and regional food systems. Someone who knew the difference between growing food and growing commodity crops. Someone who felt more at ease mending a fence or thinning carrots than sitting in a corporate boardroom.

Instead, he chose Vilsack, the former governor of Iowa, darling of the biotech industry. In fact, in 2001, the Biotechnology Industry Organization named him governor of the year.

Vilsack happily signed the 2005 seed pre-emption law in Iowa, which prohibits local governments from regulating genetically engineered seeds.

Biogenetic farming is incompatible with organic farming. Genetically modified pollen drifts for miles and contaminates both organic and non-genetically modified conventional crops. The huge companies that dominate genetically modified farming push out small organic farmers and local food producers.

Vilsack also is the favorite of large corporations that are exploiting the demand for organics at the expense of small farmers - corporations like Whole Foods and Stonyfield.

And he has been a champion of biofuels, one of the most wasteful uses of our farmland imaginable.

I don't doubt Tom Vilsack is a nice guy who probably did a lot for Iowa agriculture. I know he did a lot for agribusiness, the chemical companies, biotechnology and large-scale farming. Apparently, his vision of better agriculture is bigger, more intensive agriculture.

His nomination reflects poorly on Obama.

But maybe organic farmers should have seen it coming, since Obama had two Monsanto officials on his advisory team. And he specifically endorsed genetically modified crops, stating they were safe and had "provided enormous benefits to farmers."

On the other hand, Obama has praised family farmers and organics.

"The Good Food movement, the organic food movement, is a wonderful opportunity for farmers to diversify, " he once said. "When they can diversify and get other crops going, we can in fact produce a healthier food. And more profits can go into the hands of family farmers as opposed to the big food processors and mega businesses. Then I think we are doing well for everybody."

If Obama's heart is really with small farms, local production and organic food, he should not have chosen an agriculture secretary so closely allied with agribusiness.

About the writer

Jim Goodman is a dairy farmer from Wonewoc, Wis., and a W.K. Kellogg Food and Society Policy Fellow. He wrote this for Progressive Media Project, a source of liberal commentary on domestic and international issues; it is affiliated with The Progressive magazine.

This article was prepared for The Progressive Media Project and is available to MCT subscribers. McClatchy-Tribune did not subsidize the writing of this column; the opinions are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of McClatchy-Tribune or its editors.

Readers may write to the author at: Progressive Media Project, 409 East Main Street, Madison, Wis. 53703; e-mail: pmproj@progressive.org; Web site: http://www.progressive.org. For information on PMP's funding, please visit http://www.progressive.org/pmpabout.html#anchorsupport.

Take Glufosinate off the market immediately!
• Bayer's herbicide among 22 most dangerous substances
• Coalition also demands ban on glufosinate-resistant plants

Coalition against Bayer Dangers press release, 19 January 2009.

The Coalition against Bayer Dangers demands an immediate ban on the herbicide glufosinate and a suspension of all approvals of glufosinate-resistant crops. European Parliament members voted last week to ban pesticides classified as carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic to reproduction. Permits for 22 substances, among them glufosinate, will not be renewed.

Philipp Mimkes from the Coalition against Bayer Dangers: "Pesticides such as glufosinate that have been proven hazardous for operators, consumers and the environment must be removed from the market straight away. The EU ban on glufosinate must also have consequences for the approval of GM crops: no more permissions for glufosinate-resistant plants must be granted in the European Union!"

Bayer CropScience, based in Germany, sells glufosinate under the trademarks Basta and Liberty. The substance is one of the best-selling herbicides in the world, with sales in 2007 of €241 million. Bayer is currently expanding glufosinate production capacity in Germany.

A European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) evaluation states that glufosinate poses a high risk to mammals. The substance is classified as reprotoxic, with laboratory experiments causing 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. The new EU regulation declares a ban on all CRM (carcinogenic, reprotoxic and mutagenic) pesticides from categories I and II. Glufosinate is classified as falling in reprotoxic category II. Already in 2006 Swedish authorities demanded an EU-wide ban.

In the U.S. and Latin America the ingredient is widely used as a "super herbicide" for genetically modified crops, mainly on rapeseed, maize, soy bean, cotton, rice and sugar beet. Bayer requested EU approval for several glufosinate-resistant plants, among them a genetically altered rice (LL Rice 62). In 2006 a similar rice (LL Rice 601) that was never approved was found in food supplies across the world and led to the largest GM contamination scandal so far.

The Coalition against Bayer Dangers also demands that BAYER publishes all studies on pesticides and chemicals. Jan Pehrke from the Coalition said: "Industry must not be allowed to hide unwelcome information. Full public access to health and environmental data about substances that are released into the environment and used on our food is necessary."

For more information:

Letter to EU Ministers (2006):
Act now for a ban of Bayer's glufosinate Reject Bayer's application to import genetically modified rice into the EU Coalition against BAYER Dangers

http://www.CBGnetwork.org
CBGnetwork@aol.com
Tel: (+49) 211-333 911 Fax: (+49) 211-333 940
please send an e-mail for receiving the English newsletter Keycode BAYER free of charge

Advisory Board

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

17 January 2009

Conventional soybean varieties

Morning Sun (Kansas, USA), 17 January 2009.

PITTSBURG - The following is some information that was provided by Bill Schapaugh, who is the soybean breeder at K-State [Kansas State University]. Bill has been the soybean breeder at K-State for many years and is responsible for most of the varieties of soybeans that have been released from K-State in the last twenty years.

As the price of Roundup Ready soybean seed has increased recently, there have been some questions about the availability of conventional, non-GMO soybean varieties. Some producers are interested because they would like to be able to replant seed from their soybean crop, and some would like to try to find a buyer willing to pay a premium for non-GMO soybeans. Whatever the reason, conventional soybean varieties are available but will take some effort to locate. K-State has three conventional varieties: KS4607, KS5004N, and KS5502N. One or more of these varieties may be available from local seed producers in Kansas. To find out which seed producers currently have licenses for these varieties in your area, contact Vernon Schaffer, manager of K-State Foundation Seed, at 785-532-6115 or vas@ksu.edu .

To produce any of these three varieties, producers must sign a licensing agreement which specifies how the varieties can be used. It should be possible to replant the seed of these conventional varieties. There are also a few conventional varieties available from commercial seed companies, and from public breeding programs at the University of Nebraska, University of Missouri, and Iowa State University. An older Group V conventional variety, Hutcheson, is also still being produced as certified seed in Kansas. For more information, call Kansas Crop Improvement Association at 785-532-6118.

One of the challenges in selecting conventional varieties is evaluating their yield potential. It has been several years since any of these varieties have been included in the K-State SoybeanPerformance Test, so it is hard to know how well they yield compared to the most recent Roundup Ready varieties. The K-State soybean breeding program has been phasing out its development of Roundup Ready varieties over the past two years, and is now actively developing new conventional varieties in maturity groups III, IV, and V. There should be two or three of these experimental conventional soybean lines in the K-State Soybean Performance Test in 2009. In addition, hundreds of advanced experimental lines and thousands of preliminary experimental lines are being tested at K-State.

In the 2009 Performance Test, we will have two or more locations specifically for conventional soybean varieties. In these conventional soybean variety performance tests, we will have public varieties and have invited all commercial companies to enter their conventional varieties. There will be some Roundup Ready varieties included as checks in these tests.

The K-State breeding program is also working with Monsanto to obtain a license to produce new Roundup Ready 2 Yield varieties, but does not yet have an agreement.

________

Comment from GM-free Ireland:

Ireland is the biggest importer of GM animal feed commodities in the European Union. Following our Government's agreement to keep this island off-limits to GM crops in 2007, the agri-biotech brigade is understandably worried that Irish farmers may also phase out GM animal feed.

A desperate propaganda war is being waged against Irish farmers by the main GM exporting countries (USA, Canada and Argentina), GM seed suppliers (Monsanto, BASF, Syngenta et al), GM traders (Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland, and Bunge), GM feed importers (represented by the Irish Grain and Feed Association), international agri-biotech industry lobbyists like Prof David McConnell of the European Action on Global Life Sciences (and the Smurfit Institute of Genetics at TCD, and the Irish Times Trust), Teagasc (the Irish Food and Agriculture Authority), some departments of University College Cork, and various others operating under the aegis of "science communication".

The Irish Grain and Feed Association denies the scientific evidence of disease linked to GM animal feed, and wants farmers to believe three big lies:

a.   

the myth that there is no market for meat, poultry and dairy produce fed on certified Non-GM animal feed;

b.   

that if such a market did exist, GM-free animal feed would not be available; and

c.   

that if GM-free animal feed were available, Irish farmers could not afford it.

This propaganda aims to keep Irish farmers ignorant of what their EU competitors already know:

The European market for GM free meat, poultry and dairy produce is growing rapidly

•

In 2004, 60 top European food brands and food retailers banned GM ingredients from their own-brand produce. In 2005, a million EU citizens signed a petition demanding mandatory EU labelling for meat, poultry and dairy produce from livestock fed on GM ingredients. See No Market for GM-food in Europe http://www.gmfreeireland.org/downloads/NoMarketForGMFood.pdf (2MB pdf).

•

A growing number of leading European food brands and food retailers are beginning to also exclude meat, poultry and dairy produce from livestock fed on GM ingredients in their own-brand foods. Many of them are adopting voluntary "GM-free" or "Non-GMO" labels for their best animal produce. Farmers and food producers in 50 European Regions are implementing Quality Agriculture strategies which avoid the use of GM animal feed. For more information, see the proceedings of the Second International Non-GMO Soy Summit: Strategic alliances for sustainable, responsible, Non-GMO soy held in Brussels, 7-9 October 2008: http://www.nongmosoysummit.com.

•

Switzerland will host the related 5th European Conference on GMO-free Regions (Food and Democracy) at Lucerne, on 24-25 April 2009, with representatives of 230 regions and 4200 municipalities of Europe that have declared agriculture on their territory as GMO-free: http://www.gmo-free-regions.org/food-democracy-april-2009.html

Certified GM-free animal feed is available

•

100% of soya and 99% of maize grown in Europe is GM-free.

•

In Brazil's major soy-producing state of Paraná, farmers planted more Non-GM soy beans in response to European market demand for the 2008/09 crop. According to a press release issued by the Paraná State News Agency on 18 December 2008, seed traders in Paraná offered more conventional soya seeds than transgenic ones for the 2008/09 harvest. The Secretary for Agriculture and Supply Valter Bianchini said that farmers already grew more Non-GMO soya for the previous harvest in 2007/08 because of lower production costs.

•

As the above article shows, similar moves are underway in the USA. Growing numbers of American farmers are giving up growing GM soya because of the rising cost of patented GM seeds, the related prohibition to save and plant their own GM seeds, threats of patent infringement lawsuits, and the premia they can obtain from certified Non-GM soybeans.

Certified Non-GM soy meal will become cheaper as the supply increases

•

More farmers in the major soy producing countries (USA, Canada, Argentina and Brazil) will switch to growing Non-GM soya if the European market demands it. So long as they can obtain uncontaminated seed, soy farmers can convert from growing GM to Non-GM soy in one season. (Because soya is a self-pollinating crop, GM soy does not cross-contaminate conventional soy crops in perpetuity, as is the case with GM maize and GM oilseed rape.)

•

Irish farmers wishing to source certified Non-GM soy meal and maize by-products need to break the GM cartel run by the Irish Grain and Feed Association. Doing so requires a segregated feed chain, bulk orders, regional coordination, forward planning, frame contracts, and a national certification and labelling scheme for Non-GM meat, poultry and dairy produce.

On 15 January 2009, at a meeting of the Irish Government's Joint Oireachtas (Parliament and Senate) Committee on European Affairs, the President of the Irish Cattle and Sheepfarmers Association, Malcolm Thompson, said:

"The ICSA would like to see a retail environment where consumers are always able to choose European product where the quality and origin is clearly defined and easily understood. We see this as a system of regulated logos and labels whereby farmers are recognised for their efforts. Each product would indicate country of origin and demonstrate that it was produced to the EU baseline standard. For those producers who go to the next level, those producers who go that extra mile and participate in REPS or who are farming organically, or who can certify that their product is GM free or grass fed, should have their niche also clearly identified on the label."

The GM-free Ireland Network lobbied the Government to set up this certification and labelling scheme in 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008. Their failure to do so continues to damage what remains of our reputation as Ireland – the food island.

16 January 2009

Industry weighs benefits, perils of GM varieties
• ÝOnce burned, the U.S. potato industry is still shy about embracing genetically modified spuds.

Capital Press Agriculture Weekly (USA), 16 January 2009. By David Wilkins.

Industry leaders want assurances that major buyers, consumers and U.S. trading partners will accept genetically modified potatoes prior to any more commercial releases.

"We are concerned that the realities of some international markets may override the science and create market disruptions to important trade, " the industry's official position statement on biotechnology says in part.

Genetically modified potatoes haven't been grown commercially in the United States for nearly a decade. The first GM spuds - Monsanto's New Leaf potatoes - were a hit with some farmers when they were introduced in the mid-1990s, but were rejected by some key markets.

New Leaf potatoes were engineered to resist Colorado potato beetles and certain potato viruses. While some farmers welcomed the new technology, New Leaf potatoes failed in the marketplace and were eventually scrapped.

Major fast-food chains resisted the idea of French fries made from genetically modified spuds. Then in May 2001, Japan recalled millions of dollars worth of snack food products containing dehydrated potatoes that had been genetically modified. A costly U.S. dehydrated potato export testing program was launched in response.

Industry leaders don't want a repeat of the disaster. They're taking a cautious approach ahead of the expected release of a GM potato variety by another major U.S. agricultural company within the next few years.

It's clear that enhanced breeding and biotechnology hold "tremendous potential for potatoes, " said John Keeling, executive vice president of the National Potato Council, during an interview Friday, Jan. 9, at the Potato Expo in San Antonio.

But it's also critical that any new GM potato varieties be approved by U.S. regulators and foreign countries where the potatoes are likely to be sold, industry officials said.

"Prior to commercialization of any potatoes derived from biotechnology or intragenic technology, the sponsoring company should consult with those companies that market U.S. potatoes and potato products in international markets to develop a full understanding of the likely levels of consumer acceptance, " the industry's policy states.

Surveys conducted within the past year suggest there's growing public acceptance of biotech food, even though the shift may be due largely to higher food prices, said Sharon Bomer with the Biotechnology Industry Organization.

"Over the past year, I think you have started to see a shift, even in Europe, " Bomer said during a presentation Thursday, Jan. 8, at the Potato Expo.

A fall 2008 survey conducted by the International Food Information Council indicated that 84 percent of U.S. consumers had a favorable or neutral view of biotech foods, she said.

Comment by TraceConsult™:

Apparently the potato processing industry has access to significantly larger sources of wisdom than its counterparts in the soybean and corn sectors. Despite an alleged 84 percent non-rejection of biotech foodstuffs among U.S. consumers, it is still considered a smart idea to check consumer attitudes in international markets.

McDonald's Corporation and other global players should be able to convince the potato industry that staying GM-free is such a smart idea - at least when it comes to a small international market called Europe.

FDA Will Not Require Labeling of Meat or Fish from Genetically Engineered Animals
• Consumers Union says decision ignores consumer right to choose

InfoZine, 16 January 2009.

Washington, D.C. -- Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports, said that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) blatantly ignored consumers' right to choose what they eat after the FDA announced that it will not require labeling on meat or fish from genetically engineered animals.

The Bush administration, which is in charge of the FDA for just two more working days, today announced Final Guidance on Regulation of Genetically Engineered Animals. The FDA Guidance states that FDA will require such animals to go through a mandatory safety approval process, a decision Consumers Union supports. However FDA will not require any labeling.

A recent Consumers Union poll found that 95 percent of consumers favor labeling of meat and milk from genetically engineered animals.

Genetically engineered animals may contain genetic material from entirely different species, even humans. For example, last week an FDA advisory committee reviewed the safety of a goat engineered with human genes so that it would produce a human blood thinner in the goat's milk. "This animal is intended for use in drug production, but what if FDA found that it is also safe for use as food? Without labeling, consumers would have no way to know this meat was in their butcher shop, " said Michael Hansen, PhD, a senior scientist at Consumers Union. Products under development for supermarket distribution include pork where mouse genes have been put into pigs to help them metabolize phosphorous more efficiently, and salmon that has been engineered with genes from other fish to make them grow twice as fast as normal.

"Despite thousands of comments from consumers saying they want to know if engineered meat or fish is in their supermarket, FDA claims these foods are not different from conventional food, and therefore don't need to be labeled, " stated Jean Halloran, Director of Food Policy Initiatives at Consumers Union, nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports. "This flies in the face of consumer opinion and common sense. These foods should be labeled because they are different--in FDA's terms the presence of novel genes is a material fact, " Halloran stated.

Hansen added, "If a company engineered a cow with human genes to make the meat more tender, FDA would appropriately evaluate it only on the scientific safety issues. However consumers and society in general have additional concerns, and we think it is essential that products be labeled, so consumers can act on their individual ethics and values."

Halloran said, "This one-minute-to-midnight regulation is a final favor to industry delivered as the current FDA Administrator goes out the door." FDA Commissioner Von Eschenbach's resignation is effective January 20. "We hope the new Obama administration will reverse this ill-considered guidance and require labeling of genetically engineered meat and milk products as soon as possible after it takes office next week."

Related infoZine article:

FDA Issues Final Guidance on Regulating Genetically Engineered Animals
http://www.infozine.com/news/stories/op/storiesView/sid/33218/

FDA issues final guidance on genetically engineered animals

Brownnfield Ag News for America, 16 January 2009. By Bob Meyer.

The U.S. Food & Drug Administration has issued a final guidance on the regulation of genetically engineered animals. "The Regulation of Genetically Engineered Animals Containing Heritable rDNA Constructs, " clarifies the FDA's statutory and regulatory authority, and provides recommendations to producers of GE animals to help them meet their obligations and responsibilities under the law. FDA released the draft guidance back in September and received 28, 000 comments over the next 60 days. The agency then used the comments to formulate the final rules.

The regulation determines a genetically engineered animal is one that contains an rDNA construct intended to give the animal new characteristics or traits. FDA further states an rDNA construct that is in a GE animal and is intended to affect the animal's structure or function meets the definition of an animal drug. Whether the animal is intended for food or used to produce another substance, developers of these animals must demonstrate that any genetic engineering must be safe for the health of the animal and, if they are food animals, safe for consumption.

FDA deputy Commissioner, Randall Lutter says the new guidance will help the agency review applications for products from genetically engineered animals. The rules also describe the manufacturer's responsibility in meeting the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act.

Related Links:

Read the guidance regulation http://www.fda.gov/cvm/Guidance/fguide187.pdf

Food security and global warming: Monsanto versus organic
• Organic farming beats genetically engineered corn as response to rising global temperatures

GristMill (USA), 16 January 2009. By Meredith Niles.

This week Science published research detailing the vast, global food-security implications of warming temperatures (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/323/5911/240) [subscription required] . The colored graphics are nothing short of terrifying when you realize the blotches of red and orange covering the better part of the globe indicate significantly warmer summers in coming decades.

The implications of the article are clear -- we need to be utilizing agricultural methods and crops that can withstand the potential myriad impacts of global climate change, especially warmer temperatures. The article significantly notes, "The probability exceeds 90 percent that by the end of the century, the summer average temperature will exceed the hottest summer on record throughout the tropics and subtropics. Because these regions are home to about half of the world's population, the human consequences of global climate change could be enormous."

