NEWS ABOUT GM ISSUES • July 2009

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

For daily, weekly and monthly international media coverage of GM issues, we recommend you subscribe to the excellent GM Watch Newsletters at www.gmwatch.org/newsletters. You may also wish to check out our news feed for more related news.

Disclaimer: The contents of this news section of our website are collected and published with great care to foster public awareness of GM food and farming issues. However, the GM-free Ireland Network does not accept any liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or any other quality of the information contained herein.

The Patent (Amendment) Rules 2009 (SI no. 194 of 2009) and the Patents (Amendment) Act 2006 (Certain Provisions) (Commencement) Order 2009 (SI no 196 of 2009)

The Patent (Amendment) Rules 2009 (http://www.entemp.ie/science/ipr/si194of2009.pdf PDF, 187KB) arise from amendments to primary legislation specifically the enactment of the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2006. Certain rules changes were necessary for the commencement of some sections of the Patents (Amendment) Act 2006, in particular, the provisions relating to the Patent Law Treaty. These sections were commenced by the Patents (Amendment) Act 2006 (Certain Provisions) (Commencement) Order 2009 (http://www.entemp.ie/science/ipr/si196of2009.pdf PDF, 99KB). In addition, in making these amendments the Intellectual Property Unit availed of this opportunity to review the Patents Rules generally and to make necessary amendments and additions. Further information on SI's 194 of 2009, and 196 of 2009: http://www.entemp.ie/science/ipr/patentsfurtherinfo.htm.

The Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights agreement (TRIPS) enables individuals and corporations to obtain patents on living organisms - including those that have been genetically modified. The TRIPS agreement is a cornerstone of the so-called "Free Trade Agreement" set up by the World Trade Organisation (WTO). This enables companies like Monsanto to demand patent royalties from farmers who use GMO seeds and crops, including farmers who have no wish to use them but who have been inadvertently contaminated. TRIPS is formally known as the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (Annex 1C of the Marrakech Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, signed in Marrakech, Morocco on 15 April 1994). The relevant documents may be found at http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/t_agm0_e.htm .

A paper published in the journal Science in 2005 revealed that nearly 20% of human genes had by then already been patented, mainly by commercial companies. Gene patents allow companies to claim monopolies on future genetic tests and treatments, and may restrict and distort research.

See the controversial EU Biotech Patents Directive 98/44 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions: http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/indprop/invent/index.htm which apparently fails to consider the contamination of seeds and crops by transgenic DNA.

In 2006, Feargal Brady, Examiner of Patents at the Irish Patents Office (http://www.patentsoffice.ie), told GM-free Ireland that there is nothing in EU or Irish patent law to protect Irish farmers contaminated by patented GMOs from being sued for patent infringement, as happened in the famous Percy Schmeiser case (see http://www.gmfreeireland.org/conference/trans/P.Schmeiser.pdf). The key legal texts include the Irish Patents Act 1992: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZA1Y1992.html, the Patents (Amendments) Bill of 1999 and the drafting of amendments to the Patents (Amendment) Bill, 1999 approved on 15 September 2004. According to Feargal Brady, Irish patent law places the burden of proof in GMO contamination lawsuits on the contaminated farmer.

This violates farmers rights, the "polluter pays" principle, and the Irish Constitution. The Irish Patents Office had, by 2006, already granted hundreds of life patents, of which at least 247 to Monsanto.

A database of life patents granted in Ireland may be found at http://www.patentsoffice.ie

India world's new hunger capital

SOS Children's Villages, 31 July 2009. By Hayley Jarvis:
http://www.soschildrensvillages.org.uk/charity-news/indiaworldhungercapital.htm

India is fast becoming the hunger capital of the world with one in every four Indians going hungry, according to a report by and Indian campaign group. The study by the Navdanya Trust an environmental organisation says that there are more than 200 million people going without enough to eat. Some 57 million children in India, are underweight because they are malnourished, it found.

Vandana Shiva, who runs the trust, said there were now more hungry people in India than in sub-Saharan Africa. The amount of food eaten per person in India went down from 186 kg per person a year in 1991, to 152 kg in 2001, the report said. "The figures are still declining although food prices have doubled since 2003. Food prices continue to rise and the situation is not going to get any better."

If this is any indication of an impending food crisis, Vandana Shiva, who runs the trust, told reporters yesterday as she released the study. She asked: "Why is every fourth Indian hungry?"

Concerned about reports that less and less land is being used to grow nutritious and protein rich dal and ragi, Ms Shiva lashed out at the national food programme, the Public Distribution System, which she said covered only 10 per cent of the poor people in the country. "As prices rise the poor eat less. The Union agriculture minister has announced that food subsidy will go up to Rs 50,000 crores by the end of this year. We are spending more to starve our people," she said. The report also criticises the quality of food provided in ration shops, which does not help provide a balanced diet. Instead it is heavy on starch, which can lead to related diseases like diabetes.

The research blames genetically modified seeds and chemicals as the reason for the high cost of food production, forcing poor farmers to debt and suicides. Ms Shiva said that the present food policy was neither helping to address the food crisis nor help farmers. "Studies worldwide show that the hungriest of people are its producers ó the farmers. The proposed Food Security Act based on a failed policy is only adding insult to injury," she said. The government has not responded to the report, which follows a United Nations study released in June, which said, according to the BBC, that hunger in South Asia has reached its highest level in 40 years because of food and fuel price rises and the global economic downturn. The report by the UN children's fund, Unicef, says that 100 million more people in the region are going hungry compared with two years ago. It highlights the worst affected areas as Nepal, Bangladesh and Pakistan.

Report highlights hunger in India

BBC News, 31 July 2009:
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8178072.stm

India is emerging as the world centre of hunger and malnutrition, a report by Indian campaign group, the Navdanya Trust, says.

The trust says that there are more than 200 million people - or one-in-four Indians - going without enough to eat.

The prominent environmentalist Vandana Shiva, who runs the trust, said there were now more hungry people in India than in sub-Saharan Africa.

The government has not responded to the report which was released on Thursday.

But it has repeatedly pointed out that huge progress has been made in recent years to improve the country's food security as its population grows by an estimated 18 million people a year.

The government also argues that individual states must take more responsibility to ensure that there is enough food to go around, especially in rural areas afflicted by bad harvests.

Underweight

Ms Shiva said that 57 million children in India are underweight due to malnutrition.

The Navdanya Trust says that per capita food consumption in India has decreased from 186 kg per person annually in 1991 to 152 kg in 2001, despite government food subsidies costing billions of dollars.

The report is largely based on data collected from government surveys as well as the trust 's own material from areas where malnutrition is an issue.

Ms Shiva argued that food provided in ration shops across the country does not provide for a balanced diet and is too rich in starch, leading diseases to such as diabetes.

She was also critical of genetically modified crops and chemical fertilisers, arguing that they only served to increase the costs of food production, forcing farmers into debt and in some cases causing them to commit suicide.

"Studies worldwide show that the hungriest of people are its producers - the farmers," she said.

Ms Shiva told the BBC that the region of Bundelkhand in central India has been hit by drought and starvation for about five years.

"So we've done a primary study there and 90 percent of the families aren't eating a full meal. There are very high rates of starvation,'' she said.

The BBC's Jyotsna Singh says that the trust's report comes at a time when the central government is working on new legislation which aims to ensure all citizens have enough to eat.

Our correspondent says that there are doubts as to whether the poorest of the poor will actually benefit under the scheme.

Some experts say that if the government is able to pass the bill it will be a significant first step towards improving India's ranking on the global hunger index.

The trust's report follows a UN study released in June which said that hunger in South Asia had reached its highest level in 40 years because of food and fuel price rises and the global economic downturn.

The report by the UN children's fund, Unicef, says that 100 million more people in the region are going hungry compared with two years ago.

Australian organic sector disputes UK findings

AUSfoodNews.com.eu (via JustFood.com), 31 July 2009:
http://www.just-food.com/article.aspx?id=107495&lk=dm

Australia's largest organic body - the Biological Farmers of Australia (BFA) - has rejected claims by the UK's Foods Standard Agency (FSA) that organic produce has no health or nutritional benefit over conventionally-produced food.

Shane Heaton, nutritionist spokesperson and researcher for the BFA, said that, despite the review finding that organic produce contains only slightly higher nutrient levels, the wider health and environmental benefits of organic over non-organic production are in no way "insignificant".

"Proof of the nutritional benefits is there, which adds to the raft of other benefits of organic food and farming," he suggested. "Fewer pesticides in foods, fewer additives, better taste, animal welfare, no hyperactivity-causing food additives - which the UK FSA finally confirmed in 2007 - and important environmental benefits such as carbon sequestration in organically-managed soils."

Heaton added that the research, which looked into a host of previous organic studies to provide an overall view, was incomplete and failed to offer what was needed - more substantial research.

"This review is little more than a rehash of the UK Foods Standard Agency's long-standing stance," he said. "All they've found is that more substantial research is needed, and we've known that for a decade."

The BFA has referred to preliminary findings from the largest ever study of organic and non-organic production commissioned by the EU, which found evidence that organic produce has significantly higher nutrient levels, results the FSA failed to include in the study - the industry group advised.

Evidence from the A$27m (US$22.3m), four-year EU study found organic fruit and vegetables contained between 20 and 40% more antioxidants. The research also found organic produce contained higher levels of vitamin C, antioxidants, beneficial minerals such as iron and zinc and substantially higher levels of compounds thought to boost health and combat disease.

Carlo Leifert, co-ordinator of the EU-funded project, said the health benefits demanded the attention of the food industry and consumers.

"If you have just 20% more antioxidants in every portion of vegetables, then it's simply a question of maths - eating four portions of organic fruit and vegetables is the equivalent to eating five portions of traditional fruit and vegetables," he said.

Australian Food News is Australia's leading resource for the food industry, delivering daily news from the grocery, retail and hospitality sectors to 40,000 professionals each month.

Organic group criticises report dismissing benefits of organic food

Irish Times, 31 July 2009. By Sean MacConnell, agriculture correspondent:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0731/1224251764288.html

A BRITISH report which concludes that eating organic food does not provide any significant nutritional or health benefits is missing the larger picture, according to Ireland's largest organic group.

The independent report which was commissioned by the British Food Standards Agency (FSA) found there were no important differences between organic and conventionally produced food.

The conclusion was reached after a team of researchers at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine reviewed all papers published over the last 50 years relating to nutrient content and health differences between the two kinds of produce.

However, the Irish Organic Farmers and Growers Association yesterday criticised the report and said an important study carried out at Newcastle University last year was not included in the review as it did not meet the criteria outlined by the researchers.

This report, Quality Low Input Farming, which was carried out by 31 research institutes and universities throughout Europe, showed there were more antioxidants and vitamins in organic vegetables than non-organic ones, according to the growers association.

It had also found, it added, there was more Omega 3 in organic dairy products than those which were non-organic. "Nutrition is only one reason why people eat organic food, other major reasons include the fact that organic food does not contain pesticide residues."

Minister for Agriculture Brendan Smith, attending a world convention of farmers in Dublin Castle yesterday, said he had noted the report.

Trevor Sargent, the Minister responsible for the promotion of organic farming, had ordered a review of the sector last Wednesday.

It will look at how available funds are used to best effect to attain the 5 per cent Government target. Currently, just over 1 per cent of agricultural land in Ireland is certified as organic. Mr Sargent said the outcome of the review would be announced during National Organic Week next month.

The principal author of the British report, Dr Alan Dangour, said a small number of differences in nutrient content were found to exist between organically and conventionally produced crops and livestock, but these are unlikely to be of any public health relevance.

The British Food Standards Agency said it supported consumer choice and was neither pro nor anti organic food, recognising there were many reasons why people chose to eat it.

Organic farmers reject health study

Irish Independent, 31 July 2009:
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/organic-farmers-reject-health-study-1847659.html

ORGANIC farmers in Ireland yesterday disputed a major UK study which found no nutritional or health benefits in organic food, writes Aideen Sheehan.

But the Food Safety Authority of Ireland said the study appeared to "draw a line in the sand" and confirmed their long-standing view that there was no scientific evidence of nutritional benefits in organic food.

The authority welcomed the Food Standards Agency report which reviewed scientific papers published over 50 years.

"It has been our position that there is no scientific evidence of added nutritional benefits in organic food, and this wide-ranging review of all the evidence appears to draw a line in the sand on the matter," a spokesperson said.

"Our advice to people is that they should be eating five portions of fruit and vegetables a day, but it doesn't matter if it is conventional or organic."

The Irish Organic Farmers and Growers Association (IOFGA), however, queried the scope of the report and said that it missed the bigger picture.

It said that it excluded a study from Newcastle University last year that found organic vegetables contained more anti-oxidants and vitamins, and organic milk contained more Omega 3 than conventional products.

"Nutrition is only one reason why people eat organic food. Other reasons include the fact that organic food does not contain pesticide residues and that organic food comes from a more sustainable method of farming," said IOFGA chairwoman Kate Carmody.

ABB Grain board backs Canadian takeover

The Age [Australia], 31 July 2009.

[Extract:]

ABB Grain's board has reiterated its support for the $1.6 billion takeover by with Canada's Viterra, promising more international trade muscle at a premium price, in its scheme of arrangement on the deal...

The ABB board said the Viterra offer was much better than any alternatives, including ABB staying as a stand-alone company, divesting certain businesses, or taking over an Australian company. The board said the combined group will have:

•

The largest exports of wheat, barley and canola, given that Australia and Canada have 37 per cent of these grain exports.

•

Unprecedented market intelligence.

•

A more stable earnings and production outlook due to the diverse geographic and weather conditions of the two countries.

•

Will achieve $30 million in annual synergies within three years.

•

Australian growers will benefit from Canada's experience in dealing with climate change legislation, and production and storage of genetically modified crops.

Full article:
http://business.theage.com.au/business/abb-grain-board-backs-canadian-takeover-20090731-e3zn.html

Canadian groups dispute green light for GM corn

Agence France Presse (via Yahoo! News [UK & Ireland]), 31 July 2009:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18/20090730/tsc-canadian-groups-dispute-green-light-c2ff8aa.html

Canadian consumer and environmental groups protested on Thursday the government's decision to allow the sale of a genetically modified corn.

The Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN) demanded that Ottawa "immediately withdraw authorization for SmartStax," a genetically engineered corn, "until Health Canada undertakes exhaustive and independent tests."

Greenpeace Canada also raised concerns, saying: "Releasing 'SmartStax' without evaluating safety, just a day after the release of the blistering report on the listeriosis crisis, confirms deep structural problems and government mismanagement of GE foods and crops."

The GM crop, produced by Monsanto and Dow AgroSciences, was approved 15 days ago by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

Christelle Legault, a spokeswoman for the ministry of health, said the modifications present in Smartstax were examined separately between 2002 and 2008 and were regarded as safe.

The CBAN warned the modifications must be tested together to gauge the product's safety.

SmartStax contains two genetic modifications increasing resistance to weed killers and six to protect it from insects.

A cancerous conspiracy to poison your faith in organic food

The Daily Mail, 31 July 2009. By Joanna Blythman:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1203343/JOANNA-BLYTHMAN-A-cancerous-conspiracy-poison-faith-organic-food.html

Despite its obvious benefits for our health and for the environment, organic food continues to be denigrated by the political and corporate establishment in Britain.

The food industry, in alliance with pharmaceutical and big biotechnology companies, has waged a long, often cynical campaign to convince the public that mass-produced, chemically-assisted and intensively-farmed products are just as good as organic foods, despite mounting evidence to the contrary.

The latest assault in this propaganda exercise comes from the Food Standards Agency, the government's so-called independent watchdog, which has just published a report claiming that there is no nutritional benefit to be gained from eating organic produce.

[Photo caption: Despite its obvious benefits organic food continues to be denigrated by the political and corporate establishment in Britain]

Those forces bent on promoting GM crops and industrialised production, would have been delighted by the widespread media coverage of the Agency's report, portraying enthusiasm for organic foods as little more than a fad among neurotic consumers that would pass once the public is given the correct information.

But what is truly misguided is not the increasing popularity of organic goods, but the Food Standards Agency's determination to halt this trend and instead promote genetic modification.

The new report from the FSA highlights this. For all the publicity it has attracted, the document does not contain any new material.

In fact, it is just an analysis of existing research carried out by other bodies. Moreover, the organisation that conducted this second-hand study, the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, is not renowned as a leading centre in this field.

Indeed, there is far more significant work currently being done on organic foods by several other bodies, some of it funded by the European Union, though the FSA has chosen to ignore it.

It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the FSA has decided to give such loud backing to this report because it can bend the findings to suit its political, pro-GM, anti-organic agenda.

[Photo caption: What is truly misguided is not the increasing popularity of organic goods, but the Food Standards Agency's determination to instead promote genetic modification ]

What is truly misguided is not the increasing popularity of organic goods, but the Food Standards Agency's determination to instead promote genetic modification

Ever since its creation in 2000, the Food Standards Agency has been biased against organic farming. The first chairman, Sir John Krebs, was supportive of the biotechnology lobby and only too keen to promote GM as the future of farming.

In fact, one early review of the FSA's work, by the Labour peer Baroness Brenda Dean, warned there was a risk of the Agency losing its 'objectivity' and 'rigour' in its support for GM crops and its opposition to organic production.

The departure of Sir John Krebs has not brought any change in policy, since the Agency is now largely run by plodding bureaucrats all too keen to follow the correct official corporate line.

Yet even in the context of the latest report from the FSA, the spin does not match the reality. For, contrary to all the hype this week, the Agency's own published research shows that organic foods are clearly far better for the consumer even just in nutritional terms.

[Photo caption: Happy hen vs jail bird: Organic poultry, eggs and bacon not only taste much better, but they have also not been pumped full of growth hormones and antibiotics]

According to the FSA's findings, organic vegetables contain 53.6 per cent more betacarotene - which helps combat cancer and heart disease - than non-organic ones.

Similarly, organic food has 11.3 per cent more zinc, 38.4 per cent more flavonoids and 12.7 per cent more proteins.

In addition, an in-depth study by Newcastle University, far deeper than the one conducted by the FSA, has shown that organic produce contains 40 per cent more antioxidants than non-organic foods, research the FSA appears to have overlooked.

But the concentration solely on nutrition is to play into the hands of the anti-organic, pro-industrial lobby.

As most of the British public understands, but the FSA fails to acknowledge, the benefits of organic food go far beyond this narrow point.

The fact is that organic production is much better for personal health, food quality, the environment and the welfare of livestock.

Organic farming works in tune with the rhythms of the earth, gently harnessing the changing seasons, the natural cultivation of crops or the rearing of animals for our benefit.

In contrast, the vast biotech, processed food industry is at permanent war with nature, continually trying to manipulate, overwhelm and conquer. Organic farming is all about harmony, non-organic about chemicalised ascendancy.

The most obvious way this difference is manifested is in the use of pesticides on crops, banned from organic farming but eagerly promoted by big industry.

Fifty years ago, agro-chemicals hardly existed in British farming, but today they dominate this sector. But their rise has not been without justifiable concerns about the side-effects.

[Photo caption: Pig heaven vs pig in a poke: Putting pigs in battery cages is a sure recipe for the spread of disease, akin to locking up a large group of children in an overheated, overcrowded nursery] There is now a wealth of evidence to show that pesticides not only poison the soil and harm wildlife, but also promote cancer and a host of other diseases because of their toxicity.

This is, after all, only common sense. Anything that can kill insects is bound to have an impact when consumed by humans.

It has been shown that ordinary pears are sprayed with pesticides no fewer than 17 to 18 times during one seasonal growing cycle. A third of all the food we eat, and no less than half of all our fruit and vegetables, contains such chemicals.

The Government airily dismisses any worries about the risks, but this kind of complacency is based on old, outdated science.

As the agro-chemical industry tightens its grip, the worse the dangers become. Organic farming, however, offers the opportunity to eat without these dangers. All organic food is free from chemical residues and thus the health threats are much lower.

Even the most die-hard GM enthusiast would have to admit that organic meat, fruit and vegetables taste much better than the mass-produced fare turned out by major suppliers.

[Photo caption: Author Joanna Blythman argues the benefits of organic food go far beyond nutritional benefit]

Non-organic produce is not just grown with chemicals, it is also filled with additives, colourings, flavourings, salt and water simply so it has an acceptable appearance to the consumer once it reaches the shelves.

Again, this battery of synthetic additives which appears in many processed foods, ready meals and take-aways has a detrimental effect on our health, something that is avoided with organic produce.

Intensive farming also has a brutal impact on the well-being of animals, which in turn undermines both the quality of meat and our own health.

Organic poultry, eggs and bacon not only taste much better, but they have also not been pumped full of growth hormones and antibiotics, like industrialised produce.

Putting pigs and hens in battery cages inside vast hangars is a sure recipe for the spread of disease, akin to locking up a large group of children in an overheated, overcrowded nursery.

In this environment, the only way to combat germs is to dish out the antibiotics, but there are now scientific concerns that the overuse of such chemicals is weakening resistance in animals and also reducing the effectiveness of antibiotics among humans.

Giving animals a decent life through organic, traditional husbandry is better for them - and for us. All the cheerleading for the agro-chemical giants cannot hide the fact that industrialised farming represents a cul-de-sac for mankind.

We cannot go on as we are, pumping chemicals into our livestock and into the earth. The future has to be organic.

If it has any genuine interest in nutrition, the Food Standards Agency would be supporting a shift away from intensification, not pushing for more of it.

The FSA was meant to be an organisation for improving our food. Now it is just getting in the way.

Read more:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1203343/JOANNA-BLYTHMAN-A-cancerous-conspiracy-poison-faith-organic-food.html#ixzz0Mpq6ABLq

---

Comment from GM Watch:

There's lots of support for organic food and farming published in UK national newspapers today in response to yesterday's findings by the pro-GM, anti-organic Food Standards Agency (FSA).

The FSA review dismisses health benefits of eating organic food but admits to a lack of research on which to base findings, while completely ignoring other benefits (eg to the environment and animal welfare) and the risks and damage that arise from intensive agriculture.

The Ecologist reports that researchers could only identify 11 studies relating to the health content of organic food and admitted the current evidence base was, "extremely limited both in terms of the number of studies and the quality of studies found".

The Ecologist online (30 July)
http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_round_up/294394/organic_food_report_admits_to_lack_of_evidence.html

See also

Editor's blog: FSA organic study: read it closely
The Ecologist online (30 July)
http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/bloggers/the_editors_blog/294396/fsa_organics_study_read_it_closely.html

The FSA has been on a pro-GM anti-organic crusade since it was first launched under the chairmanship of John Krebs. From the beginning there was a total failure to re-examine the safety of GM foods, despite the high level of consumer concern. Indeed, Krebs declared all approved GM foods safe on his first day in the job before he had even had time to look at the evidence!

Instead, he quickly ordered a safety enquiry into organic food, which has a high level of consumer confidence. Krebs then made a high profile attack on organic food that lead Dr Patrick Wall, then chief executive of the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, to describe Krebs' views on organic food as "extreme".

Krebs, of course, has been far from alone at the FSA in terms of close links to the GM lobby. The first director of the Scottish arm of the FSA was Dr George Paterson -- the former director general of Health Canada's Food Directorate. Paterson has been linked to major food safety scandals in Canada involving both fast track approval for a Monsanto GM crop and the overriding of internal government scientists' health warnings on a GM product.

Krebs and the FSA's aggressive pro-GM anti-organic stance triggered to GMWatch's very first PANTS ON FIRE AWARD.
http://ngin.tripod.com/pants1.htm

FSA report on organic food - our response

Soil Association, 30 July 2009:
http://www.soilassociation.org/Whyorganic/Health/tabid/59/Default.aspx

As you may be aware, the Food Standards Agency (FSA) has just published a report on organic food, which claims that there are no significant benefits to be gained from eating organic. This is a serious piece of research, and the Soil Association will examine its conclusion seriously - however at first glance the research appears to be a fairly limited piece of analysis. For example, the review only looked at research papers written in English, it excluded the results of almost half the papers it found, and it ignored more up-to-date research from the European Union, published in April this year (despite knowing this research was due to be published).ÝYou can read our initial response to the report by following the link below, and in due course we will of course respond more fully.Ý

Bigger benefits

That all said, it's a popular myth that people who buy organic food only do so because they think it will make them healthier. Recent EU research has found that regular buyers of organic food (who buy about 80% of all organic products) have a much more sophisticated understanding of the range of benefits that organic farming and food deliver.

For example, the review failed to address the issue of the long-term effects of pesticides, herbicides and insecticides on human health. The European Commission, in 2006, reported links between certain cancers, male infertility and nervous system disorders and exposure to pesticides. The average industrially-produced apple may have been sprayed up to 16 times with 30 different chemicals.

Buying organic food also promotes a healthy environment. Organic farms have on average 30% more species and 50% more wildlife like birds, butterflies and bees. Compassion in World Farming, the recognised experts, say organic farming has the potential for the highest animal welfare standards. Other environmental benefits are self evident - there's less dangerous waste on organic farms. Artificial nitrogen fertiliser is banned in organic farming, so there's less run-off of nutrients that cause algae blooms in coastal waters.

There are more women and younger people involved in organic farming and organic farmers are more optimistic about the future. That future will be dominated by climate change. Here organic farming is leading the way, insisting on using solar powered fertility through crops like red clover that fix nitrogen into the soil for subsequent crops. For our own health and the health of the planet, organic food and farming will play a big part in our future.Ý

Further information

Read our press release with our initial response to the FSA research here:

Soil Association response to the Food Standards Agency's Organic Review
http://www.soilassociation.org/News/NewsItem/tabid/91/smid/463/ArticleID/97/reftab/57/t/Soil-Association-response-to-the-Food-Standards-Agency-s-Organic-Review/Default.aspx

For further information about the wider issues related to organic food and farming, please refer to the following sections on our old website while we update these pages:

Nutrition: http://92.52.112.178/web/sa/saweb.nsf/Living/nutrition.html

Pesticides: http://92.52.112.178/web/sa/saweb.nsf/GetInvolved/pest.html

GM: http://92.52.112.178/web/sa/saweb.nsf/GetInvolved/geneng.html

Ignore the FSA, It is still better to buy organic
• Don't let the Food Standards Agency put you off organic food, says Rose Prince.

The Telegraph [UK], 31 July 2009. By Rose Prince:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/5942078/Ignore-the-FSA-It-is-still-better-to-buy-organic.html

[Photo caption: Consumers who have converted to organic will often report that they feel better for a diet of organic food, or that their children thrive on it. ]

I remember the event well. It was a debate in a packed hall. The audience, mainly food obsessives and the food press, were there to hear a debate on the pros and cons of organic food.

On the panel was Sir John Krebs, now Lord Krebs, head of the newly created Food Standards Agency, which had been established after British industrial farming and the then Ministry of Agriculture (MAFF) shamed themselves over BSE. During this debate, Krebs made it clear that he could not see why organic food should be considered any better than non-organic. The audience clapped disapprovingly.

This was some 10 years ago and Krebs was out of line with a fast-developing trend. Since that time, the organic food sector in the UK has enjoyed extraordinary growth - an average of 26 per cent each year. Each of the big four supermarkets has embraced organic food, making it more affordable to the less well-off. Organic vegetable box schemes have taken off and natural food stores selling mainly organic produce, such as Fresh & Wild and Planet Organic, have thrived, mushrooming into chains. IKEA - and this is a little-known fact - is the latest buyer of organic ingredients, for its cafÈs.

So what has the Food Standards Agency got against the organic sector, to make it commission a review such as that published this week into the nutritional benefits of organic versus conventional food? Using analysis of some 50 years of research into organic food, the report's authors could find no reason, in nutritional terms, why anyone should buy organic rather than conventionally farmed foods.

Interestingly, nutrition is an aspect of organic food that holds little interest for the Soil Association, the charity that campaigns for "planet-friendly" food and farming. It is more preoccupied with food production that promotes good standards of animal welfare, a chemical-free environment (clearly a human health benefit, since no sensible person wants to ingest hormone disrupters) and the encouragement of larger areas of pasture. It has also campaigned vociferously against genetically modified food.

But, at the height of the organic boom, the Soil Association did commission its own report into nutrition, which made poorly substantiated claims that organic was superior. This paper has been taken into account by the authors of the new study. The Soil Association bosses have always expressed regret that they did not publish better science. And in recent years, private investors in organic, such as the publishing millionaire Peter Kindersley and ex-Formula One champion Jody Scheckter, have poured millions into establishing laboratories for organic research. None of this has been done at a cost to the taxpayer. We paid handsomely, though, for yesterday's report, which cost £120,000.

While the organic sector's authorities discourage arguments over nutrition, consumers who have converted to organic will often report that they feel better for a diet of organic food, or that their children thrive on it. But this is anecdotal evidence, of no interest to scientists.

The Food Standards Agency has been under pressure from the non-organic food sector to look at these claims, though it would not be fair to the authors of yesterday's report to suggest that they were asked to debunk a myth. The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, whose researchers carried out the study, is a leader in science-based nutrition education. Its teaching body is not pro-big business.

But there are politics here. The FSA is not known for its support for the small margins of artisan food producers. It also runs the Meat Hygiene Service and the Environmental Health Service, which (depending on the region) spend a good deal of time imposing costly changes upon small-scale food producers for whom hygiene is paramount.

The principal job of the Food Standards Agency is to protect the health of the public. You cannot accuse organic food of being unsafe, and this review was not about safety. There are, however, several areas of food production where safety is in question: foremost in my mind, while swine flu rages, is the use of antibiotics; if the overuse of antibiotics in the pig industry is blamed for the outbreak, it will have much to answer for, not least the deaths of many people.

There is also the question of pesticide use. More than 400 chemicals are available to non-organic farmers, who are policed by the Pesticide Residues Committee. In Britain, residues are rarely reported reaching the maximum permitted level, but opponents of pesticide use say that this level is set far too high. The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution has issued serious warnings about the effects of agricultural chemicals on humans; it has also said that the Government's risk assessment is inadequate.

Then there is genetic modification. Conventional farmers often tell me enthusiastically that GM is safe. This always comes as a surprise, because if it is, then they know something that even the manufacturers of GM seed do not. Genetically modified food does not have to be tested on humans for longer than three months. Almost all the licensed GM crops being grown worldwide, including the new trial of GM potatoes in the UK reported this week, are pesticide-resistant. These crops can be sprayed and sprayed and will not die.

Sprayed and sprayed? These plants will contain residues. Farmers buying GM seed may not use it for research purposes, so we can rely only on the manufacturers' reports. It's not good enough when our farm animals consume imported GM grain. This is an area, along with pesticides and antibiotics, that is in urgent need of assessment. Particularly as, unlike organic, it is relevant to a vast amount of food consumed in this country.

Last year, as the recession bit, sales of organic food grew by just 1.7 per cent. Shoppers are shying away from the higher prices, even though good-value organic food does exist. This week's report will be a kick in the teeth that the organic sector does not deserve.

It is a pity that the focus has been on nutrition. All food is nutritious; having no food is what kills. The wider benefits of organic foods are still worth pursuing. It is what food does not contain and the effects that it does not have that really matter.

Irish Food Board foreign assignment to fellows

FoodNavigator.com, 31 July 2009:
http://www.foodnavigator.com/Financial-Industry/Irish-Food-Board-foreign-assignment-to-fellows/?c=4UZvOL3vyw2EHYMT%2FciOiw%3D%3D&utm_source=newsletter_daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Newsletter%2BDaily

Ireland has launched a new initiative to boost food exports, by assigning 25 graduates as fellows to partner with Irish food firms in 33 international markets.

Ireland's food and beverage exports are worth some €8bn. The initiative, launched by Bord Bia, the Irish Food Board, in Dublin yesteday, has a budget of €1m and is to be run in association with the UCD Michael Smurfit Graduate Business School.

Bord Bia chairman Dan Browne said: "The Irish food industry will benefit not just in terms of new business development opportunities but also, on completion, from the availability of a network of highly skilled and experienced marketing executives".

The fellows will undertake some 200 assignments in the international marketplace.

30 July 2009

Organic nutrition review a call for stronger science

FoodNavigator.com, 30 July 2009. By Jess Halliday:
http://www.foodnavigator.com/Science-Nutrition/Organic-nutrition-review-a-call-for-stronger-science/?c=4UZvOL3vyw2vXSfMYRBLcQ%3D%3D&utm_source=newsletter_daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Newsletter%2BDaily

A new review of studies on the nutritional content of organic and conventional produce has broadly concluded that there are no differences - but the investigators raise big concerns over standard of the science.

Organic produce tends to carry a premium, but debate about whether it has nutritional advantages over conventional produce has raged recently. Studies on the matter have come down on both sides.

The new review, conducted at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and funded by the UK's Food Standards Agency, involved a systematic search of studies between 1958 and 29 February 2008. Of the 162 identified, 55 field trials, farm surveys and basket surveys deemed to be of "satisfactory quality" were included in the analysis.

The investigators looked at the levels of nitrogen, vitamin C, phenolic compounds, magnesium, calcium, phosphorous, potassium, zinc, total soluble solids, copper and titratable acidity.

With the exception of nitrogen (higher in conventional), phosphorous and tritratable acidity (both higher in organic), no differences were seen.

"One broad conclusion to draw from this review is that there is no evidence to support the selection of organically produced foodstuffs to increase the intake of specific nutrients or nutritionally relevant substances," they wrote in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

However they immediately added that research in this area sorely needs more scientific rigour, and better understanding is needed of factors aside from production regime that determine nutrient content.

Better science needed

The review comes with strong limiting factors. Notably, a large number of studies were excluded because they did not specify an organic certifying body, there was no information on the cultivar or livestock breed, no statement of which nutrient or nutritionally relevant substance was reviewed, no information on statistical methods, or no information on laboratory methods.

"We urge researchers investigating nutritional characteristics of organic food to improve the scientific quality of their work and propose the bare minimum when reporting," the investigators wrote.

A second analysis including all 162 studies did return the same broad results on no nutritional differences. But by combining the results from different study designs and calculating standardised differences across foods by nutrient category, the "more nuanced findings from individual studies on specific foods were lost".

The 162 studies also excluded studies in foreign languages that did not have English abstracts; the team could not locate 11 studies that may have contained relevant data; and two studies published after the cut off date were not taken into account.

Responses

In its communication on the findings, the FSA did not remark on the standard of studies included.

The Soil Association said it was disappointed by the conclusions, and pointed out that the mean positive difference would have shown up higher levels of protein, beta carotein, flavonoids, copper, magnesium, phosphorous, potassium, sodium, sulphur, zinc and phenolic compounds.