Whether you believe global warming is part of a "natural cycle" or a man-made phenomenon is irrelevant. The bottom line is that our earth is rapidly warming, and this is going to drastically affect our food supply. We must undertake both the enormous task of reducing our carbon emissions now to avert the worst, while at the same time adapting our society to the vast and multitudinous effects of unavoidable global climate change. Failing to do either will, as the Science article indicates, have dire effects on a large portion of our world's population.

Determining the best course of action for ensuring food security in the face of global climate change remains a challenging task. Recognizing that climate change is slated to affect developing countries and small-scale farmers the most is a crucial point. Such understanding enables people to realize that viable solutions must be accessible, affordable, and relevant to the billions of small-scale farmers in the developing world. Unfortunately, it appears that some of the solutions on the table fail to meet these criteria.

Last week, Monsanto made a big public relations splash by filing documents with the FDA regarding a drought-tolerant GM corn variety (http://monsanto.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=676) it is developing with a German company, BASF. Monsanto claims that in field trials, the corn got 6-10 percent higher yields in drought-prone areas last year, but the release is extremely short on details. Regardless of the reality, Monsanto is presenting the corn as a way to help improve on-farm productivity in other parts of the world, notably Africa.

Yet, absent from the media hype were the many technical and social problems with Monsanto's corn.

A little over a year ago, the Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics (http://www.acpfg.com.au/) held a conference specific to drought and drought-tolerant crops. As a follow up, the Australian government's Grains Research and Development Corporation (http://www.grdc.com.au/). published a piece detailing the research shared and lessons learned from the conference. One topic addressed was the potential of GM drought-tolerant varieties. In the analysis stated, "The most notable and problematic (effect) is the tendency of drought-tolerant GM lines to not perform as well under favourable conditions. This appears to be the case for CIMMYT's GM wheat and Monsanto's GM corn. The flaw is a profound one. It amounts to shifting the yield losses experienced in dry seasons onto the good years." In essence, farmers might get a small bump in yield during droughts, but will suffer yield losses when conditions are favorable. Considering that climate scientists continually point to increased erratic weather patterns as a symptom of global warming, this reality is clearly disastrous. Surely there must be better solutions that increase production under all weather conditions

One promising solution appeared in an article published in BioScience in 2005 (http://www.bioone.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1641%2F0006-3568(2005)055[0820%3AOACAR]2.0.CO%3B2). The authors outlined the Rodale Institute's Farming Systems Trial, a long-term comparison of organic and conventional farming systems conducted between 1981 and 2002. Significantly, the trials found that organic production yielded equivalently to conventional systems after a transition period. Yet even more importantly, Rodale found that in drought conditions in which rainfall was 30 percent less than normal, organic systems yielded 28 to 34 percent higher than conventional systems. Rodale equates the yield gain to increased water retention as a result of higher soil organic carbon. Water volumes percolating through the various systems were 15-20 percent higher in the organic systems as compared with the conventional systems over the 12 year period.

The BioScience article additionally noted that the organic systems used 28 to 32 percent fewer energy inputs, retained soil carbon and soil nitrogen better, and offered a higher profitability over conventional systems. What is so significant about this research is that it demonstrates the ability of organic agriculture to both reduce greenhouse gas emissions with fewer energy inputs and withstand climate change impacts like drought with greater efficacy.

Most importantly, it offers an economical and accessible form of agriculture for billions of small-scale farmers. Scaling up agricultural development in rural areas like Africa can be accomplished with organic methods like manure, compost, and cover crops. Even the United Nations recognized the opportunity presented by organic production in a report late last year. Conventional breeding and improved seeds are also part of the solution. Between 1939 and 2005, conventional breeding contributed significantly to an almost six-fold yield-gain in corn in the U.S.

This point is crucial, since the seeds Monsanto is planning to release will be owned by the company and sold at exorbitant prices. GMO seeds cost from two to over four times as much as conventional seed varieties, and the disparity is increasing. How will small-scale farmers pay for such seeds? How will they pay for the chemicals and synthetic fertilizers necessary for such production? Shouldn't we be looking for solutions that are viable and realistic for those people who are most food insecure? Monsanto does not have the answers here, but organic methods can and should be a big part of the solution.

The future of food security in the face of warming temperatures cannot be based on a system of profits and research that fails to address the needs of food-insecure farmers. We need real solutions that will enable farmers to maintain and increase yields with those materials and techniques already available to them with little extra cost: animal manure, increased irrigation opportunities, cover crops, compost, and integrated pest-management systems. Organic agriculture will reduce, mitigate, and adapt to climate change impacts and still remain accessible and economic to the billions of subsistence farmers around the world. If we really want to fight the food crisis, let's start investing in and promoting organic production today to ensure better climate adaptation in the future.

GM canola a flop

Non-GM Farmers (Australia) press release, 16 January 2009.
http://www.non-gm-farmers.com

Today the GRDC announced the results of the first independent trials of GM canola [oilseed rape] which revealed that GM canola yielded 17% lower than both Non-GM herbicide tolerant canola varieties. While it sent shock-waves amongst farmers expecting higher yields with GM crops, the Network of Concerned Farmers (NCF) expected this result.

"This is clear evidence that GM canola is not what it is promoted as, " said Julie Newman, NCF National Spokesperson for the Network of Concerned Farmers. "We hope farmers will now realise that they have been misled to believe GM canola should yield more when there is no logical reason why it should."

The GRDC National Variety Trials showed Roundup Ready GM canola yielding 0.7t/ha while non-GM Triazine Tolerant and Cleafield canola yielded 0.8t/ha. The trials compared non-GM herbicide tolerant varieties with GM Roundup Ready canola which has a single genetically modified trait conferred to the plant allowing the plant to be sprayed with glyphosate between the 2 leaf to the 6 leaf stage.

"GM canola is only a limited weed control tool of a non-residual herbicide tolerant canola which is not as effective as what we already have. Interestingly, the GM farmers in NSW and Victoria have reported the key advantage as grass control which has nothing to do with the GM part because it is achieved by the recommended residual chemical Trifluralin when planting."

The 2008 costs involve a half price stewardship fee of $500/farm, a discounted $10.20/tonne EPR-style royalty and an extra $43.50/ha for seed.

"Even at these low yields, the GM fees for 500 ha would amount to an additional $25, 820 which would require an additional yield increase of 15% to pay for itself. It looks like the farmer pays 15% more but gets 17% less which is a big loss of 32% of the value of the crop."

"Agronomically and economically, GM canola has been proven to be a flop."

Contact: Julie Newman Phone 08 98711562 or mobile 0427 711644

[This press release was issued in response to the W.A. and Victorian ABC Country Hour report, 16 Jan 09]

GM canola trials come a cropper

Western Australia Business News, 16 Jan 2009. By Heather Bennett.

Genetically modified canola [oilseed rape] crops in Victoria have performed no better than their non-genetically modified counterparts as Western Australia prepares to hold trials later this year.

Results from Grains Research and Development Council showed the yields, from the first independent trial crops in Horsham and Forbes in Victoria, were 0.7 tonne per hectare for GM and 0.8t/ha ha for non-GM.

The results are not good news for those wanting to farm GM canola, as to break even with the technology, profits must increase by up to 16 per cent.

The first GM canola trials in Western Australia are due to be held this year, after Agriculture Minister Terry Redman lifted the moratorium on December 23, in what critics say was a cynical move.

Supporters of GM canola have consistently argued that the crop is more weed resistant and produces significantly better yields.

Those against it are rejoicing the results as confirmation that the claims are unsubstantiated.

"This is clear evidence that GM canola is not what it is promoted as, " said Network of Concerned Farmers national spokesperson Julie Newman.

"We hope farmers will now realize that they have been misled to believe GM canola should yield more when there is no logical reason why it should."

Canola Breeders Western Australia research director and executive officer Associate Professor Wallace Cowling said the GM strain was developed for weed resistance, not yield, but he suggested future crops may achieve more impressive yield results.

"It's not about yield, it's about herbicide tolerance. It's weed control farmers are worried about, " he said.

"It's going to be scrutinised for yield over the next few years. Yield of the first varieties isn't expected to be great, but it's early days, " he said.

15 January 2009

The GM debate: We still don't know the long-term effects of GM crops

Irish Farmers Journal (Letters), 15 January (dated 17 January) 2009. By Nick Cullen.

Dear Sir,

In response to Professor Wall's request for a GM debate from a business viewpoint, I would like to offer the opinion that whether or not it is in the economic interest of Irish farmers to embrace GM crops will entirely depend on whether GM foods will be eventually seen to be as safe and therefore saleable.

Trying to ascertain this at present, is like being on a jury in a trial where virtually no police investigation has occurred, as we are armed with only one scientific work dealing with human health, the Newcastle study, in which GM material was found to have survived human digestion. Recent evidence of ill-health in animals discovered in work commissioned by the Austrian agency for Health and Food Safety, headed by Velimirov, Binter and Zentek (October 2008), appears to confirm the findings of earlier studies indicating possible problems in the area of reproductive health. We therefore await over the coming years, evidence of the effects of the long term consumption of GM food on virtually every human organ and activity. We need not allow the marketability of our produce to be dictated by the results of these ongoing tests which must eventually be done.

This may beg the question as to what evidence the European Food Safety Authority examines. In the recent application for a renewal of the license for the GM "T25" maize, the only scientific studies presented to this authority in relation to human or animal health referred to a nutritional assessment based on the production performance of broiler chickens after just 6 weeks of feeding, a study claiming that T25 maize silage to be similar to other silages, and finally the unsupported unscientific observation that "the 10 years history of practical cultivation of T25 maize in the American proves its environmental as well as food and feed safety". It is worth considering that tobacco had a similar "history of safe use" for very many decades.

The fact that the GM crops are grown in other parts of the world and soon may also be grown here, with so little relavent work to demonstrate their safety, indicates that the familliar dysfunctional regulatory systems which gave us scandals ranging from Enron to those in the banking world to the physical "evidence" of weapons of mass destruction are operating in the scientific world. In these times we need leaders rather than lemmings.

Yours sincerely

Nick Cullen
Ballysax, The Curragh, Co. Kildare
Ireland

Consumer groups find gaps in new FDA policy on foods and drugs from gene-altered animals

Associated Press, 15 January 2009. By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar.

Washington -- Federal health officials Thursday pledged a new, open process for approving drugs and foods from genetically engineered animals.

Consumer groups complained the policy won't do enough to tell people if they're eating gene-altered animals and fails to protect the environment. They urged the incoming Obama administration to reconsider it.

Genetic engineering, already widely used for crops, is on the threshold of producing animals that can grow faster or even yield drugs that treat human illnesses. Although the potential benefits - and profits - are huge, many individuals have qualms about manipulating the genetic code of other living creatures.

In issuing its long-awaited final policy, the Food and Drug Administration said it will not allow any products from genetically engineered animals to be sold without first submitting them to scrutiny by independent advisers at a public meeting. The government will allow exceptions for research animals, such as lab rats, and the FDA will post those on its Web site.

Genetically engineered - or GE - animals are not clones, which the FDA has already said are safe to eat. Clones are exact copies of an animal. With GE animals, their DNA has been altered to produce a desirable characteristic.

"We will not approve any application until we are convinced of the safety and effectiveness, " said FDA biotechnology expert Larisa Rudenko, who has been working on the complex issue since 1989. "The public should rest assured that we are not going to be rushing any decisions."

But consumer groups said the FDA's policy will not require all genetically engineered foods to be labeled as such. And they said the government has not done enough to examine the potential impact of genetically engineered animals on the environment, particularly if some escape and begin to mate with animals in nature.

"They are completely ignoring consumers' overwhelming desire for labeling, " said Michael Hansen, a senior scientist with Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports. FDA officials said genetically engineered foods will be labeled if they are different in some important way from natural foods, for example, no-fat filet mignon.

The FDA also failed to require a cradle-to-grave tracking system for genetically engineered animals, said Gregory Jaffe, who heads the biotechnology project at the Center for Science in the Public Interest. He's particularly concerned about animals that are not supposed to enter the food supply chain.

"The FDA has made some small but important changes to increase the transparency of this process, " said Jaffe. "It helps, but the devil is in the details."

While not calling for a repeal of the FDA policy, Jaffe urged the incoming Obama administration to work with Congress on a new law that specifically addresses the genetic engineering issue. The FDA based its policy on older laws that apply to animal drugs.

Drugs and foods from GE animals will become increasingly common in the next five to ten years. For example, an FDA advisory committee last week considered approval of an anti-clotting drug produced from the milk of GE goats. The scientific advisers concluded that the drug - ATryn - appears to be safe and effective. A final FDA decision is pending. And a Massachusetts company hopes to win FDA approval this year for a faster-growing salmon.

The biotechnology industry welcomed the FDA's announcement.

"This system will ensure the products made available through this science will go through a rigorous and transparent review process before being approved for the marketplace, " said Barbara Glenn, a senior scientific adviser with the Biotechnology Industry Organization.

2nd Gen Biofuels are a Dangerous "Green" Bubble
• "Next Generation Biofuels": Bursting The New "Green" Bubble
• Letter challenges unrealistic promises from an unsustainable industry

Proyecto de Bioseguridad Puerto Rico, 15 January 2009. By Carmelo Ruiz.

United States--A diverse alliance of organizations published an open letter [1] today in the U.S. and internationally warning of the dangers of industrially produced biofuels (called agrofuels by critics). The letter explains why large-scale industrial production of transport fuels and other energy from plants such as corn, sugar cane, oilseeds, trees, grasses, or so-called agricultural and woodland waste threatens forests, biodiversity, food sovereignty, community-based land rights and will worsen climate change. With the new Obama Administration slated to take office Tuesday, the letter's originators warn that if Obama's "New Green Economy" runs on agrofuels it may trap the U.S. in a dangerous "Green Bubble" of unrealistic promises from an unsustainable industry.

Indications that the incoming Obama Administration may be ideologically wedded to continuing the agrofuel disaster are clear. President Obama's "New Green Deal" includes support for notoriously destructive agrofuel corporations, the creation of a pro-agribusiness cabinet that includes Tom Vilsack, Ken Salazar and Steven Chu, promotion of cellulosic fuel technologies, and references to increasing the Renewable Fuel Standard biofuel target. Additionally, Obama, a former Senator from a corn-growing state, has indicated that the already troubled U.S. ethanol industry will receive a financial boost soon, despite mounting evidence that the industry simply cannot meet the demand for fuel in any just or sustainable way.

"This no longer about corn ethanol-turning any plants into fuel is simply not renewable, " stated Dr. Rachel Smolker, co-author of the letter and Global Justice Ecology Project agrofuels specialist. "All plants, edible or not, require soils, water, fertilizers and land, all of which are in shortening supply. Yet these unsustainable technologies are commanding the vast majority of renewable energy tax incentives, at the expense of genuine cleaner energy solutions like conservation, efficiency, wind, solar, and ocean power. Additionally, because agrofuel crops rely on fertilizers, 44% of which are imported, they cannot even satisfy the calls for U.S. energy independence."

Corn and sugar based agrofuels have already come under extreme scrutiny due to their documented contribution to the food crisis, with venture capital investment in these so-called 'first generation biofuels' dropping to zero. The open letter exposes the further problems that will result from the so-called 'second generation' of agrofuels. These problems range from wholesale destruction of the world's rainforests and other sensitive forests, to the forced displacement of entire communities to make way for agrofuel expansion, and the biosafety risks of gambling on novel technologies like Synthetic Biology and genetically engineered trees. The letter also makes clear that agrofuels made from inedible plant feedstocks (cellulosic fuels) will continue to exacerbate the food crisis by monopolizing additional agricultural lands for the growing of agrofuel crops such as grasses and trees, instead of food crops.

The groups originating the letter have called on others to join them in preventing another ill-conceived push into agrofuels similar to that which last year raised food prices and hunger levels to crisis proportions. "The last administration's enthusiastic foray into biofuels exacerbated global environmental destruction, land theft and hunger in just a very short space of time, " explains Kathy Jo Wetter of the ETC Group. "Redoubling that biofuels push is a continuation of disastrous policies rather than the change we need."

The groups originating the letter include some of the same U.S. groups that issued a prescient call in early 2007 for an immediate moratorium on further U.S. incentives for agrofuel development: Global Justice Ecology Project, Rainforest Action Network, Food First, Family Farm Defenders, and Grassroots International. Additional groups making this call include: ETC Group, Institute for Social Ecology, Heartwood, Dogwood Alliance, Energy Justice Network, and Native Forest Council.

Original story & contact info: http://bioseguridad.blogspot.com/

2008: A Bad Year for the GM Multinationals

A "gigantic experiment with nature and the whole of humanity which has gone seriously wrong."

– Prince Charles

Dr. Rath Foundation, 15 January 2009. By Paul Anthony Taylor.

[The original text at http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/the_foundation/2008_gm_multinationals.html includes hyperlinks not shown here.]

Looking back over the past 12 months, there can be very little doubt that, from the perspective of the large multinational producers of genetically modified (GM) seeds and food, 2008 was a very bad year indeed. Far from moving closer towards the GM industry's cherished dream of seeing foods grown from patented GM seeds becoming the norm on our dinner plates, it would seem that consumers are, if anything, becoming more suspicious than ever regarding these products. As such, with reports of the dangers of GM food becoming more common almost by the week, and even Prince Charles – the heir to the British throne - now openly stating that the widespread use of GM crops would be the biggest environmental disaster of all time, it is no longer too difficult to envisage a future where the consumption of naturally-grown organic foods, rather than GM foods, might become the norm.

So, as we head into 2009, let's take a look back at some of the key reasons why the GM food industry's senior executives and shareholders may be looking with increasing trepidation at the year ahead.

More countries imposing bans on GM crops

During 2008, a number of additional countries began imposing bans and restrictions on the cultivation of GM crops.

France, for example, banned a strain of GM maize produced by the US agribusiness giant Monsanto, delighting environmentalists but sparking outrage from the company – especially so given that the strain concerned, MON 810, is already the only GM crop permitted to be cultivated in the European Union. The ban followed a French government-appointed committee stating that it had "serious doubts" about the product.

Shortly after the French ban, Romania announced that it, too, was banning MON 810. This announcement was a particularly damaging blow to the biotechnology industry as Romania is Europe's largest per hectare maize producer. Altogether, a total of seven European Union countries – France, Romania, Hungry, Italy, Austria, Greece and Poland – have now banned the cultivation of MON 810.

Moreover, whilst European Union regulators launched legal action against Poland early in 2008, in an attempt to force it to lift its GM ban, the Polish government subsequently declared that Poland will be remaining GM-free – thus continuing its ongoing policy of hampering the planting of GM crops.

Greece, meanwhile, announced in April that it was renewing its ban on GM maize produced by Monsanto and expanding it to include 70 types of seed. Citing potential threats to human health and the beekeeping industry, the Greek Agriculture Minister Alexandros Kondos said that Greece's three-year-old ban on the sale and cultivation of MON 810 seeds was to be extended for two more years.

Across in the UK, tough proposals announced by the Welsh Assembly Government will effectively ban GM crops from being cultivated in Wales, and, if adopted, will also put an end to trial plantings. In a move supported by a number of environmental groups and farming interests, the Welsh proposals will make both GM companies and the farmers who plant their crops legally liable for any contamination that occurs.

On the island of Ireland, agriculture ministers from both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland recently confirmed their plans for the island to be declared a GM-free zone. In keynote speeches at a conference on food and farming policy in September, the Irish Minister of State for Food and Horticulture, Trevor Sargent TD, and the Northern Ireland Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Michelle Gildernew MP, called for the island to be declared off-limits to the release of GM crops. Their statements followed similar calls by the Scottish Government, which is now planning to link up with its counterparts in Wales and Northern Ireland and is putting mounting pressure on the UK government to end its support for GM crops.

In Switzerland – which had already imposed a moratorium on the commercial cultivation of GM crops in 2005 – legislators voted to extend the ban until 2012. In doing so, the Swiss specifically stated that the freeze had benefited Swiss farmers, who were able to market their produce on international markets as GM-free.

Likewise, in Peru, the production of GM crops was also suspended in 2008, with the Peruvian Minister of the Environment, Antonio Brack, citing risks to health and biodiversity. Similar sentiments were expressed in Africa, with the Lusaka Province Minister, Lameck Mangani, stating that the Zambian government will not allow GM products into the country and that there is a need to continue protecting the country from the danger posed by them.

In Australia, and to the delight of environmental groups in the region, two states announced restrictions on GM crops during 2008. South Australia announced that it will maintain its ban on GM crops, whilst Tasmania decided that its ban on the commercial release of GM food crops should be extended for at least another five years to the end of November 2014.

Further evidence of the dangers of GM crops

Disturbingly convincing evidence emerged in 2008 that transgenic oilseed rape can survive and produce plants as much as a decade after it was sown. Researchers in Sweden studied a field in which experimental oilseed rape had been planted a decade ago and unexpectedly discovered – despite the fact that intensive efforts had taken place in the intervening years to remove the crops – that transgenic specimens were continuing to grow there. The significance of this finding cannot be underestimated as, prior to this, no GM crop had ever been found to survive this long. As such, it is becoming increasingly apparent that, once released, GM organisms cannot be contained. Clearly therefore, along with evidence emerging in France recently that contamination of non-GM sites can occur as much as 35 kilometres away from fields planted with transgenic crops, this is a very worrying finding indeed.

A discovery in Canada last year – that GM canola plants can interbreed with a weed, producing a hybrid wild mustard that is resistant to Monsanto's flagship herbicide glyphosate (Roundup) – is similarly of concern. Despite the prior claims of GM crop producers that genetically engineered plants wouldn't cross with weeds – and then, when they eventually did, that the new hybrids wouldn't persist – the Canadian researchers found that a herbicide resistance gene from the GM canola had moved into the gene pool of a weedy relative and persisted during a six-year period.

And, in another alarming finding, scientists learned in 2008 that an insect that is supposed to be killed by a GM crop with an in-built toxin gene has developed resistance to it and started to spread in parts of the United States. The scientists who made this finding say that it may now only be a matter of time before other insects similarly adapt to this crop.

Meanwhile, a report jointly produced by the environmental activist organization Friends of the Earth International and the Center for Food Safety, a Washington D.C. advocacy group, examined the emergence of "superweeds" that have developed a resistance to conventional herbicides such as Monsanto's Roundup. According to the report, the amount of herbicides used by farmers to kill weeds has had to rise an astonishing fifteenfold since biotech crops were first planted. Bill Freese, a policy analyst at the Center for Food Safety and a co-author of the report, described the fight against these superweeds as "a chemical arms race."

In June, a report published by the US-based Institute for Responsible Technology drew together the findings from more than 100 research papers. Entitled "State-of-the-Science on the Health Risks of GM Foods, " it described the conflict of interest among regulators that allowed GM foods on the market; the wide range of adverse findings from animal feeding studies such as higher death rates, organ damage, reproductive failures, and infant mortality; reports by farmers of thousands of sick, sterile, and dead livestock; toxic and allergic properties of GM foods; numerous scientific assumptions used as the basis for safety claims that have since proven false; inadequate regulatory oversight; biased industry safety studies; manipulation of public opinion; and the mistreatment of scientists critical of the technology. In sharp contrast to the claims of those who disingenuously allege that there is a scientific consensus in favour of GM crops, the report's contents prove that there are in fact a large number of research scientists who have serious concerns regarding the safety of these products.

Claim that GM increases yields exposed as false

Advocates of GM crops frequently claim that the yields from these products exceed those from regular crops.

However, a major U.S. study published in 2008 found that GM soya produced by Monsanto actually produces 10 per cent less food than its conventional equivalent, thus undermining the oft-repeated claim that the use of GM technology is essential to solve the growing world food crisis. Carried out over a three-year period at the University of Kansas, the study confirmed the findings of researchers from the University of Nebraska, who had previously found that another GM soya produced by Monsanto generated 6 per cent less food than its closest conventional relative, and 11 per cent less than the best non-GM soya available.

The findings of this study were echoed in a separate report, published by the UK's Soil Association, which examined the latest available research on GM crop yields over the last ten years. In contrast to the widely trumpeted claims of GM companies that they have the answer to world hunger, the report showed that the yields of all major GM crop varieties in cultivation are lower than, or at best, equivalent to, yields from non-GM varieties.

Moreover, a 2008 draft report produced by the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology project – an ambitious, 4-year, US$10-million undertaking involving 4, 000 scientists and experts from around the world – raised still further serious concerns about the environmental, human health and economic impacts of GM crops. As well as stating that there is no evidence that GM crops increase yields, the report specifically warned that use of the technology in the developing world could concentrate "ownership of agricultural resources" in the hands of the companies involved and cause problems with patents. Significantly therefore, following the report's failure to back GM as a tool to reduce poverty and hunger, the biotech companies Monsanto, Syngenta and BASF promptly withdrew from the project.

UK's Prince Charles attacks GM crops, draws attention to the Indian 'GM Genocide'

Interviewed in the UK's Daily Telegraph newspaper in August, Prince Charles – the heir to the British throne – openly stated that the widespread use of GM crops would be the biggest environmental disaster of all time. Saying that multinational food companies were conducting a "gigantic experiment with nature and the whole of humanity which has gone seriously wrong, " he added that "excessive approaches to modern forms of agriculture" had damaged water supplies in India's Punjab and in Western Australia.

Less than two months later, and subsequent to the blitz of media attacks on him that had inevitably followed his decision to draw attention to this issue, the Prince bravely went even further. In an address to an Indian audience, he spoke out about "the truly appalling and tragic rate of small farmer suicides in India, stemming in part from the failure of many GM crop varieties".

Branded the 'GM Genocide' by campaigners, the suicides Prince Charles referred to are a result of Indian farmers being promised radically increased harvests and income if they switch from using traditional non-GM seeds to planting GM seeds instead. To buy the GM seeds – which are dramatically more expensive than regular seeds – the farmers typically borrow the necessary money, often from local money-lenders to whom they become massively in debt.

However, because the GM seeds can require double the amount of water compared to non-GM seeds, unpredictable changes in weather patterns and changing climates can easily destroy the resulting crops. And, when that happens, because the crops' seeds contain so-called terminator genes, they cannot be replanted the following year – thus meaning that the farmers have to buy new ones. Add in the fact that supposedly pest-proof GM varieties of cotton have been devastated by the bollworm parasite and it becomes easy to see why more than 150, 000 Indian farmers are now estimated to have committed suicide since 1997 after their GM crops failed and their debts reached unmanageable proportions.

The "beginning of the end" for GM foods?

Arguably the most crucial battleground of all regarding GM foods at the present time concerns the issue of labelling. In short, the large multinational GM seed and food producers don't want their products to be labelled as having been genetically modified because, if they are, they know full well that the vast majority of consumers will simply avoid them.

Internationally, the labelling battle is largely being fought out at meetings of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling, where countries that are large-scale producers of GM seeds and foods are desperately fighting against global labelling standards that would make it mandatory for them to be labelled as containing GM ingredients.

Significantly therefore, in the United States, a new "non-GM" labelling initiative to be launched this year is already being cited by some as the "beginning of the end" for GM foods. Backed by more than 400 American processors and retailers, about 28, 000 products will be labelled as "non-GM" by the companies, which have a combined worth of $12bn.

Should this initiative prove to be popular – and, given that consumers both in the United States and the world over are overwhelmingly opposed to eating GM foods, it probably will – there seems every likelihood that it will spread and be copied by other countries. If this happens, the eventual collapse of the international market for GM seeds and foods – and with it, an end to the dangerous folly of putting patented seeds and crops before the health of people and the welfare of the environment – could soon be in sight.

As such, with scientific evidence now calling into question the very principles on which the GM industry was founded - and even some industry representatives beginning to admit that the human genome is so enormously complex that the only thing we can say about it with certainty is how much more we have left to learn – one thing's for sure in that 2009 seems unlikely to bring better tidings for what is rapidly turning into one of the world's most unpopular industries.

Biofuels 2.0

The Ecologist magazine, 15 January 2009. By Helena Paul.

A new generation of biofuels is poised to come into the market. They are greener, say proponents because they can be grown on unused, 'marginal' land and won't compete for our food crops. But just where exactly is all this marginal land, and whose backyard might it be? Helena Paul reports

Recent months have seen intense debates over agrofuels - biofuels made from crops. At first they were described as a panacea, a means of addressing climate change and regenerating agriculture and rural regions in Europe and around the world, particularly in Africa. The drive to exploit the global south for production of fuels from food crops such as corn and soya was presented as a development opportunity. However, many questions have since arisen about their true value for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and their impact on food production, such as land-use change, water depletion, waste, the displacement of people, other crops and animals and the human and environmental costs enacted, have become major concerns.

In response, policy-makers have been offered 'second generation' biofuels. These, we are told, will not affect food production because they will not use non-food crops. Technologies will convert the whole plant or tree to fuel, not just the fruit or seed. At least that is the vision.

However, large plantation will still be required to provide the raw materials and thus, although agrofuels might not compete for food crops, they will certainly compete for land and water. Moreover the technologies may be not be commercially viable for 10-20 years.

All this has caused confusion among political decision-makers. The European Union, having decided early in 2007 on a 10 per cent target for agrofuel use by 2020, has been strongly urged to reconsider, by a wide range of organisations and scientists profoundly concerned about the impacts. But the EU has resisted doing so to date. In February 2008, in response to the growing outcry about food prices and the indirect impacts of agrofuels, especially changes in land use, the UK government invited its newly established Renewable Fuels Agency (RFA) to undertake a review of such impacts.

To continue reading this article and many more from The Ecologist - The world's leading environmental magazine, subscribe to our print or digital version of the Ecologist:
http://www.theecologist.org/pages/subscribe.asp

14 January 2009

USDA Proposes First-Ever Industrial GE Crop

Center for Food Safety (USA), 14 January 2009.

USDA is poised to deregulate the world's first genetically engineered (GE) industrial crop.Ý Similar to GE pharma crops that use corn for producing drugs, Syngenta's "Event 3272" is genetically engineered to use corn for energy (ethanol) production and not for food.ÝÝ This unprecedented, industrial application of a GE technology poses a variety of environmental, health, and economic risks that must be carefully evaluated to determine whether the widespread use of this GE industrial corn crop should be allowed on farms across our nation.Ý

In a "business as usual" move, USDA has fast-tracked the commercialization of this GE industrial corn and has forgone conducting a full Environmental Impact Study (EIS), as required by law.ÝInstead, USDA is basing its decision to approve the industrial GE corn upon a cursory and incomplete Environmental Assessment (EA) that falls woefully short of the thorough review the public expects before a new GE crop is approved.Ý Moreover, USDA has failed to acknowledge that this GE technology requires even greater scrutiny since it transforms a ubiquitous food crop –corn– into an industrial crop – ethanol– making it no longer fit for human consumption.

The Obama Administration's USDA must complete a full EIS to address these concerns.Ý The agency is accepting public comments only until January 20, 2009.

Event 3272 corn:

•

Raises serious environmental and human health concerns. It contains an exotic enzyme derived from "thermophilic" (heat-loving) microorganisms living near deep sea hydrothermal vents.Ý This enzyme might be capable of causing food allergies in people who inadvertently consume this corn.Ý Humans have never been exposed to this form of alpha amylase before (no history of safe use).Ý

•

While meant for fuel and not food, this corn will enter the food supply.Ý USDA admits that if Event 3272 corn is intentionally or accidentally diverted into the food supply, it could negatively impact food quality. But instead of reviewing the foreseeable negative impacts of biological contamination to organic and conventional corn from this unprecedented new industrial crop, USDA has improperly relied on Syngenta, the creator of the GE corn, to protect non-industrial corn from contamination. If we learned anything from the StarLink episode, it is that voluntary, industry-led agreements to curtail contamination do not work in the real world. Ý

•

Is not needed "to help the U.S. meet its goals for ethanol production" as USDA has erroneously suggested. Ethanol production from corn surpassed the 2012 target (7.5 billion gallons) in 2007 (8.2 billion gallons)!Ý And with 10 billion gallons of ethanol produced in 2008, we're well on the way to achieving the mandate for 2022 without the introduction of Event 3272 corn. Ý

•

Is engineered for fuel, not food. The dramatic worldwide surge in food prices last year – which has already pushed 100 million more of the world's poor into hunger and poverty – has caused a radical rethinking of how biofuels are produced, especially the use of corn for ethanol.Ý Food experts from academia to the World Bank have decried the massive diversion of corn from food to fuel, blaming it for at least part of the steep price increases in food staples like corn, wheat and rice.Ý Event 3272 corn will only exacerbate this situation.

Tell USDA to halt this approval until a full EIS has been completed that addresses the human health, environmental, and economic impacts this industrial corn presents. USDA is accepting public comments until January 20th. Send your comment today! http://ga3.org/campaign/EthanolCorn/36b76en49j7mb6j6?

What's at stake:

USDA is poised to deregulate the world's first genetically engineered (GE) industrial crop. Similar to GE pharma crops that use corn for producing drugs, Syngenta's "Event 3272" is genetically engineered to use corn for energy (ethanol) production and not for food. This unprecedented, industrial application of a GE technology poses a variety of environmental, health, and economic risks that must be carefully evaluated to determine whether the widespread use of this GE industrial corn crop should be allowed on farms across our nation.

In a "business as usual" move, USDA has fast-tracked the commercialization of this GE industrial corn and has forgone conducting a full Environmental Impact Study (EIS), as required by law.Instead, USDA is basing its decision to approve the industrial GE corn upon a shorter assessment that falls woefully short of the thorough review the law requires before a new GE crop is approved. Moreover, USDA has failed to acknowledge that this GE technology requires even greater scrutiny since it transforms a ubiquitous food crop--corn--into an industrial crop --ethanol--making it no longer fit for human consumption.

The Obama Administration's USDA must complete a full EIS to address these concerns. The agency is accepting public comments only until January 20, 2009.

Event 3272 corn contains an exotic enzyme derived from "thermophilic" (heat-loving) microorganisms living near deep sea hydrothermal vents. The enzyme --alpha-amylase--breaks down starches into complex sugars. Syngenta's alpha amylase is generated at extremely high levels in the corn kernels themselves for the purpose of eliminating one step in ethanol production and save a little money. The trouble is that this enzyme might be capable of causing food allergies in people who inadvertently consume this corn. Humans have never been exposed to this form of alpha amylase before. But, we know some versions of this enzyme (from fungi) cause respiratory allergies, which are closely related to food allergies. Syngenta's corn-embedded enzyme has two characteristic properties of food allergens: it's extremely resistant to breakdown by heat, and it tolerates somewhat acidic conditions. Thus it will likely survive food processing and may withstand gastric juices intact, which means a higher likelihood of triggering allergic reactions.

Despite the fact that this GE corn is meant strictly for industrial use, USDA admits that if Event 3272 corn is intentionally or accidentally diverted into the food supply, it could negatively impact food quality. And there's no doubt Event 3272 will enter the food supply. Corn cross-pollinates at great distances, and there are absolutely no requirements to plant this industrial corn away from food-grade corn. Instead of reviewing the foreseeable negative impacts of biological contamination on organic and conventional corn from Event 3272 corn, USDA has merely relied on Syngenta, the creator of the GE corn, to protect non-industrial corn from contamination.

If we have learned anything from the StarLink episode, it is that voluntary, industry-led agreements to curtail contamination do not work in the real world. StarLink was a GE corn variety only approved for animal feed, not the human food supply, because leading allergists said it might cause food allergies. Despite grower agreements and voluntary stewardship measures, it massively contaminated the food supply, costing farmers, food companies, and taxpayers millions of dollars in recalls and lost sales. This experience, along with other contamination episodes, showed us that weather, pollen flow, and basic human error are simply unavoidable once GE crops are released in the open environment. To approve another non-food corn crop based solely on Syngenta's word that they will police themselves is irresponsible and ignores the realities of farming, food production, human error, and basic ecology. Thus far, none of our major corn export markets have cleared Event 3272 for impo rt and, therefore, any corn shipments contaminated with Event 3272 are likely to be rejected by Japan, Korea and other GE-sensitive markets.

So why is USDA even considering going down this road again? In the draft approval document APHIS claims that Event 3272 corn is needed "to help the U.S. meet its goals for ethanol production." Yet Congress?s targets for ethanol production in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 have already surpassed the 2012 target (7.5 billion gallons) in 2007 (8.2 billion gallons)! And with 10 billion gallons of ethanol produced in 2008, we're well on the way to achieving the mandate for 2022 without the introduction of Event 3272 corn.

The dramatic worldwide surge in food prices last year--which unfortunately has already pushed 100 million more of the world's poor into hunger and poverty--has caused a radical and necessary rethinking of biofuels. Food experts from academia to the World Bank have decried the massive diversion of corn from food to fuel, blaming it for at least part of the steep price increases in food staples like corn, wheat and rice., Unbelievable as it may seem, U.S. farmers devoted a full 23% of the 13 billion bushel corn harvest to ethanol production in 2007 and in 2008, that percentage rose to 30%.

Event 3272 poses unacceptable risks to human health, the environment, and the economic well-being of farmers, and is not needed to meet U.S. biofuels production targets. And even if it were, the food crisis makes painfully clear what should have been obvious all along: that diverting stupendous quantities of staple food crops (i.e. 30% of U.S. corn) to feed automobiles has dramatically increased the price not only of corn, but also of all primary staple crops driving hunger throughout the world.

Tell USDA to halt this approval until a full EIS has been completed that addresses the human health, environmental, and economic impacts this industrial corn presents. USDA is accepting public comments until January 20th--Send your comment today! http://ga3.org/campaign/EthanolCorn/36b76en49j7mb6j6?

Further reflections on the GMO Conference in the Gregorian University in September 2004

By Fr. Seán McDonagh, 14 January 2009.

[Note: Fr. McDonagh is a Dominican missionary priest and the author of "Patenting Life? Stop! Is corporate greed forcing us to eat genetically modified food?" (Dominican Publications, Dublin. 2003. ISBN 1-871552-85-0. € 14.99, available from http://www.dominicanpublications.com).]

In this column last week I recalled the presentations by three pro-GMOs at a conference entitled, "Feeding the World: The Moral Imperative of Biotechnology" organized jointly by the U.S. Embassy to the Holy See and the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in Rome in September 2004. I will continue these reflections on that conference this week because I have just learned that the Pontifical Academy of Sciences is organizing another pro-GMO Study Week, in Rome from 15-19 May 2009. The title of the 2009 Study Week is "Transgenic Plants for Food Security in the Context of Development." Both Dr.C.S. Prakash and Dr. Peter Ravan will be speaking at the Study Week. On May 16th Dr. Peter Raven's topic is "Does the Use of Transgenetic Plants Diminish or Promote Biodiversity." On the following Monday, May 18th Dr. C.S. Prakash will speak on "Lessons from 25 Years of Experience." These are more or less the same topics they discussed at the September 2004 Conference.

At the conference in the Gregorian University in 2004, Dr. Peter Raven tried to persuade his audience that raising questions about the terminator gene technology was both "emotional and irrational." A company which is owned by the giant Agribusiness Corporation Monsanto developed what is benignly called Plant Technology Protection System. What Dr. Raven did not mention was that critics of the technology say that it could have a profoundly negative impact on subsistence farmers. This is why in many countries the technology was aptly dubbed "the terminator gene."