In addition the review did not take into consideration public health or environmental benefits of organic production methods such as regulating chemical fertilisers, herbicides and pesticides. Such chemicals may end up in the foodstuff.

"The potential for any benefits to public and environmental health of these actions would certainly warrant further systematic review," wrote the researchers.

A spokesperson for the Soil Association told FoodNavigator.com that the reporting on the study in the mainstream press had been quite balanced, and the organisation is hopeful that the study will not knock consumer confidence in organics.

"Committed consumers who have been buying organic all through the recession will not stop. They see the bigger picture," she said.

Source

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

DOI: 10.3945/ajcn.2009.28041
Nutritional quality of organic foods: a systematic review
Authors: Dangour, A; Dodhia, S; Hayter, A; Allen, E; Lock, K; Uauy, R.

Organic Foods Provide More Vitamin C and Cancer-Fighting Antioxidants Than Conventional, Plus Essential Protections Against Pesticides and Chemical Additives
• New 'Study' Based on Crops No Longer Grown, Twists Its Own Results, and Fails to Analyze Other Key Health Benefits of Organic Food

Ascribe News (via COMTEX via Individual.com), 30 July 2009:
http://www.individual.com/story.php?story=104637686

A report from a group of English researchers who claim to have conducted "the most extensive systematic review of the available published literature on nutrient content of organic food ever conducted," downplayed their own results that favored organic food, and failed to consider the use of toxic pesticides or chemical additives when forming their conclusions.

The study, "Nutritional quality of organic foods: a systematic review," prepared by individuals at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, examined thirteen different nutrients. The authors found a significant difference in three of thirteen that favored organic, none that favored conventionally grown produce, yet they reported that there were no differences between the two types of food.

The London team also included studies from the 1950's, 60's, and 70's that analyzed crop varieties that are no longer grown, and failed to include 15 studies published since 2008 that all found important nutritional advantages for organic food. The study also failed to examine differences in total anti-oxidant content.

"The science has consistently shown that organic food provides higher levels of Vitamin C and total antioxidants, two nutrients that the American public needs more of," said Richard Wiles, Senior Vice President for Policy and Communications with the Environmental Working Group. "The London study is not supported by the majority of the science. We should not attach too much significance to its findings until it can be replicated," Wiles added.

Many scientists suspect that the relentless push for higher yields that has produced apples the size of softballs and tasteless tomatoes has also saturated fruits and vegetables with water and sugar to the point that they dilute the nutrient content of conventionally grown food.

There are other critical health advantages of organic food: Organic food is not treated with any synthetic chemical pesticides, it is not irradiated, and it is not genetically modified. The study did not address any of the traits.

To maintain ever-increasing yields, conventional farmers rely on multiple applications of synthetic chemical pesticides. It is not uncommon to find conventional strawberries, peaches, apples or lettuce with seven or eight pesticides on them even after they are washed and ready to eat.

"Consumers are wise to choose organic to avoid the risks of chemical pesticides and additives. On top of that the vast majority of the science shows that organic delivers higher levels of key nutrients like Vitamin C and cancer fighting antioxidants," Wiles added.

A team of scientists convened by The Organic Center (TOC) carried out a similar, but more rigorous, review of the same literature. The TOC team analyzed published research just on plant-based foods. Results differ significantly from the more narrow FSA review and are reported in the study "New Evidence Confirms the Nutritional Superiority of Plant-Based Organic Foods."

From the TOC:

The London team reported finding statistically significant differences between organically and conventionally grown crops in three of thirteen categories of nutrients. Significant differences cited by the team included nitrogen, which was higher in conventional crops, and phosphorus and tritratable acids, both of which were higher in the organic crops. Elevated levels of nitrogen in food are regarded by most scientists as a public health hazard because of the potential for cancer-causing nitrosamine compounds to form in the human GI tract. Hence, this finding of higher nitrogen in conventional food favors organic crops, as do the other two differences.

Despite the fact that these three categories of nutrients favored organic foods, and none favored conventionally grown foods, the London-based team concluded that there are no nutritional differences between organically and conventionally grown crops.

The TOC findings are similar for some of the nutrients analyzed by the FSA team, but differ significantly for two critical classes of nutrients of great importance in promoting human health - total polyphenols, and total antioxidant content. The FSA team did not include total antioxidant capacity among the nutrients studied, and it found no differences in the phenolic content in 80 comparisons across 13 studies.

Go here for the full TOC report and news release:

http://www.organic-center.org/science.nutri.php?action=view& amp;report_id=157

EWG is a nonprofit research organization based in Washington, DC that uses the power of information to protect human health and the environment. The group's farm subsidy database can be found at http://www.mulchblog.com.

GM foods impact on our health

Examiner.com [USA], 30 July 2009. By Kate Johnson:
http://www.examiner.com/x-16108-Minneapolis-Nutrition-Examiner~y2009m7d30-GM-foods-impact-on-our-health

Genetically modified, or GM, foods are negatively affecting our health and are linked to increasing rates of infertility in our population. In a study by the Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety lab rats fed GM corn showed a dramatic decrease in fertility rates. Their offspring had an even worse fate with a 500% increase in mortality and the inability to reproduce. GM foods also caused kidney lesions and inflammation, cancer symptoms and problems with blood sugar and blood pressure in rats. In the US, farmers have reported that thousands of pigs became sterile after eating GM corn.

Genetically modified foods have only been around since 1995. The FDA assumed they were the same as non-GM foods and approved them without conducting necessary studies on humans. There are no studies done on humans to this date to find out what happens when we regularly consume GM foods. We do not know what the future holds for our health, but the studies done on lab rats are very ominous. According to Dr. Mercola, "Ninety percent of the money Americans spend on food is spent on processed foods and seventy percent of processed foods have genetically modified foods in them". We are consuming these foods in large amounts without even taking into consideration what the long term consequences may be on our health.

How can we avoid eating GM foods? The major GM food crops are soy, corn, cottonseed, and canola. Read labels; processed foods are made up mainly from these four crops because they are cheap to produce in large amounts. Corn-syrup, for example, is in almost everything you find on your grocers shelf. Start buying organic and local if you want to avoid consuming GM foods. Follow this non-GMO food list when you go shopping.

A scary science experiment in Boulder

Daily Camera [Boulder, Colorado, USA], 30 July 2009. By Steve Demos:
http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2009/jul/30/guest-commentary-a-scary-science-experiment-in/

The Boulder County Parks & Open Space Advisory Committee has made a serious mistake when they recommended using public lands to further grow GMO (genetically modified organism) crops. Their decision is a direct disregard for their primary responsibility as public servants.

The first and most fundamental responsibility of this committee is to steward and protect the public land and the public safety.

Here are four reasons why their decision is flawed and we need to act.

1. The science surrounding long-term affects of GMO's on the environment and humans is inconclusive. There exists creditable peer reviewed science that supports both sides of this debate. The county advocates presented their science but did not seek verification of the science from the opposing side. You can always prove your point if you use only science that you selectively choose. This approach does not lead to a proper or objective assessment of any situation let alone one that could have such far-reaching consequences.

At this time: no one knows whether GMO's will or won't permanently affect our environment, our community, and our bodies. No one knows the long term affect of this relatively young scientific discovery.

In the face of inconclusive or contradictory science the only prudent decision is to err on the side of caution until the science proves itself.

2. When asked how public water would be protected from surface contamination in the ditch irrigation network that runs all over Boulder county, the committee could not offer a reasonable answer other than it was not legal to spray over water, (maybe the words 'wind drift' aren't part of their vocabulary but they are mine).

3. Several advocates for GMO farmers warned that they had to grow GMO seed because their suppliers were telling them that in the near future there wouldn't be any natural seed anymore. All the small seed companies would be gone and the large dominant ones would sell only GMO's and the chemicals needed to raise them.

4. Finally, it seemed that the committee was fixated on the economic issues surrounding the 800 acres. The fear is that if we lose farmers to work this public open space land it would impact the county operating budget, (the county receives approximately $60,000 in income per year by leasing this land plus the land is maintained free of noxious weed encroachment as an added benefit)

There are economic choices and alternatives out there that could be initiated other than the short-term solution of GMO's. The organic community offered to help at the meeting but clearly that fell on deaf ears. Here's one more offer: I will donate any shortfall up to $60,000 to the Parks and Open Space budget in 2010 if we can't find an economic replacement for this crop that delivers the planned revenue. In exchange I ask the committee to rescind their recommendation to grow GMO sugar beets and sit down and seriously look at alternative solutions. I am sincere in this offer.

We all love Boulder. Let's make sure that Boulder continues to stand for something natural and special.

Please attend the meeting this evening at 5:30 p.m. at the courthouse. Please e-mail the county commissioners your opinion.

New GM corn touted as solution to shortage

The Western Producer [Canada], 30 July 2009.

[Extract:]

Monsanto Company and Dow AgroSciences have received regulatory approval to sell a new genetically modified corn that should help the industry meet growing food and fuel demands.

SmartStax is agriculture's first eight-gene stack, containing traits for above and below ground insect control, as well as weed control.

Full article [subscription]:
http://www.producer.com/free/editorial/news.php?iss=2009-07-30&sec=news&sto=0030

Bayer joins GM wheat fray

The Western Producer [Canada], 30 July 2009.

[Extract:]

One week after Monsanto announced the resumption of its GM wheat program, another major seed trait company is following suit.

Bayer CropScience has entered into a long-term contractual agreement with Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) to develop new traits in wheat. They will be employing both genetically modified and non-GM breeding techniques.

Full article [subscription]:
http://www.producer.com/free/editorial/news.php?iss=2009-07-30&sec=news&sto=004

Eurocrats reject GM maizes

Irish Examiner (Farming), 30 July 2009:
http://www.irishexaminer.com

Feed cost worries for livestock farmers have been exacerbated by failure of EU member states to approve three geneticlly modified maize for animal feed use in Europe.

The decision will now pass to the EU Council of Ministers, which has 90 days to decide. If it fails to do so, the proposals will be sent back to the European Commission for final adoption.

The lack of agreement in the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health last week came as no surprise, as member states have wildly different views on some genetically modified foods.

Although EU governments allow importation of GM produce such as seedless grapes, and meat from animals fed on GM feedstuffs, it greatly restricts access to GM produce - principally soy beans and maize - for use in livestock feeds in the EU.

The EU's livestock industry face additional feed costs of hundreds of millions of euro, because shipments are being turned away at EU ports, if they contain even dust from genetically modified produce.

GMO Scandal: The Long Term Effects of Genetically Modified Food on Humans
• Scientific Tests Must Be Approved by Industry First

Scoop [USA], 30 July 2009. By F. William Engdahl:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0907/S00345.htm

One of the great mysteries surrounding the spread of GMO plants around the world since the first commercial crops were released in the early 1990's in the USA and Argentina has been the absence of independent scientific studies of possible long-term effects of a diet of GMO plants on humans or even rats. Now it has come to light the real reason. The GMO agribusiness companies like Monsanto, BASF, Pioneer, Syngenta and others prohibit independent research.

An editorial in the respected American scientific monthly magazine, Scientific American, August 2009 reveals the shocking and alarming reality behind the proliferation of GMO products throughout the food chain of the planet since 1994. There are no independent scientific studies published in any reputed scientific journal in the world for one simple reason. It is impossible to independently verify that GMO crops such as Monsanto Roundup Ready Soybeans or MON8110 GMO maize perform as the company claims, or that, as the company also claims, that they have no harmful side effects because the GMO companies forbid such tests!

That's right. As a precondition to buy seeds, either to plant for crops or to use in research study, Monsanto and the gene giant companies must first sign an End User Agreement with the company. For the past decade, the period when the greatest proliferation of GMO seeds in agriculture has taken place, Monsanto, Pioneer (DuPont) and Syngenta require anyone buying their GMO seeds to sign an agreement that explicitly forbids that the seeds be used for any independent research. Scientists are prohibited from testing a seed to explore under what conditions it flourishes or even fails. They cannot compare any characteristics of the GMO seed with any other GMO or non-GMO seeds from another company. Most alarming, they are prohibited from examining whether the genetically modified crops lead to unintended side-effects either in the environment or in animals or humans.

The only research which is permitted to be published in reputable scientific peer-reviewed journals are studies which have been pre-approved by Monsanto and the other industry GMO firms.

The entire process by which GMO seeds have been approved in the United States, beginning with the proclamation by then President George H.W Bush in 1992, on request of Monsanto, that no special Government tests of safety for GMO seeds would be conducted because they were deemed by the President to be "substantially equivalent" to non-GMO seeds, has been riddled with special interest corruption. Former attorneys for Monsanto were appointed responsible in EPA and FDA for rules governing GMO seeds as but one example and no Government tests of GMO seed safety to date have been carried out. All tests are provided to the US Government on GMO safety or performance by the companies themselves such as Monsanto. Little wonder that GMO sounds to positive and that Monsanto and others can falsely claim GMO is the "solution to world hunger."

In the United States a group of twenty four leading university corn insect scientists have written to the US Government Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) demanding the EPA force a change to the company censorship practice. It is as if Chevrolet or Tata Motors or Fiat tried to censor comparative crash tests of their cars in Consumer Reports or a comparable consumer publication because they did not like the test results. Only this deals with the human and animal food chain. The scientists rightly argue to EPA that food safety and environment protection "depend on making plant products available to regular scientific scrutiny." We should think twice before we eat that next box of American breakfast cereal of the corn used is GMO or not.

---

F. William Engdahl is author of Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order. He may be contacted via his website at www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

29 July 2009

The Gene Hunt: Should Finders Be Keepers?
A lawsuit filed against Myriad Genetics questions the ethics of gene patents

Scientific American, 29 July 2009. By Lynne Peeples:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=gene-patents-breast-cancer-lawsuit-myriad

[Note: the orginal text contains numerous hyperlinks not inluded here]

[Photo caption: A battle is waging over whether the isolation and purification of specific genes linked to cancer are products of man or nature.]

Defendants in a high-profile lawsuit that could have significant implications for thousands of patents on human genes have now asked a federal judge to dismiss the case, calling it a "thinly veiled attempt to challenge the validity of patents."

Two months ago, more than 150,000 researchers, doctors, activists and cancer patients filed a federal lawsuit in New York City against Myriad Genetics, Inc., the University of Utah Research Foundation and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Under the organization of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), they are challenging the legality and constitutionality of gene patents, with a focus on two of the most controversial: BRCA1 and BRCA2. Both genes are associated with breast and ovarian cancers, and both are held by Myriad. The information encoded in our DNA should belong to everyone, the plaintiffs argue, and the current standards for obtaining a patent are too low.

"There's a sense that the privatization of certain things has gone too far," says Debra Greenfield, an attorney and postdoctoral fellow at the Center for Society and Genetics at the University of California, Los Angeles, who is not associated with the lawsuit. "Abstract things are being patented now, whether it's something in your body or a business method."

But in their motion to dismiss filed last week, Myriad and the University of Utah argue otherwise. "The patent system has worked exactly as it was designed to do," the defendants wrote, explaining that they "spent considerable time, effort and money, in competition with other researchers" to win the patents.

The history of gene patents

Almost 30 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Diamond v. Chakrabarty that a genetically modified bacterium was a patentable subject matter. The Court called the scientist's discovery of the bacteria with improved capacity for degrading crude oil, "not nature's handiwork, but his own." This opened the door for companies to pluck out a segment of DNA and put their name on it.

The USPTO has since granted thousands of patents for biological entities, always with the caveat that they must be first isolated, purified or modified in some way. Today, one out of every five human genes is privately owned. Those opposed to gene patents complain that no one without the permission of the patent holder is allowed to freely work with, or even think about using, this 20 percent.

Myriad is just one of many companies in possession of these genes, but is one of only a few that has not licensed the information to others to conduct research or create their own test. Since the mid-90s, the company has owned the exclusive rights to the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. Whereas only 5 to 10 percent of breast cancer patients have a mutation at one of these genes, those having it face a 40 to 85 percent chance they will develop breast cancer at some point in their lives.

Given these odds, a screening test for the mutations can provide useful information for women who are considering proactive interventions to prevent future cancer. "If you want the test done, you have to go through Myriad," says Josephine Johnston, director of research operations at The Hastings Center, a nonpartisan bioethics and public policy research institute. "And they hold those patents pretty close to their chests." The test currently costs around $3,000, although most insurance companies do cover it. "People think it's a pretty steep price," Johnston adds. "But when you have this kind of control, you can set the price. They could've made it $30,000 if they wanted to."

In another five years, the exclusive rights that the USPTO granted Myriad based on the isolation and purification of the two genes will expire. But according to many who oppose gene patents, that's five years too manyótoo many more women will be without a second opinion or an opportunity to purchase a cheaper test to help decide whether or not to undergo a radical surgical procedure.

Details of the patent argument

Geoffrey Karny, a patent lawyer in Virginia, doesn't buy the argument that gene patents hurt patients. "What they're trying to do is advance patient care," he says, suggesting the price tag is key to improving diagnostic tools. After his recent trip to Hong Kong and China, the connection between "cheaper" gene tests and pirated products, like DVDs, became obvious to Karny. "Myriad has done the heavy lifting. Of course, someone could piggyback on that and sell it for $100," he says. "But stuff doesn't just jump from lab to marketplace." Companies, he suggests, require patent protection to invest the "years of effort and millions of dollars needed to develop a product to be used in a clinic."

In China Karny also witnessed a growing biotechnology industry that could threaten the U.S. economy. "We need that tech here," he says, noting a special concern for small start-ups. "Why should investors put money into companies if they'll never get a return on that investment?"

The lawsuit has brought to the forefront broader ethical questions that had already been stirring: Where do you draw the line between what is considered a product of nature and what is a product of man? Where does discovery end and invention begin? In its complaint, the ACLU states, "An 'isolated and purified' human gene performs the exact same function as a nonisolated and purified human gene in a person's body."

The Hasting Center's Johnston suggests that Myriad and other owners of gene patents haven't really changed the geneóthat it is still essentially a product of nature: "I'm sympathetic to people who say that it's like taking gold out of the ground," Johnston says. "You haven't created anything new."

Others take this argument one step further. "It was an error on the part of the patent office to grant the patents," says Marcy Darnovsky of the Center for Genetics and Society in Oakland, Calif., which has voiced their support for the plaintiffs in the case. "Things that are 'products of nature' should be a commons, like the air we breathe."

What about research on patented genes?

The ACLU's complaint also rests on the belief that Myriad's monopoly is stifling research. "If everybody had that gene, who knows what different kinds of diagnostics, what different kinds of treatments might emerge," says U.C.L.A.'s Greenfield. "Those could be patentable, but when you patent and monopolize the underlying basic research tool, maybe one company has a lot of incentive, but everybody else doesn't." She adds that there is actually little incentive for the patent holder to improve the quality of the tests or lower its price.

Myriad Genetics refused to speak about the case, as did the USPTO, both noting their policies against commenting on pending litigation measures. But in the 2008 PBS documentary, In the Family, Myriad founder Mark Skolnick responded to producer Joanna Rudnick's patent questioning very simply: "There's no controversy."

Karny would agree, actually calling the lawsuit "garbage." He adds, "If courts were to buy the argument, it would be devastating for the biotech industry and for our health in general." Karny compares the issue with a classic Mark Twain analogy. "Myriad has produced a flash of lightning and ACLU has given us a lightning bug," he says. "The court should squash the lightning bug."

Myriad's motion for dismissal will be heard on August 26 in New York's Southern District Court.

Green groups blast EU agency over biotech maize

Reuters, 29 July 2009. By Jeremy Smith:
http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSTRE56S4JP20090729

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - International green groups attacked Europe's leading food safety agency on Wednesday for its views on biotech crops and foods, saying a recent opinion was flawed and had ignored studies highlighting safety concerns.

In a report analyzing last month's opinion by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on the safety of a genetically modified maize made by U.S. company Monsanto, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth Europe (FoEE) said there was enough evidence to show that the maize, called MON 810, was hazardous.

EFSA's scientific opinion concluded that MON 810 maize was "as safe as its conventional counterpart with respect to potential effects on human and animal health."

It also said the maize was "unlikely to have any adverse effect on the environment in the context of its intended uses." Those intended uses include seed for cultivation.

Monsanto's insect-resistant MON 810 maize is the only GM crop that may as yet be grown commercially in the European Union. Although its original 10-year approval expired in April 2008, the maize may still be grown during the renewal process.

EFSA's opinion is significant since it provides the basis for EU regulators to begin the process of renewing the license for growing the GM maize, banned in six EU countries on environment and health concerns.

The two green groups say Italy-based EFSA has ridden roughshod over the concerns of national scientists, especially after EU environment ministers called in December for a review of EU approval laws and better, longer-term safety assessments.

EFSA had failed to admit there was scientific uncertainty about the maize's environmental or health impact, their report said, adding that EFSA had ignored -- or played down -- research showing the insecticide that MON 810 maize produced could have negative effects on Europe's butterflies and other insects.

"The food safety agency either suffers from a serious lack of scientific expertise or is playing a highly risky political game with our health and environment," Adrian Bebb, FoEE's food and biodiversity coordinator, said in a statement.

"There is clearly enough evidence to show that this insecticide-producing crop could be hazardous and should be banned from Europe's fields," he said.

EFSA, which has often drawn criticism from green groups over biotechnology, rejected the accusations about its scientific expertise and the quality of its evaluation of MON 810 maize.

"I ... wish to highlight that EFSA assesses each GMO according to European Union and internationally agreed guidelines," an EFSA spokesman said by email from Italy.

"Its GMO panel is made up of leading independent scientists, expert in GM risk assessment, from across Europe, who are supported by a large number of external experts," he said.

---

Note:

Link to the actual report:

A critique of the European Food Safety Authority's opinion on genetically modified maize MON810
http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/eu-unit/press-centre/reports/review-EFSA-MON810-opinion-29-07-09.pdf

GM Freeze Calls for Openness and Transparency on GM Test Sites
• Failure to inform of 2009 GM potato site breaks the spirit of the law

GM Freeze [UK], 29 July 2009:
http://www.gmfreeze.org/page.asp?id=389&iType=

GM Freeze has written to Hilary Benn [1], Defra Secretary of State, condemning his Department's failure to update the GMO public register to include the one test site being grown in the UK this year as being "technically 'legal'", but not following "the spirit of the law and the intentions of those who drafted [the law]", as well as being an attempt "to keep neighbouring farmers, landowners and local elected representatives in the dark".

The letter points out that the latest web-based version of the public register of the locations of GM test sites would lead people to assume "that there had been no activity on the site since it was cleared in June 2008".

Earlier this year the European Court of Justice ruled that the location of test sites must be made public and there are no grounds for keeping them secret [2].

The GM test site is at Branham in North Yorkshire and is run by the University of Leeds to test GM potatoes modified to repel Potato Cyst Nematode (PCN) (a pest of potatoes). In the letter to Hilary Ben GM Freeze point out that PCN problems arise from growing potato crops too frequently on the same land, allowing numbers to build up, and poor sanitation measures, which lead to cysts being transferred by vehicles between fields.

Today the group also published a briefing [3] on the need to keep the location of GM test sites open and transparent, which includes a detailed analysis of direct action against test sites in the UK since 2000. This analysis shows that 77% of test sites were unaffected by direct action, and most of the 23% which were affected continued and produced results.

The briefing also sets out the reasons why the number of GM test sites in the UK has dropped off so dramatically since the beginning of this decade:

•

GM herbicide tolerant oilseed rape and beet were not approved because of evidence of long-term harm to farmland wildlife, so no further tests were needed.

•

There is no market for GM crops because most supermarkets and manufacturers banned GM ingredients, so there was no reason to test new crops.

•

Monsanto abandoned plans for GM cereals because of lack of EU markets demonstrated by public rejection of GM products, so no testing was needed.

•

Bayer Crop Science halted work on GM maize even after being given approval by the UK government, so no further test sites were needed.

•

The biotech industry has not come forward with any insect resistant crops that would find a market in the UK because pest levels do not merit them, and therefore no testing has been required.

•

Modern applications of traditional plant breeding are progressing and producing good quality crop varieties without resorting to GM, eg marker assisted breeding.

•

All GM seed varieties which had been entered for National Listing were voluntarily withdrawn by the applicants because of lack of market demand, thus removing the need for further outdoor testing.

•

The National Assembly Government of Wales the Scottish Government have been strongly opposed to GM crops on the grounds that they do not fit with the model for developing farming in the two countries and no test site applications have been made.

Commenting Pete Riley of GM Freeze said:

"Defra has been under pressure to make GM test sites secret since the 1990s. Their failure to update the Public Register to include the GM potato trial in Yorkshire might be technically legal, but it goes against the spirit of the law requiring public registers.

"We want an assurance from Hilary Benn that Defra is committed to full openness. It is the very least the public should expect.

"It's unacceptable for the biotech companies and proponents to blame everyone else for their own failings. GM technology remains deeply unpopular, and the tiny number of test sites in the UK reflects the lack of a market for GM products and the failure of the early GM crops to pass environmental assessments.

"The Government has already lost a decade of researching sustainable solutions to the problems facing farmers by hitching themselves to the GM band wagon. It's time they cut loose and started promoting alternative approaches in research and development and to get them adopted by farmers."

Calls to Pete Riley 07903 341065 or 0845 217 8992

Notes

1. Copy available at http://www.gmfreeze.org/uploads/benn_letter_for_web.pdf

2. Available at http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=EN&Submit=rechercher&numaff=C-552/07

3. Available at http://www.gmfreeze.org/uploads/secret_test_sites_brief_final.pdf

Monsanto, Dow Stacking the Deck, Critics Say

Inter Press News, 29 July 2009. By Stephen Leahy:
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=47874

BERLIN, Jul 29 (IPS) - The most complex genetically engineered corn (maize) yet has been approved for use next year in Canada and the United States without its potential health and environmental risks being investigated, anti-biotech activists charged Wednesday.

Neither U.S. nor Canadian health officials have assessed the human health safety of Monsanto's and Dow AgroSciences' new 'SmartStax' genetically engineered (GE) corn with eight novel genes inserted into corn DNA, said the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN), an NGO based in Ottawa, Canada.

"Health Canada did not conduct or require any testing for this new eight-trait GE (also called genetically modified, GM or GMO) corn and did not even officially authorise it for release into the food system," said Lucy Sharratt, CBAN's coordinator.

"People will be eating corn with eight novel traits without any assessment of the potential health risks. Questions about risks are being ignored," Sharratt told IPS.

According to Sharratt, Canadian regulators did not do health or environmental risk assessments simply because the novel traits have been approved on an individual basis previously. Even though this is the first time a corn variety combines all of these, it gets a free pass by regulators.

"It's a fundamental misunderstanding of basic biology and the complexity of biotechnology," she said. It also points to a fundamental flaw in the Canadian regulatory system.

"Health Canada has entirely abdicated its responsibility and just shrugged off the potential health risks of eating eight GE traits in one corn flake," she said.

SmartStax combines or 'stacks' previously approved GE traits of herbicide tolerance (Roundup and glufosinate herbicides) and insect resistance into one seed variety for the first time, providing the most comprehensive insect and weed control, according to a Monsanto press release.

The new GE corn is the result of a collaboration between Monsanto Company and Dow AgroSciences LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Company.

"This is a key early step in our commitment to helping farmers sustainably double yields by 2030 to meet the increasing demands for grain for food, feed and fuel," said Robb Fraley, Monsanto chief technology officer and executive vice president, in a statement.

Next year's "product launch would represent the largest introduction of a corn biotech seed product in the history of agriculture", the company claims. Up to 1.6 million hectares could be planted with SmartStax seed in Canada and the U.S. in 2010.

CBAN said Canada immediately withdraw last week's authorisation to sell the new GE seed because safety assessments of multi-trait crops are part of the guidelines adopted by the Codex Alimentarius - a United Nations body that develops food safety guidelines.

"Combining many GE traits together can give rise to unintended effects which could adversely affect health, such as creating new allergies or toxins, or exacerbating existing allergies," said Michael Hansen of the Consumers Union, a U.S.-based NGO and leading global expert on the potential health risks of GE.

"This GE crop should have gone through a new safety assessment, as recommended by Codex," Hansen said in an interview.

However, U.S. regulations do not require any health and safety assessments because GE crops are considered the same as regular crops, even when novel traits are combined, he said. "The Food and Drug Administration didn't even take the slightest look at SmartStax," Hansen said.

Any studies on safety and nutrition done by Monsanto and Dow do not have to be made public or shown to regulators, who are entitled only to a summary. Moreover, no independent studies can be done without the companies' permission. "It is illegal for a farmer to give researchers seeds to test without the companies' permission," he said.

There have been studies on various GE foods. In May, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM), a U.S.-based international association of physicians, called for an immediate moratorium on genetically modified foods, saying they pose a "serious health risk".

The AAEM position paper concluded "there is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects" and that "GM foods pose a serious health risk in the areas of toxicology, allergy and immune function, reproductive health, and metabolic, physiologic and genetic health".

"Multiple animal studies have shown that GM foods cause damage to various organ systems in the body. With this mounting evidence, it is imperative to have a moratorium on GM foods for the safety of our patients' and the public's health," said Dr. Amy Dean, a Board Member of AAEM.

Moreover, under international trade rules, the lack of a new safety assessment for this GE corn means that other countries could reject 'SmartStax' without running afoul of World Trade Organisation rules, Hansen told IPS.

Nor does there appear to have been an environmental risk assessment done by Canadian regulators. "This seems to confirm that the corn bypassed existing scientific assessment processes that have already been judged insufficient by the 2001 Royal Society of Canada Panel," said Sharratt.

The Royal Society of Canada formed an independent panel of scientists to evaluate the regulation and safety of these new GE food products in the country's first-ever independent assessment.

Five years after GE crops and foods were widely available in Canada, the 2001 report from the panel slammed government regulators at Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) who allowed GE crops to be grown.

Little has changed since then and the CFIA has failed to explain its decision not to require environmental risk assessments for 'SmartStax', said Sharratt.

"This scandal exposes the deepest and most dangerous nonchalance of Health Canada towards the risks of GE foods and the safety of Canadians, said Sharratt

Seed Companies Block Genetically-Modified Crop Research

AllGov.com [USA], 29 July 2009. By Noel Brinkerhoff:
http://www.allgov.com/ViewNews/Seed_Companies_Block_Genetically_Modified_Crop_Research_90729

It is time for agricultural biotech companies that produce genetically-modified (GM) seeds to end their restrictions on independent research, write the editors of Scientific American, one of the nation's leading science journals. They point out that through restrictive end-user agreements, corporations like Monsanto, Pioneer and Syngenta are able to veto efforts by independent researchers to examine GM seeds in the laboratory to determine if they are safe for humans and the environment.

Scientific American understands that one of the primary reasons for the end-user agreements is to protect the intellectual property of the seed companies. But too often business executives use the contracts to prevent critical assessments of their products.

"Although we appreciate the need to protect the intellectual property rights that have spurred the investments into research and development that have led to agritech's successes, we also believe food safety and environmental protection depend on making plant products available to regular scientific scrutiny," wrote the publication's editors. "Agricultural technology companies should therefore immediately remove the restriction on research from their end-user agreements. Going forward, the EPA should also require, as a condition of approving the sale of new seeds, that independent researchers have unfettered access to all products currently on the market. The agricultural revolution is too important to keep locked behind closed doors."

It is estimated that up to 45% of the corn and 85% of soybeans grown in the United States are genetically engineered, according to the Center for Food Safety. Furthermore, the Center calculates that 70-75% of processed foods on supermarket shelves, everything from sodas to condiments, contain GM ingredients.

Do Seed Companies Control GM Crop Research? (Scientific American)
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research

Genetically Engineered Food (Center for Food Safety)
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/geneticall7.cfm

Study Released in Argentina Puts Monsanto's Glyphosate Under Fire

Axis of Logic, 29 July 2009. By Marie Trigona, Americas Program:
http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_56466.shtml

[Photo caption: A study released by Dr. Andres Carrasco earlier this year reports that glyphosate causes birth defects.]

Argentina has seen an explosion in genetically modified (GM) soy bean production with soy exports topping $16.5 billion in 2008. The fertile South American nation is now the world's third largest producer of soy, trailing behind the United States and Brazil. However, this lucrative industrial form of farming has come under fire with environmental groups, local residents, and traditional farmers reporting that GM soy threatens biodiversity, the nation's ability to feed itself, and health in rural communities.

Criticism of the soy farming model intensified recently when research released by Argentina's top medical school showed that a leading chemical used in soy farming may be harmful to human health. The study has alarmed policymakers in the South American nation.

A study released by an Argentine scientist earlier this year reports that glyphosate, patented by Monsanto under the name "Round Up," causes birth defects when applied in doses much lower than what is commonly used in soy fields.

The study was directed by a leading embryologist, Dr. Andres Carrasco, a professor and researcher at the University of Buenos Aires. In his office in the nation's top medical school, Dr. Carrasco shows me the results of the study, pulling out photos of birth defects in the embryos of frog amphibians exposed to glyphosate. The frog embryos grown in petri dishes in the photos looked like something from a futuristic horror film, creatures with visible defectsóone eye the size of the head, spinal cord deformations, and kidneys that are not fully developed.

"We injected the amphibian embryo cells with glyphosate diluted to a concentration 1,500 times than what is used commercially and we allowed the amphibians to grow in strictly controlled conditions." Dr. Carrasco reports that the embryos survived from a fertilized egg state until the tadpole stage, but developed obvious defects which would compromise their ability to live in their normal habitats.

[Photo caption: Frog embryos injected with glyphosate developed obvious defects which would compromise their ability to live in their normal habitats.]

Pointing to the color photos spread on his desk, Dr. Carrasco says, "On the side where the contaminated cell was injected you can see defects in the eye and defects in the cartilage."

For the past 15 months, Dr. Carrasco's research team documented embryos' reactions to glyphosate. Embryological study is based on the premise that all vertebrate animals share a common design during the development stages. This accepted scientific premise means that the study indicates human embryonic cells exposed to glyphosate, even in low doses, would also suffer from defects.

"When a field is fumigated by an airplane, it's difficult to measure how much glysophate remains in the body," says Dr. Carrasco. "When you inject the embryonic cell with glysophate, you know exactly how much glysophate you are putting into the cell and you have a strict control."

Glyphosate is the top selling herbicide in the world and is widely used on soy crops in Argentina.

Monoculture soy is grown on more than 42 million acres of fields across Argentina and sprayed with more than 44 million gallons of glyphosate annually. It is part of a technological package sold by Monsanto that includes Round Up Ready seeds GM to tolerate the herbicide glyphosate. This allows growers to fumigate directly onto the GM soy seed, killing nearby weeds without killing the crop. In the winter, crops are sprayed to kill off weeds and seeds are then planted without having to plow the soil, a process commonly referred to as "no-till farming." Nearly, 95% of the 47 million tons of soy grown in Argentina in 2007 was genetically modified, adopting the Round Up ready technology marketed by Monsanto.

The study on the top-selling agrochemical has alarmed policymakers, so much so that Dr. Carrasco has received anonymous threats and industry leaders demanded access to his laboratory immediately following the study's release. Industry leader Monsanto wouldn't talk to the Americas Program for this story, but in a press release on its website, the company says that "glyphosate is safe."

Many in the agro-business sector claim that Dr. Carrasco's study has little scientific basis. Guillermo Cal is the executive director of CASAFEóArgentina's association of agrochemical companies that counts Monsanto, Dow Agro-sciences, Dupont, and Bayer CropScience among its members. Cal dismissed the recent study conducted at the University of Buenos Aires. In an exclusive interview with the Americas Program, Cal rebuked Dr. Carrasco's study, stating, "There are hundreds of articles about the impact of glyphosate in amphibians and none of these articles have shown the disastrous effects that Dr. Carrasco is mentioning. I have the suspicion that these are headlines and probably [this study is a] politically motivated article."

On further investigation, it turned out that the studies that Guillermo Cal cited in the interview were all financed and conducted by the companies that market glyphosate. When asked about that Cal replied, "The developing companies are the ones that have to finance these studies because we need to have proof of the innocuous character of the product before the product is launched."

Since Argentina's soybean boom in the late 90s, clinical studies have been conducted in communities reporting suspiciously high rates of cancer, birth defects, and neonatal mortality. However, industry leaders also refute these clinical studies, saying they are anecdotal and have little scientific basis. Among a corporate controlled scientific community it is notoriously difficult for clinical studies to "prove" the link between environmental contamination and health results, since life is not a "controlled environment."

[Photo caption: Danger! Genetically Modifie Soy.]

In a small town bordering soy farms in the province of Cordoba, the Mothers of Ituzaingo group was formed in response to sudden increases in the local cancer rate. Ituzaingo has 5,000 residentsóin 2001 they reported more than 200 cases of cancer and by 2009 that number has jumped to 300. This is 41 times the national average. (I conducted this calculation: the national average or percentage is 0.145 of the population diagnosed with canceróin this town 6% of the population has cancer.) They have fought for regulations against fumigating soy crops in residential areas and a ban of agrochemicals.

Sofia Gatica is an activist with the Mothers of Ituzaingo. Sofia joined the grassroots group after suffering the death of her newborn baby. Her daughter was still born with a malformed kidney. Her 14-year-old daughter is currently undergoing treatment for toxicity in the blood. The toxin was identified as endosulfan, an insecticide used on soy fields.

Gatica describes the many birth defects that have occurred locally. "We have had children born with only two thumbs and no fingers, malformed kidneys, children with six fingers. We have had babies born without an anus, or with malformations in the intestines."

After years of documenting the tragedies, the Mothers of Itzuaingo decided to take their case to the courts. In 2006, they won their lawsuit in the provincial Supreme Court. Based on their findings the court ruled to prohibit the use of agrochemicals within 1,000 meters of residential areas. The decision applies to the province of Cordoba while in the rest of the country farmers can continue to fumigate with no regulations.

The case of Ituzaingo is not an isolated case. For nearly a decade, communities have reported health problems from aerial and terrestrial fumigation with the arsenal of pesticides and herbicides used in industrial soy farming. And for nearly a decade they have been ignored. "Communities are literally fumigated with planes or with the terrestrial 'mosquito repellant' fumigations (similar to the DEET trucks used to fumigate U.S. neighborhoods in the 50s). Cases of health problems, miscarriages, birth defects, and cancer rates have multiplied at an alarming rate in communities surrounding the soy fields," says Carlos A. Vicente, head of information for Latin America at GRAIN.

The Campesino Movement of Santiago del Estero (MOCASE), a grassroots movement made up of traditional farmers and indigenous groups, has taken more than 100 accusations of agrochemical poisoning to court in Santiago del Estero. The only other case of a judge ruling against the use of herbicides occurred in the northern province of Formosa. The judge, Silvia Amanda Sevilla, was subsequently fired. No other judge in the country has ruled in favor of prohibiting fumigation using glyphosate or other herbicides and pesticides. The courts have either thrown out or ruled against every single claim brought by the plaintiffs. DarÌo Aranda, a journalist with the national daily, P·gina/12, has reported on numerous communities in soy-producing regions throughout the country that have faced severe health problems, including residents in the provinces of Buenos Aires, Entre Rios, Chaco, Santa Fe, and Formosa.

Worse yet, research shows that the mostly rural communities that suffer the negative health effects of fumigations have not benefited from the soy explosion. On the contrary, in most regions families have been pushed off land taken over by soy farming, leading to a loss of livelihood in addition to the severe health risks. According to a 2002 agricultural census, in four years more than 200,000 families were driven from their traditional farms, and most of the families relocated in working class belts outside of major cities.

Authorities and industry representatives maintain that the clinical studies and citizen complaints must be backed up by "serious studies" in order for them to act. Gatica says that GM seed and agrochemical companies have converted Argentina into an experimenting ground to test the toxicity of their herbicides and pesticides, principally glyphosate and endosulfan. "We can prove that agrochemicals have harmed us. We can prove this with studies and with whatever is left of our children," says Gatica. The anger in her voice reflects the grief and rage she has channeled into this David and Goliath battle.

The expansion of soy means the increased use and concentration of glyphosate. Over time, Round Up herbicide loses its technological battle with evolution and new weeds develop that are more resistant to the herbicide, explains Javier Souza Casadinho, professor at the University of Buenos Aires and regional coordinator of the Latin American Action Network for Alternative Pesticides. "Producers must use more applications, and in higher doses with higher toxicityóthe application has gone from three liters in 1999 to the current dose of 12 liters, per hectare," says Souza.

GM soy was swiftly approved for cultivation in Argentina in 1996, under former Agricultural Secretary Felipe Sola. A 180-page file report, prepared by GM giant Monsanto in English without a Spanish translation was the only document evaluated before Sola approved GM soy after only 81 days of review. The former secretary and investor in the soy industry won a seat in the legislature in the June 2009 elections, riding in on his opposition to President Cristina Kirchner's decision to increase the export tax on soy. Argentina's current Secretary of Agriculture Carlos Cheppi refused the Americas Program's formal request for an interview. His press secretary said Ricardo Gouna is "unwilling to talk about the use and regulation of agrochemicals in Argentina's soy industry."

The study in Argentina is not the only research concluding that the number one selling herbicide may be harmful to human health. Gilles-Eric Seralini, professor at the University of Caen and specialist in molecular biology, led a study that concluded the herbicides in the Round Up Ready package causes cells to die in human embryos.

"Even in doses diluted a thousand times, the herbicide could cause malformations, miscarriages, hormonal problems, reproductive problems, and different types of cancers," said Dr. Seralini in an interview with Dario Aranda published in P·gina/12. Round Up Ready is currently marketed in more than 120 nations. Latin American nations Brazil, Uruguay, and Paraguay are the region's fastest growing markets.

Since Carrasco's study was released in April, the NGO Association of Environmental Lawyers (Aadeaa) petitioned the Supreme Court to ban the use of glyphosate and endosulfan. Policymakers are currently considering the petition. The National Committee on Ethical Science has also recommended that the Agricultural Ministry create an investigative committee to urgently evaluate the effects of the number one selling herbicide in Argentina. Dr. Carrasco says that his study and previous studies should serve as a red-light warning for policymakers charged with evaluating regulations for glyphosate.

The herbicide is currently categorized as a level 4 toxinóthe lowest level possible for agrochemicals. In science and medicine, when you suspect that something dangerous is occurring, you need to implement the precautionary principle, which dictates: "I need to take precautions; I can't ignore the problem; I can't wait until there are a lot of deaths to intervene."

Unfortunately, Argentine courts and federal, state, and local governments appear not to agree. Given the enormous economic stakes, precaution may come too late as soy has invaded the majority of Argentina's highly fertile land leading to irreversible social, health, and environmental consequences.

Soy processors extend Amazon deforestation moratorium

FoodNavigator.com, 29 July 2009. By Jess Halliday:
http://www.foodnavigator.com/Financial-Industry/Soy-processors-extend-Amazon-deforestation-moratorium/?c=4UZvOL3vyw1sQXfQlumHtg%3D%3D&utm_source=newsletter_daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Newsletter%2BDaily

Brazilian soy processor have extended their moratorium on sourcing from newly deforested areas of the Amazon, as efforts to curb destruction of the rainforest need more time to take affect.

Brazil supplies some 28 per cent of the world's soy bean, according to ABIOVE, the Brazilian Vegetable Oil Industry Association, producing around 57m tonnes in 2006.

However the gains to be made from cultivating soy have resulted in clearance of large swathes of the Amazon rainforest, and marred the environmental image of soy for manufacturers and consumers.

A scheme to counter deforestation and improve the industry's environmental record was launched by ABIOVE and the Brazilian Grain Exporters Association (ANE), together with civil society organisations including Greenpeace and WWF, in 2006. They formed a soy working group, known as GTS.

The industry associations pledged that their member companies would not trade soy originating from areas deforested after 24 July 2006. ABOIVE's members include major soy players Imcopa, Bunge, ADM and Cargill. Together, the members are responsible for about 72 per cent of all the soybean processing in Brazil.

The initiative has been deemed a success thus far by Carlos Minc, Minister of the Environment, who officially joined in in 2008. He said "The monitoring of the Ministry of Environment concluded that soybean is not anymore an important element in the Amazon deforestation".

However the moratorium has been extended until July 2010, as the GTS said "the Amazon Biome governance conditions are not yet sufficient to allow a suspension of the moratorium".

Changing tactics

In the last three years, the GTS has used monitoring techniques such as satellite imaging, flyovers and field visits.

This has shown up a change in the deforestation profile: Fewer areas of 100 hectares or more are being cleared - but there is an increase in smaller areas being cleared.

In order to tackle these, the GTS is changing its system for the new planting season, which starts in October, so it can include small deforestations. It will use a sampling system, and identify crops using remote sensory technology.

The GTS is also encouraging federal government to support state registration and licensing of rural producers, such as the Legal MT scheme launched by the Mato Grosso state government.

"For agribusiness to operate transparently in the Amazone Biome, the soy producer must register his property and the government must do its part," said ABIOVE president Carol Lovatelli, who is employed by Bunge. "This is a fundamental step to give our customers a guarantee of the environmental quality of our product".

Europe's food agency accused of junk science
• New report calls for GM maize to be banned

Friends of the Earth Europe / Greenpeace, 29 July 2009.

Brussels, 29 July 2009 - An opinion by Europe's food agency advocating the safety of the only genetically modified (GM) crop grown in Europe is fundamentally flawed, according to a Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth Europe report. The report will form the basis of a submission to a public consultation on Monsanto's MON810 maize that ends this week. The green groups call on the European Commission and EU countries to reject the authorisation of this crop.

The ten-year licence for MON810 maize has expired and the EU is currently considering whether or not to re-authorise it. [1] In this context, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) issued an opinion at the end of June claiming that MON810 is safe. [2]

However, a scientific analysis of the opinion commissioned by Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth Europe has revealed serious mistakes and omissions by EFSA and questions its conclusion. [3] Among other points, the report reveals that EFSA:

•

ignores or plays down research that shows that the insecticide produced by the GM maize could have negative knock-on impacts on Europe's butterflies and other insects. Instead they recommend unspecified "management measures" for areas known to host butterflies and moths;

•

fails to admit that there is scientific uncertainty and conflicting reports over the maize's impact on the environment or health;

•

ignores peer-reviewed scientific studies that highlight safety concerns;

•

quotes research carried out on a completely different GM crop as a basis for claiming that MON810 is safe;

•

fails to investigate the safety of new unknown proteins generated in the maize by the genetic modification process.

"EFSA has once again violated its mandate. If university students submitted the EFSA report as course work, they would get the worst mark: an 'F'. 'F' for failed but also 'F' for fundamentally flawed," said Marta Vetier, Greenpeace EU GMO policy officer.

"The food safety agency either suffers from a serious lack of scientific expertise or is playing a highly risky political game with our health and environment. There is clearly enough evidence to show that this insecticide-producing crop could be hazardous and should be banned from Europe's fields," said Adrian Bebb, Friends of the Earth Europe's Food and Biodiversity Coordinator.

Six countries have already banned the growing of MON810, including Germany and France. National governments have also been complaining about the quality of EFSA's work and have outlined their own concerns about the safety of the crop. Most recently, the French government stated that it could not accept EFSA's opinion on MON810. [4] In May, twelve member states wrote to the Food Safety Authority expressing concerns about its ongoing work.

"The Commission has no other choice but to reject EFSA's opinion, ban the cultivation of MON810 maize and look for another official authority that is capable of delivering unbiased, science-based advice to decision makers", added Marta Vetier.

Contacts:

Adrian Bebb - Friends of the Earth Europe, Food and Biodiversity Coordinator.
+49-1609-490-1163 (mob.), adrian.bebb@foeeurope.org

Francesca Gater - Friends of the Earth Europe, Communications Officer.
+32-(0)2-893-1010, francesca.gater@foeeurope.org

Notes to the editor:

[1] The crop was originally approved under old legislation that has since been strengthened.

[2] http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_locale-1178620753812_1211902628240.htm

[3] Cotter, J. & Mueller, W. 2009., A critique of the European Food Safety Authority's opinion on genetically modified maize MON810. Greenpeace Research Laboratories Technical Note 05/2009. Jointly commissioned by Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth Europe. http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/press-centre/reports/review-EFSA-MON810-opinion-29-07-09

[4] http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gecpoGGp9SPYnFj9jGVZgRNXTv8g

EU policymaking: Rooted in science?

Euractiv.com, 28 July 2009:
http://www.euractiv.com/en/science/eu-policymaking-rooted-science/article-183615#

European policymakers face a difficult choice when authorising new technologies such as GMOs, as they often find themselves caught between conflicting expert safety advice and callsÝto respect the precautionary principle when scientific evidence is insufficient.

---

More on this topic

News

•

Commissioner: EU innovation must pick up speed (25 June 2009)
http://www.euractiv.com/en/innovation/commissioner-eu-innovation-pick-speed/article-183464

•

EU innovation needs paradigm shift, says commissioner (25 June 2009)
http://www.euractiv.com/en/innovation/eu-innovation-needs-paradigm-shift-commissioner/article-183465

•

EU research infrastructure offered VAT exemption (03 June 2009)
http://www.euractiv.com/en/science/eu-research-infrastructure-offered-vat-exemption/article-182790

•

EU agricultural research to tackle food security (29 May 2009)
http://www.euractiv.com/en/cap/eu-agricultural-research-tackle-food-security/article-182721

LinkDossiers

•

Knowledge and technology transfer (15 June 2008)
http://www.euractiv.com/en/science/knowledge-technology-transfer/article-168514

•

7th Research Framework Programme (FP7) (18 November 2006)
http://www.euractiv.com/en/science/7th-research-framework-programme-fp7/article-117494

Analysis

•

R&D expenditures in Europe and the US (27 March 2009)
http://www.euractiv.com/en/science/rd-expenditures-europe-us/article-180737

•

Creating effective cluster-building policies (23 January 2009)
http://www.euractiv.com/en/innovation/creating-effective-cluster-building-policies/article-178746

•

The new kids on the R&D block (25 June 2008)
http://www.euractiv.com/en/science/new-kids-rd-block/article-173635

•

US needs a 'Science White House' (23 April 2008)
http://www.euractiv.com/en/science/us-needs-science-white-house/article-171833

Legislative trackers

•

PreLex: Commission Communication on the precautionary principle [FR] [DE]
http://ec.europa.eu/prelex/detail_dossier_real.cfm?CL=en&DosId=154698

•

PreLex: Proposal for a decision establishing a Community action programme to promote bodies active at European level and support specific activities in the field of education and training [FR] [DE]
http://ec.europa.eu/prelex/detail_dossier_real.cfm?CL=en&DosId=183170

•

PreLex: Commission Communication on the collection and use of expertise by the commission: principles and guidelines - Improving the knowledge base for better policies [FR] [DE]
http://ec.europa.eu/prelex/detail_dossier_real.cfm?CL=en&DosId=178957

•

PreLex: European Governance White Paper [FR] [DE]
http://ec.europa.eu/prelex/detail_dossier_real.cfm?CL=en&DosId=166841

•

PreLex: Commission Communication on European Governance: better lawmaking [FR] [DE]
http://ec.europa.eu/prelex/detail_dossier_real.cfm?CL=en&DosId=174081

Milestones

•

Feb. 2000:Ý CommissionÝCommunication on the precautionary principle.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2000:0001:FIN:EN:PDF

•

Jan. 2002: European Environment AgencyÝreport Ýon 'Late lessons from early warnings'.
http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/environmental_issue_report_2001_22

•

March 2005:ÝLaunch ofÝSINAPSE (Scientific Information for Policy Support in Europe): a tool for the exchange of information between the scientific community and decision-makers.
ÝÝ http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/05/86&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

•

25-30 May 2009: Science and values: the politicisation of scienceÝconference .
http://www.esf.org/index.php?id=5257

•

Feb./MarchÝ2010: European Environment Agency to publish a follow-up to itsÝ2002 report entitled 'Late lessons from early warnings'.Ý

Policy Summary

EU policymakingÝis largely based on expertise and involves handling complex technical information at different levels. While such expert-based regulatory policy isÝseen by some as a guarantee of rational decision-making, it is sometimes perceived as technocratic and opaque.

Since the mid-1990s, steps haveÝbeen taken to improve the quality of science used in decision-makingÝby establishing independent scientific committees andÝindependent risk-assessment agencies. Examples of these include those in placeÝfor medicines and food.ÝSince 2001, the debate on the role of scientific evidence in policymaking has been seen in aÝwider context ofÝEuropean governance http://ec.europa.eu/governance/index_en.htmÝandÝbetter regulation http://ec.europa.eu/governance/better_regulation/index_en.htm.

In its 2001ÝWhite Paper http://ec.europa.eu/governance/white_paper/index_en.htm on European governance, the European Commission recognised that scientific and other expert advice was playing an increasingly significant role in EU decision-making. Expert advice particularly serves to "anticipate and identify" potential problems and uncertainties facing the EU, helpingÝits institutions toÝmake decisions andÝto communicate risks effectively.

In 2000, the Commission published aÝcommunication http://ec.europa.eu/environment/docum/20001_en.htm on the so-calledÝ'precautionary principle 'http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/consumers/consumer_safety/l32042_en.htm,Ýcovering "cases where scientificÝevidence is insufficient, inconclusive or uncertain and preliminary scientific evaluation indicates that there are reasonable grounds for concern that the potentially dangerous effects on the environment, human, animal or plant health may be inconsistent with the high level of protection chosen by the EU".

ISSUES:

Scientific expertise increasingly contested

Scientific experts are regularly consulted by policymakers to explain and offer advice on diverse EU policy issues. But while scientific advice is being sought more often,ÝtheÝpracticeÝhas become aÝtarget of growing criticism. The lack of transparency in the way such expertise is selected, used and disseminated by governments is often consideredÝa problem which couldÝundermine the legitimacy of theÝdecision-making process.Ý

There is aÝwidespread debate on the advantages and disadvantages of risk analysis as a valuable tool for policy decisions.ÝIndustry, NGOs and academia are often at oddsÝover how risk analysis should be used and how much influence it should have over decisions. One of the main points of debate concerns the objectivity of the experts consulted.

The scientific community and industry often argue in favour of strictly risk-based policymaking,Ýdescribing risk analysisÝas the only "objective scientific basis" for makingÝmore rational decisions. According to the proponents of this approach, problems and limits of risk analysis can be overcome through data collection and research, as well as strict guidelines for conducting researchÝand presentingÝresults in a consistent manner.

Meanwhile, environmental NGOs andÝconsumer interest groupsÝpoint to the dangerous tendency of risk analysis to oversimplify problems facing policymakers by focusing on one hazard and effect at the time, or on problems that are well understood. They argue thatÝthe complexity ofÝrisk assessment methods leaves the wholeÝprocess vulnerable to manipulation for political purposes, ultimatelyÝmaking the decision-making process less democratic.

Whose science can be trusted?

Scientific evidence has alwaysÝattracted some scepticism, particularlyÝif provided by industry,Ýwhen it isÝconsidered potentially biased. However, recent policy developments in the EU regarding genetically modified food,Ýfor example,Ýprove thatÝeven official expertise produced by EU scientific agenciesÝis increasingly being contested.

While individual companies and industrial sectorsÝareÝoften perceived as an untrustworthy source of scientific information, data provided by environmental NGOs and consumer protection groupsÝare more widely disseminated by the media and more easily accepted by the general public and decision-makers alike.

Whereas NGOs accuse industry of exaggerating the benefitsÝof their new products, industry denounces NGOs' focus onÝthe potential health or environmental risks of their products.

A general lack of understanding of how advances in science and technology affect our lives further contributes to confusingÝthe general public,Ýand sometimes invitesÝcontroversial or sensationalist reporting on issues such as food safety, GMOs, bird fluÝandÝglobal warming.

In addition, people can also refute authoritative information andÝinstead decideÝto believe information presented to them by groups or individuals with whom they share beliefs or ideologies.

Politicians as risk managers

Confronted with competing scientific evidence,Ýextensive industry and NGO lobbies,Ýpublic fears and confusion, EUÝpoliticians - who are usually non-scientists and non-specialists -Ýhave theÝdifficult task of regulating and deciding on the authorisation of new products and technologies.

IndependentÝcost-benefit analysis, risk assessment and perception of whether the risks can be managed is widely seen as the way forward.

In this regard, politicians can be considered as 'risk managers'. Risk management describes the process of weighing up policy options with regard to a controversial issue,Ýlike GMOs or chemicals, in consultation with all the stakeholders concerned. By looking at the risks involved, and at the risks perceived byÝthe public,ÝpoliticiansÝdecide what to do about the risk, and how to communicate their decision, implement itÝand evaluate the results.Ý

MissedÝopportunities to innovate?

Some argue that the EU'sÝcautious approach to granting market authorisation to new technology applications like GMOs or products derived from nanotechnology could lead the bloc to miss out on major opportunities to improve its competitiveness. Furthermore, aÝsociety that is averse to risk in general and regulations placing the burden of proof on industry rather thanÝthe authoritiesÝisÝseen as a major hindrance for further investment in innovation.Ý

One example ofÝhow the burden of proof has been reveredÝisÝthe EU's recent REACH regulationÝon chemicals.ÝInstead of obliging national authorities toÝallay concerns about particular chemicals, manufacturers now have the responsibility for proving that their products are safe in order to get market authorisation.

POSITIONS:

In a recentÝ report, theÝEuropean Research Advisory BoardÝ (EURAB)Ýasked whether researchÝwasÝpart of the solutionÝonÝsocial issues or part of the problem. While European policymakers are promoting research and innovation "as the saviour of Europe, bringing anticipated benefits, increased competitiveness, prosperity and better jobs," peopleÝare increasingly doubtful that a "scientific assessment of risks and benefits with decisions made solely by the experts is necessarily a guarantee of the best choice for society," it notes.

Research is viewed positivelyÝwhen it solves problems, is relevant to people's lives and useful to society, the report concludes.ÝBut "too often though, researchers are perceived to be addressing issues that the public may not necessarily consider as beneficial to society," and the economic benefits of research do not enjoy the same acceptance, it argues.

"European publics are not questioning the scientific information as much as they are actually questioning the institutions generating it (lost confidence in business, government and the academe)," EURAB continued.

TheÝEuropean Policy CentreÝ (EPC),Ý aÝBrussels-based think-tank,ÝemphasisesÝthatÝin managingÝrisks to the environment andÝhuman health, theÝ"bestÝavailable science" andÝscientific evidenceÝmust beÝaÝ"key knowledge input" for decision-makingÝatÝall stages of the regulatory cycle. The paperÝidentifiesÝaÝseries ofÝweaknesses in the EU's currentÝapproachÝto using scienceÝfor policy and decision-making.

The think-tank notes that theÝEU treaties contain no requirement to takeÝaccount of scientific dataÝwhen formulatingÝpolicy unless it is environmental in nature. There is no requirementÝto base decisions on the "best available science," norÝto baseÝlegislation on evidence of risk rather than of potential hazards, it continues. Indeed,Ýit is not necessaryÝto produce aÝcomprehensive statement of risk management principlesÝeither, it adds.

The EPC argues thatÝEU guidelines for the collection and use of scientific advice are limited,Ý"not mandatory and do not provide a comprehensive common set of key concepts and definitions for use in the provision of scientific advice". They neglect to include a definition of the quality of information to be used,Ýand findings from major scientific assessments usedÝfor policymaking are not subject to peer review, it notes. As a result, the guidelines "do not provide EU institutions with a coherent policy for the use of evidence in decision-making".

EU guidelines for the selection of scientific advisors areÝnot subject toÝpeer reviewÝby external experts,Ýwhile selection processes are opaqueÝand restrict the use of advisors from outside the EU, the EPC continues.

The think-tankÝencourages theÝEuropean Commission to publish a decision on a newÝbinding policy covering risk analysis in policymaking, and invites the EU executive to establish a newÝpolicy for the collection and use of scientific adviceÝfor decision-making to beÝapplied by all institutions to all stages of the regulatory cycle and to all sources of scientific advice.ÝIn addition, the paper proposes the establishment of a European Academy of Sciences, whose role would consist of advising high-level politicians on the scientific dimension of policy and decision-making.

Marie-Hélène Fandel, a policy analyst at theÝEPC, said it was not necessarily a bad thing that politicians were responsibleÝforÝdeciding whether toÝauthorise new technologies,Ýas science is "very rarely neutral" and depends on both the cost-benefit analysis and the risk assessment of products.

However, she stressed that while the Union's cautious approach to granting market authorisation to new technology applications like GMOs or products derived from nanotechnology has prevented itÝfrom suffering any major backlash, it could also mean the bloc is missing out on major opportunities to improve its competitiveness.Ý

"If we are too cautious, we will not move forward and ultimately risk losing our competitive edge. On the other hand, if there is a significant risk to health or the environment, we should not rush into adopting new technologies. It all depends on our assessments of the benefits and costs, and on whether the risks can be managed," she added.

Furthermore,Ýwith an increasing number of products incorporating new technologies such as nanotech or biotech, "a common approach is needed to avoid a fragmentation of the single market over product safety issues," she argued. It is also important that "decision-makers recognise the risk of inaction if the EU fails to act quickly on new technologies," she said, suggesting that the economicÝgains and new jobs could benefit Europe's competitors instead (see EurActiv interview with Marie-Hélène FandelÝhere
http://www.euractiv.com/en/science/analyst-eu-caution-new-technologies-causing-missed-opportunities/article-174672.)

David Zaruk, who headsÝRisk Perception Management, an environmental health riskÝconsultancy, said that in today's policymaking, "facts don't matter that much". "We are not in a knowledge-based society but in an influence-based society."ÝHe also said it is difficult to get good science experts to conduct risk assessments of proposed EU policies, as "they are fed up with the fact that their advice is constantly ignored".

Zaruk also noted that while the 2006 AhoÝreport Ýhttp://ec.europa.eu/invest-in-research/action/2006_ahogroup_en.htm on creating an innovative Europe stated that the lack of innovation-friendly markets in Europe is hindering investment in R&D, the report did not sayÝwhy society is not embracing innovation. According to Zaruk, people areÝreluctant to do so due to the emergence of a sort of an "eco-religion", whichÝtakes precaution and the precautionary principle asÝa policyÝtoolÝfor thoseÝwhoÝthink thatÝ"science has gone too far".

While science was initially seen as saving people from nature's dangers,Ýso-called "eco-religious" people think that nature needs saving from people and science,ÝZaruk argued.

TheÝEuropean Science Foundation (ESF)ÝsaidÝthe scientific community isÝworriedÝthat "the inclusion of sociopolitical values in the confirmation practice of science tends to undercut the objectivity of science. For instance, in the field of expertise, science-based advice for political decision-making is in constant danger of becoming identified with one of the warring political factions. By tying its judgments too intimately to certain sociopolitical values, science runs the risk of losing its credibility".

On the one hand, including sociopolitical values in the assessment procedure "is mandatory for a responsible science. On the other hand, a social bias of science tends to undercut the overarching authority of science which derives from its factual basis," ESF continues.

"A science tied too intimately with social values might lose the capacity of 'speaking truth to power'. As a result, the increasing politicisation of science might undermine its credibility. To the extent that science enters the social arena and becomes part of political power play, the scientific claims to objectivity and trustworthiness tend to be sapped."

Andreas Hensel, president of theÝGerman Federal Institute for Risk AssessmentÝ (BfR), said: "Science enjoys considerable trust in society: as a source of risk information, it is trusted more than most of the other stakeholders, such as politicians or industry representatives. This in itself suggests one of the prerequisites for trust and credibility in scientific risk assessment: it must be perceived as coming from a neutral entity which makes its assessments independently of day-to-day politics and economic interests."

First, risk assessment should be independent of risk management and, second,Ýtransparency is a key requirement for trust and credibility, he explained.

OnÝGMOs, Hensel said thatÝ"food is a particularly sensitive topic because it is essential for life and many consumers believe that making the right choice is important for maintaining their own health."ÝPotential risks fromÝGM plants and food are "perceived as hazardous because they are not seen as being connected to products produced by traditional breeding methods and techniques, which are perceived as 'natural' and therefore safe," he added.

Researchers at theÝInternational Life Sciences InstituteÝ (ILSI) note that "there has been significant public debate about the susceptibility of research to biases of various kinds. The dialogue has extended to the peer-reviewed literature, scientific conferences, the mass media, government advisory bodies, and beyond. Whereas biases can come from myriad sources, the overwhelming focus of the discussion to date has been on industry-funded science".

Highlighting the critical role that industry has played and will continue to play in the research process, ILSI researchers recentlyÝproposedÝ"conflict-of-interest guidelines regarding industry funding to protect the integrity and credibility of the scientific record". The document is intended to prompt "ongoing discussion and refinement".

TheÝguidelines http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/122342730/HTMLSTART?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0Ýinclude eight principlesÝorÝ"ground rules" for industry-sponsored research. TheyÝinclude a requirementÝfor scientific investigators toÝcontrol both study design and the research itself, andÝguarantee investigators and the appropriate auditors/reviewersÝaccess to all data and control of statistical analysis.

The researchers conclude that, "in the end, management of conflicts of interest, and, for that matter, management of scientific biases altogether is a matter of consensus building, not enforcement".Ý

---

Comment from GM-free Ireland:

This article obviously favours the sort of dodgy science used by EFSA to promote GM food and farming despite growing scientific evidence of their negative health and environmental impacts:

"A general lack of understanding of how advances in science and technology affect our lives further contributes to confusing the general public, and sometimes invites controversial or sensationalist reporting on issues such as food safety, GMOs, bird flu and global warming. In addition, people can also refute authoritative information and instead decide to believe information presented to them by groups or individuals with whom they share beliefs or ideologies."

There is no mention of the corrolary problem that the so-called "science" promoted by industry lobby groups, spin doctors, and the European Commission frequently misleads the governments, business policy makers, and citizens of EU member states with statements such as "there is no scientific evidence that GM food is more risky than conventional food". When scientists make such statements - which are factually lies - they give science a bad name. In this age of various fundamentalisms, this is extremely dangerous.

The article's corporate bias is further evidenced in a list of 46 recommended web links featured in the online version at http://www.euractiv.com/en/science/eu-policymaking-rooted-science/article-183615#. The list includes industry lobby groups such as the International Life Sciences Institute which lost its full NGO accreditation at the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) after its industry funding was revealed, but by which time it had infiltrated various scientific committees of the two UN agencies in order to downplay the scientific evidence linking high levels of sugar in junk food with childhood obesity and diabetes!

Amazingly, there is only one link to an NGO (a little known body called "Green Audit"), and none to any of the world's leading civil society critics of the corporate hijacking of science policy such as Corporate Watch, Consumers International, CRIIGEN, the Independent Science Panel, the European NGO Network on Genetic Engineering, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Center for Food Safety, GM Watch, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, etc.

No wonder all the EU member states which had referenda on the Lisbon Treaty rejected handing over more sovereignty to the European Commission, which favours corporate vested interests over public safety.

Scientists seek new tools to fight malnutrition

Associated Press, 29 July 2009. By Betsy Taylor:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g05CRnygirQpXgx4-WIzHDzyiHEgD99O0FI81

ST. LOUIS - Missouri researchers have launched a new effort in their fight against worldwide hunger: bringing together a doctor who has long treated the malnourished with plant scientists working to improve the nutritional content of food.

The group hopes to create a bridge from greenhouses and labs in Missouri to health centers and farms in regions where people die from malnourishment.

Three internationally known organizations based in St. Louis - the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center, the Washington University School of Medicine and St. Louis Children's Hospital - have formed the Global Harvest Alliance. The partnership's aim is to create inexpensive, nutritionally complete food to help the world's hungry and undernourished.

Alliance researchers will look broadly at the best approaches to fight malnutrition and focus on a few of them. They'll seek to improve enriched foods already used to treat malnourishment.

In addition, the alliance aims to help testing and distribution of crops genetically modified to boost nutritional content. They hope to provide the crops cheaply to farmers to produce more nutritious foods.

"This is not a magic bullet. It's a part of the puzzle to helping people be healthier and have a better life," said Roger Beachy, president of the nonprofit Danforth center, where plant research is aimed at improving health and the environment.

Dr. Mark Manary, a pediatrician who will serve as the alliance's director, said malnourished children in Africa used to be hospitalized and given fortified milk-based treatments.

Manary, who has treated malnutrition in Africa for years, has provided an enriched peanut-butter mixture to malnourished children in the sub-Saharan country of Malawi that has led to high recovery rates.

These days, that mixture of peanuts, powdered milk, vegetable oil, sugar, vitamins and minerals is given to parents to feed their malnourished children at home. The new alliance will work to improve such home-based approaches in hopes of distributing them more widely as well as lowering costs.

At the same time, the alliance will seek more sustainable solutions. "Prevention is always better than a cure," Manary said.

Since 1999, the Danforth center has spent about $20 million trying to improve the nutritional content of cassava, a staple crop in Africa harvested for its starchy roots. The food may be best known in the United States as the basis for tapioca. Much of the funding for cassava improvements has come from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Monsanto Fund and the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Researchers have added DNA at the cellular level to enable cassava, naturally low in protein and beta carotene, to produce high levels of those nutrients. Scientists are testing some of the genetically modified cassava plants at greenhouses in Missouri and fields in Puerto Rico.