The terminator technology exposes the spurious claims of the pro-GMO lobby, that "feeding the world", rather than making astronomical profits is the primary goal of Biotech corporations [1].

If the terminator technology were to become widespread, then the added costs would strike the death knell for almost 2 billion small farmers living mainly in the Majority World. Sharing seeds among farmers has been at the very heart of subsistence farming since the domestication of plants and animals ten thousand years ago. Terminator seeds will negate all this. Farmers will be unable to save the seeds and will be forced to return to the agribusiness corporation each year. Hope Shand, the research director with the Canadian Civil Society Organisation, ECT, is alarmed by the potentially disastrous consequences of terminator technology. "Half the world's farmers are poor. They provide food for more than a billion people, but cannot afford to buy seeds every growing season. Seed collection is vital for them [2]. The obvious intent of terminator technology is to enable agribusiness corporations, such as Monsanto, to control and profit from famers in every corner of the globe. If put into practice, terminator technology will lock farmers into a regime of buying genetically-engineered seeds that are herbicide-tolerant and insect-resistant, copper-fastening them on to the treadmill of chemically-dependent agriculture.

This is probably what Cardinal Renato Martino had in mind in his interview published in the L'Osservatore Romano on 1 January 2009 when he said that, "the responsibility for the food crisis is "in the hands of unscrupulous people who focus only on profit and certainly not on the well-being of all people." He went on to say that a more just system of distribution and not the manufacturing of genetically modified foods is the key to addressing the problem. "If one wants to pursue GMOs (genetically modified organisms) one can freely do so, but without hiding (the fact) that it's a way to make more profits."

At the ethical level I suggest that a technology which, according to Professor Richard Lewontin of Harvard University, "introduces a 'killer' transgene that prevents the germ of the harvested grain from developing, " must be considered a grossly immoral act [3]. This technology is a sin against the poor and against previous generations of farmers who, from the beginning of agriculture freely shared their knowledge of plant life with their contemporaries, and with us. It is a sin against the life spontaneities of nature itself and against the God of life and all creativity. To deliberately set out to create seeds that self-destruct is an abomination that no society which calls itself civilized should tolerate. If anything went wrong the terminator gene could spread to other plants and jeopardize food security. No wonder many people look on terminator seeds as a form of biological warfare on subsistence farmers. Terminator technology has not yet been incorporated into commercial seeds, but each year the biotech corporations try to get it accepted by regulators.

Notes:

1. Brittenden, Wayne, "Terminator seeds threaten a barren future for farmers, "

2. Quoted in John Vidal, "Mr. Terminator Ploughs in, " The Guardian, 14 April 1998. page 14.

3. Jean-Pierre Berlan and Richard C.Lewontin, "It's business as usual", The Guardian, " 22 February 1999, page 14.

Comment by GM Watch:

The views of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences do not represent those of the Holy See, and pro-biotech and pro-nuclear interests have been using the Academy to provide a 'Vatican' soapbox for these dangerous technologies for some time.

On a previous occasion, as Fr. McDonagh notes above, this even involved the Pontifical Academy in jointly running a pro-GM conference on the "moral imperative" to adopt GM with the US Embassy to the Holy See.

A key player in the Academy is Peter Raven, a Catholic scientist so closely associated with Monsanto that it used to be said that even his sex life came corporate sponsored! He's also been called "a paid traveling salesman for Monsanto". For more on this see next item below.

Monsanto and the Raven - an Unholy Alliance

Extracted from http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=191

Peter Raven is director of the Missouri Botanical Garden in St Louis. Raven is a passionate advocate of "world sustainability" of the sort that has GM crops as its central element. "There is nothing I'm condemning Monsanto for, " he says. And he's praised the company's efforts to win public acceptance for GMOs, "The company has... won many more believers around the world in what they're doing and attempting to do."

An old friend of Raven's, geneticist Wes Jackson, says of him, "I just wish Peter was more reflective... The fact that living substance, germplasm, can become the property of a corporation is going to come at a cost. I think the boundaries of consideration need to be broader than Peter's willing to make them. In a certain sense he's a paid traveling salesman for Monsanto".

Raven has good reason to smile on the company. According to Time magazine, "When Raven first came to the garden in 1971, he had 85 employees and a budget of $650, 000. Today there are 354 people on staff, and the budget is $20 million." That expansion has been assisted by millions from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and substantial corporate support, not least from Monsanto.

The Garden, in fact, is based in Monsanto's home town of St Louis. According to Raven there are other reasons for the strength of Monsanto's support. Although "We don't do biotech work other than bioprospecting, " he says, "the basic research we do here at the Garden makes us a major resource for the biotechnology industry." Raven, together with Monsanto, was also the driving force behind a nearby plant biotech research institute on whose board he sits.

The Raven-Monsanto equation includes the Garden's multimillion-dollar research centre - The Monsanto Center. And it doesn't stop there: the St Louis paper, The Riverside Times, noted in 1999, "The Garden received $3 million from Monsanto in their last fundraising campaign... Monsanto also contributed land and a large chunk of the $146 million startup money for the Danforth Plant Science Center [a project Raven was instrumental in getting off the ground]. Monsanto matches its employees' contributions to the Garden ($225, 000 last year) and contributes to the operating fund ($25, 000 last year). Trustees give privately, too, and in past years the Garden has had Monsanto CEO Robert Shapiro, Monsanto vice president Tom K. Smith and Monsanto research-and-development director Howard Schneiderman on its governing board. Now the Garden is collaborating with Monsanto's nutrition sector on a food library, collecting samples of all plants used worldwide as foods and medicines. (The World Resources Institute lists Monsanto as a bioprospector since 1989 and lists its collector, as of 1993, as the Missouri Botanical Garden.) When Confluence, an environmental quarterly, criticized Monsanto, the Garden's PR woman pulled it from their literature table."

At the time that was written, Raven's wife was Monsanto's Director of Public Policy, Kate Fish, leading to jokes that even Raven's sex life came corporate-sponsored.

Not without reason did one scientist say, "Raven glows with conflict of interest from his perch in St Louis."

EU ministers to examine GM rapeseed, carnation types

Reuters, 14 January 2009.

BRUSSELS -- EU farm ministers will consider next week whether to approve imports of two genetically modified products, a rapeseed type and a carnation flower, but are unlikely to break their long deadlock over biotechnology.

Diplomats said the two applications, scheduled for the ministers' meeting on Monday, would probably end in the usual voting stalemate that eventually leads to a default approval by the European Commission when ministers fail to reach consensus. The rapeseed, developed by Germany's Bayer CropScience to resist certain glufosinate-ammonium herbicides, was discontinued from commercial planting after the 2005 season.

Only a small stock remains, in Canada, which could be exported to EU markets if approval is granted.

If the ministers approve, the EU authorisation would apply for a standard 10-year period to remaining amounts of T25 rapeseed grown before 2005, imported from Canada and destined for use in food, animal feed and industrial processing.

In the European Union, rapeseed meal is used as a high-protein feed supplement for livestock and poultry, while rapeseed oil is an important vegetable oil source.

The second application is for EU approval for imports, distribution and retailing of the Moonaqua carnation as cut flowers for ornamental use.

The flowers are marketed by Florigene, one of Australia's first biotech companies and part of Japan's privately owned Suntory group. Other Florigene carnation varieties -- Moondust, Moonshadow and Moonlite -- have already won EU import approval. Moonaqua carnations are modified for flower colour, a shade of light mauve, whereas the non-GM parent plant has cream-white flowers. Two genes are introduced to create blueberry, blackcurrant and red grape colours. The flowers are also modified to resist certain herbicides.

According to its website, Florigene developed the world's first blue-coloured carnation in 1994 and devotes much research on developing flowers that lack the blue colour, specifically roses, carnations and chrysanthemums.

Ironically, carnations were the EU's last two authorisations of genetically modified (GMO) plants before it began its unofficial six-year moratorium on new GMO approvals. The flowers were modified to alter colour and "improve vase life."

Under EU rules, if ministers cannot muster enough of a weighted voting majority either to approve or reject a GMO application, the EU's executive European Commission gains the legal power to issue a default authorisation.

Since 2004, the Commission has rubber stamped a string of GMO approvals in this way, outraging green groups. The Commission says it is legally obliged to act if EU countries do not assume political responsibility and take a decision.

(Reporting by Jeremy Smith, Editing by Peter Blackburn)

USDA unable to weed out unapproved modified foods

Reuters, 14 January 2009. By Jasmin Melvin.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. food supply is at risk of being invaded by unapproved imports of genetically modified crops and livestock, a USDA internal audit report released Wednesday said.

The report, released by the U.S. Agriculture Department's Office of Inspector General, said the USDA does not have an import control policy to regulate imported GMO animals.

Its policy for GMO crops, though adequate now, could become outdated as other nations boost production of their own GMO crops, the report added.

The Office of Inspector General recommended the department develop an overall control policy for all GMO imports and implement a strategy to monitor GMO crop and livestock development in foreign nations.

The audit found that the USDA needs to develop screening measures to weed out undeclared GMO crops and livestock. The department currently has no measures in place to identify a shipment of unapproved GMO imports unknown to the U.S. regulatory system, the report said.

The United States has been a forerunner in developing GMO plants and animals since the 1990s, but other countries are beginning to invest more in biotechnology.

The report noted that China has pledged $500 million toward biotechnology by 2010 and has developed a new form of GMO rice.

Although the implications associated with Americans consuming unapproved GMO food are unknown, the health and environmental concerns that it poses could threaten commerce.

The USDA's lack of policies and monitoring capability on the matter reflect the United States' dominance over the global market concerning genetic modification.

"Department officials stated that they have not needed such a strategy because most transgenic plants were first developed within the U.S. regulatory system, and it was unlikely that anything unfamiliar would be imported, " the report said.

"And transgenic animals have not been commercialized, " the report also said of officials' reasoning behind being slow to develop regulations.

The USDA, for the most part, agreed with the report's recommendations.

In a letter to the Office of Inspector General, the USDA said it would create a plan for monitoring GMO plant and animal developments worldwide by November 30. But further action on policy would require approval from the incoming administration.

(Editing by Christian Wiessner)

Why GMO's are Bad News:

AgWeb.com (USA), 14 January 2009. It's about the current state of affairs regarding Genetically modified organisms, their development and regulatory approval, and how we are made intrinsically...we are all born with a selfish streak.

1.

In spite of our fallibility and mistakes, we overestimate how smart we are. Because of our accomplishments, we believe that our intellect and reasoning ability will eventually solve all the worlds problems and make this place a paradise.

2.

We bristle when our wills and agendas our limited in any way, at any time and often possess a sense of entitlement.

3.

When called to sacrifice for others we often become indignant.

4.

We think that the next incremental gain of money or power will finally satisfy us. The more wealth and power we have the more we tend to lord it over others instead of serving them.

5.

We can get attached to transitory material things and can be bought.

6.

When something is benefiting us we do not like to entertain the notion that it could be unjust or against the common good. When is the last time you saw proponents of GMOs lead the charge in discussing the subject with opponents on national TV or any other forum for that matter?

7.

We are attracted to expediency and are masters at rationalization and self -justification.

8.

Those of us in government when called to do the right thing, take leadership, establish right order, and the ascendancy of the common good often succumb to laziness or fear.

9.

Our bodies, the human cell, our immune system are extremely complex, and will never be completely understood. The effects of our dietary patterns stay hidden for years

We have been tinkering with our food for over 50 years for efficiency and marketing sake. Goods like food wholesomeness, the environment, animal welfare, widespread ownership of property aren't talked about much. We now have mad cow disease, autism coming out of nowhere, super bugs in hospitals, trans fats causing heart disease, cancer cases set to double in 20 years (KMPH news Fresno 12-16-08) to name a few.

The public agencies in charge of protecting us (FDA, SEC you name it) have morphed into fox guarding the hen house travesties, with moneyed interests stacking the deck for themselves

Suggestions for farmers and farm organizations:

A.

Support a moratorium on GMOs We can get new varieties from our universities without gene insertion or silencing

B.

Quit standing behind the FDA, like it is just and thorough. This is dishonest. Thinking about our upcoming appointment with the real owner who is infinite truth should make doing this easy.

C.

Support anti-trust enforcement against the major corporations that buy our commodities and supply our inputs.

D.

Support reform that gets the corrupting influence of these companies and their money out of our government and academia to protect the public.

E.

Give activists more eloquent than me like Mark Kastel Cornucopia Institute, Jeffrey Smith Institute for Responsible Technology, Dr Arpad Pusztai or any one else speaking the truth the time of day.

John Coelho Terra Linda Farms

Doctors for Food & Bio-Safety call for a moratorium on GM crops/foods

Doctors for Food & Bio-Safety press release, 14 January 2009.

New Delhi: As the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) sits down today for a 'discussion on Bt Brinjal proposal under large scale trials' in the Ministry of Environment & Forests, eminent medical experts from across the country from a network called "Doctors for Food & Bio-Safety" called for a moratorium on all open air trials of GM crops in India. These experts, after perusing through the first independent analysis of Mahyco's biosafety data of Bt Brinjal by France's CRIIGEN, sent a resolution to the GEAC to this effect.

They pointed out that the French analysis of Mahyco's data adequately addresses and questions the validity of the so called bio-safety data of Bt Brinjal in terms of: validity of biological/ animal experiments carried out by the applicant incl. study design; Adequacy of bio-safety testing protocols used; Validity of statistical analyses carried out including sampling procedures; Glossing over/unscientific basis of overlooking important findings.

The doctors pointed out that the obsolete technology used in Bt Brinjal incorporating antibiotic resistant markers is likely to have disastrous implications for developing countries like India which are struggling with communicable diseases burden. This may jeopardize National Health Programmes for control of Tuberculosis (already struggling with MDR/ XDR tuberculosis), diarrhoeal diseases, sexually transmitted diseases etc.

They further observed that the decreased calorific content (15% lesser) in Bt Brinjal and altered consumption in different studies will mean impact on nutrition which an already malnourished public could avoid.

The changes in bilirubin indicate effect on hepatic functions. Study with lactating cows showed increased milk production indicating hormonal effects. If this is so, what are the implications on pregnancy, foetal health, reproductive functions etc. There is an obvious requirement for longer term studies especially on reproductive health. Absence of these aspects in Mahyco's dossiers is not acceptable, the doctors said.

In Ayurveda and Siddha, herbs are used according to the taste (Rasa), medicinal property of phyto-chemical (Guna), strength (Veerya), the end taste after digestion (Vipaaka Rasa) and synergistic medicinal property (Prabhaava). Any intrusion in the basic component of a drug may cause major change in the constitution of the drug, leading to unknown impacts. The difference in solamargine and solasonine is the clear evidence of loss of synergy and imbalance in the phytomolecules, which may largely affect the therapeutic and nutritive benefit of brinjal. There is no study as part of the impact assessment done to study related aspects, they pointed out.

The doctors endorsed Dr Pushpa Bhargava's comments on the regulators compromising objectivity by basing their approval processes based on data submitted by the applicant itself and emphasized the need for mandatory independent research by mandatory elaborate protocols including for long term research.

Meanwhile, another independent analysis from Institute of Health & Environmental Research, New Zealand (led by Dr Judy Carman) to be submitted to the Supreme Court soon, also concluded that the studies presented by Mahyco cannot be used to show that GM brinjal is safe to eat, particularly when population health issues are taken into account. This analysis points to insufficiency of the type of studies taken up for the safety assessment, that statistical results have not been reported to a suitable standard in addition to sample sizes being insufficient (type II errors).

For more information, contact: Dr G P I Singh at [0] 98-155-42987

It's Official: Organic farming provides answers to feeding Africa

BFA Media Release, 14 January 2009

A major study by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) concludes organic farming offers Africa the best chance of breaking the long inherent cycle of poverty and malnutrition. (1)

Research conducted by UNEP suggests that organic, small-scale farming can deliver the increased yields which were thought to be the preserve of industrial high-tech farming, in addition to reversing environmental and social damages, leading to greater food security.

The head of the UN's Environment Programme, Achim Steiner, says the report "indicates that the potential contribution of organic farming to feeding the world may be far higher than many had supposed." (1)

Dr. Kristen Lyons is a senior lecturer at the School of Biomolecular and Physical Sciences at Griffith University (QLD) and the director of Mukwano Australia, a non-for-profit group supporting the development of health care services in African organic farming communities.

"Organic agriculture offers an alternative - and sustainable - future for African farmers, " says Dr. Lyons.

She says the report provides a clear direction for reducing the current crisis in agriculture and food systems in developing countries - organic, all the way.

"It demystifies the assumption that genetic engineering and other high-tech approaches to farming are required to feed the world.

"In contrast, it is organic farming systems that have demonstrated the greatest potential to feed the world's one billion starving people, and to ensure the long term sustainability of global food production, " she says.

The UNEP report proposes that African communities need to look to alternative methods of farming as genetic engineering is prohibitively expensive and therefore out of reach for most African farmers. (1)

Organic farming in Africa has lead to benefits to the natural environment, with the UNEP report showing a 93 per cent of case studies reporting benefits to soil fertility, water supply, flood control and biodiversity. (1)

Also, when sustainable agricultural practices, which covered a variety of systems and crops, were adopted, average crop yields increased by 79 per cent. (1)

Overall, the report found an increase in organic farming in Africa could lead to savings on production costs (due to no expenditure on synthetic inputs), promote economic viability and encourage food self-reliance. (1)

ENDS

Data:

(1) United Nations Conference on Trade and Development United Nations Environment Programme, Report: UNEP-UNCTAD Capacity-building Task Force on Trade, Environment and Development, Organic agriculture and food security in Africa, Unite Nations, New York and Geneva, 2008 Link from:
http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=548&ArticleID=5957&l=en

Media Contact:

Dr. Kristen Lyons Ph: (07) 3735-7590
BFA Media Department Ph: (07) 3350 5716 ext. 232

Comment from GM Watch:

This is the report analysing 114 projects in 24 African countries that found that yields had more than doubled where organic practices had been used, along with many other benefits. Achim Steiner, head of the UN Environment Programme commented that "organic agriculture can be more conducive to food security in Africa than most conventional production systems" and that it's more likely to be sustainable in the long-term.

The report is available at http://www.unep.ch/etb/publications/insideCBTF_OA_2008.pdf

Comment from GM-free Ireland:

See Michael O'Callaghan's 2002 interview with Achim Steiner, when he was Executive Director of IUCN - the World Conservation Union: http://www.global-vision.org/interviews/steiner.php

13 January 2009

India: French team says Genetically Modified Bt Brinjal unsafe

MedIndia, 13 January 2009.

French environmental crusaders are fighting back as India is toying with the idea of allowing genetically modified brinjals [= eggplant/aubergine] into market. An independent group says the BT brinjals are unsafe.

The Committee for Independent Research and Information on Genetic Engineering has submitted to India's Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) that Bt brinjal's release into the environment for food and feed in India may present a serious risk for human and animal health. It has said Bt brinjal's commercial release should be forbidden.

Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini's analysis of Mahyco's Bt brinjal biosafety data says that the Bt brinjal produces a protein which can induce resistance to kanamycin, a well-known antibiotic, which could be a major health problem. The analysis was commissioned by Greenpeace.

While pointing out in his analysis that Bt brinjal had not been properly tested from the safety and environmental point of view, Professor Seralini observed that in feeding trials significant differences were noted compared to the best corresponding non-Bt controls.