Beachy said many poor families largely live off one type of food, like cassava or plantains, so increasing the nutritional value of such food would help address malnutrition.

Larry Beach, a USAID scientist who helps improve crops in developing countries using biotechnology, knows those working on the alliance, but is not directly involved in it.

He acknowledged suspicions in parts of the world about biotechnology use and outside scientists proposing solutions to malnourishment. "There's been skepticism about providing more nutrition through food because that's not the way it's been done in the past," he said.

But the Global Harvest Alliance will bring together scientists with a track record of helping the hungry and allow them to research specific needs and crops.

"One of the big problems in helping to make improvements in nutrition is the integration of what needs to be done," Beach said.

---

Comment by GM Watch:

Hardly a mention here of the Monsanto connections of these institutions in the gene giant's home town, and of course even 2 of the key players in the Gates Foundation are from St Louis (ex-Monsanto & Danforth).

What speaks volumes is that the selling point for the Danforth Center is the GM cassava project, which has been spectacularly unsuccessful:

"Since 1999, the Danforth center has spent about $20 million trying to improve the nutritional content of cassava, a staple crop in Africa harvested for its starchy roots. The food may be best known in the United States as the basis for tapioca. Much of the funding for cassava improvements has come from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Monsanto Fund and the U.S. Agency for International Development."

For how the GM cassava went belly up, see: GM cassava "our only hope" http://www.gmwatch.org/gm-myths/11156-gm-cassava-qour-only-hopeq

Never mind the failure, the involvement of the St. Louis Children's Hospital in the new Global Harvest Alliance is a great PR move.

---

Who is Roger Beachy?

From SpinProfiles:
http://www.spinprofiles.org/index.php/Roger_Beachy

Dr Roger Beachy is the founding president of the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center, which was established by Monsanto and academic partners, including Peter Raven's Missouri Botanical Garden. The Center was launched with a $70-million pledge from Monsanto, which also donated the Center's 40-acre tract of land, near Monsanto's home town of St. Louis, valued at $11.4 million.

Beachy is also Professor in the Department of Biology at Washington University in St. Louis. It was Beachy's work at Washington University which, in collaboration with Monsanto, led to the development of the world's first genetically modified food crop, a variety of tomato that was modified for virus disease-resistance.

In 2003, in letters to the journals Science and Nature, the Center for Science in the Public Interest complained that Beachy had published an editorial in Science and co-signed a letter in Nature Biotechnology without either journal disclosing that 'Beachy's research on agricultural biotechnology has been funded by Monsanto and other biotech companies, even though the subjects of his submissions - the safety of genetically engineered crops and intellectual-property policies - are directly relevant to those companies.'

One of the co-signatories of Beachy's letter in Nature Biotechnology was Prof Chris Lamb. Beachy was co-chair with Lamb of the scientific advisory board of the Akkadix Corporation, a global agricultural biotechnology company co-founded by Lamb. Beachy is also on the Board of Directors of the industry-supported Nidus Center for Scientific Enterprise, and on the scientific advisory board of Spacehab, Inc.. He is also a consultant to the United Soybean Board.

Among numerous honours and awards, Beachy was the 1991 recipient of the Bank of Delaware's Commonwealth Award for Science and Industry and in 1999 he was named R&D Magazine's Scientist of the Year.

World Future Council welcomes Wangari Maathai as an Honorary Councillor
• Kenyan Nobel Peace Prize winner supports voice of future generations

World Future Council press release, 29 July 2009:
http://www.worldfuturecouncil.org

Hamburg / London The winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, Prof. Wangari Muta Maathai, has joined the World Future Council (WFC) as a new Honorary Councillor. WFC Founder Jakob von Uexkull said: "We are very happy that Prof. Maathai has shown this appreciation for our work. Her knowledge and contacts will be especially helpful when developing our activities in Africa." Working to act as a 'voice of future generations' the WFC is committed to identifying and promoting best policy solutions internationally.Ý

Wangari Maathai has been very active for the last 30 years in fighting for sustainable and just ecological, economic, social and cultural developments in her native Kenya and throughout Africa. "When identifying a problem, I always think about possible solutions. I do not like to talk too much about problems", said the environmental and women's rights activist in an interview with the magazine 'Zenith'.

In 1977 the biologist founded the reforestation project 'The Green Belt Movement' in order to fight for the preservation of forests in eastern Africa. Today the organisation is active in 13 African countries and more than 30 million trees have been planted. From 1976 to 1987 Wangari Maathai also made a name for herself as the leader of the National Council of Women in Kenya. She still is a board member of the organisation.

As early as 1984 Wangari Maathai received the Right Livelihood Award (Alternative Nobel Prize) for her work within the 'Green Belt Movement'. Exactly 20 years later she was the first African woman to receive the Nobel Peace Prize, for her commitment to "sustainable development, peace and democracy". In 2006 she was awarded the Légion d'honneur, the highest honour in France, by President Jacques Chirac.

The WFC also warmly welcomes a second new member of the Honorary Council, Tadatoshi Akiba, Mayor of Hirsohima, who is moving from the Council due to his high workload. Alongside Dr. Herlind Gundelach, Dr. Michael Otto, Arthur N.R. Robinson, Prof. Dr. Ernst Ulrich von Weizs”cker and Prof. Wangari Maathai he will support the WFC with guidance and advice. Honorary Councillor Walter Cronkite died on July 17th at the age of 92 in New York.

The World Future Council brings the interests of future generations to the centre of policy making. Its 50 eminent members from around the globe have already successfully promoted change. The Council addresses challenges to our common future and provides decision-makers with effective policy solutions. In-depth research underpins advocacy work for international agreements, regional policy frameworks and national lawmaking and thus produces practical and tangible results.

Media contact:

Anne Reis
Media & Communications Officer
World Future Council
Bei den Mühren 70
D-20457 Hamburg
Germany

Phone: +49 (0)40 30 70 914-16 Fax: +49 (0)40 30 70 914-14
Mail: anne.reis@worldfuturecouncil.org Skype: anne.worldfuturecouncil
http://www.worldfuturecouncil.org

28 July 2009

New research to explore how food allergies are triggered

FoodNavigator.com, 28 July 2009. By Caroline Scott-Thomas:
http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Science-Nutrition/New-research-to-explore-how-food-allergies-are-triggered

University of Chicago researchers have been awarded a $433,100 grant to investigate how food allergies are triggered, in a study that could eventually help explore whether GM crops cause allergies.

The study, which was awarded the funding by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), could lay the groundwork for assessing whether genetically modified (GM) crops are more likely to cause food allergies than non-GM crops, the agency said - a question that many consumers have been asking.

More than 12m Americans suffer from a food allergy, or about four percent of the population, and the incidence of food allergies in the US has doubled over the past decade, according to the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network. Public concern about the possibility of allergies being triggered by GM crops has centered on inherent insect resistant traits in some GM plants, but scientists do not yet know what has caused the rapid rise in the number of allergy sufferers.

One of the researchers working on the study, associate professor at the University of Chicago Anne Sperling, told FoodNavigator-USA.com that she thinks it is unlikely that GM crops trigger more food allergies than non-GM crops, but added: "We don't understand allergy very well at all, so before we can understand genetically modified crops we have to understand food allergy better."

For now, the researchers are focusing on egg and peanut allergens by examining antibodies in mice that have gone through a process which gives them an allergy to the foods.

Sperling said that whereas other studies have examined an antibody called IgE, this study will also look at another antibody known as IgG, which binds to allergens, in an effort to better understand why some people's immune systems overreact to particular foods, resulting in an allergic reaction.

"IgE has been known for a long time to be linked to allergy because it's involved in the release of antihistamines. IgG has not been particularly looked at before," she said.

At present the only available treatment for food allergy is complete avoidance of the allergen - but the researchers hope that their work may help form the basis of an eventual treatment.

"The long term goal is to come up with a strategy for therapy or a biomarker for diagnosis," said Sperling, "But it's a long road which takes a lot of work."

According to the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, the most common allergies among children are cow's milk, eggs, peanuts, tree nuts, soybeans and wheat.

The most common allergies among adults are peanuts, tree nuts, fish, crustaceans, mollusks, fruits and vegetables.

---

Comment by TraceConsult™

So far, this article has not been published by FoodNavigator in Europe, only in the U.S. edition. American consumers - no, American public opinion - are strongly fixated on allergies, and in particular on food allergies.

It is interesting to see that scientists at the University of Chicago are now looking into the possibility of GMOs triggering allergies.

How long will it take until someone points out the contradiction between this type of laudable thinking and the artful tip-toeing around the precautionary system when the FDA "approved" the first GMOs in 1996?

Post-market food review highlights EU consumer priorities

FoodNavigator.com, 28 July 2009. By Lorraine Heller:
http://www.foodnavigator.com/Financial-Industry/Post-market-food-review-highlights-EU-consumer-priorities/?c=4UZvOL3vyw0HvmKm8IiTQw%3D%3D&utm_source=newsletter_daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Newsletter%2BDaily

A review of all new food and beverage product launches in Europe over the past year has revealed an increased focus on three top-of-the-mind consumer issues: The quest for all things natural, the need for speed, and the avoidance of allergens.

Data provided to FoodNavigator.com by market researcher Mintel indicates that these three priorities have jumped into the top 10 list of product claims, joining the likes of 'low fat' and 'low sugar', which have remained popular over the past five years.

The data, from Mintel's Global New Products Database (GNPD), has tracked just under 90,000 new food and beverage product launches in 2008 and 2009 to date, highlighting the 10 most frequently used claims.

Changes in the Top Ten

The changes observed in the top ten list over the past five years are a direct response of food companies to changes in consumer priorities and purchasing habits.

Between January 2008 and June 2009, GNPD tracked a total of 88,364 new food and beverage product launches throughout Europe. The most frequent claims made on these are (in descending order):

•

No additives/preservatives (13,441 products)

•

Organic (7,781)

•

Vegetarian (5,861)

•

Microwaveable (5,525)

•

Sugar (low/no/reduced) (5,467)

•

Fat (low/no/reduced) (5,330)

•

Premium (4,755)

•

Allergen (low/no/reduced) (4,653)

•

Time/Speed (3,864)

•

Gluten-free (3,398)

This compares to 41,023 new products launched between January 2003 and June 2004.

The most popular product claims made five years ago, in descending order, were: Fat (low/no/reduced); Premium; Microwaveable; No additives/preservatives; Vitamin/mineral fortified; Vegetarian; Children (5-12); Sugar (low/no/reduced); Organic; Calorie (low/no/reduced).

Geographical priorities

Overall, Mintel's GNPD tracked the highest number of new product launches over the past 18 months in the UK and Germany.

When it came to products claiming to contain no additives or preservatives, the UK recorded 3,465 new launches during the period, followed by Germany (2, 026), France (1,532) and Italy (1,132).

'Organic' was a claim most popular in Germany (2,180), followed by the UK (1,321), France (736) and Austria (573).

'Vegetarian' product launches were by far led by the UK (4,023), followed by Ireland (293), the Netherlands (272), and Germany (259).

'Microwaveable' appeared mainly in the UK (1,226), France (1,207), Germany (806) and Spain (445).

Jumping down the list to the category of 'Low/no/reduced allergen' claims, the UK again led with 1,039 launches. Next came Finland (532 products), Spain (521) and Germany (478).

'Gluten-free' claims were made mainly on products introduced in the UK (903), Spain (469), Germany (361) and the Netherlands (288).

'Time/speed' claims were made mostly in France (998), Italy (493), Germany (438) and Spain (394).

Source: Mintel's GNPD .

---

Comment by GM-free Ireland

The above article fails to mention another trend: GM-free labels on meat, poultry, fish and dairy produce from livestock fed on Non-GM feedstuffs, now widely sold by leading retailers and food brands across Europe. Moreover, these GM-free claims are backed by Government labelling regulations in Austria, Germany, Italy and (by the end of this year) also in France.

Indian Govt fabricated data on food production

Express News Service, 28 July 2009 :
http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/story.aspx?Title=%E2%80%98Indian+Govt+fabricated+data+on+food+production%E2%80%99&artid=HBHi/dm9D/Q=&SectionID=7GUA38txp3s=&MainSectionID=fyV9T2jIa4A=&SectionName=zkvyRoWGpmWSxZV2TGM5XQ==&SEO=

MYSORE: Environmental and Development activist, Vandana Shiva, on Monday, accused the Union Government of fabricating data on India's food production; especially when India ranks below a few conflict - plagued , drought-stricken Sub-Saharan African countries in the Global Hunger Index.

Delivering a lecture at the Mysore University's Foundation Day on "Future of India's food security" at Crawford Hall on Monday, Shiva said that the government has always projected a rosy picture on food production which, has been declining over the years. She said that multinational companies (MNC) now controlled production, supply of seeds and food security in the country.

"Erratic monsoon has hit food production in northern states of the country. The need of the hour is to focus on food security, ecological security, land, seeds and biodiversity to protect the interests of the farming community," she said.

'NREGA - a security to farmers'

Speaking on the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA), Shiva said self-employed farmers should also be provided with the security of minimum wages.

"Even the poor have a right to nutritious food. Security of food, water and seeds should be given to farmers.

They cannot be controlled by MNC's, markets and middlemen.

It is the government's duty to ensure affordable, adequate and nutritious food to all its citizens,from which self employed farmers cannot be excluded" she said.

Farmer suicides driven by MNCs

Shiva said that the issue of seeds was central to the mass suicide of farmers in various parts of the country. "The suicides began only after genetically engineered cotton seeds were supplied to cotton growers in Andhra Pradesh in 2002," she said.

MNCs like Monsanto produced genetically modified seeds and promised greater yields to farmers, she added.

"BT cotton from such seeds was cultivated in a 4 millionacre area in Vidharba -- a region of Maharashtra that witnessed 84 suicides due to crop loss.

Quoting from various studies, she stated that BT cotton has forced farmers to use pesticides by 30 folds making farming more expensive and thereby, leading them to debt and suicide.

Vandana Shiva strongly opposed the new land acquisition Act for special economic zones (SEZs).

"Countries in the West have begun outsourcing aluminium, iron and other polluting industries to India; when they themselves are closing these industries for environmental and financial reasons," she said. Shiva advocated the creation of a decentralised food supply system, supplemented with locally available food grains.

Defra trying to 'sneak GM trial under the radar' despite contamination health fears

Daily Mail [UK], 28 July 2009. By David Derbyshire:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1202511/Secret-GM-potato-crop-trials-begin-England-despite-contamination-health-fears.html?ITO=1490

Controversial trials of genetically modified crops have begun in 'secret' on a British farm, it emerged yesterday.

Locals were not told the GM potatoes - engineered to be resistant to pests - were planted earlier this year by Leeds University scientists.

Last year, environmental campaigners ripped up a field of identical plants on the same farm, causing £25,000 damage and wasting months of research work.

To reduce the risk of vandalism, scientists have surrounded the new experimental field with fencing and CCTV cameras.

Although details of the trial were published on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs website, locals were not told that the crop had been replanted.

Defra said its permission for the trial, granted for three years, remained valid and that the potatoes can be replanted without further notice.

It also said the potatoes would not be used for human or animal consumption and that they would be grown in a 'safe environment' with no risk of contamination.

But environmental campaigners warned that neighbouring farms could be put at risk from the GM experiment.

Clare Oxborrow, of Friends of the Earth, said: 'Defra clearly does not want people to known it is going on this year.

'This worries us because farmers, gardeners and people living nearby should know about it because of the risk of contaminating other plants. They are trying to slip it under the radar.'

The 400 potato plants are resistant to nematode worms - a pest that costs British farmers around £65 million a year.

GM scientists say the new strain could lead to a cut in chemical pesticide use.

The crop is growing next to plants that will be destroyed once the experiment is complete.

The field, near Tadcaster, North Yorkshire, will then be left fallow to reduce the risk of cross-pollination.

Vandals and eco-campaigners have destroyed almost all of the 54 attempts to grow experimental GM plants outdoors in the UK in the last five years.

A GM trial in Cambridgeshire was abandoned last year when trees were ripped up.

Defra said published details and map references of all GM experiments on its website and denied that it tried to keep people in the dark.

'We granted a three year consent to Leeds University in May 2008,' a spokesman said.

'The aim of the research is to test the field performance of the GM potatoes and the effectiveness of the nematode resistance mechanism.

'The Leeds University application was considered by the independent Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, which confirmed that the trial would not compromise human health or the environment.

'The GM potatoes won't be used for food or animal feed, and the statutory consent specifies precautionary conditions to ensure that GM material does not persist at the trial site after the trial.'

Last year Prof Howard Atkinson, who is leading the Leeds experiment, called for details of small-scale GM trials to be kept secret from the public.

He claimed it cost around £100,000 to install security fences and guards at a GM field trial.

The Government is keen to encourage more GM research in the UK.

Supporters of the technology say it will allow plants to be grown in arid and salty places where ordinary crops fail - and could prevent a worldwide food shortage in years to come.

GM potato trial back on track

Farmers Guardian [UK], 28 July 2009. By William Surman:
http://www.farmersguardian.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=27760

A TRIAL to develop genetically modified potatoes has recommenced to defy activists who vandalised the crop this time last year.

Scientists at Leeds University say the development of a nematode resistant potato could save the UK potato industry more than £50 million a year and benefit farmers worldwide. It could also pave the way for action against the pest in other crops, they said.

But because EU law requires the trial location to be disclosed on a public register, anti-GM protestors raided the area and destroyed the crop last May.

Despite warnings of a repeat performance from activists this time, 400 transgenic plants have been sown again into the small plot near Tadcaster in North Yorkshire.

"Potato cyst nematodes are serious pests and a major constraint to potato farmers," said Dr Peter Urwin from Leeds University after last year's vandalism.

He added the vandals were blinded by 'a failure to distinguish a research trial from product-development trials'.

The trial is now under the protection of fencing, CCTV and security guards.

Defra approved the trial last year after a green light from independent experts on the Advisory Committee of Releases to the Environment (ACRE).

A Defra spokesman said: "We granted a three-year consent to Leeds University in May 2008. The application was considered by the independent Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, which confirmed that the trial would not compromise human health or the environment.

"The GM potatoes won't be used for food or animal feed, and the statutory consent specifies precautionary conditions to ensure that GM material does not persist at the trial site after the trial."

However, Peter Riley from UK based GM Freeze said that Defra's approval to allow trials to go ahead was 'very unwise and unnecessary' and could lead to GM genes leaking into the natural environment.

27 July 2009

Monsanto GM Corn a Disaster in South Africa

Natural News, 27 July 2009. By David Gutierrez, staff writer:
http://www.naturalnews.com/026705_Monsanto_corn_GM_corn.html

Farmers in South Africa have reported an inexplicable failure to seed in three different varieties of corn genetically modified (GM) by the Monsanto Corporation.

"One can't see from the outside whether a plant is unseeded," said Kobus van Coller of Free State province. "One must open up the cob leaves to establish the problem."

The problems occurred only in corn engineered by Monsanto for increased yields or for resistance to the company's trademark herbicide, Roundup (glyphosate). Failure to seed has been documented in the provinces of Free State, Mpumalanga and North West.

According to Monsanto, the crop failure occurred due to "underfertilization processes in the laboratory," and has only been a problem in "less than 25 percent" of the seed from the three corn varieties.

Marian Mayet of the Africa Center for Biosecurity disputed the company's claims, however. According to her sources, some farms have experienced crop failures as high as 80 percent. She also expressed doubt over Monsanto's explanation for the problem, laying the blame instead on the GM technologies used to produce the seed.

"Monsanto says they just made a mistake in the laboratory, however we say that biotechnology is a failure," Mayet said. "You cannot make a 'mistake' with three different varieties of corn. We have been warning against GM-technology for years, we have been warning Monsanto that there will be problems."

Mayet called on the government to launch an investigation into the crop failures and to institute an immediate ban on the cultivation of all GM crops in South Africa.

South Africa was one of the first countries after the United States to adopt GM corn. Like the United States but unlike many European countries, South Africa does not require that GM ingredients be labeled as such on food packaging.

The South African grocery chain Woolworths imposed a ban on carrying any GM foods in 2000.

Sources for this story include: www.digitaljournal.com.

Seed of the crisis

DNA India, July 27 2009. By Kavitha Kuruganti:
http://www.dnaindia.com/opinion/main-article_seed-of-the-crisis_1277714

The US and India are back at it again. This time around, it is not the spectre of a looming famine in Bihar that is expected to kill thousands through starvation but global hunger and malnutrition, for which India and USA will collaborate to provide leadership in agriculture to raise crop yields.

Never mind that India has record buffer stocks of food grains right now and still more people sleep hungry in India than ever before and that India ranks 66th on the Global Hunger Index for 88 countries.

Never mind that intensive agriculture models led to more farmers killing themselves than the projected numbers of starvation before the Green Revolution was ushered in or that Punjab for example, the seat of the Green Revolution in India, is reeling under a severe environmental health crisis quite closely connected to agricultural technologies deployed in the name of increasing yields.

The first time around, they said that they were trying to get away from the ship to mouth existence that is being imposed by the Americans on us through PL 480 food aid programmes -- and whose help did they take to get away from the American intrusions? The Americans themselves!

It is interesting to see how American leaders make it a point to include agriculture into their agenda during their India visits. George W Bush decided to stop over at the agriculture university in Hyderabad and Hillary Clinton at the Indian Agricultural Research Institute, Pusa. For a country which has only 1.9 per cent of its labour force working in agriculture and a mere 0.7 per cent of total GDP contributed by agriculture (2002), why this American interest in Indian agriculture?

The answer possibly lies in potential huge markets held in the seeds and food processing sectors. In India, this market is emerging in an impressive fashion. In the global seed market estimated at $30 bn, India already has a large market worth $1 bn. The domestic seed market, especially of hybrid seeds, is expected to grow at an impressive growth rate of 13 per cent at least. In the food processing and retail sector, the Indian urban food market is expected to form a major chunk of the $50-bn-mark retail market in India in the near future.

Clinton's speech at Pusa Institute made a clear mention of seeds and food processing as the sectors where investment will go. Interestingly, the second green revolution in this country, with the help of the Indo-US Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture (KIA) is supposed to be ushered in under the guidance of corporations like Monsanto and Wal-Mart which are on the KIA board. How investment on food processing would increase productivity of our food grains is an unanswered question, of course.

There is also mention of "cutting edge technologies" to raise crop yields and Clinton affirmed with authority that crop productivity was the 'root' of the problem of world hunger.

No mention at all of food lands going for bio-fuels, no mention about food grains being used for cattle feed and building inefficient food chains, no mention of the shocking wastage of food in the developed world not at the grain level but of processed foods, which would have already consumed much energy in their processing and packaging.

Nor any mention of overflowing granaries in India continuing to mock at the poor in the country who cannot access such food.

While Clinton is reported to have avoided the use of "GM" as the frontier technology, given the vast controversy over it, our agriculture minister was more forthright. He opined that collaboration in frontier areas like biotechnology would make a significant contribution to the world!

What our leaders don't seem to realise is that there are vast differences not just in conditions of farming in the USA and in India but in the very philosophies and outlook towards agriculture. India for instance opposes patents on life forms in international forums while the USA and its corporations seek to patent everything that they can.

The rigid patent regimes in the USA have led to hundreds of farmers sued and/or jailed for doing something that they have done for millennia -- saving their seed! Who is India listening to, on world hunger and the way out?

It would be extremely unwise for our leaders to provide ready platforms and markets for profit-hungry US corporations in the name of food crisis, world hunger, second green revolution and climate change.

If the government is keen on tackling the food crisis, it would do well to evolve a deeper understanding of both food production and access related issues, take up a comprehensive analysis of the Green Revolution and then chart out an Indian course of action. In this hundredth year of "Hind Swaraj", our modern day leaders would do well to revisit Gandhiji's vision.

Honey bees keep disappearing in colonies

TRT World, 27 July 2009:
Honey bees keep disappearing in colonies

Bees, which are vital for agricultural production, are under threat of total extinction.

A UN report revealed that honey bees could be wiped out in Europe within 10 years time if the disappearing continues at the current pace.

Scientists have been searching for the reasons of honey bee colony collapses. Bees perform a vital function in the ecological system as agents of pollination for a vast range of plants, many of which are important human foodstuffs.

Without bees, much of agriculture would be impossible, and Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) is a phenomenon in which worker bees leave the hive, and the colony dies after a short while.

Global warming, radiation that is emitted form mobile phone base stations, environmental pollution and chemicals used in agriculture are among the main reasons that are thought to have caused the CCD.

Addition to that, genetically modified plants are also suspected to poison bees during pollination.

Considering the rising demand for food, disappearing honey bees would trigger a food crisis in future.

EU to accept GM foods eventually?

Southwest Farm Press [USA], 27 July 2009:
http://southwestfarmpress.com/grains/genetic-engineering-0727/

An internationally recognized genetics researcher who visited the LSU AgCenter Rice Research Station said he is confident that the European Union eventually will accept genetically modified foods. But in the meantime, he is focusing his work on third-world countries.

Dr. Paul Christou of the University of Lleida in Spain said he has been part of a team that works to introduce genes into corn, causing the plant to produce higher levels of multiple nutrients.

He said many Africans will not eat yellow corn that has higher levels of nutrients, preferring less nutritious white corn. But because they will eat processed corn that has been colored, he set out to genetically engineer a dark colored corn containing increased levels of important vitamins and minerals such as vitamin C, beta carotene and folate.

Rice also can be fortified through genetic engineering, Christou said.

Christou said the European Union has decided to ban fungicides on wheat in five years.

"I suspect that in several years, there won't be many wheat farmers in Europe," he said.

A genetically engineered corn has the potential to produce a substance that could be used to prevent the transmission of the AIDS virus, Christou said. But he said resistance against transgenic crops has prevented it from being studied fully.

Opponents of transgenic crops have yet to show proof of any ill effects from genetic engineering after millions of acres of transformed crops have been grown, said LSU AgCenter plant pathologist Dr. Chuck Rush. China and South American countries are introducing genetically engineered crops, he said.

Christou said increased acceptance of genetically engineered foods in the rest of the world could make Europe "an island."

"This is going to happen sooner or later," he said.

In the meantime, Christou said, groups such as Greenpeace are relying on emotion and unsound scientific arguments to oppose transgenics.

Ironically, Christou said, the European Union will allow transgenic cattle feed but not transgenic food for humans.

---

Comment by GM-free Ireland:

It was legal action by Greenpeace which secured a German court ruling that forced Monsanto to diclose the secret data from its own favourable risk assessment of MON863 GM maize a few years ago. This was the first time in history that such data were made public for independent peer review. Re-evaluating the data in 2007, scientists at the CRIIGEN group in France found that Monsanto covered up its own evidence that the GM maize causes liver and kidney damage. See "Preliminary CRIIGEN report on the first public investigation of the crude data in MON 863 Toxicity" at http://www.criigen.org/content/view/118/47/. The final CRIIGEN report "New analysis of a rat feeding study with a genetically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity" was then published in the American journal Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, edited by Dr. Doerge from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). You can dowload the report here: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/health/SeraliniPaper2007.pdf.

Guess Who's Controlling Our Food Supply

The Huffington Post [USA], 27 July 2009. By Rob Smart:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-smart/guess-whos-controlling-ou_b_245431.html

It's no secret that I have a difficult time accepting genetically modified (GM) foods at face value. My primary concerns have to do with what we know, and, more importantly don't know about how this "promising" technology may or may not be impacting human health and our environment.

For those who prefer to avoid serving as human lab rats, myself included, our non-GM food options, according to advocates of GM food, boil down to eating USDA Certified Organic, which do not allow any genetically modified seed or crops to be used on such labeled food products. Their idea of severely limiting consumer choice, since they are adamantly opposed to "GMO Inside" labeling, goes against their own argument of freedom to choose, which also goes against the very fabric of what makes America's version of capitalism work so well.

I couldn't imagine the situation getting much worse, but it just did.

The latest issue of Scientific American Magazine includes the chilling article "Do Seed Companies Control GM Crop Research?" The magazine's editors take readers beyond initial "government" approval of GM food, which reportedly utilized industry-sponsored research rather than independent government research, to the current state of independent research on genetically modified seeds and crops:

"Unfortunately, it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised. That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers.

It would be chilling enough if any other type of company were able to prevent independent researchers from testing its wares and reporting what they find--imagine car companies trying to quash head-to-head model comparisons done by Consumer Reports, for example. But when scientists are prevented from examining the raw ingredients in our nation's food supply or from testing the plant material that covers a large portion of the country's agricultural land, the restrictions on free inquiry become dangerous."

It is hard to understand how a handful of companies have amassed so much control over food ingredients found in an estimated 75 percent of processed foods in America's supermarkets. Making matters worse, and as the Scientific American editors point out, we are talking about a basic physiological need -- food, which joins water, shelter and a handful of other needs defined by Abraham Maslow in his hierarchy of needs.

Without extensive independent research on GM foods on how they impact human health and the environment, the distinct possibility exists that we're setting ourselves up for significant and potentially irreversible problems down the line.

To keep the mainstream in check, we get slick multimillion dollar advertising campaigns from company's like Monsanto claiming they have the solution to feed the estimated 9 billion people expected on the planet in the not to distant future, among other claims. Who cares if these claims have not been independently verified. Who cares if the Union of Concerned Scientists have released a report on GM crop yields debunking industry claims of significant yield improvements:

"Despite 20 years of research and 13 years of commercialization, genetic engineering has failed to significantly increase U.S. crop yields."

The ongoing debate is not about stopping public relations (PR) efforts by these companies. Companies market products and there's nothing inherently wrong with that. Nor is it about whether I or anyone else thinks GM foods are good or bad. Making such claims today are mostly opinion, since independent research is not available to properly inform discussions.

The debate needs to be about how our regulatory structure has sold out to industry, which is represented by a highly concentrated, centralized power structure that controls our conventional food system. It needs to be about holding the food system and our government accountable. Most important, it needs to demand companies and the government do what is right, just and fair.

We are a long way from that, it would seem, which is why initiatives like Pro Food and Slow Money are gaining steam. These efforts actively engage everyday citizens in developing and supporting transparent sustainable food systems, building on unique competitive advantages in comparison with today's industrial food system players.

Let's just hope that a sustainable food economy is not far behind.

Call for GM crop 'ceasefire'

The Herald [Plymouth, UK], 27 July 2009:
http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/regional/Ministers-urged-GM-crop-trial-ceasefire/article-1196750-detail/article.html

A "CEASEFIRE" should be called between ministers and anti-GM protesters to allow trials to go ahead unhindered.

Campaigners, farming leaders and MPs insist the stand-off with opponents of genetically modified food is limiting the ability of scientists to prove whether or not GM crops are safe to eat.

Labour ministers have previously hit out at protesters following a "messianic mission" and behaving as if opposition to the technology is a "religion".

Members of the environment select committee have now urged the Government to "negotiate a ceasefire" on the destruction of GM crop trials so that more facts can be established.

Under existing EU rules, scientists must publish on a website the location of any GM trials.

But the measure has made it easy for opponents to destroy the crops, including three trial sites in Dorset where forage maize and oilseed rape were targeted. Other sites in the region were withdrawn and most recently, on a farm near Leeds, 400 potato plants were pulled up.

However, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has revealed in the past few days that the Leeds trial has been restarted with increased security.

Michael Jack, chairman of the environment select committee, said: "We agree that there are risks and uncertainties involved in GM technology, but this seems like an argument for further research, rather than an argument for dismissing GM technology out of hand. We believe that the potential of GM technology in the context of sustainable food production should be explored further."

He added Defra has a role to play "not only in commissioning some of the research, but in gaining public trust".

Environment Secretary Hilary Benn has admitted it is "a source of real frustration to me and to others that there are some who do not want to allow us even to find the answer to the question" of whether GM crops are safe.

He said the Government is responsible for addressing two questions: "One, is food produced by GM safe to eat - and I know of no evidence that it is not.

"And, secondly, is it safe to grow - in other words what is the environmental impact of it?"

He added that "in order to be able to answer the second question you need to be able to do trials".

The Government's chief scientific adviser, Professor John Beddington, stressed it is not a matter of thinking GM technology was either "good or bad", but a question of whether GM technology could solve the problem of how to produce sufficient food in the future.

"Proponents of GM who claim it is the only answer, I believe, are incorrect, but it may well be part of an answer to a number of very difficult problems," he said.

Peter Kendall, president of the National Farmers' Union, said if the Government was more involved in the GM debate "there might be less cynicism and less ability to say this is all about the private sector chasing short-term greed at the expense of the wider environment".

The NFU in the South West has long argued that shoppers will buy into GM technology "as they begin to see the benefits which will come through, particular on medical capabilities".

However, opponents of developing GM technology remain dismissive of the idea of a ceasefire.

One campaigner, Anthony Jackson, told MPs: "It is still amazing that after a quarter of a century of failure some people still seem to need to peddle the nonsense that GM crops can play any part in solving any of the problems that we have concerning food and farming."

The Soil Association also expressed strong opposition to GM food, claiming technology holds "inherent uncertainty" and "inherent risk".

GM potato trial sparks controversy

Farmers Weekly [UK], 27 July 2009. By Jonathan Riley:
http://www.fwi.co.uk/Articles/2009/07/27/116862/gm-potato-trial-sparks-controversy.html

A genetically modified potato trial, replanted a year after it was trashed by environmentalists, has once again become embroiled in controversy.

Anti-GM campaigners claimed DEFRA allowed the University of Leeds to replant the nematode-resistant potatoes without first notifying the public.

Clare Oxborrow, food campaigner at Friends of the Earth, told a national newspaper that DEFRA was "trying to slip it under the radar".

"DEFRA clearly does not want people to know it is going on this year. This worries us because farmers, gardeners and people living nearby should know about it because of the risk of contaminating other plants with an untested GM product," she told The Daily Telegraph.

She also claimed that an antibiotic-resistant gene used in the potato could have potential health implications if it escaped.

But DEFRA insisted it had followed protocol and the trial was safe.

"The university was granted a three-year consent to conduct a research trial on GM potatoes in May 2008, after the application was considered by the independent Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment.

"The committee confirmed that the trial would not compromise human health or the environment.

"The potatoes in the trial will not be used for food or animal feed, and the consent contains conditions to ensure GM material does not persist at the site after the trial," the spokeswoman said.

A university official insisted the trial could help boost the industry and feed people.

"While we are aware of the public interest in this issue, it is vital that any debate is based on scientific fact rather than speculation and our academics have an important contribution to make in this respect," he said.

The university is taking no chances with this year's trial - security guards and CCTV will keep watch over the 400 potato plants which have been surrounded by fencing.