For instance, in goats fed with this GMO, the prothrombin (time it takes for blood to clot) was modified, in rabbits less consumption was noted, in cow's milk production and composition was changed, GM-fed rats had diarrhoea, higher water consumption and liver weight decrease, in broiler chickens feed intake was modified and in fish, average feed conversion and efficiency ratios were changed. "All this makes a very coherent picture of Bt brinjal that is potentially unsafe for human consumption. It will also potentially be unsafe to eat animals with these problems, having eaten GMOs, " he said.

Besides, the professor's analysis noted that the longest toxicity tests which were for only 90 days did not assess whole safety of the food or feed that could be eaten during the entire lifetime, and long-term effects like development of tumours or cancers. He observed that several differences that were found between the study and the (closest) control groups in the Bt Brinjal bio-safety tests were not reported in the summaries of Mahyco's test reports and statistically significant differences that were reported were discounted, Gargi Parsai reported for The Hindu.

Commenting on the secrecy on "confidential" raw data for toxicity for GMOs, Prof. Seralini said it had no scientific basis and created doubts in people's minds.

Asked to comment on the analysis, M.K. Sharma of Mahyco said he had not seen the analysis but all toxicology tests were conducted not only by Mahyco but by reputed government institutions.

"All the tests for GM crops in India are conducted under controlled supervision. The Bt brinjal has a long line of clearance and approval from various departments - if we are convinced by the tests that will be reviewed later this month, it may be introduced in a year's time, " GEAC Director B.S. Parashera told IANS recently.

After Bt brinjal, there are 25 kinds of rice, 23 kinds of tomatoes, many types of groundnut, pigeon peas, potato, mustard, sugarcane, soy and okra awaiting GEAC approval.

All these GM crops were in the testing stage and "will require approval from GEAC, then the ministry for agriculture, before they can be commercialised for mass-scale production, " Parashera said. GEAC works under the Environment ministry.

Explaining what exactly happens when crops are genetically modified, the GEAC chief said: "In GM foods, the seeds are made with genetic enhancement to become resistant to pests and bugs - we work in this area to solve the bigger problems - reduce use of chemical pesticides and fertiliser for environment-friendly options. We also make seeds available at affordable prices to farmers."

But a recent report by international NGO Greenpeace - called "Genetic Gamble - Safe food the end of choice?" - says there is still no evidence that GM food is safe, though the budget for genetically engineered food research has increased by 250 percent since 2005.

"In all likelihood Bt brinjal will be launched with no label and we and our families will have no choice but to become lab rats in this grand genetic experiment, " Greenpeace campaigner Jai Krishna told IANS.

Rajesh Krishnan, who helped compile the Greenpeace report, said: "If launched in the Indian markets, these Bt brinjals could spell disaster. The results of the tests carried out by the government must be made available for public scrutiny."

Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, all countries in the European Union and many in Africa have either banned the entry of GM foods or have imposed strict restrictions on their commercial use.

12 January 2009

Pharming redeems 5 mln euros in convertible debt

Reuters, January 12 2009

AMSTERDAM -- Dutch biotechnology firm Pharming (PHAR.AS) said on Monday it is redeeming 5 million euros ($6.7 million) in convertible debt by paying 1 million euros in cash and converting the rest into shares.

"Pharming considers this situation as an opportunity to strengthen its balance sheet at favourable terms, " the company said.

Rabo Securities, which rates Pharming shares "reduce", agreed, but said in a note it remained worried about its cash flow position.

"At this moment we remain concerned about Pharming's ability to become cash flow positive in the next years, " Rabo analysts said.

The latest transaction reduced its debt under the convertible debt agreement to just under 45 million euros.

Pharming, which produces therapeutic proteins in the milk of genetically modified animals but does not have any products on the market, has benefitted from government funding and capital from investment funds. It had a cash position, including marketable securities, of 33.7 million euros at the end of the third quarter.

Warning To Caterers On GM Cooking Oil

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (UK), 12 January 2008.

Caterers in Sandwell were today warned to check their cooking oils after it emerged some were unwittingly using genetically modified versions.

During routine inspections Trading Standards found 15 catering outlets using genetically modified oil without telling customers.

None of them had read the labels carefully enough to realise they were using genetically modified products.

Outlets included transport cafes, pubs and restaurants

Caterers are legally obliged to tell customers if they use GM products under the Genetically Modified Food (England) Regulations, 2004.

One caterer said he would continue to use GM oil and would tell his customers by putting up a notice.

Other caterers said they would switch to non-genetically modified oil.

Bob Charnley, Deputy Trading Standards Manager, said: "All the traders concerned were given advice at the time of the visit and have been sent a warning letter.

"Where food is derived from a genetically modified source then the law requires that fact to be made known to the purchaser.

"In pre-packed foods this is done on the label. In cases of non-prepacked food such as meals in cafes and restaurants, the consumer must be alerted by some other means, like a statement on the menu or price list.

"The law was introduced because many consumers wish to avoid genetically modified food. The intention is to ensure everyone can make an informed choice."

Trading Standards will continue to ensure catering establishements comply with the law.

Cllr Mahboob Hussain, cabinet member for neighbourhoods and housing said: "I am pleased traders have agreed to take appropriate action to ensure compliance with the law.

"Consumers are becoming increasingly aware of what is in their food and want more information about what they eat."

Comment from GM-free Ireland

EU Regulation 2001/18/EC requires food containing or derived from GM ingredients to be labelled as such. But eight years later, the Irish Government has still not implemented this for food sold in pubs, restaurants, hotels etc. GM-free Ireland has repeatedly requested the Government to transcribe the regulation into Irish law since 2001, and advised the Restaurants Association of Ireland to inform customers if they use GM cooking oil or other GM ingredients – to no avail. Like the recent dioxin contamination scandal, this apathy further erodes the credibility of our country's branding as Ireland – the food island.

10 January 2009

Is genetic engineering good or bad?

Irish Farmers Journal (Viewpoint), 10 January 2009. By Dr. Patrick Wall, Professor of Public Health, UCD.

[Comment from GM-free Ireland: Prof. Wall is the former Chairman of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). See our recent video interview with him at http://www.gmfreeireland.org/efsa ]

The debate on whether food derived using GM technology is safe for humans and for the environment remains as polarised as ever. However asking whether genetic engineering is a good thing or a bad thing is like asking: "is science good or bad?"

Science has delivered huge benefits for mankind and we are all driving cars, using mobile phones, and availing of the latest technological advances. On the downside, science has also delivered the atom bomb but no technology is inherently evil and judgement on its utility should be based on the benefits for society and for individuals it can deliver.

[Comment by GM-free Ireland:

The "technology is neutral" argument is also used to justify the production and trade in landmines, cluster bombs, nuclear weapons, torture equipment etc. ]

Genetic engineering has contributed great advances in medicine with insulin, hormones, cancer treatments and vaccines delivering great health benefits on a daily basis.

While GM medicines are widely accepted, there is apprehension in Europe about both GM crops and GM foods, due to concerns about perceived risk to human health, environmental impact, potential to increase the power of multinationals corporations, threat to traditional farming and artisan producers, and the general moral acceptability of man interfering with what God has created.

[Comment by GM-free Ireland:

The terms "concern" and "perceived risk" are favourite instruments of the "science communication" language used by agri-biotech public relations spin doctors to imply that resistance to GM food and farming is based on scientific ignorance. This is condescending, given the indisputable reality of cross-contamination by GM crops and the scientific evidence that GM food and feed have negative health and environmental consequences in the real world - which EFSA and the EU Commission regularly deny. See a useful list of related papers at http://www.gmfreeireland.org/health/studies.php. ]

The 2006 Eurobarometer survey on public attitudes to various aspects of biotechnology revealed that 73% of EU citizens were not favourably disposed to GM food although the majority favoured other applications of biotechnology. Although 80% reported that they were familiar with GM foods, ironically less that half reported familiarity with the other aspects of biotechnology which they were more positive about.

Who benefits from the use of GM crops?

Currently the majority of the GM grain varieties approved globally have delivered benefits to farmers, in terms of increased yields and disease resistance, and to companies, in terms of increased profits, rather than to consumers.

[Comment by GM-free Ireland:

Yield and environmental resilience are multigenetic traits, and there is no GM crop currently engineered for high yields. Genetic engineering so far has only achieved transfer of single gene traits such as herbicide resistance and Bt. toxin production.

A University of Kansas study by Prof. Barney Gordon, published in the Better Crops journal in April 2008, found that GM crops do NOT have higher yields, undermining repeated claims that GM crops are needed to solve the growing world food crisis. The three-year study carried out in the US grain belt found that GM soya produces about 10 per cent less food than its conventional equivalent (see Exposed: the great GM crops myth - Major new study shows that modified soya produces 10 per cent less food than its conventional equivalent" , UK Independent newspaper, 20 April 2008).

An April 2006 report from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) states that "currently available GM crops do not increase the yield potential of a hybrid variety... In fact, yield may even decrease if the varieties used to carry the herbicide tolerant or insect-resistant genes are not the highest yielding cultivars". (Fernandez-Cornejo, J. and Caswell, 2006)

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization's 2004 report on agricultural biotechnology acknowledges that GM crops can have reduced yields (FAO, 2004). This is not surprising given that first-generation genetic modifications address production conditions (insect and weed control), and are not intended to increase the intrinsic yield capacity of the plant.

A 2003 report published in Science stated that "in the United States and Argentina, average yield effects [of GM crops ] are negligible and in some cases even slightly negative". (Qaim and Zilberman, 2003). This was despite the authors being strong supporters of GM crops.

Yields of both GM and conventional varieties vary - sometimes greatly - depending on growing conditions, such as degree of infestation with insects or weeds, weather, region of production, etc. (European Commission, 2000)

For more on yields see http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/195e597ae6f23abc80256ada0051a50f/3cacfd251aab6d318025742700407f02!OpenDocument ]

This does not mean that there are no varieties in the pipe-line with consumer, or society wide, benefits. In time consumer benefits such as better taste, nutritional value, appearance etc will emerge but currently consumers are not crying out for new foods with particular characteristics and most of us have more than enough choice in foods already.

[Comment by GM-free Ireland:

These "consumer benefits" have not materialised despite 20 years and millions of dollars of R&D based on faulty scientific assumptions about the functioning of the plant genome. The claim that they will emerge in time is just an assumption. ]

However there are benefits if we look for them, for example, the standard health promotion advice is to take three helpings of oily fish per week, rich in Omega 3, which is beneficial to the cardiovascular system. If everyone followed this advice the oily fish shoals would be decimated. However, an EU funded research project, Lipgene, of which UCD is a partner, has developed a GM plant high in Omega 3, so using this instead could both benefit consumers' health and preserve the global fish stocks.

[Comment by GM-free Ireland:

GM plants are not needed to replace fish. Omega 3 occurs naturally in many fruits, grains, nuts, vegetables, eggs, meat, milk and cheese.

It is interesting to note that the Journal deleted the next sentence from Prof Wall's original text:

"Some people worry that the technology could result in foods with new allergies whereas others say the scientists could take the gene from the peanut that causes anaphylactic shock in some people and produce a much safer, non allergenic, peanut." ]

Has the technology a positive or a negative impact on the environment?

There are fears of cross pollination where GM genes could be carried into a population of wild relatives or to a neighbouring non GM crop. This is a greater problem with some crops for example oilseed rape than with cereals or potatoes. The impact on neighbouring non GM crops could have negative consequences for example by compromising their organic status and value. EU regulations specify isolation distances between GM and non GM crops in an attempt to avoid such impacts.

[Comment by GM-free Ireland:

Use of the term "fears" that GM genes "could be carried" into other crops is also part of the language of spin. As of February 2008, 216 contamination events in 57 countries have been recorded in the GM Contamination Register (a 'Biosafety Information Resource' on the Biosafety Clearing-House established by the Biosafety Protocol as part of the clearing-house mechanism of the Convention on Biological Diversity). For details see http://www.gmcontaminationregister.org

In the regions of Catalonia and Aragon in Spain - the only EU member state where GM crops are still grown on a commercial scale - contamination by GM maize has removed the choice for farmers to grow conventional and organic maize. Contaminated farmers produce must carry a GM label (which reduces their market share) and organic farmers have been forced out of business. According to related research published in the Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, "The cultivation of genetically modified maize [in Spain ] has caused a drastic reduction in organic cultivations of this grain and is making their coexistence practically impossible." (An impossible coexistence: transgenic and organic agriculture, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, 30 June 2008 http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/studien/bericht-113314.html). Over 100, 000 citizens in Catalonia signed a petition to ban GM maize in 2008, which the Regional Government failed to implement.

Prof Wall's belief that "EU regulations specify isolation distances between GM and non GM crops in an attempt to avoid such impacts" is mistaken. No such EU regulations exist. The European Commission merely issued a non-binding Recommendation 2003/556/EC ("for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming"); this legally flawed Recommendation advises Member States to set up their own regulations "to ensure co-existence", while specifying that such rules may not go further than to keep GM contamination of non-GM and organic crops below the threshold set down in European GM labelling legislation (currently 0.9 per cent). The Recommendation also says that measures should ignore environmental concerns and be limited to economic issues! If member states implement separation distances and other measures based on this Recommendation, widespread GM contamination of seeds and crops will spread beyond Spain and contaminate the European food chain in perpetuity.

The Irish Government's attempt to undertake a Public Consultation on GM "co-existence", held from 2004 - 2007, systematically excluded 85% of the stakeholders who would be materially affected by the introduction of GM crops on this island, and then published a draft report which ignored the views of the vast majority of the 15% of stakeholders who were allowed to participate. For details see http://www.gmfreeireland.org/coexistence. This fiasco is a total breach of the Aarhus Convention on public participation in environmental policy making (which Ireland is the only EU member state not to have ratified). For more on Aarhus see http://www.unece.org/env/pp/welcome.html. ]

Biodiversity impact

If GM varieties dominated would there be an associated negative impact on biodiversity?

Of course this will occur if seed banks of older varieties are not maintained but this reduction in biodiversity is happening anyway with conventional breeding of both plants and animals to give us faster maturing and higher yielding varieties.

For example the advent of artificial insemination has allowed particular sires have a disproportionate impact of the gene pool of dairy cattle. Even the fact that most dairy cows are now black and white demonstrates a decline in biodiversity.

[Comment by GM-free Ireland:

Food security, food sovereignty and the resilience of ecosystems require biodiversity on the farm and the surrounding environment – not just in seed banks. Arguing that "the reduction in biodiversity is happening anyway" is no excuse to reduce it even more.

Corporate concentration of GM seeds is a major driver of biodiversity loss. In the USA during the 1990s, Monsanto and other agri-biotech giants bought up most of the seed companies; in India, they persuaded gullible farmers to exchange their traditional seeds for the company's patented GM varieties. Worldwide, the WTO's Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement makes it illegal for farmers to save and plant GM seeds, even if these have been contaminated without their knowledge or consent. Monsanto and the gene giants are reducing agricultural biodiversity to seize monopoly of the world's agricultural seeds. Whoever controls the seeds controls the food. For details see Who Owns Nature?, ETC Group, November 2008: http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=707. ]

Could the technology protect the environment?

The biotech companies claim that having disease resistant varieties will result in a dramatic reduction in the use of chemicals. Workers at Cornell University have developed an index to measure the net Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ) of pesticides. On their index the use of GM varieties reduced the environmental impact by 15%.

The herbicide resistant varieties have enabled farmers to "directly till" stubbles and then use a herbicide to kill all plants except the GM crop.

Avoiding the need to plough requires smaller tractors and less fuel and results in less soil erosion and water run off and no need for repeated spraying to control weeds.

[Comment by GM-free Ireland:

GM crops are not needed for "no till", "minimum tillage" or "conservation agriculture" systems, which have been practiced for millennia in South America and Africa long before the advent of chemical fertilisers and genetic engineering. See Our Good Earth - The future rests on soil. Can we protect it?, by Charles Mann, National Geographic, September 2008: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/09/soil/mann-text/1).

The agri-biotech industry argues that GM crops require less pesticides. Bear in mind that 60% of GM crops are resistant to weedkillers manufactured by Monsanto and other companies which own the GM seed patents, and also that 40% of GM seeds are genetically modified to make every cell of the crop into a tiny pesticide factory.

The reality is that weedkiller-resistant GM crops have actually increased the use of harmful pesticides in all the major biotech crop producing countries. Since the introduction of Monsanto's Roundup Ready GM seeds, glyphosate application on major crops has risen 1, 500% in the USA, along with the herbicide 2, 4-D and atrazine which is banned in the EU. For details see "Who benefits from GM crops? The rise in pesticide use". Friends of the Earth International, January 2008: http://www.foei.org/en/media/archive/2008/gm-crops-increase-pesticides).

While the Bt seeds require less spraying of pesticides, these crops are internally saturated with the Bt toxin, which can not be removed by rain or washing off and thus enters the bodies of the livestock and humans who consume it. A number of recent scientific studies prove that the Bt pesticide produced by these GM crops also contaminates beneficial insects, and the bacterial populations essential to the fertility of soil ecosystems. ]

Organic and extensive farming may be much kinder to the environment but are these real benefits over conventional methods of farming?

[Comment by GM-free Ireland:

Is Prof Wall unaware that being "kinder to the environment" is a pre-requisite for sustainable development?

Chemical-intensive conventional farming contributes 25% of global greenhouse gas emissions, and is not sustainable because of the dwindling reserves of water for irrigation, and of cheap oil and gas for the continued production of chemical fertilisers and pesticide inputs on which its survival depends. As the World Commission on the Future of Food and Agriculture observed, "This dominant system, as promoted by the current economic paradigm, has accelerated climate instability and increased food insecurity. It also increases vulnerability because it is based on uniformity and monocultures, on centralized distribution systems, and dependance on intensive energy and water inputs."

Organic agriculture is sustainable because it does not depend so much on these fossil fuel and water inputs. Moreover, organic farmers' avoidance of nitrogen-based fertilisers also prevents the related atmospheric release of nitrous oxide, whose greenhouse gas effect is 21 times higher than methane and 310 times higher than CO2. For more on this see the Manifesto on Climate Change and Food Security, published by the International Commission on the Future of Food and Agriculture, 2008: http://www.arsia.toscana.it/petizione/documents/clima/CLIMA_ING.pdf).

Another "real benefit" of organic and agro-ecological farming is its capacity for sustainable food production. The International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology (IAASTD), published in April 2008, found that the business-as-usual scenario of industrial farming, input and energy intensiveness, and marginalization of small-scale farmers, is no longer tenable. The report also found that GM crops have little, if any, role to play in increasing crop yields or alleviating hunger. The IASSTD represents a three-year effort by about 400 experts around the world working under the auspices of 30 governments and 30 representatives of civil society. The report was sponsored by the United Nations, the World Bank and the Global Environment Facility (GEF), in collaboration with the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), the U.N. Development Program (UNDP), the U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP), the U.N. Education, Science and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). For details see International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Debelopment, April 2008: http://www.agassessment.org. ]

The current biofuel crops are inefficient at producing ethanol and there are GM varieties in the pipeline which are far more efficient.

Presently the best biofuel plant we have is sugar cane and Brazilian farmers are making a fortune from it and are planting greater acreage than ever before, forcing the cattle off the pastures to the edge of the rain forest. It is a bit ironic that the rain forests may be under threat from cattle farmers seeking new land as they are loosing pastures to sugarcane that is being grown to save the planet!

[Comment by GM-free Ireland:

According to the World Bank, the mass production of agrofuel crops was responsible for 70% of increased animal feed and food prices in 2008.