GM Crop Trials Start Again in Britain in 'Secret': Report

Agence France Presse [via CommonDreams.org] 27 July 2009:
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/07/27-2

[Photo illustration of potatoes. Genetically modified crops are being grown in Britain for the first time in 12 months after controversial trials were resumed without alerting the public, a newspaper reported Monday. (AFP/File/Omar Torres)]

LONDON - Genetically modified crops are being grown in Britain for the first time in 12 months after controversial trials were resumed without alerting the public, a newspaper reported Monday.

Cultivation of a field of potatoes designed to be resistant to pests was abandoned more than a year ago when environmental protesters ripped up the crop, the Daily Telegraph said.

But, without alerting the public, the project near Tadcaster in northern England has been restarted, prompting warnings from green groups that local farms and residents could be put at risk, the newspaper said.

One group accused the government of trying to "slip it under the radar."

The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said the potatoes would be grown in a safe environment, where there is no risk of contamination. They would not be used for human or animal consumption, it said.

The trial, run by Leeds University, is looking at potatoes that are resistant to a parasite worm that costs British farmers millions of pounds a year in lost and damaged crops.

Genetically-modified crops have a gene, or genes, inserted into them in the lab so that they acquire traits that are useful to farmers.

They are widely grown in North America, South America and China.

But in Europe they have run into fierce resistance, led by green groups who say the crops carry risks through cross-pollination, potentially creating "super-weeds" that are impervious to herbicides.

Only a handful of genetically modified crops have been approved for cultivation in the European Union, but of them only MON810, approved in 1998, is so far being grown.

France this month rejected a report by the European Union's food safety watchdog that said a controversial strain of genetically-modified corn was safe.

GM crops being grown in Britain
• Genetically-modified crops are being grown in Britain for the first time in a year after controversial trials of the plants were "secretly" restarted.

The Telegraph [UK], 27 July 2009. By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/agriculture/farming/5912012/GM-crops-being-grown-in-Britain.html

Cultivation of a field of potatoes designed to be resistant to pests were abandoned over a year ago when environmental protesters ripped up the crop

But, without alerting the public as is usual when such trials begin, the project has been restarted, prompting environmental groups to warn that local farms and nearby residents could be put at risk.

The 400 plants in the field, near Tadcaster in North Yorkshire, were removed just weeks after planting in May 2008 as a result of damage caused by unidentified environmentalists.

However, the Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs maintains that the original permission for the trial to begin - granted for three years - remains valid and the crops can be replanted without giving further notice.

Campaigners accused ministers of trying to "slip it under the radar" and warned the trial could affect human health.

Defra said the potatoes, that will not be used for human or animal consumption, will be grown in a safe environment where there is no risk of contamination. The potatoes will be grown next to plants that will later be destroyed and the whole area will be left fallow for some years after the trial.

Fencing, CCTV cameras and guards will protect the crops from being ripped up again.

Almost all of the 54 GM crop trials which have been conducted since 2000 have been targeted by opponents and vandalised. A trial in Cambridgeshire was also abandoned last year when trees were uprooted.

However ministers are being lobbied by biotechnology companies and support for GM is growing again as experts warn of food shortages caused by the growing population and climate change.

The Leeds University trial is looking at potatoes that are resistant to a microscopic parasitic worm, the nematode, which costs British farmers £65m per year.

However Clare Oxborrow, food campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said an antibiotic resistant gene used in the potato could have potential health implications if it escapes. She was also concerned about pollen being blown into neighbouring fields.

"Defra clearly does not want people to know it is going on this year. This worries us because farmers, gardeners and people living nearby should know about it because of the risk of contaminating other plants with an untested GM product," she said.

"They are trying to slip it under the radar."

However a Defra spokesman insisted all the trials that are given permission are published online.

"The Leeds University application was considered by the independent Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, which confirmed the trial would not compromise human health or the environment," she said.

"The GM potatoes won't be used for food or animal feed, and the statutory consent specifies precautionary conditions to ensure that GM material does not persist at the trial site after the trial."

A University of Leeds spokesman insisted the trial could help boost industry and feed people.

"While we are aware of the public interest in this issue, it is vital that any debate is based on scientific fact rather than speculation and our academics have an important contribution to make in this respect," he said.

Under current EU rules, scientists have to publish the map reference for every GM field trial. However ministers are understood to be reviewing the rules so more trials can go ahead without threat of disruption.

---

NOTE: A reminder of the issues and concerns around the trial:
http://www.gmfreeze.org/page.asp?id=343&iType=1079

Genetically modified potato crop trial resumes

Reuters, 27 July 2009:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE56Q35F20090727?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews

LONDON (Reuters) - A crop trial of genetically engineered potatoes has resumed in northern Britain, a year after the trial was abandoned when protesters ripped up plants.

"We granted a three-year consent," a government official told Reuters on Monday. "The trial has been resumed. It's perfectly allowed," she added, denying a report in The Daily Telegraph that the resumption of the trial was "in secret."

The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) granted a three-year consent to Leeds University in May 2008 to test the field performance of the genetically modified potatoes against pests.

But the 400 plants in the field, near Tadcaster in North Yorkshire, were removed just weeks after planting in May 2008 as a result of damage caused by protesters, The Daily Telegraph reported.

The GM potatoes would not be used for food or animal feed, and the statutory consent specifies precautionary conditions to ensure that genetically modified material does not persist at the trial site after the trial, Defra said.

(Reporting by David Brough; editing by Sue Thomas)

25 July 2009

Monsanto, a Contemporary East India Company, and Corporate Knowledge in India

Dissident Voice [USA], 25 July 2009. By Kamalakar Duvvuru:
http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/07/monsanto-a-contemporary-east-india-company-and-corporate-knowledge-in-india/

Economic growth, large technical workforce and lower research costs in India are attracting Research and Development (R&D) investment from multinational corporations (MNCs), particularly in agri-business. In the OECD economies, agri-business is the second most profitable industry, after pharmaceuticals. Contributing to its profitability is rapid development in biotechnology.

The Indian Biotechnology sector is gaining global visibility and is being picked for emerging investment opportunities. India has 40 state agriculture universities, five deemed universities, one central agricultural university and more than 200 agricultural colleges. These institutions produce about 14,000 graduates and 7,800 postgraduate and Ph.D. scholars every year.

With Monsanto's progress in European markets frozen, growing economies like India and their markets took on greater significance. The company urgently needed to expand the market for its GM crops internationally. Monsanto's agriculture division had already begun to focus on Asian, African and Latin American markets in the early 1990s, towards the goal of "transforming agriculture" in a number of countries, a target that became known as the "developing country goal". Monsanto's commercial vision has been projected as a benevolent vision for the world. When Robert Shapiro was appointed as Monsanto's new Chief Executive Officer (CEO) in 1995, he engaged in a program to reorient the company's business around "sustainability". He linked the urgent need to grow enough food to feed a growing population with "inadequate" existing technologies and agricultural practices. So Monsanto's "sustainability" vision, it is claimed, could be realized through GM technology.

Monsanto India (MI), which began its operations in 1949 as a trader of industrial chemicals and later an agrochemical company in 1975 with the launch of the herbicide, Machete (butachlor), has evolved into an agribusiness giant of GM seeds. The Monsanto research centre established at Indian Institute of Sciences (IISc), Bangalore in 1998 is the only R&D centre established outside the US.

The foundation for Monsanto to tap into the research potential of students as well as the research facilities available in Indian universities was laid by a trade agreement between India and the United States, known as the Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture (KIA) or Agricultural Knowledge Initiative (AKI). This trade deal was influenced by Monsanto, Archer Daniels Midland Company and Wal-Mart.

Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture (KIA)

The India-US Agreement on Agriculture and Science and Technology emerged from a joint statement by Dr. Manmohan Singh, Prime Minister of India, and George W. Bush, then US President, on July 18, 2005. This far-reaching bilateral pronouncement was the genesis of the Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture (KIA). Later, in March 2006 Singh and Bush signed a joint declaration on enhanced cooperation in agricultural education and research. This cooperation is based on the KIA.

The KIA is implemented through KIA Board, which consists of US and Indian members from government, universities, and the private sector. Dr. Norman Borlaug and Dr. M.S. Swaminathan are honorary advisors for the KIA. The US private sector members are: Monsanto, the largest seller of GM seeds in the world; Archer Daniels Midland, a US grain purchaser and trader and is, with Cargill, one of the companies that maintains "oligopolistic control of the American food-manufacturing and food-processing markets"; and Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer.

The Board has decided to focus initially on four core areas: agricultural education, food processing and marketing, biotechnology and water management.1 "The KIA is part of the US comprehensive strategy on revitalizing the bilateral relationship in agriculture with India," said Susan Owens, director of the FAS Research and Scientific Exchanges Division. A key feature of KIA is university-business partnership. Owen stated: "We want to broaden the scope of the AKI beyond just research... We want to use the AKI to increase agricultural production in India..." [2] That means, industry helps in not only reshaping the universities' curricula, but also identifying research areas that have the potential for rapid commercialization.1 This new Knowledge Initiative required development of "effective policy, regulatory, and institutional frameworks." [1] As Owen said, "The AKI aims to promote science and technology to create a sound regulatory environment that promotes investment and trade." [2]

The KIA Board discussed rights (Intellectual Property Rights) to products that the research in public-funded universities will develop. US land-grant universities and industry representatives are asked to help reshape the curricula of Agricultural education. Some of suggested new courses were in entrepreneurship development, agribusiness, biotechnology, international trade, patent regimes and environmental science in various disciplines. Under KIA endowment of industry-sponsored chairs in Indian universities are allowed.

However, there is fear that India's Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights Act could face threats under US pressure. Along with multinationals such as Monsanto, the US has been lobbying for a change in India's intellectual property laws, to introduce patents on seeds and genes and dilute the provisions protecting farmers' rights. Vandana Shiva, a physicist and environmentalist, said,

"The Science and Technology Cooperation Agreement between the US and India establishes intellectual property protocols of research, bypassing consultation with Indian scientists and the Indian public which has been resisting IPR regimes that force countries to patent life, and create monopolies on seeds, medicine and software... For us, these agreements are instruments of corporate dictatorship; they are not instruments of democracy. And as dictatorship, they will fuel more anger, more discontent, more frustration." [3]

The Protection and Utilization of Public Funded Intellectual Property Bill 2008

Yielding to the pressures of both the US government and the MNCs such as Monsanto, the Indian government introduced in the Parliament a controversial legislation titled "The Protection and Utilization of Public Funded Intellectual Property Bill 2008". The Bill is modeled on the US' 1980 Bayh-Dole Act. It provides for the protection and utilization of intellectual property originating from public-funded research. It would alter the existing IP rules to allow government funded universities and autonomous research institutions, rather than the government, to patent their innovations and research outcomes, and to reward institutions and inventors with a share of the royalties and licensing fees generated from the commercial products that result. [4] It also recommends universities to have a committee, called an intellectual property management committee, to "identify, assess, document and protect public funded intellectual property having commercial potential." The objective of the IP Bill, it is claimed, is to create an environment in which wealth can be generated from the university system, stimulate national competitiveness, and forge closer academia-industry partnerships.

The IP Bill has attracted considerable debate due to its perceived and potential adverse impact on the R&D, innovation and public interest. [5] Pushpa Bhargava, who resigned in 2007 as vice-chairman of National Knowledge Commission, an Indian government advisory body that recommended the Bill, says that there was no major open discussion at the commission and he was "taken aback" by the recommendation. The IP Bill also goes against the National Knowledge Commission's policy objectives of promoting, sharing and using new knowledge to maximize public good.

Supporters of the Bill, mostly government officials and some section of industry argued that "protection of IP creates incentive for more knowledge and technology generation as innovators are recognized and rewarded." [6] Officials from India's Department of Biotechnology, which helped draft the bill, say that the Bill will promote innovation in Indian universities and research institutes by generating funds through patents. According to Somenath Ghosh, managing director of India's National Research Development Corporation, it has brought "much-needed change," as "there was no mechanism or incentive to protect knowledge and their research networks have limited interaction with industry."

IP Legislation and Corporate Knowledge

Since "The Protection and Utilization of Public Funded Intellectual Property Bill 2008" is modeled on the 1980 US' Bayh-Dole Act, the latter's impact on US universities imparts some important lessons to Indian academia.

Jim Patrico gives three reasons for bringing US public universities and private companies closer [7] :

1. Stagnant levels of public research funding by the Federal Government for agriculture research since 1980s. In 2008 National Budget under George Bush, surprisingly there was nearly one third cut in the public funding for agriculture research at the land grant institutions. This seems to be the government's strategy to gradually eliminate regular public research funding. Giving the rationale for the massive reduction in grants, a USDA deputy secretary said, "We feel like our agricultural research should not be earmarked; it should be competitively awarded, and that's how you're going to get the most bang for the buck."

Due to increase in cost of research, universities had to find their own ways to raise the extra amount of money from outside sources such as big companies. Because of its partnership with Monsanto, University of Missouri was nicknamed "University of Monsanto."

2. The 1980's US Bayh-Dole Act, which gave US universities, for the first time, ownership of patents arising from government funded research.

3. The 1980 US Supreme Court verdict that life forms could be patented. This made agriculture a prime target for patents. Private industry and universities mainly focused on the promising field of biotechnology. Patrico notes, "Within months of that Supreme Court decision, faculty members of UC-Davis created Calgene, a private company and one of the first biotech companies of the chute."

Although the university-corporate relationship existed even before 1980, Boyh-Dole Act gave public institutions a kick towards the market by encouraging them to patent their public funded research. A shift in universities' research focus towards creation of marketable products has dawned. The habit of patenting their research has developed a taste for private business deals. This put the public funded institutions in a conundrum, because they no longer existed as "public" institutions. Paul Gepts, professor of agronomy and plant genetics at UC Davis, says, "Public universities are a contradiction." [7]

Patenting of research and university-industry alliance raise troublesome questions about academic freedom, the purity of research, and research agendas. Patenting of research necessitates confidentiality. Agricultural universities and research centers become no longer places of open academic sharing and collaboration. William Folk, a plant geneticist at the University of Missouri says, "When I started in the 70s, meetings were filled with people criticizing each other and sharing ideas... (But today) if you have an idea that has any potential commercial value, you are reluctant to share." [7] Thus, colleagues are seen as potential competitors.

Moreover, scientists who perform industry-sponsored research routinely sign agreements requiring them to keep both the methods and the results of their work confidential for a certain period of time. As biotech and pharmaceutical companies involve more in funding research, confidentiality becomes very important for the funding company. From a company's point of view, confidentiality may be necessary to prevent potential competitors from pilfering ideas. However, one of the basic tenets of science is open sharing of ideas and information. That is why Steven Rosenberg, cancer researcher of the National Cancer Institute, says, "The ethics of business and the ethics of science do not mix well."

There is also genuine fear that university-corporate relationship might lead to tampering the research manuscripts to serve corporate commercial interests. In 1996 four researchers working on a study of calcium channel blockers accused their sponsor Sandoz that passages highlighting the drug's potential dangers were removed from a draft manuscript. They wrote in a letter to the Journal of the American Medical Association: "We believed that the sponsor... was attempting to wield undue influence on the nature of the final paper. This effort was so oppressive that we felt it inhibited academic freedom." [7]

As the research in the public institutions is market-driven, there is a potential danger that the research focus or agenda of universities converge with corporate agendas and interests. The one possibly negative impact of research collaboration with industry is the impact on public sector research priorities. Major victim will be the "minor crops", which are commercially not profitable for the companies. Market-driven research also suppresses ideas that may not have immediate commercial value. Organic farming will get affected for lack of not only public funds, but also enthusiasm among agricultural researchers. Students, who wish to pursue their research in organic farming, will face a bleak future.

University-Corporation relationship gives legitimacy to the company and its products. The company can use this legitimacy to promote its products. In 2007, Monsanto gave royalty-free license of its GM papaya seeds to the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, India. License will be valid for ten years and royalty will be decided thereafter. "This is the first product delivery from Monsanto to the university, and Monsanto has been working on this for the past year," said Bhagirath Choudhary, National Coordinator, International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications that assists universities acquire technology from private companies. [8] The reason for the collaboration between the university and Monsanto was that famers buy papaya seeds from the university.

Therefore, IP law makes public funded universities and research centers excessively focus on income generation and sharing of royalties. This may derail public funded academic institutions from their mission of unqualified pursuit and public dissemination of truth and knowledge. The university serves the broad public interest, to the extent that it treasures informed analysis, critical inquiry and uncompromising standards of intellectual integrity. However, university-industry alliance converts these public centers of knowledge into centers to serve the greed of private companies. However, Rob Hersch, Monsanto's vice president of product and technology cooperation, disagrees. He says, "The No.1 issue for us with universities and with science is to get good information... unbiased, believable, reproducible information." [7] Ignacio Chapela, a UC-Berkeley professor of microbial ecology, admits that a deal between university and company "institutionalizes the university's relationship with one company, whose interest is profit. Our role should be to serve the public good." [9] Therefore, there is a real danger of "business of the universities" becoming business. Consequentially, the knowledge of universities will help widen the gap between the rich and the poor by providing knowledge that helps rich to become richer, rather than bridging the gap between the rich and the poor. So, research will be geared towards making profit for the big corporations.

Thus, university education system is converted to essentially profit making commercial enterprise. It is structured like any other commercial enterprise that looks primarily at its bottom line. A deeper analysis of nature, which has no immediate commercial market, is now being downgraded in favor of what the industry considers as "lucrative" research. It shifts research priorities away from what society needs as a whole to the greed of the corporations. Science is no longer for advancing knowledge and the well-being of society but almost entirely for generating profits for the educational enterprise, and consequently to the funding corporations. Professor Steve Rose of UK's Open University, succinctly puts it,

"Well I think there is a very real problem from the point of view of university research in the way that private companies have entered the university, both with direct companies in the universities and with contracts to university researchers. So that in fact the whole climate of what might be open and independent scientific research has disappeared, the old idea that universities were a place of independence has gone. Instead of which one's got secrecy, one's got patents, one's got contracts and one's got shareholders."

Stifling downstream R&D, hindering free scientific exchange of scientific information, data and materials and increasing opportunities for conflict of interest and other unethical practices not consistent with the best interests of science is not the way to go.

In India Monsanto has started country-wide campaign to attract research talent into the development of hybrid rice and wheat. For this, it has linked with some of the country's premier universities and research institutes. In 2009 Monsanto announced $10 million grant to establish Monsanto's Beachell-Borlaug International Scholars Program (MBBISP) to improve research on breeding techniques for rice and wheat. The program will be administered by Texas AgriLife Research, and agency of the Texas A&M University system, for the next five years. What is alarming is not that agribusiness giant Monsanto is seeking answers from the Indian public funded universities and research institutions. It is that Monsanto is the one asking the questions at Indian public funded institutions. As Andrew Neighbour, former administrator at Washington University in St. Louis, who managed the university's multiyear and multimillion dollar relationship with Monsanto, admits, "There's no question that industry money comes with strings. It limits what you can do, when you can do it, who it has to be approved by." [7] This raises the question: if Agribusiness giant Monsanto is funding the research, will Indian agricultural researchers pursue such lines of scientific inquiry as "How will this new rice or wheat variety impact the Indian farmer, or health of Indian public?" The reality is, Monsanto is funding the research not for the benefit of either Indian farmer or public, but for its profit. It is paying researchers to ask questions that it is most interested in having answered.

Now, the basic role of the public funded agricultural institutions and research centers in a democratic society is at risk. The new developments in India are vehicles to empower food giants such as Monsanto, destroy small farmers, and harm the public health. In 1970 Henry Kissinger said: "Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control people." [10] What we are witnessing in India today are developments towards that end, under the disguise of "food security." Concentrating control in the hands of the US Agbusiness company Monsanto (and few others) places Indian public at risk, and leads to its control of India, as the British East India Company did.

References

1. Dinesh C. Sharma, "Preparing for New Challenges," Span, March/April 2007.

2. Julia Debes, "U.S.-India Agricultural Cooperation: A New Beginning," FAS Worldwide, September 2006.

3. Rahul Goswami, "A Bargain-Basement Knowledge 'Mandi'," InfoChange News &Features, August 2006.

4. Rahul Vartak and Manish Saurashtri, "The Indian Version of Bayh-Dole Act," Intellectual Asset Management, March/April 2009.

5. "The Indian Public Funded IP Bill: Are We Ready?" Indian J Med Res, 128, December 2008, 682-685.

6. Sharad Pawar, India's Union Minister for Agriculture, at Conference of Vice-Chancellors of Agricultural Universities, New Delhi, February 16-17, 2009.

7.Jim Patrico, "Universities for Sale?" Progressive Farmer, November 2001.

8. Padmaparna Ghosh, "Monsanto's Gift to Tamil Nadu University: GM Papaya Licence," livemint.com,india, October 24, 2007.

9. Eyal Press and Jennifer Washburn, "The Kept University," The Atlantic Monthly, 285/3, March 2000, 39-54.

10. Stephen Lendman, "Destroying America's Family Farm: HR 2749. A Stealth Agribusiness Empowering Act," Global Research, June 12, 2009.

Kamalakar Duvvuru teaches the New Testament in India with an objective of promoting peace, justice, unity and love. He can be reached at: kamalakar.duvvur@gmail.com. Read other articles by Kamalakar, or visit Kamalakar's website.

Quick, quiet genetic corn approval questioned

Montreal Gazette [Canada], 25 July 2009:
http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/Quick+quiet+genetic+corn+approval+questioned/1829307/story.html

MONTREAL - The Canadian Food Inspection Agency has quietly approved a new genetically engineered corn with eight different insect- and weed-fighting traits, but farmer and environmental groups in Canada say the approval was rushed and environmental risks ignored.

Developed through a research agreement between Monsanto and Dow AgroSciences, SmartStax corn is unique in that it "stacks" eight different genetically engineered traits that will allow corn to tolerate certain weed- and insect-killing products made by the two companies.

Each of the eight traits has been individually approved by the CFIA, but opponents are concerned there might be unintended consequences when the traits are combined.

"You'd think that a combination of eight GE traits would trigger an environmental assessment, but the CFIA has (provided) no public record of their evaluation," said Lucy Sharratt, co-ordinator of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network.

The CFIA has also conditionally authorized for SmartStax a reduction in the size of the buffer zone, or "refuge," normally required around genetically engineered corn.

Farmers who grow insect-resistant corn have to plant regular corn around it in an area equal to 20 per cent of the GE cornfield. This is to delay the evolution of insect resistance to the toxins in the GE corn, which would then necessitate the use of stronger pesticides.

CFIA officials were not available for comment Friday. A short statement on its website said "the CFIA has evaluated the potential impact on and risk to the environment of using a 5 per cent non-Bt refuge strategy for this product, and has concluded that a conditional authorization until Dec. 31, 2012, of the use of this refuge poses minimal risk to the environment."

"Not only did the CFIA neglect to do a risk evaluation for SmartStax corn, but it has also seriously reduced one of the only precautions imposed on farmers," said Benoit Girouard of Quebec's Union Paysanne, a farmers' group.

Between now and December 2012, the CFIA statement said, Monsanto and Dow are required to evaluate how insects like corn rootworm are adapting to the product.

"It's like putting the wolf in charge of the sheep's welfare," said Eric Darier, director of Greenpeace Quebec.

In May, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine called for an immediate moratorium on genetically modified foods, saying they pose a "serious health risk."

mlalonde@thegazette.canwest.com

Three CU Students Among Fulbright Scholars: Recipients Will Conduct Research in Paraguay, China and Germany

Daily Camera [USA] via IstockAnalyst.com. By Brittany Anas:
http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews/articleid/3371438

BOULDER, Colo. -- Three scholars from the University of Colorado are among the newly named Fulbright scholars -- an award that will allow them to travel abroad and research topics including genetically modified soy in Paraguay, renewable energy and heart health.

Alexander Barker, Abby Watrous, and Nicole Nejad will conduct research internationally along with 1,100 other U.S. student scholars and professionals selected under the U.S. Department of State exchange program. Since 1977, there have been 105 Fulbright award winners from CU's Boulder campus.

Nejad, a recent CU graduate, will travel to Asuncion, Paraguay, early next month to examine the serious health problems caused by genetically modified soy, which is produced on about 90 percent of Paraguay's land. Among the environmental repercussions is malformation in newborns, which will be the focus of Nejad's research, CU said.

She will work in the capital city with an umbrella organization, the Coordination of National Organizations of Rural Women and its affiliate nonprofit Centro de Documentation Education. Once her research is finished, Nejad intends to work with another student in Paraguay to publish a piece on her findings.

"The Fulbright program was created by Congress as a way of promoting diplomacy, but not creating diplomats," Nejad said. "I'm going to go in as a sponge and be aware of what they want from me."

CU's Watrous, a doctoral degree candidate in civil engineering, received a grant to study renewable energies in China. She will teach third- through fifth-graders in Beijing and Boulder about international renewable energy.

Barker, a doctoral degree candidate in mechanical engineering / bioengineering, will travel to Freiburg, Germany. He plans to study MRI techniques for blood flow in an effort to develop tools that will improve right-heart function and health, according to CU.

Contact Camera Staff Writer Brittany Anas at (303) 473-1132 or anasb@dailycamera.com.

---

Comment by TraceConsult™:

To see scholars from the prestigious Fulbright Program, one of the most prestigious awards programs worldwide, go on a scientific mission is remarkable. After all, this is a conservative, mainstream scholarship program and more Fulbright alumni have won Nobel Prizes than those of any other academic program.

But all this will lend the results even more credibility. It should be interesting to see the outcome.

24 July 2009

Genetically modified sugar beet leaving bad taste

The Salem News [USA], 24 July 2009. By Andrea Fox:
http://www.salemnews.com/pulife/local_story_204232933.html?keyword=secondarystory

Green Quick Fixes

It's true that we really do not have a clear picture of what genetically modified food crops can do to our bodies over time. But we do know that if crops are genetically modified to withstand increased pesticide use, we'll have more toxics in our drinking water sources.

Take the scary case of the sugar beet, which more than half of U.S. sugar supplies are made from.

Since the turn of the 20th century, warmer states have been growing sugar beet as a profitable crop rotator. "Beet Fever" is as high as ever with Monsanto's Roundup Ready beet seed - which is genetically engineered to resist glyphosphate herbicides, use of which has skyrocketed.

Growers can apply 96 ounces of the herbicide per acre without harming the beets, where non-genetically modified vegetables would not tolerate such levels.

In 2008, Roundup Ready beets accounted for 58 percent of the total U.S. crop. However, nearly 90 percent of this year's Western Sugar Collaborative crop, which represents 1,400 growers in four U.S. states, has been planted with the modified seed, according to the collaborative.

Growers are thrilled because the highest yields per acre are predicted for 2009, and the success of the crop is being attributed to the modified seed. With sugar prices having plummeted 15 percent in mid-2008 and constant threat from cheaper sugar imports, growers saw 2008 record yields in Colorado, Montana and other states as welcome news.

However, high yield of a GMO crop does not bode well for food safety advocates that question use of the product pervading countless, unlabeled foods. Concerns include:

•

Genetic contamination to organic sugar beet and sugar markets since the crop is wind-pollinated.

•

Vast increases in water quality impacts and herbicide residues in sugar product due to increased herbicide application.

•

Threat to crop sustainability by reducing biodiversity to one seed manufactured by one company.

•

Emergence of superweeds that resist increasingly toxic herbicides due to wholesale adoption of Roundup Ready GMO.

In 2008, Center for Food Safety and Earthjustice filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of the Organic Seed Alliance, Sierra Club and others to overturn the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) 2005 decision to deregulate Roundup Ready sugar beet seed and are asking that production, sale and use be banned. The groups argue that USDA has not conducted extensive research on the seed's safety and its impact on public health and the environment and are calling for National Environmental Policy Act review.

Several companies have signed a Non-GM Sugar Beet Registry, online at www.seedsofdeception.com/includes/services/nongm_sugar_beet_registry_display.cfm.

This week's Green Quick Fixes are realizing how pervasive GMO sugar is becoming, checking labels and supporting the manufacturers that signed the registry. It's a daunting task considering that sugar is a key ingredient in millions of food products.

For more information on GMO activities, go to www.centerforfoodsafety.org.

Other uses for sugar beet

Sugar beet molasses or beet juice, a byproduct of the sugar-making process, is being tested in Ohio, Washington D.C., and elsewhere as a green alternative for conventional, freshwater-polluting road deicer. Combinations of beet juice and rock salt can make winter roads safe to -30 degrees Fahrenheit, according to a report by Mother Nature Network published earlier this year.

This is good news because high concentrations of rock salt hamper many cold regions' abilities to comply with federal clean water standards.

Another use for sugar beet may be in ethanol production, and it's possible that it may prove to be higher yield than corn. In a 2006 study, the USDA determined that processing sugar beet and refined sugar for ethanol production would be feasible, though costly because factories would have to be converted. The American Crystal Sugar Company is also studying the trend, and nations like Ireland and Brazil are also considering.

¢¢¢

Andrea Fox, a Beverly resident, has been writing about environmental sustainability and eco-topics for nine years. She is a member of the Society of Environmental Journalists and a watershed protection advocate in Salem Sound Watershed.

Agent Orange Linked to Heart Disease, Parkinson's

New York Times, 24 July 2009.:
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/07/24/news/news-us-agentorange-veterans.html

WASHINGTON - Agent Orange, used by U.S. forces to strip Vietnamese and Cambodian jungles during the Vietnam War, may raise the risk of heart disease and Parkinson's disease, U.S. health advisers said on Friday.

But the evidence is only limited and far from definitive, the Institute of Medicine panel said.

"The report strongly recommends that studies examining the relationship between Parkinson's incidence and exposures in the veteran population be performed," the institute, an independent academy that guides federal policy, said in a statement.

The findings add to a growing list of conditions that could be linked to the defoliants, including leukemia, prostate cancer, type II diabetes and birth defects in the children of the veterans exposed.

The herbicides, nicknamed "Agent Orange" from the orange stripe on the barrels in which they were stored, include chemicals such as 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid and 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid.

Between 1962 and 1971, an estimated 20 million gallons (75 million liters) of these chemicals were used to strip Vietnam's thick forests to make bombing easier.

Veterans exposed to the chemicals have complained for years about a variety of health problems, and in the late 1970s the government started to investigate them systematically. Each finding brings veterans one step closer to getting government-paid medical services for these conditions.

In March, the U.S. Supreme Court let stand the dismissal of lawsuits by Vietnamese nationals and U.S. veterans against Dow Chemical Co, Monsanto Co and other chemical makers over the use of Agent Orange .

In 1984, seven chemical companies, including Dow and Monsanto, agreed to a $180 million settlement with veterans.

(Editing by Mohammad Zargham)

---

Take action

Sign the Justice for Victims of Agent Orange petition: http://www.petitiononline.com/Monsanto/

Quotes on agent orange:

"I find it ironic that on one hand you put Saddam Hussein on trial for using biological warfare, but in another country where you sprayed chemicals for warfare, you neglect your responsibility. The United States must admit its responsibility and compensate the Agent Orange victims in Vietnam. It is your moral obligation. Sooner or later, it has to be done."

- Nguyen Duc to an American journalist.
Duc and his late brother Viet, both victims of Agent Orange, were born conjoined in 1981
http://www.petitiononline.com/Monsanto/

"If no change is made, no condemnation of the use of Agent Orange, no call for immediate compensation to the victims and their families, no call for the chemical companies such as Monsanto and Dow to be charged with war crimes, then the hearings will have solved nothing."

- Len Aldis, Britain Vietnam Friendship Society
http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/11103-monsanto-and-dow-should-be-charged-with-war-crimes

Patents Not Enough of a Monopoly, According to Biotech Firms

Patents and Trademarks Today, 24 July 2009:
http://patents.einnews.com

Apparently, a bunch of big biotech firms feel that the patent monopolies they already have over certain drugs aren't enough, and they are demanding U.S. Congress enact laws that also stamp out any competition from similar drugs (known, back here in the real world, as competitors). You would think that after centuries of understanding how bad monopolies are for the market that the government wouldn't kowtow and simply hand over such things - but it is.

Full story (subscription):
http://patents.einnews.com/login.php?redir=%2Farticle.php%3Ffid%3D223926302%26v%3D18882%25EMAIL_ID%25&v=18882EF4PEPrR/hFaKxnIGvgs6uG1haWw

Robert Lanza: Suddenly, the age of designer babies is upon us

The Independent [UK] opinion / commentators, 24 July 2009:
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/robert-lanza-suddenly-the-age-of-designer-babies-is-upon-us-1759286.html

The implications of this research are both enormously important and troublesome. It revives many of the issues raised by reproductive cloning. We now have a working technology whereby anyone, young or old, fertile or infertile, straight or gay, can pass on their genes to a child from just a few skin cells. It also fast-forwards the era of designer babies to the present.

Genetic modification of the resulting stem cells could be carried out by a scientist tomorrow. On the positive side, this technology could also be of great value in the area of conservation biology. My company has already filed patents on this, as well as for its use in agriculture. The genes from endangered animals that die could be reintroduced to maintain the survival and genetic diversity of the species. Even an extinct species such as the bucardo mountain goat could be resurrected using this technology if combined with an ordinary goat-breeding programme.

Considering the immense power of this technology, it is imperative that an effort is made by scientists and governments to understand the ramifications, and to ensure that it is used in an ethically responsible way for the benefit and progress of humanity.

Again, this research opens a whole ethical can of worms. Now that live mice have been generated there's no biological reason why it won't work in humans. In fact, you could generate iPS cells from anyone with just a few hair follicles or skin cells. So if you had a few skin cells from Albert Einstein or perhaps a hair follicle from the Pope or the Queen you could generate iPS. Since the cells are immortal they can be grown and distributed anywhere in the world. Any couple could go to an IVF clinic and have a child that is half, say Albert Einstein or perhaps Brad Pitt or Elizabeth Taylor.

The potential for genetic abuse is equally troublesome. For instance, the technology already exists to genetically increase the muscle mass in animals by knocking out a gene known as myostatin, and could be used by a couple who wants a great child athlete. Injection of a few genetically modified iPS cells into an embryo could do the trick. Tampering with the human genome in this way crosses the line and is wrong. Human evolution has taken millions of years, and it would be naÔve and foolhardy for us to start designing children now that the scientific tools exist. It could be scientifically and ethically irresponsible to use the technology for reproductive purposes.