As the International Commission on the Future of Food and Agriculture points out, "Food is the most basic of human needs and sustainable agriculture must be based on food first policies. Industrial agrofuels are non-sustainable and spread genetically modified organisms by stealth. Agrofuel plantations are aggravating the problem of climate change by destroying and replacing rain forests with soy, palm oil, and sugar cane plantations. This has led to an unparalleled land grab of indigenous and rural communities.

Industrial agrofuels are responsible for perverse subsidies to non-sustainable agriculture which threaten the food rights of billions of people. To make matters worse, food prices are increasing due to the rapid conversion from growing food crops to growing agrofuels. Sustainable energy policies require decentralization combined with a general decrease in energy consumption, while maintaining food security as an overarching objective of food and agriculture systems."

For more on this see the Manifesto on Climate Change and Food Security, published by the International Commission on the Future of Food and Agriculture, 2008:
http://www.arsia.toscana.it/petizione/documents/clima/CLIMA_ING.pdf)

See also Agrofuels: Fuelling of fooling Europe? Friends of the Earth Europe:
http://www.foeeurope.org/agrofuels/index.html. ]

At present we are producing ethanol from the starch in the plants but the genetic engineers are developing enzymes that can digest the cellulose in the plants which will dramatically increase the yield of ethanol and could, in the future, enable Ireland produce fuel from grass.

"Conventional" varieties are not that "conventional"

The high yielding "conventional" varieties of grain currently being used are not those used by our forefathers. Plant breeders often induce mutations by exposing seeds to radiation or chemical mutagens such as Colchicine.

The mutants produced are subjected to field trials to see if they have any desirable traits. It is ironic that if two beneficial traits are produced, one by genetic engineering and the other by irradiation only the former has to go through a risk assessment.

The other can go straight onto the market. It is the process, rather than the product, that governs what is assessed and subjected to the approvals regimen. Also while there is a requirement to label food containing GMOs there is no requirement to label mutants and we won't see a label on pasta such as "this pasta is made from irradiated mutant wheat".

[Comment by GM-free Ireland:

One reason why EU law requires mandatory labelling of GM food and animal feed is that – unlike non-GM crops that have been mutated by radiation of chemical means – most GM crops contain biologically active transgenic DNA taken from (a) a virus, (b) a bacterium, and (c) either a plant and/or an animal with the desired "trait", like GM soya and maize with virus genes and potatoes with spider genes. This transgenic DNA forces the modified crop to produce novel proteins and enzymes that may have never existed in the history of life on this planet. It is scientifically impossible to predict what the short and long-term impacts of this will be on the metabolism, immune systems, and health of the modified organism, on the livestock, wildlife and humans who consume it, and on the surrounding ecosystems into which the GM crops are released. No long term human feeding studies justify the claims made by EFSA and the biotech industry that GM food and feed are safe. A growing number of peer-reviewed independent scientific studies have found that the health impacts of GM animal feed and food include major organ damage, metabolic changes, and pre-cancerous growths. For details see http://www.gmfreeireland.org/health

It is interesting to note that the Journal deleted the next two paragraphs from Prof Wall's original text:

"Will Third World Farmers benefit from the Technology?

There is no doubt that genetic engineering can produce plants that can grow in arid conditions both where there is drought and high salt concentrations in the soil. Many crops in the developing world are devastated by pests and work is being done to develop appropriate GM varieties.

The biotech companies invest fortunes in research without which many of the advances in science and technology would not be achieved. As commercial entities they have to get a return on their investment hence the intellectual property rights and royalties associated with many new developments. Third World farmers are poor so if they are to benefit from the technology it would have to freely available without having to pay royalties. Also modifying crop varieties relevant for them may not be seen as a commercial opportunity by Biotech companies so publicly funded research and more corporate social responsibility will be needed." ]

[Comment by GM-free Ireland:

Viable "climate ready" GM drought- and salt-tolerant crops appear to be years or decades away from commercial release. More biodiverse and ecologically resilient Non-GM varieties with similar traits and pest-resistance have already been developed by conventional hybrisisation, marker assisted selection, biodiverse agriculture and organic methods - without the use of GM modification and seed patenting. ]

'Corporate Giants' owning food chain

Some people are against corporate giants controlling large segments of the food chain and owning the seed and agro chemicals being used on the crops. This is separate from the issue of genetic engineering. One could be for the technology but against the domination of powerful players in the food chain.

[Deleted sentence: This isn't that dissimilar from the situation at the other end of the food chain where the supermarkets are the major power brokers leaving many suppliers feeling helpless price takers. ]

More publically funded research into GMOs with free availability of the resultant varieties might address this.

[Comment by GM-free Ireland:

Genetic modification and seed patents may be separate in theory, but not in the reality of food politics.

Monsanto controls 95% of the world's GM seeds, and together with nine other companies, 67% of the global proprietary seed market. Their ability to secure patents for GM seeds enables this cartel to increase its privatised monopoly on world food production. For details see Who Owns Nature?, ETC Group, November 2008: http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=707. ]

We could argue that the first crop that should be banned globally is tobacco. We know cigarettes are a proven cause of lung cancer and a contributing factor of heart disease.

Finally the marketing strategy of the tobacco companies, of a known carcinogen, in developing countries makes the biotech companies look like saints.

Member states voting against the approval of GMOs

Certain member states [of the European Union - Ed. ] are consistently anti GMO but it is important that they state clearly why they hold this stance.

Most have no issue with the risk assessments on food safety and hold their position because of concerns about cross pollination in the environment or because they are into eco-tourism, or are anti-intensive farming, and GMOs do not fit with their image or brand. Non GM is perceived by some people to be more "wholesome", "pure" or "natural" and some wish to promote a country, or range of products, based on this perception. It is import that Member states and individuals are open and transparent regarding the reasons they are anti- GM.

[Comment by GM-free Ireland:

EU Member States, regional and local governments, farmers and consumers have a fundamental right to reject GM food and farming without any obligation to justify their position to EFSA, the European Commission, the WTO, or anyone else.

It is the member states which promote GM food and crops who should make their reasons for doing so transparent. GM seeds and crops inevitably contaminate the food chain and farmland and thus violate the fundamental human right of farmers to practice conventional agriculture, and the right of consumers to choose conventional food. For this reason, EU Member States, politicians, universities and scientists who support GM food and farming must be held accountable to justify their reasons for doing so, including conflicts of interest in their regulatory and policy making bodies, legal threats from the WTO and the European Commission, political pressure from the U.S. and Canadian Governments, biotech industry propaganda, stifling of scientific whistleblowers, bribery and corruption.

EFSA's risk assessment process for the health and environmental dangers of GM crops was unanimously criticised by all 27 Member States during the French Presidency at the Environmental Council in December 2008, which emphasized the need for EFSA to conduct long-term health risk assessments and stop ignoring the views of member states and independent scientists.

EFSA's risk assessment was also criticised by 22 EU member states under the Austrian Presidency at the meeting of the EU Environment Council in June 2006.

Similar criticism was also made by EU Environment Commissioner Stravros Dimas, the World Health Organisation (WHO), the Institut Pasteur, the European Medicines Agency (EMEA), international NGOs, and many independent scientific institutes.

For details see our news coverage for December 2008 at http://www.gmfreeireland.org/news/2008/dec.php and the Greenpeace criticism of EFSA at
http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/press-centre/press-releases2/Shut-down-EFSA-GMO-panel. ]

Consumer choice

If consumers don't want GM foods, for whatever reason, can segregation in the supply chain, testing and appropriate labelling enable people have the choice of GM or non GM?

Of course it can, but the worry is that the associated additional costs will result in GM free food becoming more expensive and because of this many people won't be able to exercise their right of choice.

[Comment from GM-free Ireland: The notion that GM farming can "co-exist" with the production of conventional food is agri-biotech industry propaganda. Its falsity is evidenced by more than 216 contamination incidents in 57 countries, as reported in the GM Contamination Register (http://www.gmcontaminationregister.org). Now that contamination of seeds, crops, animal feed and food is underway, the biotech industry expects governments, farmers, food processors and taxpayers to pay for the extra costs of segregation – making a mockery of the Polluter Pays principle.

The Journal deleted the next interesting sentence from Prof Wall's original text: ]

Can one be pro Artisan producers and pro Organic Farmers without being anti-GM?

The artisan producers have for years won the awards and put "Ireland the Food Island" up in lights. When people come to Ireland their eating experience is often a contributing factor to a successful holiday and they wish to taste food from the locality not for some other continent therefore the artisan producers, local butchers, market gardeners etc have to be nurtured. Will the growth of these sectors be compromised if conventional farmers feed more GM grains, or even plant GM varieties, or can the different sectors coexist and can everyone prosper?

Where do we stand in Ireland?

We often abstain in the EU approval votes so it would appear that we can't make up our minds if we are for, or against, the technology. Many EU countries have Biotech information centres to present the pros and cons to the citizens in an impartial way and perhaps we should also have one.

[Comment by GM-free Ireland:

The Irish Government's official biotech information website has been hosted for years by the Agriculture and Food Authority, Teagasc, at http://wwww.gmoInfo.ie. The site fails to mention that GM crops contaminate conventional and organic varieties, and that contaminated farmers lose ownership of their seeds and crops under international patent laws. This is a blatant example of agribiotech industry hype touted at Irish taxpayers' expense. ].

In these recessionary times farming is a challenging business and decisions taken today may have long term impacts on our commercial viability. The technology has very exciting potential so before we could forego this opportunity serious consideration would be required.

Over 90% of our farmland is in grass and GM technology has so far had no impact there. Since the demise of our sugar beet industry our remaining tillage area is almost entirely in cereals (wheat and barley) and again no GM varieties of these crops are available. GM blight resistant potatoes are coming on stream but our acreage of potatoes is small. We grow no Soya bean or cotton and only small amounts of maize. So even if there was no problem with public acceptance, planting GM crops may be of marginal interest for Irish agriculture.

What is meant by a "GM free Ireland"?

Does it mean we don't grow GM crops or does it mean that we neither grow such crops nor feed GM grain to our stock? As a hobby farmer, it would be a bit rich of me to recommend that my neighbours in Co Meath, who depend on farming for their livelihoods, should not feed EU approved GM varieties of grain to their livestock, a recommendation, if followed that might result in them going out of business.

[Comment by GM-free Ireland:

Far from putting farmers who avoid GM animal feed out of business, 48 European Regions have adopted Quality Agriculture strategies which ban the use of GM animal feed, in order to retain access to the growing EU market for GM-free meat, poultry and dairy produce. For more information see the Animal Feed section of the GM-free Ireland web site at http://www.gmfreeireland.org/feed and that of the European Network of GMO-free Regions at http://www.gmo-free-regions.org/food-democracy-april-2009.html

Note also that in 2007 Meath County Council declared their jurisdiction off limits to GM crops, passed a motion requesting the Irish Environmental Protection Agency to prohibit any field trials of GM crops, and declared that it would not provide the necessary land use and planning permissions for BASF to conduct an experimental release of 450, 000 GMO potatoes there. For details see http://www.gmfreeireland.org/potato ]

Making a case for a "GM free Ireland" because the technology is inherently dangerous or evil won't stand up as it is based on an invalid premise and the technology is being used to good effect in many of our pharmaceutical industries contributing to our GNP.

[Comment by GM-free Ireland:

Realisation that GM crops are inherently dangerous rests on the perfectly valid premise that EFSA's so-called "risk assessment" process for GM food and crops routinely relies on data from studies funded by the applicant companies, which have a blatant interest in avoiding evidence of health risks, and which downplay the negative findings of studies conducted by EU member states and independent scientific organisations.

The GM-free Ireland Network has never opposed biotechnology in general. We successfully lobbied the Government to adopt a policy in 2007 to keep this island free of any environmental release of GMOs (including GM viruses, bacteria, fungi, algae, seeds, crops, trees, insects, crustaceans, fish and livestock), along with a voluntary phase-out of GM animal feed.

Moreover, nobody is calling for a ban on the contained pharmaceutical use of GM bacteria (routinely used in sealed vats for the production of medicines in secure laboratories) - although Prof David McConnell of the Irish Times Trust and the EAGLES biotech industry lobby group routinely accuses us of doing so whenever he gets the chance! ]

People are entitled to have moral or ethical objections and it is reasonable to expect to have concerns about health or environmental impacts adequately addressed. All of these are not going to be easily resolved to everyone's satisfaction.

[Comment by GM-free Ireland:

In the above context – and in view of the growing number of peer-reviewed scientific reports on the health and environmental dangers of releasing GMOs into the environment and food chain – the word "concerns" implies "ignorance" and is an insult to the knowledge and intelligence of scientists, farmers, consumers and other stakeholders who oppose GM food and farming. See a useful list of related papers at http://www.gmfreeireland.org/health/studies.php ]

However making a business case for a "GM free Ireland" to differentiate our farmers and our product on the global stage and to differentiate our tourist offering, particularly ecotourism, is a different matter. Opting for a "GM free Ireland" would require a declaration in two jurisdictions as we share a border with Northern Ireland. The recent dioxin crisis has damaged the image of "Ireland the Food Island" as the little Green Isle, the bread basket of Europe and we have work to do to repair that damage and we should look at all our options. Rightly, or wrongly, GM free is perceived to be more "natural", "pure" and "wholesome", and perception appears to be reality with some consumers.

It is time, as a first step, that we see the business case, if it exists, for, and against, a GM free Ireland and have a proper debate once and for all. But, as a person who tries unsuccessfully to hold the middle ground, I wonder whether such a debate is possible.

[Comment by GM-free Ireland:

Negotiations between the Irish Government and the Northern Ireland Assembly to declare the island of Ireland as a GM-free zone have been underway since June 2007, in line with the bans already declared by Scotland, Wales, Cornwall and many other English counties – along with 19 Local Authorities on both sides of the Irish border. But instead of banning GM crops outright, both parties have adopted the weaker strategy of attempting to prevent the release of GM crops by indirect means (such as mandatory liability insurance and application of the Polluter Pays principle), so as to avoid a clash with the WTO and the European Commission which obstinately refuses to recognise the democratic right of Member States and Regions to ban GM crops outright if they so choose.

The fact that GM crops are "rightly or wrongly perceived" to be more "natural", "pure" and "wholesome" has contributed to their total rejection by the vast majority of European farmers, retailers and consumers – but what really matters is their safety. Sooner or later, contamination with illegal animal feed will occur again as it did in Ireland in 2006, or some GM animal feed or food will create a health crisis more serious than the 2007 dioxin meat scandal. As the ancient Chinese proverb says, the best way to handle a disaster is to deal with it before it happens!

The economic arguments for keeping Ireland GM-free are:

•

Clean green branding for food and tourism:
    · world famous "green" image
    · unpolluted topsoil with EU's lowest levels of dioxins, heavy metals, etc.
    · "Ireland – the food island" marketing by Bord Bía (Irish Food Board)

•

No commerial release or field trials of GM crops.

•

Very low percentage of GM animal feed in mostly grass-based cattle and sheep (+ poultry?) diet, compared to EU competitors (see The transition to GM-free meat and dairy production in Ireland - the food island, GM-free Ireland presentation to the Second International Non-GMO Soy Summit, October 2008: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/feed/documents/SoySummit2/GMFI-SoySummit2008.pdf).

•

Irish Government & Northern Ireland Assembly plan to keep the whole island off-limits to GM crops.

•

Geographical isolation, island status and Atlantic winds = barrier to trans-boundary GM contamination by wind-borne pollen and seed dispersal from other countries.

•

Neighbouring UK Regions (Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Cornwall) also oppose release of GM crops.

•

A ban on GM crops with a voluntary phase-out of GM animal feed would arguably provide Irish farm produce with the most credible safe GM-free food brand in Europe.

•

This unique selling point provides a major competitive advantage for Irish food, farming and ecotourism sectors. ]

* Patrick Wall is Associate Professor of Public Health at UCD and is a former Chair of EFSA.

Monsanto Investigator in Illinois Laughs They Are Doing 'Rural Cleansing'

OpEdNews.com, 10 January 2009. By Lynn Cohen-Cole.

As of last night, a US marshall, 2 state police and a county police are all over Mr. Hixon's area, serving notices to farmers that they are being sued by Monsanto. They arrive in pairs, with two cars parked a quarter mile and half mile down the road. They've served 3 so far and said "a bunch more are coming." No telling how many will be served since Hixon has between 200-400 farmers he cleans seeds for and these farmers have been repeatedly threatened by Monsanto thugs for the last two months, getting "visits, " letters, and calls daily.

Farmers report that a Monsanto investigator laughed that they were doing "rural cleansing."

Steve Hixon is a seed cleaner in southern Illinois. He has equipment that takes the plant materials and "cleans" it so that the seeds are separated out and can be given back to farmers to save for the next season. It's a mechanized step up from farmers hand picking seeds off their own plants, which, with hundreds of acres - or even 10 - would not be easy to do.

Mr. Hixon has the non-distinction of being attacked by Monsanto. He is far from alone. Monsanto has been picking off seed cleaners across the Midwest, having already done its thuggish thing in Pilot Grove, Missouri, and in Indiana, attacking Maurice Parr, destroying business for all of them.

Mr. Parr reports that when he was sued, the first think out of the judge said was how "honored to have a fine company like Monsanto in my courtroom."

"Shortly after someone broke into Mr. Hixon's office and he found his account book on his truck seat where he would never have left it, every one of his remotely located and very scattered customers had three men (described as goons with "no necks") arrived at each farm, going out onto it without permission ... Mr. Hixon and state police who were called in, believe a GPS tracking device may have been put on Mr. Hixon's equipment." Click here.

In 2002, when Mr. Hixon was at the state legislature for a meeting, he said he told a Monsanto representative there, "If you guys want to tak over the seed industry so bad, you ought to buy guys like me out." The Monsanto agent is supposed to have responded "We'd rather put you out of business, it's more fun that way."

Mr. Hixon says that when he is cleaning seeds, he is pouring $13, 000 a hour into the local economy, which right now is being hit. A fence company has gone out of business and other businesses are in trouble. And in using seeds that have been cleaned, those seeds have carbon footprint, by Mr. Hixon's figures, less than a fraction of 1% of that of GMO seeds delivered over 1000s of miles at 5 miles a gallon that semis require to run.

But Monsanto's GM-soy and other seeds have a much heavier carbon footprint that the absurd transport of seed across the country by semis. Petroleum-based pesticides are the essence of genetic engineering, and Monsanto has a poorly known history of their relation to warfare.

"Huge excesses of nitrogenous compounds that accumulated during World War I provided the basis for the beginnings of the mass production of synthetic nitrate fertilizers. DuPont -- now the sole owner of the world's largest seed company, Pioneer HiBred -- was the largest manufacturer of gunpowder in the United States during the early 19th century and the first World War. Monsanto increased its profits 100 fold during the World War, from $80, 000 to well over $9 million per year, supplying the chemical precursors for high explosives such as TNT.

"In the 1930s, chemists working for the German company Bayer discovered the highly poisonous properties of organophosphate compounds. .... As all of German industry became absorbed into the growing Nazi war machine, Bayer's organophosphate compounds were developed simultaneously as agricultural pesticides and as nerve gases for military use. These included such notorious chemical warfare agents as sarin, soman and tabun gases, all of which are still manufactured today. ...

"In the 1930s, scientists at the Swiss J. R. Geigy Company were searching for new compounds to disinfect seeds and prevent moths from feeding on wool. ... These researchers' key discovery was that DDT ... could accomplish both of their desired ends and more. ... DDT was seen as the "atom bomb of insecticides, " capable of permanently eliminating various pest species.

"After World War II, DDT became the most widely applied chemical in human history .... The widespread use of DDT -- for both agricultural and household uses -- led to a dramatic shift in the chemical industry's approach to pest control ... was in many ways a direct outgrowth of its wartime origins. ...

"During the 1960s, Monsanto was a leading manufacturer of the herbicide 'Agent Orange, ' which was used by U.S. military forces to obliterate the dense jungles of Vietnam. Today Monsanto's Roundup-family herbicides play a central role in the U.S. "drug war" via its widespread use to eradicate coca and poppy plants in Colombia and other countries...."

The shift to genetically engineered food seems a welcome change from such a history. But it appears there has been no change, only a more thorough and disguises means of ensuring its sales.

"Of all of Monsanto, DuPont and Dow's agricultural products, genetically engineered food crops might appear to be the least tainted with immediate wartime origins. But this technology emerged from a period when the future of chemical agriculture appeared very much in doubt. With the rapid expansion of the agrochemical industry during the post-World War II era, these companies and their European counterparts had established a profound degree of control over agricultural practices.

But as public pressure and the weight of scientific evidence curtailed the use of DDT and many other chlorinated pesticides in the 1970s, executives and corporate scientists saw the potential for limitless advances -- and ever-expanding marketing potential -- in the incorporation of technological advances into the genetics of seeds. During the 1990s, Monsanto alone spent nearly $8 billion acquiring leading commercial seed suppliers in the United States and internationally; DuPont and others quickly followed suit, leading to today's widespread proliferation of genetically engineered food crops." Click here.

Today, in Illinois, our federal agents and police, working on behalf of Monsanto, are terrorizing ... whom? Drug dealers? Financiers who have stolen this country blind? The people who took us to war based on lies and have profited while thousands of American and 100s of thousands of Iraqi have died? No. Our tax dollars are being used to turn our marshals and police into Monsanto agents to terrorize our disappearing farmers.

Terror is palpable in rural America. It defines American farming communities now.

Monsanto, with its history of warfare and creating chemicals to "cleanse" both enemies and agricultural pests of any area desired, appears to bring this power and method of thinking to all it touches.

"Rural cleansing" is its stated goal, and our farmers the pests to be eliminated.

9 January 2009

Segregation of GM wheat impossible

"The U.S. wheat industry is currently incapable of segregating GMO crops from other wheat. If even a few hundred acres are planted, the entire export supply can be contaminated."

Jeff Krehbiel
Chairman
Oklahoma Wheat Commission

Quoted in "As acres dwindle, wheat farmers consider options in biotechnology"
The Journal Record (USA), 9 January 2009.

Read the article: http://greenbio.checkbiotech.org/news/acres_dwindle_wheat_farmers_consider_options_biotechnology

8 January 2009

Argentina: GM Soy Wreaks Cultural and Economic Havoc in Jujuy

Upside Down World, 8 January 2009. By Meriwether Hardie.

Soy, she tells me, is "a disease, stuck in the marrow of my bones. It sustains me enough to keep me breathing at the end of each day, but it is rotting me alive. It is slowly numbing my body from the inside out. This crop has robbed me of my child. It has robbed me of my youth, my hope, my want to look ahead to a future. I am not the only one. There are many of us. In America you have cocaine to kill slowly; in Argentina we have soybeans."

Her name is Sonita Ponce. She is thirty-three, but she looks much older. She lives with her husband in the same stone, tin and mud hut that her great grandparents built and passed down through the generations. Their farm is located thirty miles south of Bolivia, in the northern Argentine province of Jujuy. Sonita's family members have always been farmers, and until quite recently their farm produced a wide variety of crops including maize, quinoa, lettuces, and other legumes. This changed in the early years of 2000 when the craze of soy hit America and China. Then genetically modified soy seeds were introduced to Argentina. Suddenly the production demand for soybeans increased so dramatically that the local farmers of these countries could no longer meet the consumer demands, and land was bought up by multinational soy corporations. Many farmers have lost their jobs, homes, land, and health.

The Other Side of Argentine Agriculture

Another Argentine farmer first introduced me to Sonita and her husband. My friend had told Sonita that I was studying South American permaculture techniques, and that he thought it was important for me to come see the other side of agriculture in order to better understand the wide spectrum of South American farming. When Sonita invited me to come stay with her, I readily agreed, not quite understanding what I was about to experience.

When I reached Sonita's hut she received me with a certain distant warmth. After she greeted me she sat me down on her dirt floor and went outside to light up her fire and cook me a meal. Within minutes she returned with a steaming bowl of tofu. I eagerly accepted the gift, but she didn't smile at my tofu enthusiasm. I was so distracted by the hot food in front of me that I didn't think to ask her why she wasn't eating. I was halfway through the bowl when she tugged at my hand and told me that it was time so show me something. I got up reluctantly and walked outside with her, looking back at my half eaten tofu. We spent that first afternoon walking around the soy fields and counting abandoned shacks of old soy farmers.

In the past, farming in Northern Argentina was community based and structured. The provinces in this part of the country are very hot and dry, and this ecosystem can naturally support only small networks of farms. Thus this area consisted of small communities built around many little farms. The average farm contained 100-250 hectares with 10-15 male field hands who maintained and harvested the crops by hand or simple machinery. Many of the workers lived in small shacks on or close to the property of the farm, turning it into a gathering and meeting place for them and their families. Without modern technology, these small farms had jobs or chores for every age group. Small children could harvest vegetables or tend animals. Wives cooked or accompanied the men in the fields. Older generations assisted the children with harvesting and other simple tasks.

The Catastrophic 'Miracle Crop'

Soy farming spilled over into Argentina and other South America countries. When Monsanto first introduced the soybean to the Argentine farmers, it was instantly a hit. The company claimed that they were bringing technology to bring farmers out of poverty. Sonita say that the company representative who came to her town to promote soy told her that it would bring "you country bumpkins out of poverty and up to par with the rest of the agriculture world of America."

"At first, " Sonita tells me, "soy seemed to be a miracle crop." The small farmers of these countries were excited by the prospect of an easy cash crop with such a high and steady demand. Sonita and her husband, like many other growers in the area, decided to convert all their fields to soy, hoping for quick revenue.

Chris Van Damme is a professor of environmental policy and sustainable development at the National University of Salta in Northern Argentina. In a study that he carried out in 2005, he found that between 1996 and 2004, soy output in Argentina rose from 11 million to 36.5 million tons, with 95 percent of that production for export, and that 70 percent of that export arriving in the US. Today Argentina produces 80 percent of the world's soy. During a conversation that I had with Damme, he also shared with me that because of the high demand, soybeans now cover half of available arable land in the country.

A Farmerless Crop

As soy fields spread, the US agrochemical giant Monsanto Corporation, developed and introduced the genetically engineered "Roundup Ready" (RR) soybean into the agriculture sector of South America. All parties concerned predicted that the introduction of the genetically modified (GM) soybean would advance farmers economically and technologically. The RR seed is resistant to the herbicide glyphosate, meaning that when the farmers spray glyphosate on their fields, the herbicide kills all the weeds without hurting the soy seed. Without a weed problem, the farmers dramatically decrease or stop tilling their fields, saving gas and machinery cost.

From an economic standpoint, Monsanto thought that cutting production costs would increase profit. They failed, however to understand that by bringing in these GM crops, they were uprooting the social structure and culture that the people of Northern Argentina survived on. "Genetically modified soy is a farm product that needs no farmers, " Sonita explains, "which was what made it so appealing to all of us. We just weren't ready for the long terms effects."

With less machinery being operated, and the "built-in" weed management system, few hands are needed to tend to the crops. The labor requirement now for a soy farm is only one job per 100-55 hectares, which creates a large increase in unemployment throughout Northern Argentina. Without the need for extra field hands, suddenly thousands of workers and their families found themselves jobless, and, not soon after, homeless. These workers were the first people to feel the direct impact of the new GM soy crop.

A Cycle of Loss

The Pampas are the richest farming lands in Argentina. In this region a farmer needs to have at least fifty hectares in order to receive a good return. In the more northern provinces, where the economy is much weaker and the fields are farther away from the ocean ports, a farmer needs at least 1, 000-2, 000 hectares to make the same profit from soy as the Pampas farmer. The northern land is much more dry and growing soy on this land depletes the soil of its nutrients. Traditionally a farmer would have used a crop rotation in order to keep this soil healthy, yet because there is such a high overseas demand for soy, the small struggling farmers of this area continue to grow soy, hoping to grow themselves out of debt. This intensive soybean cultivation has led to massive soil nutrient depletion. Damme estimates that continuous soybean production has extracted about a million metric tons of nitrogen and about 227, 000 metric tons of phosphorous from these fields. The estimated cost of replenishing this nutrient loss with fertilizers is around US $910 million.

Currently, local soy farmers are slowly accumulating more and more debt. Soy is not turning out be the easy cash crop that they at first thought it was. When Monsanto first introduced the RR seed in 1996, they sold their product at a heavily discounted price in order to get into the market. Today over 90 percent of the 13 million hectares of Argentine soy fields are sown with the Monsanto RR seed. Farmers are now dependent on this seed and the no-tillage no-machinery style of farming that it has developed. Thus, a couple years ago when Monsanto began to charge high royalties for their seeds, many small farmers began to run into financial problems. Monsanto also outlawed seed saving, making it illegal to collect seeds from the present crop, to plant in the upcoming year, forcing farmers to come back and buy expensive Monsanto RR seed season after season. Monsanto hired government agriculture officers to enforce this new law, heavily fining and prosecuting farmers who had replanted farm-saved seeds.

According to a study recently carried out by Damme and his students, the Argentine governmental banks are auctioning 24 million acres of land, belonging to bankrupted small farmers, in order to pay back debts. Within the past decade, 160, 000 Argentine families have left the land. As the small farmers are moving out, the larger farmers are moving in. Overseas corporations, many of which produce soy products in China and America, have recently begun to buy up this land in order to grow soy cheaply and provide the soy content of their products. These large corporations have the money and technology to buy the land of several small farms, and combine the properties into one massive GM soy plantation. With the competition that these large corporations bring, the few remaining local farmers are even more financially stressed.

As Sonita walks me though field after field, all of which used to belong to individual families, she suddenly turns to me and says, "Your people were the ones who developed this technology to help -move' us forward. But then they saw how successful and cost effective it was, and they just couldn't stay away. Your people were too greedy. They had to come in for more share of the profit. Let me show you what my people are doing now. "

Far off in the horizon there appears to be wooden sculptures are cardboard boxes held together with bits and pieces of tin, twine, and newspaper and anything else extra, anything to make shade from the sun. Sonita leads me through the rickety cardboard village, explaining to me that this barrio outside of Jujuy is made up of al old soy farmers and workers who have lost their jobs, land and farms. These people tried to move into the city to find work, but since the collapse of the Argentine economy in 2004, unemployment has continued to rise and jobs are hard to come by. Data from The Argentine National Institute of Agricultural Technology states that between 1998 and 2006, extreme poverty levels increased from 12 to 43 percent in the soy towns of Northern Argentina.

The True Costs of Soy

As we walk through the town, Sonita points out her old neighbors and waves to them. In response, the people just eye us wearily. She tells me that since she and her husband are some of the only small farmers still holding onto their own land, many of their old friends resent them, suspiciously believing that they are somehow working for one of the big soy companies. "Little do they know, this crop is killing me and my family slowly, just like the rest of them" she says, referring to her recent miscarriage.

By the time we got back to her hut night had fallen and my tofu was hours cold. I didn't want to create waste in a land of so little, so I tried to swallow a couple bites of the cold mush left of the tofu she had made for me when I arrived, but it left my stomach feeling sick and empty.

The subject of her miscarried child is one that she subtly continues to bitterly mention throughout my time with her. Finally, during our last hours together, I ask her directly about her child. She tells me that she was around six months pregnant when she had a miscarriage, which she blames on the soy. With poverty rates on the rise and an overload of soy, the Argentine government began to promote soy as a healthy alternative to traditional food staples such as milk and meat. As a result, many people were consuming only soy-based foods. Argentine doctors have recently begun to see the side effects of this plan and they are realizing that such an unbalanced soy diet can have nutritionally damaging effects. Too much soy can inhibit absorption of calcium, iron, zinc, and vitamin B12, harming internal organs and the female reproductive system. Sonita tells me that even now, the sight of soy repulses her, yet she eats it "at every meal. Soy is the only food I can afford be cause I grow, eat, dream, and sweat it."

As we said goodbye, Sonita asked me what I am going to do about the experience I had seen over the past couple days. She expected that with the power of being an American, I would be able to do something to help her. It was hard to look her back in the eye and tell her how overwhelmed I felt after seeing her world. I wish I could repeat back to her something that she once said to me, that life is poco a poco. Change is little by little. This is my poco a poco.

This first appeared in the Cipher Magazine, of Cutler Publications, a student-run organizationof Colorado College.

Meriwether Hardie is an environmental science major at Colorado College and is currently writing a thesis on the social impact of CDM reforestation projects under the Kyoto Protocol. Contact: Meriwether.Hardie(at)coloradocollege.edu

Monsanto says GMO cotton seed out in Burkina Faso

Reuters, 8 January 2008.

San Antonio -- Life sciences firm Monsanto said Thursday it released for commercial cultivation its Bollgard II cotton seed in the West African nation of Burkina Faso, one of the poorest countries in the world.

A report presented by Monsanto scientist John Greenplate at the annual Beltwide cotton conference said the country's government approved the seed last June, and the commercial release was accomplished by November of last year on 9, 000 hectares of farmland.

He said growers, as per the usual practice in the country, were expected to pay for the seed upon harvest. Bollgard II contains proteins which would help fight the top insect there -- the caterpillar pest.

The former French colony of 15 million people relies heavily on subsistence agriculture. The main agricultural activity is cotton farming, which is sown on 600, 000 hectares.

Cotton cultivation is dominated by three coops in the country. The runaway leader is Sofitex, which accounts for 87 percent of the acreage. (Reporting by Rene Pastor, Editing by John Picinich)

Genetically modified organisms: a more complex engineering problem than you bargained for?

ScienceBlogs.com, 8 January 2008. By Janet D. Stemwedel.

The technology for creating genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is appealingly clever, and it opens up a host of possibilities for engineering crops and livestock to order. But how things work in theory (and in the lab) does not necessarily tell us all we need or want to know about how things will work in the world.

Consider transgenic Bt corn, corn genetically modified to express the Bacillus thuringiensis toxin, which is poisonous to many insects. The appeal of Bt corn is that it makes its own pesticide, poisoning the voracious insects that might try to eat it without the need to spray synthetic chemical pesticides that might harm the farm workers or even the consumers eating the corn.

There were early reports that pollen from Bt corn might drift to neighboring milkweed and harm "non-target" insects such as Monarch butterflies. The weight of scientific opinion at this point seems to be that harm to Monarch larvae is not likely, or at least not at the levels that would do significant damage to Monarch populations.

One wonders, though, how much research was done on this kind of "collateral damage" possibility before transgenic corn was being sold and planted in fields. Obviously, if you're attacking an engineering problem with some hope of actually producing a working solution in your lifetime, you can't consider every possible unforeseen consequence. Still, there are some impacts it's good to think about before you bring your product from the drawing-board, lab, or test field to the market. It's not nice to make the commercial farmer your beta-tester -- at least not when the stakes might include endangering other species.

There's something else that comes with GMOs being solutions to engineering problems -- transgenic crops are intellectual property which farmers need a license to grow. Not necessarily a cheap license, either. For obvious reasons, licensing fees may convince some farmers to opt out of growing GM crops. However, it's not clear that voluntarily opting out will always be effective.

By and large, our crops grow outside, in the sun, and the rain, and the wind. Our plants have evolved to take advantage of those gentle breezes to stay in the gene pool -- given the chance, plants are going to get it on. But what happens when those gentle breezes waft the pollen from a GMO to other crops? Suddenly that pricey corn plant's gametes are getting busy with the silk on the humble non-patented corn plant next door. What does this do to the gene pool? Will this intermingling of genes be desirable or not from a farming point of view?

And does a gentle breeze turn nearby farmers into unwitting biopirates? Will the companies licensing the GM crops mount RIAA-style prosecutions against the folks granted illegal GMO downloads by the fickle wind?

Perhaps a more pressing question is whether organic farmers be able to continue to use Bt, one of the few heavy-duty natural pesticides in their arsenal (and one, it should be noted, that they apply sparingly as needed rather than routinely). What if Bt corn results in Bt resistant pests? Sure, farmers growing Bt corn are required as part of the end-user agreement to grow a "pest harbor" of non-Bt corn nearby. As this is basically corn being grown to be eaten by pests, though, there's an economic incentive to be lax in meeting this requirement. And while the Bt corn can only be grown by licensees, Bt resistant pests will be available to all farmers.

That's evolution for you. Just because your side is clever doesn't mean the other side in the arms race won't find a way to catch up.

My point here is not to declare GM crops an irredeemably bad idea. Rather, it is to suggest that the environment in which GM crops need to "work" is incredibly complex. Engineering crops that avoid the sorts of bad consequences we might worry about in real life may be a more complicated problem than simply getting a plant to grow well with a foreign gene and getting it reliably to express that gene as it grows.

I hope the folks making the GMOs are working through the necessary refinements before putting their products into wide release.

Was it a fraud, a hoax or a prank?

[Note: see related article "How Windschuttle swallowed a hoax to publish a fake story in Quadrant" under 6 January below. ]

The Age (Australia), 8 January 2009. By Dewi Cooke.

LITERARY hoax, mean prank or journalistic fraud?

These are the distinctions being made in the wake of the Quadrant affair, in which conservative historian and Quadrant editor Keith Windschuttle published an article on genetic engineering by an author purporting to be a New York biotechnologist living in Brisbane.

That the author, Dr Sharon Gould, was a pseudonym for an anonymous blogger who had mapped out the plan to dupe Windschuttle online over many months was revealed in the online news website Crikey on Tuesday.

The article's claims of CSIRO research into the commercialisation of crops, livestock and mosquitoes modified with human genes were quickly denied by the CSIRO, although similar genetic trials exist elsewhere.

But it is the question of the hoax, and the company which the hoaxer keeps, that has most affected both "Gould" and Windschuttle.

"Do journalists not recognise the vast difference between a hoax and a fraud? It's one thing to design a stunt as a piece of cultural criticism, but quite another to make false claims for personal gain, " Gould complained, writing in yesterday's Crikey.

Gould has taken umbrage at the parallels that have been drawn with literary fakes Norma Khouri and Helen Demidenko. "Both Khouri and Demidenko received money for their fraudulent acts, and neither intended, to my knowledge, to be outed, " Gould wrote in Crikey.

"Neither designed their fraudulent claims as a culture-jamming exercise, and both duped the public instead of powerful public figures or paradigms."

The University of Sydney's David Brooks, an associate professor in Australian literature, and a novelist, poet and lecturer on literary hoaxes, said hoaxes had the power to act as a "shoehorn or catalyst to a further stage of thinking".

"The hoax is a way of presenting something for people to think about without the culture having to take responsibility for it, " he said.

"Oftentimes things that appear as hoaxes end up having a major influence on subsequent developments in a particular form."

Melbourne University Publishing publisher Louise Adler thought the Quadrant hoax was a "terrific" response to the so-called culture wars Windschuttle had become a part of.

"We've woken from a slumber because I think there wasn't much space for culture-jamming over the last 111û2 years, in literary terms, and if this is a sign there's a sort of renaissance in it, that's great, " she said.

Windschuttle, for his part, has maintained that he was duped by a fraud, not a hoax.