The author is the chief scientific officer at Advanced Cell Technology

Related articles

Forget Dolly, there's an easier way to clone - and it works http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/forget-dolly-theres-an-easier-way-to-clone-ndash-and-it-works-1759285.html

GM mosquito trials raise concern in India

Manorama [India], 24 July 2009:
http://www.manoramaonline.com/cgi-bin/MMOnline.dll/portal/ep/contentView.do?contentId=5752829&contentType=EDITORIAL&BV_ID=@@@

Bangalore/Chennai: Experiments with genetically modified (GM) mosquitoes planned in India by a British company in a move to find a way to control dengue fever have taken sections of the scientific community by surprise. "I am trying to get full details about what is going on," V.M. Katoch, secretary in the Department of Health Research and chief of the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), said.

Oxford Insect Technology (Oxitec) Ltd of UK is breeding the GM mosquitoes of aedes aegypti species in a facility provided by its local partner in Padappai village near Chennai. This species spreads dengue fever in India.

The company claims its patented genetic technology allows generation of only sterile males and releasing millions of these in the open could reduce the wild population through infertile matings, thereby offering a novel way of controlling dengue fever.

To test its theory, Oxitec brought to India what it calls "a lab-adapted African strain" of aedes aegypti mosquitoes in the form of dried eggs. The permit for its import was issued by the Review Committee for Genetic Manipulation (RCGM) in August 2008, said Sridhar Vasan, Oxitec's head of public health.

"We are waiting to hear formally from RCGM before we can start the experiments," Vasan said. "Our longer-term goal would be to move to field trials," if the breeding and mating trials in the contained facility showed promise, he said.

The RCGM, under the Department of Biotechnology (DBT), had until recently only allowed import of GM seeds and pharmaceuticals for which biosafety guidelines exist in the country. No GM insects were ever allowed.

Pushpa Bhargava, renowned biologist and the Supreme Court's nominee in the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee - the apex regulatory body - says he is worried about experiments with alien strains of GM mosquitoes in a private facility in the absence of specific government bio-safety guidelines for GM insects.

Katoch, who took over the ICMR only six months ago, is not aware of RCGM's permission or the fact that the subcommittee for monitoring and the company's work is headed by R.S. Sharma from the National Vector Borne Disease Control Programme under the health ministry.

The sterile insect technique (SIT), as it is called, may work in the lab but not in the field, cautions P.K. Rajagopalan, former director of the ICMR's Vector Control Research Centre (VCRC) in Pondicherry.

Bhargava warns it will be disastrous if the released sterile males get back their fertility as a result of random gene mutations. "Probability of such an accident cannot be dismissed when millions of GM mosquitoes are released day after day or week after week," he says.

He says fertility can also be restored with terrible consequences, by the antibiotic tetracycline that may be found in soil or water bodies because, according to Oxitec, its GM mosquitoes are designed to stay sterile only as long as its diet does not contain tetracycline.

Katoch said he was seeking comments from ICMR scientists before taking action. One reason for the ICMR's extreme caution with this project is the fear that tinkering with the genome of aedes aegypti mosquito might make it a vector of fatal yellow fever that does not exist in India.

But Luke Alphey, research director of Oxitec, says it is not likely. "Oxitec's technology simply acts to reduce the number of mosquitoes by killing progeny of wild - sterile matings. It does not aim to alter vector competence of living mosquitoes," Alphey said.

But the ICMR has been cautious ever since 1975 when the Indian government terminated a US-funded aedes release experiment at Sonepat in Haryana on the recommendation of an expert committee.

"Two years ago Oxitec came to us for testing its technology but we said no," said P. Jambulingam, director of VCRC. "We also made it clear to them that India did not encourage this method for mosquito control. I do not know how the company managed to get permission from RCGM."

A.P.Dash, then director of the ICMR's National Institute of Malaria Research (NIMR), says he rejected Oxitec's proposal when RCGM sought his comments.

Bhargava is surprised at Oxitec's persistence to "enter through the back door" by trying to get the risky technology validated by a private company near Chennai after it failed to get the support of ICMR institutes.

The company (International Institute of Biotechnology and Toxicology, IIBAT), despite the high sounding name, is a service provider for pesticide and chemicals producers with no previous experience in mosquito research.

"The 'international' tag does not mean we have an international staff. It only means we do (contract) work for foreign companies," admits IIBAT director Balakrishna Murthy.

K.K. Tripathi, adviser in DBT and secretary of RCGM, confesses that he favored Oxitec technology even though "every mosquito expert" he consulted including V.P. Sharma, former director of NIMR and an authority in this field, opposed it.

"Oxitec technology is wonderful, just the right one for developing countries," Tripathi said. "I am taking the responsibility in promoting this for the benefit of India."

However, Tripathi's predecessor P.K. Ghosh says that with so many adverse comments, RCGM should not have permitted the trial in a hurry.

V.P. Kamboj, a reproductive biologist who chairs RCGM, says there is no cause for concern as no GM mosquitoes have been released yet.

"We have permitted only breeding and mating trials within a confined facility to verify the company's claims."

He said that in the light of concerns expressed by some experts, the committee will again examine the issues closely. "If we find the trials are not in the national interest, we will not allow it to move further."

Customers won't like GM foods, say chefs

The West Australian, 24 July 2009. By Georgia Loney:
http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=77&ContentID=157614

WA's top chefs and winemakers have warned of a consumer backlash if the ban on genetically modified crops is lifted in WA.

Agriculture Minister Terry Redman gave his strongest support yet for commercial GM canola on his return from North America this week.

He is set to decide whether GM canola can be grown commercially in WA next year after trials at 20 sites.

High-profile chefs including Vasse Felix's Aaron Carr and Leeuwin Estate's Dany Angove said it went against increasing consumer demand for organic and biodynamic food.

Mr Carr said he was concerned about the long-term impact of GM food on health and farms and it would be unpopular with customers.

"We're always happy to promote organic, but I don't think we'd be too happy to promote GM," he said.

Mr Redman backed organic and slow-food movements, but did not see a conflict between GM crops and high-end food and restaurants

"If there is a market for a particular product, whether it's conventional, organic, fair trade or GM, it will thrive," he said. "Chefs and foodies in places like the US which have had GM crops for over a decade can still easily source the produce they require."

Mr Carr, Mr Angove and 10 other WA chefs have signed the Greenpeace chefs' charter for GM-Free Australia. Vanya Cullen, of Margaret River's biodynamic Cullen Wines, helped launch the Greenpeace guide to GMfree alcohol this month.

Submissions sought on GM freedom act

Farm Weekly [Australia], 24 July 2009. By Colin Beetles:
http://fw.farmonline.com.au/news/state/grains-and-cropping/general/submissions-sought-on-gm-freedom-act/1575417.aspx

AGRICULTURE and Food Minister Terry Redman has called for public submissions into the review of the Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act.

The Act came into operation in WA on December 24, 2003.

It prohibits the cultivation of certain genetically modified (GM) crops in designated areas of WA and provides for their destruction in certain cases.

The Act requires a review to be carried out five years after its commencement and for a report to be tabled in State Parliament by December 24, 2009.

Former parliamentary counsel Greg Calcutt has been appointed to undertake the review.

"The review will look at the need for the Act and whether it is appropriate; its operations and effectiveness; and the orders prohibiting the cultivation of GM crops and the granting of exemptions," Mr Redman said.

"Submissions from the public relating to the Act are welcome; however, this review is not a general inquiry into gene technology and GM organisms.

"Issues such as the safety and labelling of GM foods, legal liability, use of pesticides, intellectual property and the role of multinationals are not covered by the scope of this review.

"The review also does not relate to the policy behind the current GM canola trials being undertaken in WA.

"It will look at the effectiveness of the Act, rather than what policy should or should not be implemented via the Act."

Network of Concerned Farmers national spokesperson Julie Newman said the review of the act deliberately excluded all of the risks associated with GMs and the serious concerns about the lack of accountability in using them.

"It's pretty obvious that the act is not effective if the minister has authorised large scale commercial growing of GM crops when there is a moratorium which is supposed to ban them," she said.

"The review already seems to have a pre-set agenda.

"We don't want to grow GM and we don't want our rights removed."

Gene Ethics director Bob Phelps said the "so-called review" may eliminate the checks and balances on GM crops.

The public submission period will run from July 17 to August 14.

23 July 2009

Monsanto Takeover of Montana Firm Could Backfire for Farmers

Kristina Hubbard. New West Missoula [USA], 23 July 2009:
http://www.newwest.net/city/article/monsanto_takeover_of_montana_firm_could_backfire_for_farmers/C8/L8/

An international trend in agriculture hit Montana's plains last week. A multinational known for its dominance of the seed industry purchased WestBred LLC, a Montana-based cereal grain company that breeds seed products for markets throughout the U.S.

Monsanto's purchase of WestBred didn't come as a surprise given the rapid consolidation of the seed industry. In fact, the seed industry is one of the most concentrated in agriculture, with three firms controlling nearly 50 percent of the global market. Monsanto is the dominant firm in the industry and has effectively captured the market for most major crops, including corn, soybeans, cotton, and vegetables. It's built this market power through acquisitions and mergers that should raise eyebrows at the Department of Justice.

Acquiring WestBred makes Monsanto's market goals pretty clear: gain control of yet another major crop - wheat - and introduce more expensive, genetically engineered varieties that will yield more profits.

Troubling trends have emerged with Monsanto's numerous seed company acquisitions. For example, this year marked a major resurgence in demand for conventional (non-genetically engineered) soybeans. But the supply wasn't there to meet demand. As a result, farmers who wanted to plant conventional soybean seed instead paid for expensive varieties with genetically engineered traits.

To be sure, many farmers enjoy Monsanto's seed technologies. It's understandable that the rapid adoption of genetically engineered soybeans and corn led to less production and distribution of conventional varieties. But that's only one part of the story.

The more seed companies Monsanto controls, the more seed availability - i.e., which varieties are sold - becomes a function of Monsanto's shareholders' interests, not those of farmers.

As choice diminishes, the cost of Monsanto's seed steadily increases. This year, farmers reported paying historic prices for seed corn, a 30 percent increase over last year's prices, even with commodity prices for corn dipping dramatically. The reason? Monsanto's genetically engineered traits are planted on more than 80 percent of U.S. corn acreage. With this level of market share, the market no longer regulates prices - the industry leader does.

Monsanto says WestBred's genetics will be used to develop genetically engineered traits in wheat, the technology that catapulted Monsanto into the No. 1 position in seed. (In 2008, its proprietary traits were also in more than 90 percent of U.S. soybean, cotton, and sugar beet acreage.)

Monsanto attempted to commercialize genetically engineered wheat five years ago but abandoned these efforts due to market rejection abroad. Farmers - both those who support and reject advancements in biotechnology - can't dispute the economic risk in introducing a crop that customers do not want. Seeing this risk, the 2003 Montana State Legislature overwhelmingly passed then-State Senator Jon Tester's Joint Resolution that stated, "the introduction of genetically engineered wheat and barley for commercial production must be carefully timed so that it occurs only when there is acceptance of these crops by Montana's major customers." More recently, a leading grain market economist at Iowa State University warned that commercializing genetically engineered wheat could result in the U.S. losing one-third to one-half of its wheat exports.

But even if export markets decide one day to accept genetically engineered wheat, the fear that Monsanto will reduce seed options that farmers currently rely on is very real.

This is the second time this year Monsanto has hit the front pages of Montana newspapers. In March, as many of us remember, Monsanto dispatched representatives to Montana to urge members of the Senate Agriculture Committee to kill a bill that would have protected the property and privacy rights of Montana farmers if investigated by Monsanto for seed patent infringement. Within two weeks of Monsanto wining and dining some of the committee members, the committee killed the bill.

Now, Monsanto is buying Montana's preeminent private wheat seed company to access valuable genetics and expand control over what is sold, sown, and swallowed.

Kristina Hubbard is a Montana-based consultant for the national Farmer to Farmer Campaign on Genetic Engineering.

GM corn confirmed

Latinamerica Press, 23 2009:
http://www.lapress.org/articles.asp?art=5906

Peru's government is reviewing a study that shows genetically-modified corn has been detected in five key agricultural valleys. Peru's decade-old biosafety law still lacks the supplemental legislation required to empower the government, particularly health and agricultural authorities, to regulate genetically-modified products is still pending.

Currently, genetically-modified products in Peru, a signatory of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety cannot be planted, harvested or sold, because of the legislative void, even though there is no established penalty for doing so.

In a report published by El Comercio newspaper on July 13, said the National Institute of Agrarian Innovation, or INIA, a branch of the Agriculture Ministry that is tasked with supervising the entry and sale of transgenic products in Peru, is evaluating the study by Antonietta Gutierrez, a biosafety expert at the Agrarian University of La Molina.

In the study, Gutierrez, who has studied genetically-modified organisms for some 15 years, examined 319 samples from dried corn storage centers in five regions - the northern Piura, Lambayeque and La Libertad departments, and the central-coastal Ancash and Lima departments.

She found genetically-modified corn in five major Peruvian valleys, particularly in the Barranca Valley, north of the capital. Two varieties included ÝMON863 and MON810, produced by Monsanto, the world's largest seed producer.

Most of Peru's imported corn comes from Argentina and the United States. A free trade agreement with the United States went into effect on Feb. 1, worrying some about a flood of genetically-modified corn entering Peru, fears partly based on the infiltration of transgenic corn in Mexico, where corn is the most important crop.

Still, if the government does back Gutierrez's findings, it does not yet have the authority to take action.

"If the presence of transgenic corn is proved in Barranca, INIA will be limited to exercise its legal authority because it we still do not have regulations," Susi Salazar, an Agriculture Ministry agronomist was quoted as saying in the report.

Nanotechnology: are we risking too much?

The Ecologist [UK], 23 July 2009. By Tom Levitt:
http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/290867/nanotechnology_are_we_risking_too_much.html

Are we ready to trust policymakers and scientists as they judge the potential and acceptability of nanotechnologies?

Nanotechnology is already here and used in hundreds of everyday products from food packaging to computer keyboards.

The manipulation of materials on a nano-scale (a nanometre is a millonth of a millimetre or about one eighty thousandth the size of a human hair), enables them to take on new properties compared to their larger form. For example, UV filters used in suncreens produced in tiny nano form become clear rather than white when compared to their larger form.

But away from the buzz of excitement that often surrounds a new technology there have been real concerns about the risk and hazards these new materials present to both humans and the environment. The early criticism from NGOs has focused not necessarily on the technology itself but the ways in which it is being used and the lack of government regulation and risk assessment.

Much of that concern still remains. A new report from Landmark Europe, a PR agency, surveyed stakeholders across the EU and found that knowledge and understanding of nanotechnology even amongst well-informed groups was low. There was scepticism about the current regulations and support for tougher labelling rules on products that were ingested or applied to the body, i.e. food, drink, cosmetics and pharmaceuticals.

Untested

A Friends of the Earth report last year found that untested nanotechnology was being used in more than 100 food products and packaging including; nutritional supplements, flavour and colour additives, cling wrap and chemicals used in agriculture. It said existing regulations in the US did not require testing or labelling for nanomaterials when they were created from existing approved chemicals, despite major differences in potential toxicity.

'Nanotechnology can be very dangerous when used in food,' said report co-author Dr Rye Senjen. 'Early scientific evidence indicates that some nanomaterials produce free radicals which destroy or mutate DNA and can cause damage to the liver and kidneys.'

There have also been strong concerns expressed about the widespread use of nanosilver and the use of nanotechnologies in suncreen.

Suncreen manufacturers are adding nanoparticles to make sun-blocking ingredients like titanium dioxide and zonc oxide rub on clear instead of white. These nanoparticles can pass through human skin into the blood stream and then enter the brain, heart or liver. No-one fully understands yet what, if any, impact they will have once inside the human body.

Nanosilver

In the case of nanosilver the concern from NGOs is that silver, a useful anti-bacterial agent, once scaled to nano size is far more potent. But again, researchers don't know enough about the effect that potency can have on human health.

Despite the concerns, nanosilver has still become one of the most commonly used nanomaterials in consumer products, predominately as a bactericide in kitchen crockery, cosmetics and even children's toys.

'Major corporations are putting nano-silver into a wide variety of consumer products with virtually no oversight, and there are potentially serious health consequences as a result,' said Friends of the Earth health campaigner Ian Illuminato.

Silent debate

Despite the significant potential of nanotechnology the public debate has actually been rather quiet. The UK has been running a rather low-key public consultation in advance of a planned strategy in February 2010. NGOs and academics worry that the lack of knowledge, as shown by the Landmark Europe survey, is allowing nanotechnology to spread without the necessary regulation.

In addition, they see that safe or positive technologies such as the use of nanosilver as coatings for medical devices or as wound care for severe burns victims are already getting tarnished by what is being perceived as poor regulation.

'As always the regulation is trailing behind the knowledge,' said Professor Howard. 'We've never been exposed to these types of nano particles with high atomic numbers (metals like nanosilver) so we don't yet know all the hazards which we're researching.

'I don't think we should expose the whole world to something and then release later that we shouldn't have. Some of the hazards may be illusionary but some may not,' he added.

GMWatch co-editor Claire Robinson agreed. 'The industries that are already using nanotechnology, for example, in food, packaging and cosmetics, are way ahead of the regulators. It's likely that we are storing up problems for the future by prematurely implementing a technology we know so little about,' she said.

'Members of the public who know about GM often haven't heard of nanotechnology. But just as with GM, the application of nanotechnology is racing ahead of the health and safety research, which is still in its infancy,' she said.

However, Professor Howard pointed out, unlike GM, there was already a substantial body of research about the hazards of small particles on human health. 'They're defiantly more engaged in the debate than the GM crowd were but then this is research that couldn't just be sidestepped,' he said.

EU gets tough?

While the technology may be ahead of the research there are indications that, at a European level at least, there is a willingness to take a tough stance.

In what Green MEP Caroline Lucas called a 'radical departure' from previous positions, the European Parliament voted in March 2009 to introduce new rules on nanomaterials in cosmetics. Any cosmetic containing nanomaterials will have to list the ingredient on product packaging, followed by the word 'nano' in brackets.

But labelling on its own is not enough. What campaigners and scientists like Professor Howard want is tougher regulation from policymakers.

Safety warning

Earlier this year, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) warned that current toxicological tests on nanomaterials used in food products and packaging were inadaquate.

EFSA also pointed out that the current risk assessments were, 'likely to be subject to a high degree of uncertainty', and called for more research on the toxicity of nanoparticles in the body.

'In the absence of proper safety regulations, consumers are being left in the dark about the products they are consuming and are unknowingly putting their health and the environment at risk,' said Friends of the Earth's Senior Food Campaigner, Clare Oxborrow.

'Europeans should not be exposed to potentially toxic materials in their food and food packaging until proper regulations are in place to ensure their safety.

'Policy-makers must stop claiming that existing regulatory frameworks are adequate to deal with the emerging science of nanotechnology and urgently address the gaps in food safety laws

Useful links

Landmark Europe http://www.landmarkeurope.eu
UK consultation on nanotechnologies http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/nano/
FOE report on nanosilver http://www.foe.org/healthy-people/nanosilver
FOE sunscreen guide http://www.foe.org/healthy-people/nanotechnology-and-sunscreens

You're Appointing Who?
Please Obama, Say It's Not So!

The Huffington Post [USA], 23 July 2009. By Jeffrey Smith:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/youre-appointing-who-plea_b_243810.html

The person who may be responsible for more food-related illness and death than anyone in history has just been made the US food safety czar. This is no joke.

Here's the back story.

When FDA scientists were asked to weigh in on what was to become the most radical and potentially dangerous change in our food supply -- the introduction of genetically modified (GM) foods -- secret documents now reveal that the experts were very concerned. Memo after memo described toxins, new diseases, nutritional deficiencies, and hard-to-detect allergens. They were adamant that the technology carried "serious health hazards," and required careful, long-term research, including human studies, before any genetically modified organisms (GMOs) could be safely released into the food supply.

But the biotech industry had rigged the game so that neither science nor scientists would stand in their way. They had placed their own man in charge of FDA policy and he wasn't going to be swayed by feeble arguments related to food safety. No, he was going to do what corporations had done for decades to get past these types of pesky concerns. He was going to lie.

Dangerous Food Safety Lies

When the FDA was constructing their GMO policy in 1991-2, their scientists were clear that gene-sliced foods were significantly different and could lead to "different risks" than conventional foods. But official policy declared the opposite, claiming that the FDA knew nothing of significant differences, and declared GMOs substantially equivalent.

This fiction became the rationale for allowing GM foods on the market without any required safety studies whatsoever! The determination of whether GM foods were safe to eat was placed entirely in the hands of the companies that made them -- companies like Monsanto, which told us that the PCBs, DDT, and Agent Orange were safe.

GMOs were rushed onto our plates in 1996. Over the next nine years, multiple chronic illnesses in the US nearly doubled -- from 7% to 13%. Allergy-related emergency room visits doubled between 1997 and 2002 while food allergies, especially among children, skyrocketed. We also witnessed a dramatic rise in asthma, autism, obesity, diabetes, digestive disorders, and certain cancers.

In January of this year, Dr. P. M. Bhargava, one of the world's top biologists, told me that after reviewing 600 scientific journals, he concluded that the GM foods in the US are largely responsible for the increase in many serious diseases.

In May, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine concluded that animal studies have demonstrated a causal relationship between GM foods and infertility, accelerated aging, dysfunctional insulin regulation, changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system, and immune problems such as asthma, allergies, and inflammation

In July, a report by eight international experts determined that the flimsy and superficial evaluations of GMOs by both regulators and GM companies "systematically overlook the side effects" and significantly underestimate "the initial signs of diseases like cancer and diseases of the hormonal, immune, nervous and reproductive systems, among others."

The Fox Guarding the Chickens

If GMOs are indeed responsible for massive sickness and death, then the individual who oversaw the FDA policy that facilitated their introduction holds a uniquely infamous role in human history. That person is Michael Taylor. He had been Monsanto's attorney before becoming policy chief at the FDA. Soon after, he became Monsanto's vice president and chief lobbyist.

This month Michael Taylor became the senior advisor to the commissioner of the FDA. He is now America's food safety czar. What have we done?

The Milk Man Cometh

While Taylor was at the FDA in the early 90's, he also oversaw the policy regarding Monsanto's genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH/rbST) -- injected into cows to increase milk supply.

The milk from injected cows has more pus, more antibiotics, more bovine growth hormone, and most importantly, more insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1). IGF-1 is a huge risk factor for common cancers and its high levels in this drugged milk is why so many medical organizations and hospitals have taken stands against rbGH. A former Monsanto scientist told me that when three of his Monsanto colleagues evaluated rbGH safety and discovered the elevated IGF-1 levels, even they refused to drink any more milk -- unless it was organic and therefore untreated.

Government scientists from Canada evaluated the FDA's approval of rbGH and concluded that it was a dangerous facade. The drug was banned in Canada, as well as Europe, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. But it was approved in the US while Michael Taylor was in charge. His drugged milk might have caused a significant rise in US cancer rates. Additional published evidence also implicates rbGH in the high rate of fraternal twins in the US.

Taylor also determined that milk from injected cows did not require any special labeling. And as a gift to his future employer Monsanto, he wrote a white paper suggesting that if companies ever had the audacity to label their products as not using rbGH, they should also include a disclaimer stating that according to the FDA, there is no difference between milk from treated and untreated cows.

Taylor's disclaimer was also a lie. Monsanto's own studies and FDA scientists officially acknowledged differences in the drugged milk. No matter. Monsanto used Taylor's white paper as the basis to successfully sue dairies that labeled their products as rbGH-free.

Will Monsanto's Wolff Also Guard the Chickens?

As consumers learned that rbGH was dangerous, they refused to buy the milk. To keep their customers, a tidal wave of companies has publicly committed to not use the drug and to label their products as such. Monsanto tried unsuccessfully to convince the FDA and FTC to make it illegal for dairies to make rbGH-free claims, so they went to their special friend in Pennsylvania -- Dennis Wolff. As state secretary of agriculture, Wolff unilaterally declared that labeling products rbGH-free was illegal, and that all such labels must be removed from shelves statewide. This would, of course, eliminate the label from all national brands, as they couldn't afford to create separate packaging for just one state.

Fortunately, consumer demand forced Pennsylvania's Governor Ed Rendell to step in and stop Wolff's madness. But Rendell allowed Wolff to take a compromised position that now requires rbGH-free claims to also be accompanied by Taylor's FDA disclaimer on the package.

President Obama is considering Dennis Wolff for the top food safety post at the USDA. Yikes!

Rumor has it that the reason why Pennsylvania's governor is supporting Wolff's appointment is to get him out of the state -- after he "screwed up so badly" with the rbGH decision. Oh great, governor. Thanks.

Ohio Governor Gets Taylor-itus

Ohio not only followed Pennsylvania's lead by requiring Taylor's FDA disclaimer on packaging, they went a step further. They declared that dairies must place that disclaimer on the same panel where rbGH-free claims are made, and even dictated the font size. This would force national brands to re-design their labels and may ultimately dissuade them from making rbGH-free claims at all. The Organic Trade Association and the International Dairy Foods Association filed a lawsuit against Ohio. Although they lost the first court battle, upon appeal, the judge ordered a mediation session that takes place today. Thousands of Ohio citizens have flooded Governor Strickland's office with urgent requests to withdraw the states anti-consumer labeling requirements.

Perhaps the governor has an ulterior motive for pushing his new rules. If he goes ahead with his labeling plans, he might end up with a top appointment in the Obama administration.

To hear what America is saying about GMOs and to add your voice, go to our new non-GMO Facebook Group http://www.facebook.com/groups/edit.php?gid=121443803326#/group.php?gid=121443803326.

Jeffrey M. Smith is the author of Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating (http://www.chelseagreen.com/index/bookstore/item/seeds_of_deception/) and Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods (http://www.chelseagreen.com/index/bookstore/item/genetic_roulette/) from Chelsea Green Publishing. Smith worked at a GMO detection laboratory, founded the Institute for Responsible Technology, and currently lives in Iowa - surrounded by genetically modified corn and soybeans. For more information, visit Chelsea Green http://www.chelseagreen.com/.

Follow Jeffrey Smith on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/JeffreyMSmith

EU ministers meet in GMO-free ‰re in Sweden

Campaign for a GMO-free Sweden, 23 July 2009. By Liv Ekerwald:
http://hejdagmo.se/gmo-lokalt-har/

On 24 and 25 July 2009, the EU ministers for the environment will meet in Åre kommun. It is one of the first GMO-free municipalities in Sweden.

The municipal executive committee in Åre has made a decision to make the municipally a GMO-free zone in April this year, after receiving the demand from a wide range of groups like the Centre Party's women's group, the Left Party, the United Nations Associations in Åre, the local group for the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation and Greener Åre network.

Åre is one of the municipalities in J”mtland County. The County Administrative Board has been working towards its 16 environmental goals, including making the County a GMO-free zone. Sweden's very first GMO-free zone was ÷stersund kommun, which is also situated in Jamtland. The County Council has declared themselves as a GMO-free zone. H”rjedalen kommun and Krokom kommun also got similar motions. These are not controversial decisions, the political parties all agree. In addition, farmers groups in the County, both conventional and organic as well as small scale family farmers, have also made a common decision to not to use GMOs.

The problem so far has been that the EU does not approve GMO-free zones, they accept only if a country applies for not to cultivate a GM crop with reference to scientific research results. However, in December last year, the EU environmental ministers agreed on allowing the member states to establish GMO-free zones. The ministers also agreed on to improve evaluation of the medium and long-term environmental impacts of GM crops, in particular of pesticide-producing and herbicide-resistant GM crops, to consider socio-economic implications of placing GMOs on the market, to improve the use of member states experts for safety evaluation of GMOs as well as to fix Community thresholds for the presence of GMOs in conventional seeds. We hope that our environment ministers of the EU will work for their own demands and make sure not to approve further GMOs until everything is in place.

Today, 99% of the GMO crops in the market are either genetically modified to tolerate weed-killing chemicals or to produce a toxin to kill butterfly larvae. Genetic engineering scientists promote GMO by saying it will solve key problems, e.g. potato mildew, drying problems and world hunger, in order to gain acceptance of research, but despite the fact that such research has been conducted since the 60's, these problems are not resolved. World hunger can only be solved by the benefits of the earth's resources in a better way.

To declare GMO-free zones is important decisions, it shows to decision makers that people do not believe that more chemicals provides better food, that patents on life should not happen, that farmers do not want to be dependent on the big chemical companies, that consumers do not accept antibiotics resistant genes to be used in our food and that biological diversity is extremely important.

Europe should become a GMO-free organic farming zone, where all types of food can be produced.

EU ministers, welcome to the GMO-free Åre in Sweden!

Liv Ekerwald

*Liv Ekerwald is a farmer and an environmental activist in J”mtland. She is one of 47 contact persons for Campaign for a GMO-free Sweden, Hej DÅ GMO!
http://hejdagmo.se/gmo-lokalt-har/

Read more about the EU environmental ministers meeting:
http://www.se2009.eu/en/meetings_news/2009/7/24/informal_meeting_of_environment_ministers

Polish farmers want to grow non-GM feed

Pierwszy Portal Rolny (15 July 2009):
http://www.ppr.pl

Polish farmers of the Podkarpacki region in south-east Poland want to grow legumes such as fava beans, beans, non-GM soy, lentil, lupine etc for animal feed. The Ministry of Agriculture is currently considering subsidizing this kind of production.

Like German farmers, Polish farmers are hoping that increased production of legumes to counterbalance to some extent the use of GM soy meal in animal feed. The price of GM soy meal has recently increased, although it is still lower than the price of cnventional soy, so growing non-GM legumes may be a sustainable solution to the animal feed problem.

Plea for GM crop research in Germany

Agra Europe Weekly , 23 July 2009:
http://www.agra-net.com/portal/puboptions.jsp?Option=menu&pubId=ag002

The German Plant Breeders' Association (BDP) has called for all methods of research to be kept open in publically funded plant research programmes - including genetic modification (GM).

At a round table meeting convened by federal research minister Anette Schavan on Wednesday this week, the BDP stressed that unbiased research was essential to the development of innovative plant breeding technology, Agrarheute reports.

Politicians should ensure that the results of scientific research in plant breeding could be used for the benefit of consumers, and should not block them for political reasons, said BDP director Ferdinand Schmitz.

He claimed that biosecurity research projects had been hijacked by concerns over "hypothetical risks". German politicians "must have the courage to stand by the results of their own biosecurity research and scientists, and so contribute to a forward-looking agriculture industry," Schmitz stated.

The BDP's stance was backed by the German Farmers' Union (DBV), also present at the round table meeting, which stated: "There is no alternative to a competitive, innovative agricultural research sector in view of the many challenges of food safety, energy needs and climate protection."

According to the union, the potential of plants to provide food, animal feed and biofuel is nowhere near exhausted. "Crop research - especially classical, but also GM plant breeding - must therefore be intensified," it stressed. This had to involve field trials to assess the effects of GM crops on the environment.

In April this year, Germany imposed a moratorium on the cultivation of GM maize on the grounds of environmental risk (see AE2357, 17.4.09, EP/1).

22 July 2009

Dow and Monsanto Receive Trait Registration
SmartStax will be launched commercially in 2010

Ohio Farmer, July 22 2009. By Jason Vance:
http://ohiofarmer.com/story.aspx?s=25050&c=8

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency have authorized registration and regulation of SmartStax technology, a collaboration between Monsanto and Dow AgroSciences resulting from the cross-licensing agreement the companies signed in 2007. Dow AgroSciences' President and CEO Jerome Peribere says the approval paves the way for a launch of the stacked-trait technology in 2010. As part of the announcement, EPA and CFIA have reduced the refuge required in corn from 20% to 5% and in cotton from 50% to 20% for both above and below ground pests.

"Registration by the EPA marks a very truly historic day for farmers," Peribere said. "SmartStax corn will offer farmers the most advanced, all-in-one corn trait system for insect and weed control resulting in a yield enhancement potential over the current market leading triple stack products."

Dow and Monsanto are also working with regulatory agencies in several key export countries to have import approval for SmartStax in place prior to the 2010 season.

"SmartStax is the first ever eight gene corn stack, it is truly not only innovative but a revolutionary corn product for farmers," said Monsanto Vice President of U.S. Product Management Phil Miller. "SmartStax is a game-changing technology bringing increased corn yields of 5-10%, also bringing the broadest spectrum of above and below ground pest control available in the market today providing the farmer with greater peace of mind."

Miller also said that the reduction in refuge requirements represent an enormous savings for farmers without compromising or sacrificing the long-term durability of these critical technologies.

During a press call with the media, the question was asked why farmers who did not have significant below ground pest pressure pay for something they didn't need.

"As we approach this in the market, what we'll do is offer the SmartStax technology broadleaf in all geographies and then we will plan on pricing these products to the value they bring in that specific geography," Miller said. "Our goal on all of our products including the traits in SmartStax is to price the product accurately and reflect the value to growers and how they realize that value in that particular geography."

According to Tom Wiltrout, Dow AgroSciences' global seeds, traits and oils strategy leader, the goal is to have seed in almost all maturities for next year's launch ranging from 80-day to 115-day corn in the U.S, and it will be offered in Mycogen and affiliate brands including Triumph, Dairyland, Renzie, BroadBeck, and Pfister.

"For Monsanto we'll be launching this under Genuity SmartStax, which Genuity is the family of traits we'll be bringing to the market," Miller said. "We will have this offered in the Monsanto national brands such as DEKALB as well as our ASI company brands that are in the markets, and we've made this broad offering to greater than 200 licensees of our technologies and many have accepted and signed up to have access to this product."

---

Comment by GM Watch:

The GM treadmill continues apace with single transgene organisms making way first for so-called triple stack products and now "SmartStax" - eight gene stacked-traits.

These traits are either for multiple herbicide resistance to try and overcome the galloping weed resistance to the herbicides most typically used with GM crops, particularly Roundup, or for built-in pesticides to kill insect pests.

As the traits stack up, so obviously do the risks and the costs. To put that in context, the price of Monsanto's GM triple-stack corn increased by around 35% in the last year.

Canada and EU Resolve Trade Dispute on GMOs

International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development
Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest, Volume 13, Number 27, 22nd July 2009:
http://ictsd.net/i/news/bridgesweekly/51287/

Canada and the European Union have settled an ongoing trade dispute regarding Brussels' restrictions on imports of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). In exchange for Canada dropping its complaint at the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), the EU agreed to meet bi-annually with Canadian authorities to discuss issues relevant to genetically modified products. The two parties will notify this settlement to the international trade court as a mutually agreed solution.

"The European Community has committed to an ongoing dialogue with Canada on biotechnology that will continue to help improve market access," Canadian international trade minister Stockwell Day said in a statement. The result is "positive news for Canadian producers," he added.

Canada, along with the US and Argentina, filed separate complaints with the DSB in May 2003 challenging the EU's import restrictions on GMOs (see Bridges Weekly 14 May 2003 http://ictsd.net/i/news/bridgesweekly/5750/ and Bridges Trade BioRes 21 Mar 2002 (http://ictsd.net/i/news/biores/8716/).

In November 2006, the DSB ruled that the EU's methods of approving GMO imports from 1984 to 2004 were in violation of the WTO's Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. Part of the grounds for the WTO decision involved the EU's 'suspension of approval' (in effect, a de facto ban) of GMO imports from June 1999 to August 2003 (see Bridges Trade BioRes 7 Mar 2002 http://ictsd.net/downloads/biores/biores2-4.pdf).

Following the ruling, the parties agreed to hold technical discussions on biotech-related issues, and they also agreed to a 12-month Reasonable Period of Time (RPT) for implementation of the talks. The initial deadline was set for November 2007, but Canada agreed to extend its RPT twice, first until January 2008, and then until 31 July 2009.

The Canadian complaint focused on canola, as this product had been previously banned by the EU on GMO grounds. The canola issue was resolved in March of this year when Brussels approved the last GM canola seed used by Canadian farmers, according to Trish Jordan, a spokeswoman for Monsanto Canada. Since then, Ottawa has consulted seed producers and farmers regarding the future of the trade complaint.

"All issues for Canadian biotech farmers have essentially been approved," Jordan told The New York Times. "That should allow the marketing of Canadian canola to Europe."

Canada and other countries have been lobbying the EU to accept genetically modified food since 1998, but the EU Trade Commission still faces resistance from some of its member states. Surveys also show European consumers are opposed to GMOs due to fears of health risks and the development of herbicide-resistant 'superweeds'.

Although Brussels has remained firm on its broader restrictions on GMOs, its agreement with Ottawa may suggest that it is prepared to consider GMO products on a case-by-case basis, such as in the case of the July 2004 approval of imports of modified corn by Monsanto (see Bridges Trade BioRes 10 November 2004 http://ictsd.net/i/ip/39594/). The settlement with Canada does not require the EU to modify its policies, but rather to be open to an exchange of information aimed at avoiding barriers to trade.

"The mutually agreed solution with Canada is a clear sign that this type of dialogue works," EU Trade Commissioner Catherine Ashton told Bloomberg. "I hope we can follow the same constructive approach with Argentina and the United States."

The EU's discussions with the US and Argentina are ongoing.

ICTSD reporting; "Canada Settles a Crop Trade Complaint Against Europe," NEW YORK TIMES, 15 July 2009; "EU and Canada settle WTO case on Genetically Modified Organisms," EUROPA, 15 July 2009; "EU, Canada Settle WTO Case on Gene-Modified Products (Update2)" BLOOMBERG, 15 July 2000; "EU drops ban on Canadian genetically modified canola," NATIONAL POST, 15 July 2009.

European regulators disagree on Monsanto corn

St. Louis Business Journal, 22 July 2009:
http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2009/07/20/daily49.html

European Union countries failed to authorize the sale of Monsanto Co.'s genetically modified corn on Wednesday.

The European Commission said an expert panel did not reach an agreement to approve the corn and now the debate will head to a higher level with ambassadors and ministers, Reuters reported.

"This is one step in the process, and it's unfortunate that this panel could not come to a decision on these products," Monsanto spokeswoman Danielle Stuart said in response to an inquiry from the Business Journal. "We are disappointed that EU farmers are being denied the choice of a safe, beneficial technology that is already delivering benefits - including pesticide reduction and higher yields - to literally millions of farmers worldwide."

Last month, the European Food Safety Authority issued a favorable scientific opinion on Monsanto's Roundup Ready 2 corn product for cultivation and reaffirmed the safety of its insect-protected corn trait.

Earlier this year, Germany banned the use and sale of the genetically modified corn, alleging it is harmful to wildlife.

France, Austria, Hungary, Greece and Luxembourg also banned the corn, which is resistant to the crop-damaging corn borer.

Creve Coeur, Mo.-based Monsanto (NYSE: MON), led by Chairman and Chief Executive Hugh Grant, makes seeds and insect- and herbicide-resistant crops. It is one of the largest employers in St. Louis with 4,000 local employees.

EU split over Monsanto, Pioneer GM maize

Reuters, 22 July 2009:
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idUSLM37872320090722

BRUSSELS - European Union countries failed on Wednesday to authorise three types of genetically modified maize produced by Monsanto (MON.N) and Pioneer Hi-Bred, a unit of DuPont (DD.N).

The executive European Commission said a panel of national experts from the EU's 27 member states had not managed to reach agreement to approve Monsanto's GM maize MON88017, MON89034 and Pioneer's 59122xNK603.

"Member states returned no definitive opinion for both files, either for or against the proposal," the Commission said in a statement.

EU governments will now debate the authorisation at a higher level -- ambassadors or ministers.

Genetically modified food is a sensitive issue in many countries, such as Austria, Hungary or Poland, with many people hostile to what they call "Frankenstein foods."

(Writing by Marcin Grajewski)

Don't Let Obama Put GMO Boosters in Charge of Food Safety!

Organic Consumers Association [USA], July 22, 2009. By Alexis Baden-Mayer, Esq.:
[Excerpt: see full article at http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_18635.cfm]

Genetically modified foods are not safe. The only reason they're in our food supply is because government bureaucrats with ties to industry suppressed or manipulated scientific research and deprived consumers of the information they need to make informed choices about whether or not to eat genetically modified foods.

Now, the Obama Administration is putting two notorious biotech bullies in charge of food safety! Former Monsanto lobbyist Michael Taylor has been appointed as a senior adviser to the Food and Drug Administration Commissioner on food safety. And, rBGH-using dairy farmer and Pennsylvania Agriculture Secretary Dennis Wolff is rumored to be President Obama's choice for Under-Secretary of Agriculture for Food Safety. Wolfe spearheaded anti-consumer legislation in Pennsylvania that would have taken away the rights of consumers to know whether their milk and dairy products were contaminated with Monsanto's (now Eli Lilly's) genetically engineered Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH).

---

Comment by GM-free Ireland:

GMO boosters have also been in charge of food safety in Ireland:

•

Prof Paddy Cunningham, the Irish Government's Chief Scientific Adviser, used to work as a consultant for the US company Elanco (a division of the US pharmaceuticals giant Eli Lilly and Co. that markets Monsanto's GM-produced Recombinant Bovine Somatotrophin growth hormone Posilac, which is illegal in the EU.

Cunningham is a member of the biotech lobby group EAGLES - European Action on Global Life Sciences (www.efb-eagles.org), a task force of the European Federation of Biotechnology whose members comprise numerous biotech and pharmaceutical industry groups including Monsanto Europe, the Association of German Biotech Companies, the Biotechnology Industry Organisation (USA), etc.

He is also a member of the Irish National Council on Bioethics, whose 2005 report "Genetically Modified Crops and Food: Threat or Opportunity for Ireland?" was a masterfully crafted work of biotech industry spin which concluded that "the genetic modification of crops is not morally objectionable in itself". The then Chairman of the Council was Dermot Gleeson, the disgraced former chairman of Anglo Irish Bank, who bankrupted thousands of depositors.

•

Dr John O'Brien, the recently retired CEO of the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, is a former Director of a biotech & tobacco industry front organisation called the International Life Sciences Institute based in Washington, DC and of its European branch based in Paris. Its corporate donors include British Sugar Plc, Burger King, Coca-Cola, Interbrew, Mars, Nestle, and Pepsi-Co. The UK-based Corporate Watch organisation reported that this lobby group infiltrated the scientific committees of the World Health Organisation and the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation in order to downgrade tobacco health warnings and downplay the evidence that high levels of sugar in junk foods cause childhood obesity and diabetes (www.corporatewatch.org).

O'Brien is now an Honorary Visiting Professor at the University of Ulster, Faculty of Life and Health Science, School of Biomedical Sciences at the Coleraine Campus, where he was the external examiner for the Masters Programme in European Food Regulatory Affairs from 2002 to 2007.

With agriculture buoying major chemical companies, competition gets fierce

Chicago Tribune [USA], 22 July 2009. By Ernest Scheider, AP Energy Writer:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-us-chemicals-food-fight,0,6450541.story

NEW YORK - The only green shoots the chemical industry has seen lately are coming from the one-time diminutive agricultural side of the business, a shift that has spurred both new partnerships and legal battles to stake out new territory and protect profits.

Chemical makers have been hard hit by the global economic downturn because the products they make go into clothes, toys, cars, and thousands of other products that consumers are not buying.

But food is one area where consumers can't cut back that much, a saving grace for an industry that relies increasingly on the sale of high-tech seeds, fertilizer and herbicides.

Operating income at Dow Chemical's agricultural unit jumped 63 percent from 2007 to 2008 when it reached $761 million. At BASF and DuPont, the jump was 37 percent to 705 million euros and 24 percent to $1.11 billion, respectively.

In 2006, DuPont's ag unit was its fourth-biggest business by operating income; in 2008 it was bigger than any other. Dow's ag unit was its third-biggest unit in 2008, up from fifth place in 2007, from when data is most recently available.

Wilmington, Del.-based DuPont wouldn't have make a profit in the second quarter without help from its agricultural business.

Dow, which also needed its agricultural unit to turn a profit in the first quarter, reports its second-quarter results next week along with BASF.

"These agricultural businesses are growing faster than anything else chemical companies do, and they're profitable," said Dahlman Rose & Co. analyst Charlie Neivert, who studies the sector extensively. "They have to continue to protect their turf, or someone's just going to walk all over them."

Anthony Michaels, an attorney specializing in environmental litigation, says companies have become even more aggressive as patents for popular products like Monsanto's Roundup expire.

In a recently filed lawsuit, St. Louis-based Monsanto claims DuPont broke a licensing agreement when it combined its genetically modified soybeans with one of Monsanto's herbicides.

And Germany-based BASF and DuPont have asked a court to invalidate the other's patents for profitable lines of herbicides.

With so much money at stake, the lawsuits have not slowed collaborations between chemical companies that are racing to develop new technology and extend profits.

BASF recently announced it created a seed that requires less water to grow than its peers, with help from Monsanto.

Midland, Mich.-based Dow, in its own joint venture with Monsanto, said earlier this week it's found a way to put several "traits" - like drought- and herbicide-resistance - into a single corn or soybean seed.

Once those products hit the market, expect them to be gobbled up by farmers from St. Agatha, Maine, to Salinas, Calif.

For the chemical industry, volatility is a constant, but in agriculture they may have found firmer footing.

"If you're going to farm a piece of land, you ought to farm it for all its worth," said Tim Hassinger, commercial vice president at Dow AgroSciences. "We think we have something to offer the future of agriculture."

Three GMO import requests

Agra Europe Weekly , 22 July 2009:
http://www.agra-net.com/portal/puboptions.jsp?Option=menu&pubId=ag002

Three GMO import requests will be passed on to Council after member state experts failed to find a majority today (Wednesday) to either approve or reject the crop varieties.

The split votes in the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health (SCoFCAH) concerned two Monsanto maize plants (MON88017 and MON89034) as well as Pioneer's 59122 x NK603 stacked maize variety.

Procedure dictates that without a qualified majority in the Committee, the dossiers must be handed over to Council. A split vote among ministers could then see authority pass back to the Commission to rubber stamp the three maize types.

Long delays

Pioneer and Monsanto will now be eagerly awaiting closure of the dossiers, after suffering long delays to date in the approval process.

Earlier this month the Committee vote on MON89034 and 59122 x NK603 was postponed, sparking concerns that the sensitive dossiers were being sidelined due to political concerns.

An EFSA report in November 2008 found that 59122 x NK603 -- which has already been approved in eight countries -- is "as safe as its non-genetically modified counterpart with respect to potential effects on human and animal health or the environment".

A month later the EFSA GMO Panel also ruled that MON89034 -- which was developed to provide enhanced protection against lepidopteran insect pests (e.g. moths and butterflies) -- was as safe as conventional maize.

The positive risk assessments paved the way for potential approval at EU level, but the Commission chose not to put the GMO applications to a vote when they were presented to member state experts at an April SCOFCAH meeting.

A second discussion of the dossiers without a vote at the first July meeting raised concerns that the EU's GMO approval process was reaching a logjam. While this week's Committee vote provides no conclusive mandate for the applications, it will help restore faith that the approvals process is up and running.

Recent meetings of the Agriculture and Environment Council have nonetheless seen a majority of member states emerge in favour of revamping both the import and cultivation approval procedures, casting uncertainty over how votes will be cast when the GMO maize varieties are presented to Council.

EU to face meat shortage due to GMO restrictions - EU Ag Commission

Meat and Livestock Australia:
http://www.mla.com.au/TopicHierarchy/News/MarketNews/2009/EU+to+face+meat+shortage+due+to+GMO+restrictions+-+EU+Ag+Commission.htm

The EU Agriculture Commission has alerted that the EU's restrictions in genetically modified (GMO) animal feed imports, such as soybeans, may cause a crisis in the EU's meat production industry.

According to the Commission, the current barriers in place to these commodities are putting at risk the supply of animal feed at competitive prices. In addition, the Commission stated that the lack of competitive feed may develop into a meat shortage, which would likely be overcome with imports from countries which feed animals with GMO grains.

The Commission also mentioned that if the situation persists, the meat sector could protest much more intensely than the level of protest currently being displayed by the dairy industry.

Argentina eyeing record soybean crop

Agra Europe Weekly , 22 July 2009:
http://www.agra-net.com/portal/puboptions.jsp?Option=menu&pubId=ag002

Argentina's soybean crop for harvesting in early 2010 may reach a record 52.0 million tonnes, up from the drought-reduced 32.2 million in early 2009 as farmers switch from wheat, Hamburg-based oilseeds analysts Oil World forecast this week.

Argentine farmers will plant 19.0 million hectares of soybeans for harvesting in April/May 2010, up from 17.50 million hectares harvested in early 2009, it estimated.

Severe drought in Argentina meant its farmers were likely to cut wheat plantings to 2.60 million hectares for the 2009/10 harvest, down from 4.69 million hectares in 2008/09, and soybeans were likely to be used as late alternative sowings, it said.

Brazil's 2009/10 soybean crop was also likely to rise to 61.6 million tonnes, up from 57.14 million tonnes in 2008/09, it said. Paraguay's crop was seen rising to 5.8 million tonnes from 3.9 million tonnes and Uruguay's more moderately to 1.2 million tonnes from 1.0 million tonnes.

The tight global oilseed balance will mean the world market will become increasingly dependent on South American supplies in March/August 2010, Oil World said.

"There are very good chances than an extraordinary increase in (South American) soybean production can be achieved," it said. But it stressed its estimates were still preliminary and depended on weather, actual plantings and other factors such as cost of fertilisers, reported Reuters.

German feed grains under price pressure

Agra Europe Weekly, 22 July 2009:
http://www.agra-net.com/portal/puboptions.jsp?Option=menu&pubId=ag002

At the start of the 2009/10 harvest, German feed barley prices are under intense pressure. At the beginning of July, average producer prices fell to under §100/tonne and in areas with a surplus of the grain, prices were as low as §90/t, newly formed German markets and price reporting agency, AMI said this week.

Production has generally been high in the 2009/10 season, so much so that output has exceeded demand. Farmers are thus turning to exports although strong competition is also seen on this market as French offerings are expected to be substantial this season.

Demand for feed maize is also seen lower, but is not expected to fall as much as barley, as reduced supplies of the grain are predicted in both Germany and the rest of Europe.

DEFRA eyes EU softening on GM soya

Agra Europe Weekly, 22 July 2009:
http://www.agra-net.com/portal/puboptions.jsp?Option=menu&pubId=ag002

The UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) has called on the EU to relax its zero tolerance policy on genetically modified (GM) soyabeans, following warnings from farmers that they could soon find themselves unable to import non-GM animal feed.

In a letter to Ministers this week, the National Farmers Union (NFU) in England, Scotland and Wales, the Ulster Farmers Union and the National Pig Association all warned that the UK could see feed costs rise by £30m per annum if the EU does not relax the rules.

Under the current regulations, even if very low levels of non-approved GM material are detected within a shipment of animal feed arriving in the EU, the cargo will be rejected.

"Having hugely important shipments of animal feed rejected at European ports because of trace levels of non-EU approved GM varieties is heavy handed and placing a huge financial burden on those who need to buy such feed supplies for their animals," Allan Bowie, NFU vice-president was quoted by the Farmers Guardian as saying.

"The whole supply chain has been urging recognition and action on the EU GM approvals process and tolerance levels in imported feed for several years, with little progress. We need our politicians' support in making sure that progress is made as a matter of urgency," he stressed. In response to the letter from the farming unions, DEFRA stated that it was aware of the situation and it renewed its urges to the EU to re-think is zero tolerance policy.

"Our livestock production relies on the use of imported feed, especially soya, nearly all of which comes from GM-producing countries," A DEFRA spokesperson said.

"If we did not use GM feed the cost of our livestock production would increase, and our farmers would suffer a competitive disadvantage relative to those in other countries. If the import of both non-GM and approved-GM soya were disrupted because of the EU's GM control regime, this could mean a significant increase in consumer prices for animal products. This is a serious issue that has to be addressed," he stressed.

---

Comment by GM-free Ireland

Thanks to widespread GM contamination in the USA and other countries, European farmers have to pay higher costs for uncontaminated animal feed imports. It is ironic that instead of forcing the polluters to pay the costs, and plugging the leak by requesting the US farmers to grow feed crops that are legal in the EU, the British Government and the associations which claim to represent the interests of British farmers are lobbying the EC to make the hole bigger - thus further excluding UK farmers from the rapidly growing European market for meat, poultry, fish and dairy produce from livestock fed a certified GM-free diet.

As Bob Marley sang, "He who diggeth a pit shall fall in it!"

GMWatch launches new myth-busting website

GM Watch press release, 22 July 2009.

GMWatch has just launched its new website: www.gmwatch.org, which replaces the one forced off the web by 14 months of cyber attacks. A network engineer brought in to advise on the damage described these as the worst attacks he'd seen in his 20 years in the industry.[1]

The new site has been designed to be user-friendly, making it easy to navigate what George Monbiot has called "the world's most comprehensive database on the impacts and the politics of genetically engineered crops."[2] This includes GMWatch's archive of nearly a decade of news and analysis from GMWatch's daily, weekly and monthly lists, including material translated into several other languages.

GMWatch has been at the forefront of the global campaign of opposition to the imposition of GM food and crops, and the new site includes detailed guides to:

•

how the media is manipulated by wildly misleading claims about GM;

•

the myth-makers: the people hyping and promoting GM crops world-wide;

•

the GM corporations and their toxic legacy of global pollution and deceit.

Jonathan Matthews, founder of GMWatch, commented, "Our campaign and this site are all about busting the myths about GM crops. The reality is that this is a technology shrouded in risks and uncertainties. It has failed to significantly increase the productivity of food and feed crops or deliver on almost any of the extraordinary claims made for it - but it is being relentlessly pushed by people, institutions and even governments with massive vested interests in its acceptance. The GMWatch website is the place to go for those who want to get at the reality behind the spin and hyperbole."

GMWatch co-editor Claire Robinson said, "Establishing the new GMWatch website alongside its sister site GMWatch Spinprofiles,[3] and the BanGMFood campaign[4] has been an enormous task, and we'd like to thank all our fellow campaigners who've supported that process, not least the volunteers who helped transfer our enormous archive. They've done an amazing job of work and we've now got our best ever campaigning armoury for attacking the web of deceit over GM foods."

Notes

[1] Interview about attacks on GMWatch
http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-test/334-interview-about-attacks-on-gm-watch

[2] Comments on GMWatch
http://www.spinprofiles.org/index.php/Comments_on_GMWatch

[3] GMWatch Spinprofiles is at http://www.spinprofiles.org/index.php/GM_Watch:_Portal It's the GM portal of a free online index cataloging the details of industry-friendly experts, and the institutes, think tanks, and front groups they work out of in their battle to influence public opinion and public policy. It's an international undertaking, written collaboratively with wiki technology, aimed at tackling PR and propaganda activities on a wide range of important issues. [4] The BanGMFood campaign is at http://www.bangmfood.org It explains:

•

why we need to act - with detailed references to scientific studies showing the harm caused by GM foods;

•

how GM foods are being introduced by stealth;

•

why GM and non-GM food crops can't co-exist;

•

what we can do to challenge the imposition of GM foods, primarily in a UK/EU context.

21 July 2009

Biomass power highlighted as biotech industry meets in Montreal

ETC Group [Canada] news release, 21 July 2009:
http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=760

Montreal- June 21 2009 -- As hundreds of delegates gathered for the Sixth Annual Conference on Industrial Biotechnology and Bioprocessing at the Palais des Congrès in Old Montreal, a group of NGOs held an early morning press conference across the street. Greenpeace, ETC Group and Biofuelwatch joined forces to warn that the "green" energy of the biotech industry was mostly hype, that governments should not add to their already generous subsidies of the industry and that the feedstock on which it is all based - so called "biomass" - is neither plentiful nor easily converted into renewable chemicals, plastics and fuels.

Jim Thomas, a researcher from ETC Group, charged that behind the thin, green veneer of clean energy and renewable plastics, Big Bio is, in fact, engaged in a huge industrial power grab: "The Gene Giants' control over the smallest components of life such as DNA has now become much more rapid and sophisticated with billions of dollars being invested in new technologies such as metagenomics and synthetic biology. Twenty-five percent of the world's so-called biomass has already been commodified. Now industry is going after the remaining seventy-five percent. The quest for greater quantities of plant cellulose - the most abundant organic material on earth - will make nature reserves and marginal lands more commercially valuable than ever before. Three years ago, NGOs warned that the demand for corn ethanol would lead to higher food prices and hunger. We were right. And today we're warning that this massive biomass-grab will bring about similarly devastating consequences for people - especially in the Third World, because that is where these companies will look when there's no more feedstock closer to home."

Rachel Smolker from UK-based Biofuelwatch challenged the companies present at the BIO Conference to ask themselves a fundamental question: "Is there enough biomass out there for the all the purposes being envisaged? The answer is a resounding no." She cited targets and figures for biomass-use being used by governments and industry to prove the point: The U.S. has adopted a target of 36 billion gallons of biofuels per year by 2022, claiming there is 1.3 billion tons of available biomass. Yet by some analyses, this would require mowing down 80% of the available biomass from agricultural, forest and grass lands! And this is just one target. The U.S. air force has set itself a goal of replacing 25% of its fuel demand with biofuels, and commercial aviation is following suit. The chemicals industry has set a target of replacing 10% of its feedstocks with biomass as well. Meanwhile, policy measures intended to support the development of renewable energy (electricity and heat) are largely (about 70 percent of subsidies) translating into co-firing of biomass with coal and other biomass technologies. These combined targets are entirely unsustainable, especially in light of the need to feed a growing population, declining ecosystems and soil and water degradation.

Eric Darier, Director of Greenpeace Quebec, urged governments and private investors to approach the BIO lobby with great caution and to resist blindly jumping on the "innovation bandwagon:" "We need to support and apply the precautionary principle as recognized in international law and conduct vigorous and independent life cycle analyses before declaring any technology 'green.'" Darier denounced the lack of public participation in debates over biotech and questioned our ability to ensure independent scientific expertise to properly check industry's claims. "This will require a full strategic assessment of each technology as it is being developed. If not, we shall be left to clean up the mess decades from now, just as we are doing with toxic chemicals and pesticides today."

The three speakers are available for media interviews.

Eric Darier, Greenpeace Quebec +1 514 605-6497 www.greenpeace.org
Jim Thomas, ETC Group +1 613 261-8580 www.etcgroup.org
Rachel Smolker, Biofuelwatch +1 802 735-7794 www.biofuelwatch.org.uk

Do Seed Companies Control GM Crop Research?
• Scientists must ask corporations for permission before publishing independent research on genetically modified crops. That restriction must end

Scientific American, Editorial, August 2009 edition, published 21 July 2009:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research

Advances in agricultural technology - including, but not limited to, the genetic modification of food crops - have made fields more productive than ever. Farmers grow more crops and feed more people using less land. They are able to use fewer pesticides and to reduce the amount of tilling that leads to erosion. And within the next two years, agritech companies plan to introduce advanced crops that are designed to survive heat waves and droughts, resilient characteristics that will become increasingly important in a world marked by a changing climate.

Unfortunately, it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised. That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers.

To purchase genetically modified seeds, a customer must sign an agreement that limits what can be done with them. (If you have installed software recently, you will recognize the concept of the end-user agreement.) Agreements are considered necessary to protect a company's intellectual property, and they justifiably preclude the replication of the genetic enhancements that make the seeds unique. But agritech companies such as Monsanto, Pioneer and Syngenta go further. For a decade their user agreements have explicitly forbidden the use of the seeds for any independent research. Under the threat of litigation, scientists cannot test a seed to explore the different conditions under which it thrives or fails. They cannot compare seeds from one company against those from another company. And perhaps most important, they cannot examine whether the genetically modified crops lead to unintended environmental side effects.

Research on genetically modified seeds is still published, of course. But only studies that the seed companies have approved ever see the light of a peer-reviewed journal. In a number of cases, experiments that had the implicit go-ahead from the seed company were later blocked from publication because the results were not flattering. "It is important to understand that it is not always simply a matter of blanket denial of all research requests, which is bad enough," wrote Elson J. Shields, an entomologist at Cornell University, in a letter to an official at the Environmental Protection Agency (the body tasked with regulating the environmental consequences of genetically modified crops), "but selective denials and permissions based on industry perceptions of how 'friendly' or 'hostile' a particular scientist may be toward [seed-enhancement] technology."

Shields is the spokesperson for a group of 24 corn insect scientists that opposes these practices. Because the scientists rely on the cooperation of the companies for their research - they must, after all, gain access to the seeds for studies - most have chosen to remain anonymous for fear of reprisals. The group has submitted a statement to the EPA protesting that "as a result of restricted access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology."

It would be chilling enough if any other type of company were able to prevent independent researchers from testing its wares and reporting what they find - imagine car companies trying to quash head-to-head model comparisons done by Consumer Reports, for example. But when scientists are prevented from examining the raw ingredients in our nation's food supply or from testing the plant material that covers a large portion of the country's agricultural land, the restrictions on free inquiry become dangerous.

Although we appreciate the need to protect the intellectual property rights that have spurred the investments into research and development that have led to agritech's successes, we also believe food safety and environmental protection depend on making plant products available to regular scientific scrutiny. Agricultural technology companies should therefore immediately remove the restriction on research from their end-user agreements. Going forward, the EPA should also require, as a condition of approving the sale of new seeds, that independent researchers have unfettered access to all products currently on the market. The agricultural revolution is too important to keep locked behind closed doors.

Note: This article was originally printed with the title, "A Seedy Practice."

Scientists Confirm Potent Hormone Disrupting Effects

AllVoices.com [UK], 21 July 2009. By Chnarenda:
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/3724608-scientists-confirm-potent-hormone-disrupting-effects

Latest evidence confirms world's top-selling herbicide used with GM crops is toxic and disrupts sex hormones at infinitesimal doses; time for a worldwide ban.

Dr. Mae-Wan Ho from the London-based Institute of Science in Society said that this report has been submitted to the US Environment Protection Agency. Glyphosate is the world's top selling herbicide, and Monsanto's formulations Roundup is used with more than 80 percent of all genetically modified (GM) crops grown globally.

But evidence of its extreme toxicity has been emerging within the past decade. Glyphosate was found to kill human placental cells at concentrations below that recommended for agricultural use and approved by our regulators, while Roundup was lethal at even lower concentrations. The herbicide has already been linked with spontaneous abortions, Hodgkin's lymphoma and multiple myeloma in humans; and in laboratory studies glyphosate caused liver damage in rats. Roundup is also highly lethal to amphibians.

Recently, the research team led by Giles-Eric Séralini at Caen University in France confirmed the lethality of glyphosate and Roundup formulations to human cells at minute concentrations (down to parts per million, ppm). They also identified three main targets for killing cells: damage to the cell membrane, poisoning of energy metabolism in the mitochondria, and programmed cell death involving fragmentation of nuclear DNA.

Séralini's team joined up with colleagues at the University of Burgundy in Dijon and have now demonstrated that the herbicide and its Roundup formulations disrupt the action and synthesis of sex hormones at even lower concentrations.

Glyphosate-based herbicides are now major pollutants of rivers and surface waters. Commercial glyphosate formulations contain a number of different 'adjuvants' that are supposed to be 'inert', but such cocktail mixtures typically exert synergistic, multiplicative and other nonlinear effects, much more potent than the separate ingredients. Unfortunately, typical toxicology tests are still carried out on individual ingredients, if at all

Not surprisingly, the question of active toxic threshold of the combinations of glyphosate and adjuvants in different formations in vivo is still open, but as Séralini and colleagues state, "it is now well demonstrated that mixtures formulated with G [glyphosate] and adjuvants are themselves not environmentally safe, in particular for aquatic life. They can even enhance heavy metals toxicity."

The largest refugee crisis from agriculture sector

BusinessGyan.com [India], 21 July 2009. By Kishor Jagirdar:
http://www.businessgyan.com/content/view/6133/547/

It's now official that the northern parts of India this year will witness a failed monsoon. The granary of India comprises of Punjab and its surrounding state of Harayana as well. The farmers are already in despair as this would mean that they would be pushed into further debts and multitude of other problems like drinking water and going to bed on an empty stomach for one full year. They are heavily dependent on the Khariff crops sown this time of the year.

The change in rainfall pattern due to the El Nino effect and erratic showers are virtually driving the farming community in the India to look for other occupational alternatives.

Let's take a quick look at some of the root causes

a.

Rapid Urbanization: With cities growing randomly as a result of the globalization effect we find that lots of lucrative jobs available that are more enticing and gratifying than the returns from agriculture

b.

The Real Estate: as cities expand rapidly the value for land is reaching the skies and the farmers are attracted to the prospects of get rich fast attitude and rid themselves of the poverty. Most of the farmers who sold their lands on the persuasion of agents have ended up as menial laborers cleaning drains and construction workers so similar to the Bimal Roy's movie "Do bigha jameen" in 1950s

c.

The ground water level: is decreasing as irresponsible drilling and usage has resulted in water depths which were available at 75 ft a decade ago is now not visible even at the depth of 400 ft.

d.

Fertilizers: In the last green revolution of the 1960s the people were persuaded to use fertilizers which are petrochemical derivatives. The prolonged exposure of the soil all these years have rendered most fertile areas uncultivable with the top soil being completely destroyed and degraded.

e.

The Green revolution technologies: marked a paradigm shift in farming practices. The technologies were supported by the government policies, advocating the use of agro chemicals, hybrid and genetically modified GM seeds, mechanization and irrigation. This required heavy investment and therefore large cash requirements. Initially it gave the farming community the feeling that it have brought prosperity. Though it helped create a sense of food sovereignty it didn't bring food security at individual level as the produce were more oriented for external markets and not internal demands. Gradually in the absence of a proper price control for their produce sadly today instead of prosperity the farmers are trapped under the burden of debts

Farming has now slowly become unsustainable as the cost of cultivation is increasing but the returns are diminishing

This is forcing farming community to either to take the extreme step of mass suicides or reduce themselves into menial laborers in cities falling below poverty line.

As per the survey by NSSO in 2006 40% of the farming community wants to quit farming and move to alternate occupations.

80,000 farmers are quitting farming and moving into cities every year. This includes farmers with land holding and landless laborers The combined population of UK, France and Germany is 200 million. The World Bank had therefore estimated that some 400 million people would be willingly or unwillingly moving from the rural to urban centers by 2015. Subsequent studies have shown that massive distress migration will result in the years to come. For instance, 70 per cent of Tamil Nadu, 65 per cent of Punjab, and nearly 55 per cent of Uttar Pradesh is expected to migrate to urban centers by the year 2020

We have reached the point of disaster and now there is no room for skeptism or criticism we need to act now.

India is poised to become an economic superpower and we have invested so much in our image building as well as our cities. Any metro today is no less than an America in India. Our Bollywood movies are speaking of Indians having attained the affluent status with the NRI life styles. We spend millions of USD on show Biz and fancy infrastructure for our IT /BT companies. Splurge money at super markets and malls

None of us are thinking as to where the food comes from and what will happen to us in the coming years with the burgeoning population demanding more and more food while our farmers die on the streets.

We are on the verge of triggering a refugee crisis that could be the largest in our history during peace time.

These 400 million displaced will constitute the new class of migrants - agricultural refugees. Twice the number of people that are expected to be displaced by global warming worldwide are alone be pushed out of agriculture in India.

20 July 2009

Clinton harps on 'technology' to provide food security

The Times of India (via Agbios.com), 20 July 2009. By Rumu Banerjee:
http://www.agbios.com/main.php?action=ShowNewsItem&id=10841

Days after the government said it was planning to introduce genetically modified food crops in the country in three years, US secretary of state Hillary Clinton gave a clear indication of the US administration's approval of deploying 'cutting-edge technology' to raise crop yields.

During her first visit to India as secretary of state, which included a strategic stop at the country's premier agriculture institute, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, Clinton was vocal about the need to address the "root" of the problem of world hunger: crop productivity. And helping increase crop yield would be cutting-edge technology, she claimed.

"India's leadership in agriculture is absolutely crucial," Clinton said as she spoke at length on the US administration's focus on global hunger and malnutrition. Pledging to "work and support" Indian initiatives, Clinton added, "We have to work together. It is imperative that we invest in science that increases crop yield."

The remarks comes in the face of continued opposition to genetically modified food crops in India. While the government has been talking about giving support to the introduction of GM crops, it has only allowed the entry of GM cotton, known as BT cotton.

Clinton's statement at the Pusa institute, however, was clear about where the US administration stood on the issue. Talking about the Green Revolution that took place in India in the 1960s, she emphasised the need for close cooperation between the two countries again: this time, in agriculture and the use of technology in this field.

"India has 3% of the world's crop land but feeds 17% of the world's population. Its leadership in agriculture is crucial... we are looking at ways to accelerate in a short period of time the growth of productivity," Clinton said.

Questioned about the US's commitment to GM crops, as opposed to the cautious stand taken by the EU, Clinton admitted, "We're looking at it in a holistic way, by being very vigilant about how we do it." Interestingly, while the emphasis on technology in agriculture was more than apparent, Clinton avoided using the emotive word 'GM' throughout her interaction.