6 January 2009

How Windschuttle swallowed a hoax to publish a fake story in Quadrant

[Note: see related article "Was it a fraud, a hoax or a prank?" under 8 January above. ]

Crikey (Australia), 6 January 2009. By Margaret Simons.

Keith Windschuttle, the editor of the conservative magazine Quadrant, has been taken in by a hoax intended to show that he will print outrageous propositions.

This month's edition of Quadrant contains a hoax article purporting to be by "Sharon Gould", a Brisbane [Australia ] based New York biotechnologist.

But in the tradition of Ern Malley - the famous literary hoax perpetrated by Quadrant's first editor, James McAuley - the Sharon Gould persona is entirely fictitious and the article is studded with false science, logical leaps, outrageous claims and a mixture of genuine and bogus footnotes.

In accepting the article, Keith Windschuttle said in an email to "Sharon Gould":

"I really like the article. You bring together some very important considerations about scientific method, the media, politics and morality that I know our readers would find illuminating."

"Gould's" article, which is blurbed on the front cover of Quadrant and reproduced online, (subscribers only) argues for the insertion of human genes in to food crops, insects and livestock.

It contains the bogus claim that the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation planned to commercialise food crops engineered with human genes, but abandoned the projects because of "perceived moral issues".

The hoaxer, who intends to remain anonymous, has provided details of how the hoax was constructed, including a blog-style Diary of A Hoax, liberally studded with ironic quotations from Ern Malley's poetry. http://blogs.crikey.com.au/crikey/files/2009/01/diary-of-a-hoax.html

Diary of a Hoax is published here, and the article submitted to Quadrant is here but, unless it is taken down, can also be read by subscribers on Quadrant's website here or in the print edition, which hit newsagents in the last few days.

I rang Keith Windschuttle this morning seeking comment. He said that claims the article was a hoax were "news to me" and said he wanted to see the material the hoaxer had provided to me before commenting. A copy of Diary of a Hoax and his own correspondence with "Sharon Gould" was emailed to him this morning.

He rang back a short while ago, and said that he would respond to these events in full on the Quadrant website shortly. More on Windschuttle's conversation with me below.

"Gould's" article uses a melange of fact, misconstrued science and fiction masquerading as science to argue that science research, such as that behind genetically modified foods, should be above scrutiny by the media and the public. It criticizes the Rudd Government for "shameless populism" for inviting "ordinary" Australians to be part of the 2020 Summit. The article says:

"What has become unspeakable is that journalists and their publics, like small children reaching for the medicine cabinet, do not always understand what is best."

In a ruse designed to lampoon Windschuttle's historical research, which began by checking the footnotes of leading historians, the article contains some false references.

In Diary of a Hoax, the hoaxer writes:

"Some of the footnotes are completely fabricated. Others are genuine references to science articles, but have nought to do with what's asserted in the essay."

(The footnotes have not been included with the published version of the article. In keeping with Quadrant practice, a note at the end says that they are available from the Quadrant office.)

The Gould hoax is designed to be a companion and a counter to the famous Sokal hoax, in which the physicist Alan Sokal submitted a paper to a postmodern cultural studies journal to show that post modernists would "publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions."

The Sokal affair became part of the "science wars" which were a series of intellectual battles between post modernists and realists, and a companion to Australia's "history wars", in which Windschuttle has been a leading contender.

On the day Windschuttle informed "Gould" that the article would be published, the hoaxer wrote in Diary of a Hoax:

"For pity's sake, Quadrant fell for my ham-fisted ruse! At least with the Sokal hoax, Alan Sokal was a bona fide physics professor. So it's understandable that a journal editor might unquestioningly publish his nonsense. But so neatly did my essay conform with reactionary ideology that Quadrant, it seems, didn't even check the putative author's credentials. Nor it seems did they get the piece peer-reviewed. Nor did they check the "facts"; nor the footnotes. Nor were they alerted by the clues...Still, now my experiment has worked, I'm not sure how I feel about it. Do I feel schadenfreude? Not really. I feel ambivalent. I'm almost embarrassed for you, Windschuttle... I didn't do this to be unkind to you personally. This experiment wasn't designed with ill-intent, but to uncover hypocrisy in knowledge-claims, and also spark public debate about standards of truth when anything is claimed in the name of 'science'."

The persona of "Sharon Gould" was constructed with a false e-mail address and a website, which was online but has since been taken down. We publish it here. In it, Gould describes herself as a 41-year- old New Yorker based in Brisbane with a Phd in biotechnology. She claims she is related to the American evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, and has been inspired by his example to embark on a popular science writing career. The website had suggestive links to other "Goulds".

"Gould" claimed to Windschuttle that the article had earlier been presented at an international conference on genome informatics - but while the conference existed, the paper was not presented there.

The article claims that the CSIRO wanted to put human genes into wheat so they could trigger immune responses to fight pre-cancerous cells, into cows so they would produce milk that would not trigger allergic responses in lactic intolerant infants, and into mosquitoes to render their bites less dangerous.

Commercialisation of both these projects was abandoned... possibly... because of perceived ethical issues in the public and media perception.

"Gould" first submitted the article to Windschuttle early last year, but did not hear back from him until "she" followed up in August. Windschuttle told "her" that the original article had gone missing. "She" resubmitted, and Windschuttle accepted the article enthusiastically. The only contact between the two was by e-mail.

Windschuttle asked for some changes, which involved cutting a lengthy explanation of the Sokal hoax from the first paragraphs - which the hoaxer had intended as a clue.

Windschuttle wrote to "Gould":

Many of our readers would be aware of the Sokal hoax and its implications, and I think your introduction would lull them into thinking the whole article is another analysis of the follies of constructivism, whereas it is really much more interesting than that.

"Gould" made the changes Windschuttle suggested, but left a reference to the Sokal hoax in the first paragraph. A few other minor editorial changes were made between the version submitted and that published.

Keith Windschuttle is a leading cultural warrior. In recent years he has accused senior historians of falsifying and inventing the degree of violence against Aborigines. He has also accused academic historians of exaggerating the racism involved in the White Australia policy.

This morning in a conversation with me, Windschuttle asked to know the identity of the hoaxer, and was refused. He said that at least some of the footnotes in the article were genuine, and that it was not reasonable to expect the editor of a popular publication to check all footnotes. He asked me to provide him with information on which footnotes were genuine, and which bogus. This will be done by e-mail later today.

Comparing this to the Sokal hoax, Windschuttle made the point that Sokal had been frank about his role in the hoax, and that in that case all the footnotes provided with the article were bogus.

The nub of the Sharon Gould hoax is a play on Windschuttle and Quadrant's advocacy of empirical research as being divorced from social and political consequences, and therefore beyond question.

Windschuttle said that the hoax would backfire, including on me and on Crikey.

In 2006 the Howard Government appointed Windschuttle to the ABC Board - the last of a number of appointments of leading right wingers, including the anthropologist Ron Brunton (whose term has now expired) and columnist Janet Albrechtsen. Windschuttle's term expires in 2011.

Windshcuttle replaced the controversial Paddy McGuiness as editor of Quadrant early last year. When his appointment was announced, Windschuttle was quoted as saying that he would campaign against decadence in the arts.

Quadrant is an historically important conservative magazine, praised by John Howard when he was Prime Minister as his "favourite" magazine and as a forum for "fine scholarship with a sceptical, questioning eye for cant, hypocrisy and moral vanity" and a "lonely counterpoint to stultifying orthodoxies and dangerous utopias that at times have gripped the Western 'intelligentsia"." Howard said Quadrant was: "Australia's home to all that is worth preserving in the Western cultural tradition". Howard described Windschuttle's articles on Aboriginal history as particularly close to his heart.

4 January 2009

The tempest over genetically modified foods
A scientist tries to remove 'a smokescreen of ignorance and uncertainty' over the question of GM foods.

Miami Herald (book review), 4 January 2009. By Christine Thomas.

FOOD FRAY: Inside the Controversy over Genetically Modified Food. Lisa H. Weasel. Amacom. 234 pages. $23.

We may not realize it, but our country has been awash in genetically modified foods and products for more than a decade. In 2008 alone, Food Fray author Lisa Weasel enlightens us, "80 percent of all corn, 86 percent of all cotton, and 92 percent of all soybeans grown in the United States were GM varieties."

Yet more than half of Americans still believe they've never eaten GM foods, and corporations and interest groups continually justify their pro-GM stance by asserting that consumers just don't care. This frightening misconception drove renowned scientist Weasel's research into the GM food issue, funded by a National Science Foundation grant and presented in this vital and readable narrative.

What Weasel determined is that we absolutely do care; we simply don't know what's happening.

"At best, " she writes, "a smokescreen of ignorance and uncertainty cloaks the topic of GM food for most Americans."

Planning to focus primarily on science and ethics, Weasel soon discovered that the issue's inextricable intersection with politics couldn't be denied. So Food Fray isn't the pure science book she envisioned. Instead it takes a complex and charged issue shrouded in secrecy and pushes back the curtains, as Weasel calmly and clearly explains the science, breaks down complicated processes in digestible bites and examines history and background events that led us to this point.

Thus Food Fray's canvas is broad, encompassing GM's roots in the U.S. scientific community, including the first homegrown warnings against it in the 1970s; crucial differences from the Green Revolution; the underpinnings of Europe's staunch opposition; Zambia's refusal of U.S. GM food aid during the 2002 food crisis; India, where GM crops are arguably doomed since they aren't drought-resistant, and the current widespread refusal of the United States to use dairy products with Monsanto's rGBH, a growth hormone that enables cows to produce more milk.

Peppered throughout is the ubiquitous name Monsanto, a Cold War chemical warfare manufacturer turned biotech innovator and GM superpower. As each debate point is elucidated, the public relations campaign asserted by such companies as Monsanto and even George W. Bush that GM foods will help solve world hunger is revealed to be a gross overstatement at best and at worst an outright lie. Likewise, the claim that GM foods are healthy to eat is as unfounded as the counter-argument that they aren't healthy, while the "We've eaten it, and nothing has happened to us" argument many pro-GM scientists offer is underscored as a most unscientific reassurance.

A riveting and disturbing reality check, Food Fray is a crucial reminder that it's time to be informed, not passive. Weasel's is a compelling voice affirming that the desire to know more about GM foods before eating them and to allay concerns about safety and environmental impacts, isn't at all anti-science. It's a decidedly pro-human stance.

Christine Thomas is a writer in Hawaii.

3 January 2009

Secret maize harvest starts GM row

Western Mail (Wales, UK), 3 January 2009. By Martin Shipton.

A PLANT biologist claims to have defied the Assembly Government's declaration that Wales is a GM-free zone by secretly planting and harvesting genetically modified maize on his own land.

There were calls last night for Jonathon Harrington to face prosecution over his refusal to comply with regulations that oblige him to reveal where he obtained the GM seeds and who he passed the maize on to.

Mr Harrington, who claims to have grown the maize on his farm at Tregoyd near Hay-on-Wye, said: "I have been trying to influence the Assembly Government's policy on GM crops for many years.

"Having made little progress, I imported a small quantity of two varieties of forage maize with the MON 810 trait, which makes plants resistant to the European corn borer, a pest that is common in southern Europe.

"I decided to tell only a few trusted individuals, including a senior Assembly Government official and some eminent scientists so that the crops would not be attacked by anti-GM protest groups.

"The varieties I selected were both bred for conditions normally found in southern Europe, so they did not perform well in what was a dreadful summer.

"But I wanted to make the point that we should welcome GM crop technology and that Wales could not be described as a GM free zone.

"Far from shunning this technology, AMs should be pressing for it to be introduced as soon as possible in order to overcome some of the problems faced by our agricultural industry."

He added: "The daft thing is that Wales has an Assembly with a biotechnology department which would appear not to be functioning, one of the world's leading plant breeding stations at Aberystwyth and a chief scientist who supports GM crop technology while refusing to adopt GM crops."

Mr Harrington said he had used the harvested GM maize to make silage for cattle and sheep. Some of it had been given away.

Among Mr Harrington's academic sympathisers are Professor Denis Murphy, head of biotechnology at the University of Glamorgan, who said: "I personally don't think there is anything wrong with these GM crops, and some Welsh farmers could benefit from growing them.

"I am currently working with the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, and GM crops are seen as potentially making a contribution to food shortages in developing countries."

But Gordon James, director of Friends of the Earth Cymru, said: "For good reason, the Assembly unanimously backed moves to oppose the introduction of GM crops into Wales.

"There is significant evidence that GM crops could pose health risks and contaminate organic crops grown nearby. The Welsh public do not want them.

"Anyone who fails to comply with environmental legislation should be prosecuted, and if this farmer has broken the law he should face the consequences."

Professor John Beddington, the UK government's chief scientific adviser, recently told the Science Advisory Council: "GM has the capacity and potential to provide future solutions.

"I don't believe we can ignore it, but neither can we ignore that it has potential health dis-benefits and environmental dis-benefits."

An Assembly Government spokeswoman said: "We believe that the introduction of GM crops could undermine some of our achievements and future ambitions for Welsh agriculture.

"We are committed to close monitoring and control of any proposals for GM crops in Wales.

"However, we cannot legally ban GM crops in Wales because we have to work within a European legal framework. Our policy is to take a precautionary and restrictive GM crop policy stance which is in line with our commitment to sustainable agriculture.

"Anyone growing a GM crop in Wales would need to comply with all relevant legislation. A grower would be required by law to retain documentation for a period of five years, would have to detail the operator providing the product and who the product was sold to."

Under the regulations, the maximum offence for non-compliance is a GBP5, 000 fine and/or three months imprisonment.

_____

Comment by GM Watch:

Perfectly illustrates how ideological zealotry rather than agronomic reality is what drives many GM proponents.

In this article, Jonathon Harrington claims his growing poorly performing GMOs will help transform the Welsh Assembly's unanimous opposition into pressure for their early introduction "to overcome some of the problems faced by our agricultural industry." Derrr...

1 January 2009

Bonn: Federal Office for nature conservation warns about risks "of green genetic engineering"

German Federal Office for Nature Conservation (BfN) press release, 13 January 2009:
http://www.bonn.de/rat_verwaltung_buergerdienste/presseportal/pressemitteilungen/06534/index.html

[Translated by Paul Davis]

Bonn - As the "Green Week" in Berlin approaches, The Federal Office for Nature Conservation (BfN) in Bonn has published a position paper "World food, biodiversity and genetic engineering". BfN President Professor Dr. Beate Jessel pleaded that from an ecological and nature conservation viewpoint, greater restraint was needed.

With the dramatic rise in food prices worldwide in 2008 the discussion about adequate and lasting ways of agricultural production has received a new impetus. Increasing extremes of weather create more and more difficult conditions under which yields must be increased. At the same time agriculture stands before new demands, e.g the requirement for a distinct contribution to energy production and with it the reduction of greenhouse gases. To achieve these aims, the use of transgenic plants is demanded by interested parties as an essential contribution to increased yields and with it protection of the world food.

With the question: "Can agro-genetic engineering contribute to the physical acceptability and lasting protection of world food?". The position paper of the BfN considers to what extent the use of transgenic plants can contribute and what risks are involved in terms of nature conservation. Furthermore alternative solutions, which are nature freindly, increase long-term yields and security, are considered.

According to the president of the BfN, Prof. Dr. Beate Jessel, "The cultivation of transgenic plants is highly controversial and sustainable use has not yet been proven. Alternative acceptable solutions are already widely. Support for them must be promoted in research, education and politics."

The BfN supports the search for ecologically and socially acceptable solutions and the promotion of environmentally friendly methods already available, which are sustainable, secure and increase yields, for example "smart breeding". "Then the yield of a variety is steered by many genes. It depends on a complex of local conditions, such as ground and climate, and is not achievable with the transfer of some genetic sequences. Other breeding methods promise not only less risk but also cheaper solutions."

The position paper of the BfN "World food, biodiversity and genetic engineering" is available at http://www.bfn.de.

Different RoundUp formulations lead to embryonic, umbilical cord and placental cell death and are poorly assessed

CRIIGEN [Scientific Council for Independent Research on Genetic Engineering ] press release, January 2009.

For the first time, the toxicity mechanisms of four different Roundup formulations were studied in human cells. They act at doses where they are not herbicides anymore. The cells were neonatal cells freshly isolated from the umbilical cord, or less sensitive cell lines specially used to measure pollutant toxicity. The various components of these major herbicides were tested because they are among the most common in the world. Their residues are among the major pollutants, and moreover they are authorized as residues contaminating GM foods and feed at the tested levels.

As a matter of fact, Roundup formulations are the most common herbicides used with cultivated GMOs. Roundup Ready soya, the main GMO imported in Europe for food and feed, contains Roundup residues. In this research, the formulations were diluted at minimal doses (up to 100, 000 times or more) and they programmed cell death in a few hours in a cumulative manner. We also noted membrane and DNA damages, and found that the formulations inhibit cell respiration. In addition, it was shown that the mixture of the components used as Roundup adjuvants amplified the action of the active principle called glyphosate; one of its metabolites may be even more toxic. These effects are greatly underestimated by the legislation, which does not take these phenomena into account, but instead simply sets arbitrary contaminant thresholds in food or feed. The rules apply to glyphosate whatever its formulation may be, this is wrong.

The authorizations for using these Roundup herbicides must now clearly be revised, since their toxic effects depend on, and are multiplied by, other compounds used in the mixtures placed on the market; and glyphosate is only one of them. The detailed blood analyses of each mammal which has received this herbicide during regulatory tests before commercial release must be published immediately, since our research points to undesirable effects which are currently masked or hidden from scientific scrutiny.

This independent work was performed by Nora Benachour and Prof. Gilles-Eric Séralini in the University of Caen in France. It is published in the Scientific American journal Chemical Research in Toxicology. It was supported by CRIIGEN and the Regional Council of Basse Normandie. The support of the Human Earth Foundation and Denis Guichard Foundation is also acknowledged.

Contact in France:

Pr Gilles-Eric Séralini, Biochemistry, Institute of Biology,
University of Caen, Esplanade de la Paix, 14032 Caen, France.

Tel: + 33 (0)2 31 56 56 84. Fax: + 33 (0)2 31 56 53 20.
Corinne Lepage President of CRIIGEN criigen@unicaen.fr

"Glyphosate Formulations Induce Apoptosis and Necrosis in Human Umbilical, Embryonic and Placental Cells" by Nora Benachour and Gilles-Eric Séralini.

Full text: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/tx800218n

_______

Glyphosate Formulations Induce Apoptosis and Necrosis
in Human Umbilical, Embryonic, and Placental Cells

By Nora Benachour and Gilles-Eric Séralini *
Chem. Res. Toxicol., Article DOI: 10.1021/tx800218n
Publication Date (Web): December 23, 2008
Copyright 2008 American Chemical Society
[* E-mail: criigen@unicaen.fr ]

Abstract

We have evaluated the toxicity of four glyphosate (G)-based herbicides in Roundup (R) formulations, from 105 times dilutions, on three different human cell types. This dilution level is far below agricultural recommendations and corresponds to low levels of residues in food or feed. The formulations have been compared to G alone and with its main metabolite AMPA or with one known adjuvant of R formulations, POEA. HUVEC primary neonate umbilical cord vein cells have been tested with 293 embryonic kidney and JEG3 placental cell lines. All R formulations cause total cell death within 24 h, through an inhibition of the mitochondrial succinate dehydrogenase activity, and necrosis, by release of cytosolic adenylate kinase measuring membrane damage. They also induce apoptosis via activation of enzymatic caspases 3/7 activity. This is confirmed by characteristic DNA fragmentation, nuclear shrinkage (pyknosis), and nuclear fragmentation (karyorrhexis), which is demonstrated by DA PI