However, Clinton's visit -- which was to learn more about research done by IARI, helped by US funding, to develop seeds that give better productivity and crops that use less water as well as farm equipment that reduce production costs -- was indicative of the thrust on technology that US plans to give in the collaboration agreement that will be signed on Monday.

Speaking about the "five pillars of collaboration that US-India would be redefining", Clinton said agriculture was one of the "strongest pillars". Giving support to Clinton's statement was agriculture minister Sharad Pawar. "For India, a key priority is to trigger the next generation of reforms in the agrarian economy... Our joint collaboration in frontier areas of research including biotechnology could make a significant contribution to the world," he said.

Accompanying Clinton was new US ambassador to India Timothy Roemer and special envoy on climate change Todd Stern as well as other senior officials. Also present were Dr Mangala Rai, DG, ICAR; Indian ambassador to US Meera Shankar, A K Upadhyay, special secretary, department of agriculture and education and H S Gupta, director, IARI.

---

Comment by TraceConsult™

Using the goodwill extended to its new administration, the U.S. is leaning heavily on India to adopt its biotechnology products. Avoiding the term "GM" may be proof for good superficial diplomatic skills, and a "holistic way" to approach things may be another way of doing just the same thing, which is not calling a spade a spade: American "technology" to "increase crop yield" in today's world is called biotechnology and that involves genetic modification - GM!

One can only hope that the world's largest democracy will be able to muster up enough inner strength and self esteem to withstand the "friendly" pressure, thus showing other developing economies how to do it.

First GM trial in Belgium since 2002

CheckBiotech.org, 20 July 2009:
http://greenbio.checkbiotech.org/news/first_gm_trial_belgium_2002

Ghent - The Belgian moratorium on field trials of genetically modified plants is over. The Flanders Institute of Biotechnology (VIB) has started planting lignin-reduced trees on a field near Ghent. It is the first field trial in Belgium since 2002.

The VIB had to go to court to get the permission for the field trial. In May 2008 the application was refused, even though the Belgian Biosafety Advisory Council and the regional Flanders Minister of the Environment had given their consent. VIB took legal action and finally obtained permission from the highest Belgian court, the Council of State.

Belgium has a long and glorious history in genetic engineering. In 1983, researchers in Ghent led by Marc Van Montagu and Jef Schell were the first to develop a genetically engineered plant. After 2002, the number of field trials in Belgium dropped down to zero as the result of regulatory uncertainty surrounding the implementation of the 2001/18 EU directive on the deliberate release of GMOs.

In the poplar trees, which are closely planted to the pilot biofuel plant near Ghent, the lignin biosynthesis is suppressed leading to trees with about 20% less lignin and 17% more cellulose per gram of wood. This makes them more suitable for bioethanol production, the researchers hope. Wood from these trees grown in the greenhouse produces up to 50% more bioethanol than ordinary poplar trees. VIB expects to have its first results from the outdoor trial in 2012.

Source: European Biotechnology News

DFIDs Agricultural Research Strategy Heading Down a Blind Alley
• A three point policy turn is needed urgently, says new report

GM Freeze [UK], 20 July 2009:
http://www.gmfreeze.org/page.asp?id=387&iType=

[NOTE: DFID is the UK Government's Department for International Development - the UK equivalent of USAID]

A new report from GM Freeze [1] published today says that DFID's agriculture research strategy is heading down a blind alley. GM Freeze say DFID is "obsessed with GM crops" as a technical fix to hunger, and challenges ministers to adopt policies to build a strong research capability in agroecological farming in the UK [2].

This month's DFID White Paper [3] specifically mentioned projects involving GM technology as "best bets" (for drought tolerance and vitamin enhancement) and pledges GBP140 million in support.

The report, Blind Alley, analyses how DFID has allocated agricultural research and development funding since 2000.

It finds a lack of transparency in how research institutions in receipt of UK grants spend the money. Many institutions, which are part of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) [4], are given core funding to spend as they wish, without the need to account for how it is spent or to demonstrate tangible results from the research which improve the lives of poor farmers.

The CGIAR network of research institutes [4] has benefited hugely from DFID funding since 2000. Many of its members are actively engaged in GM research. Earlier this year, Hilary Benn told a Select Committee that GBP11.3m were allocated to GM crop-related research in the UK by the BBSRC [5].

The new report also points to DFID's failure to make any changes to their agricultural R&D programs in response to the key findings of the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) published in 2008 [6]. This week's DFID White Paper fails to mention the report. The IAASTD report recommended that agroecological research should get greater priority, in particular to deal with the impacts of climate change and to enhance the production of food, fuel and fibre while still providing ecosystems services (eg, clean water) and protecting natural resources and biodiversity.

DFID's failure could contribute to further food insecurity and land degradation, instead of enabling real and sustainable solutions.

The GM Freeze report goes on to look at two projects in particular which seek to increase the intensity of farming in Africa using fossil-fuels based fertilizers and pesticides and hybrid/GM seeds [7]. Both projects involve partnerships with biotech and agro-chemical corporations, including Monsanto and Bayer. The impacts of intensive farming on Africa's fragile environment and public health have not been adequately assessed by DFID, says the report. It also points out that the rising costs of fertilizers, pesticides, seeds and other farm inputs make them unaffordable for many small farmers.

Commenting on their findings Pete Riley, Campaign Director of GM Freeze, said:

"Finding out how taxpayer's money is being spent on agricultural research for the Global South is not easy. However, there is a clear direction in DFID's policy that leads to the same large scale, intensive commercial production models that have so damaged the environment and biodiversity in the North.

"What is more, DFID is funding public private partnerships involving the likes of Monsanto and Bayer. Ministers have become obsessed with GM crops as a major part of the solution to hunger based on the thinnest of possible evidence.

"Imposing an intensive farming model on Africa including GM would be a disaster. Intensive farming has massive environmental and human costs. Agroecological approaches using local resources and knowledge of male and female farmers is the way forward.

"So far, DFID ministers have barely acknowledged the existence for the International Assessment's (IAASTD) findings, let alone starting to implement them. Agroecological solutions are working in small scale projects around the world, and DFID needs to do a three point policy turn and support such workable and affordable solutions with funding for more research and farmer training and participation."

Hannah Erlichman, Food Justice International Programmes Officer of War on Want [7] commented:

"War on Want is concerned at any suggestion that genetically modified organisms hold the key to development or food security. We have first-hand evidence from our partners in the South of the damaging effects of genetically modified crops on farming communities. War on Want urges DFID to support research and development that is led by farmers in the South and promotes sustainable food production."

Petra Kjell Environment Policy and Advocacy Officer for the development group Progressio [8] commented:

"Blind Alley shows how DFID's funding priorities on agricultural research are increasingly moving towards intensive farming and biotechnology. This goes against the grain of both the UK backed IAASTD's recommendations of more locally grounded and sustainable agroecological approaches, as well as evidence from Progressio's partners in the Global South. It is time for DFID to review its spending priorities towards a more pro-poor focus, recognising the multifunctionality of agriculture and the important role of small-scale farmers, in line with the findings of the IAASTD."

Contact

Pete Riley + 44 7903 341065 or + 44 845 217 8992

Notes

1. Blind Alley: Is DFID's policy on agriculture in danger of failing to deliver food and environmental security? Report available as download from http://www.gmfreeze.org/uploads/blind_alley_final.pdf. Please phone for a paper copy.

2. Agroecology is defined as the use of ecological concepts and principles to study, design, and manage agricultural systems. The five main principles are: recycling of nutrients, building of soil organic matter; minimising losses from the system; maximising biodiversity and genetic diversity; and enhancing biological interactions.

3. See Eliminating Poverty: Building Our Common Future page 36
http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Documents/whitepaper/building-our-common-future.pdf

4. The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) comprises of 15 research institutions which had a budget of $495 million in 2007 - 7% of which came from DFID.

5. "In answer to the second, BBSRC, so it is Government funding, is funding GBP11.3 million of research that uses GM crops or is of direct relevance to new crops." Evidence by Secretary of State Hilary Benn to the Environemn4t Food and Rural Affairs Committee 7 May 2009.
See http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmenvfru/uc213-viii/uc21302.htm. BBSRC - Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council.

6. IAASTD reports were published in April 2008.
See http://www.agassessment.org/index.cfm?Page=IAASTD%20Reports&ItemID=2713

7. Farm Inputs Promotions Africa project partners include Monsanto, Bayer and Pioneer Hybrid and the African Agricultural technology Foundation's include MONSANTO, BASF, Dow Agro. Bioner/DuPont and Syngenta.

8. See http://www.waronwant.org/campaigns

9. See http://www.ciir.org/progressio/Internal/89626/development_themes/

Genetically Modified Food:
• Canada capitulates and abandons fight with Europe at the WTO

Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN) press release, 20 July 2009:
http://www.cban.ca

Ottawa, Canada -- The announcement that Canada has agreed to end its World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute with Europe over genetically modified (GM) foods is being greeted as a step forward by the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network. The agreement between Canada and Europe could lead to a much needed, comprehensive overhaul of Canada's policies on GM food including implementing the precautionary principle, ratifying the Biosafety Protocol, and establishing mandatory GM food labeling.

Canada and Europe have signed a final bilateral settlement which now leaves the US and Argentina alone in their WTO dispute with Europe over GM food. Canada's actions indicate a clear crack in the pro-GM front for the first time.

"It seems Canada saw no future in further pursuing the WTO dispute with Europe and has instead agreed to hold bi-annual meetings with the European Commission to discuss GM issues," said Lucy Sharratt, Coordinator of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, a coalition of 18 groups, "Its about time our government began looking towards Europe as a model for reforming Canada's dangerously inadequate regulations of GM crops and foods."

The Canadian Government is trying to spin this new agreement as improving market access for GM crops in Europe, but this access already exists and the obstacle for Canadian food exports to Europe is continued consumer rejection. According to Monsanto, by March of this year, the European Commission had already approved all of the GM seeds currently used in Canada. There is no market for GE foods in Europe, including canola, and it is wishful thinking on the part of the Harper Government that Europe will accept biodiesel made from canola -- nearly 100% genetically modified -- in view of the growing worldwide controversy over biofuels.

"Canada has a great deal to learn from Europe, especially from countries that continue to apply the precautionary principle by refusing GM crops, like France and Germany," said Eric Darier of Greenpeace, "With new bilateral talks between Canada and Europe on GM, we can only expect that the Canadian Government will rapidly adopt mandatory GM food labeling, as over 80% of Canadian consumers demand the labeling that European consumers already enjoy."

"By authorizing GM canola rapidly, the Canadian government failed to protect Canadian farmers' interests like organic farming as well as overseas markets," says Arnold Taylor of the Saskatchewan Organic Directorate.

"This agreement gives nothing concrete to Canada. It has less to do with getting an immediate result on GMOs and more to do with Canada's agenda for a trade pact with Europe." said Stuart Trew, trade campaigner with the Council of Canadians.

For more information:

Eric Darier cell 514 605-6497
Lucy Sharratt, Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, 613 241 2267 ext.5
Arnold Taylor, Saskatchewan Organic Directorate, cell: 306-241-6126 or 306-252-2783
Stuart Trew, Council of Canadians, cell 647-222-9782
http://www.cban.ca

Genetically Modified Food:
Canada capitulates and abandons fight with Europe at the WTO.

Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN) press release, 20 July 2009:
http://www.cban.ca/Resources/Topics/Trade

Canada and Europe have signed a bilateral settlement which ends Canada's dispute with the EU at the World Trade Organization (WTO) over genetically modified foods - this leaves the US and Argentina alone in their WTO dispute with Europe over GM food and requires Canada to meet with EU officials twice yearly to discuss GM issues.

The Canadian Government is trying to spin this new agreement as improving market access for GM crops in Europe, but this access already exists and the obstacle for Canadian food exports to Europe is continued consumer rejection. According to Monsanto, by March of this year, the European Commission had already approved all of the GM seeds currently used in Canada.

Click here for background information: CBAN Briefing: WTO dispute over Genetically Modified Organisms: Canada, Australia, US vs European Union, July 20, 2009 http://www.cban.ca/Resources/Topics/Trade/Background-Information-on-Canada-s-WTO-Dispute-with-Europe-over-GMOs

Summary

On May 13, 2003, Canada filed a complaint, in tandem with complaints filed by Australia and the US, to the World Trade Organization (WTO) Dispute Settlement Body regarding European Commission delays in approving GMOs.

Canada, US and Argentina alleged that the EU had put in place a de facto moratorium on GM approvals and that they had:

•

Refused to give the approval to a number of new GM foods,

•

Stopped processing applications for new GMOs,

•

Not taken action to stop EU member states banning GM products.

In 2006, WTO dispute panels ruled that the EU had put in place an illegal moratorium. Canada and the EU continued discussions as the EU requested more time to address the outcome of the WTO ruling.

European Union Member States are clashing with the European Commission over the approval of GMOs. The European Commission has approved 21 new GM crops since the WTO dispute was filed in 2003, while European countries continue to ban some GM crops. According to Monsanto, as of March of 2009, the European Commission had actually approved the last of the GM seeds used in Canada. Yet six European Union member states have banned the cultivation of Monsanto's GM corn MON810

Click here to read Canadian Government Press Release July 15
http://w01.international.gc.ca/minpub/publication.aspx?publication_id=387393&lang=eng&docnum=195

Click here to read the European Union Press Release July 15
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/1142&format=HTML

Sweden's Lantmännen embarrassed by 3.9 % GMO content in maize for dairy cows

TraceConsult™ [Switzerland], 20 July 2009:
http://www.traceonsult.ch

It must have been quite a blow last week to the members of Svensk Mjölk, the Swedish Dairy Association, who, by no fault of their own, were unexpectedly unable to continue their claim of supplying GMO-free milk.

What had happened? Svenska Lantmännen, at 70 percent market share Sweden's largest distributor for animal nutrition, had inadvertently bought 1,200 tonnes of maize from its Dutch supplier, apparently material of Polish origin. Unfortunately, the cargo, ordered as GMO-free, contained 3.9 percent of MON810 maize. Legal in the EU, but too much to even be remotely considered as adventitious presence under EU Regulation (EC) No. 1829/2003. The shipment should have been labelled accordingly - and would certainly not have been accepted by Lantmännen.

Lantmännen Lantbruk's quality system caught the mistake, but apparently not before 100 tonnes were sold and shipped to dairy farmers. Dairy processors from giant Arla to regional Skånemejerier were affected and naturally upset.

The way Lantmännen has handled the incident seems perfectly appropriate both from a legal and a from a communication point of view. MON810 maize is legal in the EU and they revealed the facts as soon as they became known.

But is that enough?

The ones left with a problem clearly are the dairy farmers who received the 100 tonnes of contaminated feed and the dairy processors who have volumes of illegally claimed milk plus a credibility problem with the consumers.

Not knowing the fine print of the supply agreements for the maize nor for the compound feed (nor for the milk) we dare assume that they are rather lax. Lantmännen's official statement on the incident says that feed and raw ingredients "must be labelled as containing GMOs if the presence of GMOs exceeds 0.9%."

At the risk that we will be accused of hair splitting, this is not quite so. What the labeling regulation says is that all GMO content must be labeled unless the GMO presence is adventitious or technically unavoidable. We realize that a strong faction in the European feed industry refuses to accept this fact but, hey, it's been the law since 18 April 2004! So they have had enough time to get used to it. The contamination of the compound feed would have been technically quite easily avoidable if sampling and testing would have been part of Lantmännen's or the Dutch trading company's ongoing quality system. Apparently this was not the case.

And adventitious, meaning as much as accidental, this contamination does not seem to be either. Again, we refer to Lantmännen's own online statement shown below: If the company is convinced that all it takes for "GMO-free" is to stay below 0.9 percent GMO content the probability that the supply agreement only calls for "less than 0.9 percent GMOs" or something similar is very high. But exactly that renders an adventitious presence impossible.

The EU Member States Austria, Germany and Italy have set up their own national regulations stipulating "GMO-free" claims. France is about to join this rank. Contrary to widespread belief, with the right national regulation in place, industry players can relax about low-level contamination up to 0.9 percent and still continue with their "GMO-free" claim.

But that doesn't help Arla or Skånemejerier. They will have to recall their products, explain things to the private consumers and seek remedy from - their dairy farmers

•

High level of GMO content detected in maize sample for Swedish dairy

Svenska Lantmännen [Sweden] press release, 13 July 2009:
http://direkt.lantmannen.com/aciro/websidor/VisaSida.asp?Idnr=3t6RFjDdKu3LWEx8gUZLggXva11qN6oFkGIDGaDvgOg1EI0ZTWKbTNVWOIQd

The maize batch was checked in its own control program for GMOs, and a test showed it contained too high a level of GM material to qualify as a GMO-free product. Interested customers are informed and all further use of maize as GM-free is stopped.

Lantmännen's own supervision system discovered a batch of maize with an excessive content of GMO to qualify as a GMO-free product. Up to 0.9% GMOs are permitted in a GMO-free raw material and in our control, we have measured 3.9% contamination. The regulation is that the product must be labelled as containing GMOs if the presence of GMOs exceeds 0.9%.

Lantm”nnen Lantbruk has distributed feed products without correct labelling. There is no health risk to animals eating the feed but we would, of course, like to inform our customers if the levels of GMOs are too high in a maize consignment to qualify as GMO-free product. The industry organization Swedish Milk and the Swedish Board of Agriculture were informed.

Beyond the control of the authorities, we provide considerable resources for supervision in order to ensure the quality of our products so our customers can feel safe.

For questions, please contact Kjell Larsson, feed security 070-536 93 42.

•

Unable to guarantee GMO-free milk

ATL Lantbrukets Affärstidning [Sweden] press release, 16 July 2009:
http://www.atl.nu/Article.jsp?article=54501

Arla cannot fulfil the promise of GM-free milk, since Lantmännen sold 100 tonnes of feed mixed with GMO maize to unwitting farmers in southern Sweden. The feed was on the market between June 16 and July 6, sold by Lantmännen in Falkenberg and Åhus. After Lantmännen's analysis was completed, the feed was stopped.

However, the damage was already done. Some 50 dairy and pig farmers in Halland, SmÅland and SkÅne had purchased the feed as GM-free.

The discovery was made at Lantmännen's own routine check. The company still does not know what has happened. They bought the maize from a Dutch trader.

Polish maize

"Our contract says that we shall get European produced GMO-free maize. We know from the shipping documents that the goods are loaded in Poland. We believe that the maize was cultivated there as well, but we are wondering when it became contaminated", said Kjell Larsson, responsible for feed quality.

Lantmännen is waiting for the Dutch trading house to investigate the mistake. "They think this is as embarrassing as we do. We think it is unacceptable", said Kjell Larsson.

In the meantime, Lantm”nnen wrote letters to affected farmers and called affected companies.

Arla was informed earlier in the week. The company has promised consumers that their milk is GM-free in every step.

"Now we cannot keep that promise, which is a concern. There is nothing we can do. We do not know which farms got affected and the feed is probably already been consumed", says Tobias Wahl, press manager at Arla.

For a product to be considered as GMO-free, content may not exceed 0.9 percent. The batch, which came through Falkenberg, was taken in a random sampling by Lantmännen and tested at 3.9 percent GMO content, a record high level. The GMO maize is called MON 810, a variety that is approved and authorized for cultivation in the EU.

EU full of GMOs

"This just shows that Europe is full of GMOs, although we do not want to see it, "says Kjell Larsson.

Cows eating feed with genetically modified maize does not affect the quality of the milk.

Industry organization Swedish Milk still has a policy that cows' feed is to be GMO-free because they interpret that consumer opinion is skeptical towards GMOs. SkÅnemejerier's Chairman of the Board, Anders Olsson, is a dairy farmer himself, and he buys feed from Lantmännen. He became very concerned when he read ATL¥s article about the contaminated feed.

"This is entirely Lantmännen's responsibility. They must have lacking in its quality assurance system. Swedish dairies should be GMO-free", he says.

Can you have purchased the feed with high levels of GMO? "I do not know. If so, I presume that I should be informed, "says Anders Olsson

Anna Rosenberg
040-601 64 68
anna.rosenberg@lrfmedia.lrf.se

UK to spend GBP100m on supporting GM crops for world's poor
• White paper shows government plans major rise in investment in research, as report calls for moratorium and questions approach

The Guardian [UK], 20 July 2009. By John Vidal:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/19/gm-crops-aid-uk-funding

Britain is planning to quietly spend up to GBP100m on support for genetically modified crops for the world's poor despite not having allowed any of the controversial foods to be grown commercially at home.

A new white paper shows the government is committed to dramatically increasing spending on high-tech agriculture in the next five years, much of which will be on GM crop research. Biofortified crops, containing added vitamins, will receive GBP80m of development money, GBP60m will go on researching drought-resistant maize for Africa and a further GBP24m will be spent on pest resistance. In addition, support for an international network of GM crop research stations, in collaboration with GM companies, will be doubled. A further tranche of UK aid will go to a research initiative backed by the GM crop firm Syngenta, which is developing a strain of rice modified to increase vitamin A.

The white paper avoids the terms "genetically modified". But scientists and development experts are clear that much of the money will be spent on GM. The government has in the past revealed its strong support of high-tech food for Africa as a way to reduce poverty and also gain acceptance for GM foods in Britain.

Last year the then science minister, Ian Pearson, said: "If GM can demonstrably provide benefits for sub-Saharan Africa, the public will want to support [it]."

However, the decision to increase aid spending on GM food for developing countries rather than to direct money to help farmers increase yields by conventional methods has dismayed environmentalists. In a paper to be published tomorrow, GM Freeze, set up by Friends of the Earth and others, calls for a moratorium on GM, arguing that Britain's investment is sending African farming "down a blind alley".

---

Comment from GM Watch:

This news comes hard on the heels of the call by Jeanette Fitzsimons in New Zealand for precious science funding not to be "poured down the black hole of GM crops". As we said then, policy makers need to look past their uncritical enthusiasm for GM crops at the real evidence on the best solutions to the complex problems the world faces.

This is what the evidence shows:

•

GM has failed to substantially increase the productivity of food and feed crop. http://tiny.cc/IcVzQ

•

Traditional (non-GM) breeding is delivering on yields and on disease-resistant, drought-tolerant, flood resistant and salt tolerant crops while GM continues to lag well behind with all of these. http://bangmfood.org/feed-the-world/17-feeding-the-world/14-non-gm-breakthroughs

•

Studies also show low-cost ecologically based farming methods have doubled yields of some crops in Africa. http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/susagri/susagri064.htm

•

And modern genomic methods, such as marker-assisted selection (MAS), which involve few of the risks of GM, also hold promise. http://bangmfood.org/feed-the-world/17-feeding-the-world/35-non-gm-biotechnology-not-gm-is-the-future

So why waste precious public funding on a risky technology that has no public mandate and which has proven far from effective effective, when so many desirable alternatives are available? Opting for GM not only wastes scarce resources but further stunts research investment into far more productive technologies and methods, both hi-tech and low-tech. Money should also be going into infrastructure improvements that could make a huge difference for small producers in the developing world.

See also

Biotech snake oil: a quack cure for hunger
http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/mm2008/092008/freese.html

Genetic engineering - a crop of hyperbole
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080618/news_lz1e18gurian.html

IAASTD Report: GM crops not the solution to World Hunger
http://www.scribd.com/doc/3804302/Impact-Mag-vol42no06

Organic farming 'could feed Africa' - report
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/organic-farming-could-feed-africa-968641.html

19 July 2009

Scientists table GMO opinion

European Biotechnology Science & Industry News, 19 July 2009:
http://www.eurobiotechnews.eu/service/start-page/top-news/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=10337&tx_ttnews[backPid]=12&cHash=74f877065b

Ceské Budejovice - The scientists from the Biology Centre of the Czech Academy of Science who coordinated the EU project MOBITAG have tabled a report on their attitudes towards political interference in the EU's GMO authorisation process, and have formulated six recommendations to European policymakers. "Many European scientists are disturbed by the fact that political factors and ideology prevent unbiased assessment of GM technology in some EU countries, with a negative effect on the whole Community," said the head of the report, Professor Frantisek Sehnal. In response, the group recommends the following

1.

Decisions concerning genetic modifications should not contradict scientific evidence.

2.

Breeding techniques, including GM, should be evaluated in respect to the outcome rather than the process itself.

3.

Precautionary principle should be replaced by risk/benefit assessment applied to all innovations in agriculture.

4.

Risk assessments should always include the benefits and comparison of parallel technologies with all their components

5.

Economic assessment should also be done by comparison with parallel technologies.

6.

If member states are allowed to ban technology permitted in the EU, they should also be allowed to use a technology that has not yet been approved by the EU.

---

Comment by GM-free Ireland

This so-called "White Book" was published (and may have been funded) by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Foreign Agricultural Service's Global Agricultural Information Network (GAIN):

United States Department of Agriculture Foreign Agricultural Service (GAIN) report number EZ9007, 7 July 2009: http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Czech%20Scientists%20Recommend%20Better%20EU%20Biotech%20
Policy_Prague_Czech%20Republic_6-12-2009.pdf

Download report:
http://www.bc.cas.cz/en/MOBITAG.html

Related press release from the Czech Academy of Sciences Biology Centre:
http://www.bc.cas.cz/doc/mobitag/White-Book-on-GMO-press-release-2009-06-09.pdf

So the USDA is pushing for the EU to scap the precautionary principle and weaken legislation on GM crops. Note that USDA is now headed by hardline GMO advocate Tom Vilsack.

The first page of the report – a dramatic frontispiece set in capital letters – reveals its missionary zeal:

"The history of major human discoveries shows that fundamentalistic [sic] ideology, ignorance, and greed often suppress the truth. But only for a certain period of time. This book was prepared with the desire to shorten the period of false apprehension of GM crops in Europe."

As an embodiment of every one of these foibles, the report will no doubt "shorten the period of false apprehension of GM crops", but in the opposite way than the USDA intends. In a related press release, the report's co-editor Professor Frantisek Sehnal makes a claim that is simply out of this world:

"Scientific evidence as well as practical experience demonstrated that the GM crops commercialized so far bring considerable economic benefits to the farmers and are environment-friendly."

Could the Professor be suppressing the truth, or is he simply not aware of the following facts?

•

All 27 EU member states have unanimously condemned the European Food Safety Authority for its on-going and repeated failure to implement EU law by implementing credible, transparent, peer-reviewed risk assessments of GMOs.

•

The documented health dangers of GM food and GM animal feed include initial signs of chronic diseases such as cancers, hormonal disruptions, immune, nervous or reproductive deficiencies, among others.

•

GM crops inevitably contaminate farmers who are then subjected to Monsanto's extortion letters (http://www.gmfreeireland.org/conference/trans/exhibits/MonExtortion.pdf) and patent infringement lawsuits (http://www.gmfreeireland.org/conference/trans/P.Schmeiser.pdf). Contaminated organic farmers and food producers lose their certification and are forced out of business.

•

Farmers and food producers who use or are contaminated by GMOs are effectively shut out of the European food market, as there is virtually no market for GM-labelled food in Europe.

•

Farmers who still use GM animal feed increasingly find their meat, poultry, fish and dairy produce excluded from the top quality food range sold by Europe's major retailers and leading food brands.

•

The introduction of GM crops has contaminated non-GM crops around the world, temporarily shut down food exports from the USA and China, and caused the US rice industry over a billion dollars in lost revenues.

•

The introduction of Monsanto's "Roundup-ready" herbicide-resistant GM crops has vastly increased the spraying of this toxic weedkiller which is a known reprotoxic and endocrine disruptor, endangering the health of millions of people, including pregnant women and children, in GM crop-growing countries.

•

The introduction of pesticide-producing GM crops has impacted on non-target organisms including important soil bacteria and beneficial insects.

•

Europeans do not now and never will accept GM-labelled food, and – when given the choice – also reject meat, poultry, fish and dairy produce from animals fed on GM feed.

The report's final recommendation shows how far out of touch its authors are with European reality. It states that if the EU Commission finally recognises the right of the member states to ban GM crops [as demanded by 13 member states on 25 June], the member states should also have the right to grow GM crops that are not approved in the EU!

This junk science is a total waste of EU and US taxpayer's money, and a discredit to the Czech Academy of Sciences.

As Abraham Lincoln said, "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time."

18 July 2009

What lurks beneath
in key industries in the future
• Germany's technophobia is holding it back:

Newsweek [USA], 18 July 2009:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/207380

In the 1960s and 1970s, German companies and laboratories churned out futuristic technologies, from novel types of nuclear reactors to the world's first magnetic-levitation train. In the early 1980s, Germany was one of the first countries to develop a national plan for genetics research, setting up labs in Munich, Cologne, and Heidelberg. Per capita, German scientists applied for more biotech patents than Americans did.

Yet only a few years later, German pharmaceutical companies like BASF and Bayer postponed production plans and moved much of their research abroad. Germany lost its spot at the cutting edge of biotech. One reason was the pull of a powerful new startup culture that had developed around American universities in the 1980s. But there was a more sinister reason as well: a powerful coalition of environmental activists, church leaders, politicians, and journalists mobilized fears against medical biotechnology as a dangerous meddling with nature, an attack on human dignity reminiscent of Nazi eugenics. With much of the public behind them, lawmakers tightened regulations, bureaucrats refused to grant permits, and even academic research facilities became targets of righteous protest. Today, most Germans once again accept medical biotech, but most of the industry's leading companies are found in the U.S.

Germany, though, doesn't seem to have learned from this experience. The same fears of out-of-control technology continue to hold back German companies and scientists. Germany is the only leading economy to have banned nuclear power despite a world-beating safety record, and in the process killed off a once thriving civilian nuclear industry. Now Germany has become one of the leaders among major countries in opposing agricultural biotech, banning even genetically engineered crops that are permitted by the EU and rolling back research at its labs and universities. Already, environmental activists are gearing up for new fights - which could come in nanotechnology, a fast-emerging industry where German companies are among the global leaders, but where opponents fear invisible particles that could contaminate food and the air. At a nuke-industry confab earlier this month, Chancellor Angela Merkel warned that Germany must take care not to "weaken our industrial base" by opting out of high-tech sectors. Merkel's worry: at a time when every rich nation is searching for competitive advantage in a crisis-stricken global economy, Germans' techno-skepticism threatens to block the country's access to some of the most promising emerging industries.

Green technophobia is by no means just a German phenomenon. Much of Europe is on a crusade against biotech crops, seen as a dangerous contamination of the human food supply. The Swiss have gone even further than the Germans, writing the dignity of plants into their Constitution. (In theory, genetically engineered pest resistance should raise the dignity of plants, but that's not how Swiss legislators see it.) In America, born-again politicians helped place severe restrictions on stem-cell research that were rolled back only this year by the new administration. Countries like Sweden and Italy also legislated against nuclear power. Since then, however, they have reversed course. Worried about energy dependence and global warming, they no longer believe they can afford the luxury of abandoning an emissions-free power source.

But it's in Germany where environmental techno-angst seems to have found its most fertile ground, despite the country's rich history of industrial leadership and technological innovation. The current crackdown on green biotech is particularly poignant. Historically, German companies have been at the forefront of agricultural technology and plant breeding, and it was German researchers who invented some of the gene-splicing technologies on which the science is based today. Yet in April, Agriculture Minister Ilse Aigner overrode the protest of 1,600 of those scientists and banned the only genetically engineered plant commercially farmed in Germany, a strain of feed corn resistant to a destructive pest common in Bavaria and Brandenburg. Even more disturbing, Germany has been curtailing academic research. The number of experimental field trials has plummeted from 81 in 2007 to 35 this year. Since last year, four universities have voluntarily ordered their geneticists to shut down field studies, citing public pressure and the systematic destruction of their research by activists opposed to genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Stefan Hormuth, president of Giessen University, explained that he could no longer resist "massive opposition from politicians and the general public" and had acted in order to "maintain the university's reputation." The German Academy of Science has warned of the threat to academic freedom. The irony: most of the abandoned field trials weren't experiments with radical new varieties, but government-funded impact assessments to verify the safety of GMOs.

Predictably, the crackdown is leading to an exodus of talent and business. Ralph Bock, director of the Max Planck Institute of Molecular Plant Physiology in Potsdam, south of Berlin, says 80 percent of his research team leaders have left or plan to leave the country. The institute's fields were among the 100 or so destroyed by activists over the past decade. Bock says 24-hour protection is too expensive and has therefore suspended field trials. Nearby, Bayer CropScience, which in the past developed some of the institute's spinoff technology, this spring announced it will close its R&D facility for GMO crops and move to more tech-friendly Belgium. BASF, another German agro-tech giant, says it has suspended research into new GMO varieties designed for the European market. Since 2007, BASF has shifted new investment almost completely to the U.S.

The economic cost in lost opportunity is difficult to gauge but certainly large. According to Ernst & Young's 2009 Biotech Survey, Germany's biotech sector has recovered from its 1980s setbacks to become the world's third biggest after America's and Britain's, measured by the number of companies. Yet its startups are still comparatively young and small. A study by the Fraunhofer Institute in Karlsruhe estimates that faster adoption of biotechnology - including a favorable political and public-opinion climate - could create more than 200,000 additional jobs in this industry. That number would almost make up for the 250,000 jobs Germany has lost over the past 12 months due to the recession. The nuclear phaseout will shut down the last plants by 2020, and will cost the state of Bavaria alone up to € 60 billion in fuel and purchases of alternative power, according to the governor's office in Munich. Amid today's global renaissance of nuclear power, Germany's former market leaders are struggling to regain their position, now that they can't sell to domestic customers. In March, Munich-based Siemens announced a partnership with Moscow-based Rosatom to access Russian technology in an attempt to gain a share of the 400 plants expected to be built worldwide by 2030 - a market Siemens CEO Peter Löscher expects to be worth more than €1 trillion. Once upon a time, it was Siemens that exported its nuclear technology worldwide; now it will be the minority partner of a Russian state company. Were the protests to spread against nanotech, they could threaten Germany's share of a global industry that's expected to grow from €104 billion in annual revenue today to €2.1 trillion in 2015.

Other countries have rebelled against technology perceived by the public as dangerous, but none as vigorously as Germany. The French hate GMO - but love their nuclear power. America stopped building nuclear reactors after the Three Mile Island reactor accident in 1979 - but millions of consumers eat GMO food products every day. It is in Germany that these aversions have struck most often and most strongly, for historical, cultural, and political reasons.

A perfect case study of how these elements come together is how Germany squashed genetically engineered medicine in the 1980s - an outbreak of technophobia with few parallels in any other society. (Today's anti-GMO crackdown follows a similar script.) Activism and media coverage painted gene-splicing discoveries as dangerous Frankenstein medicine and a moral crime against the natural order. Much more than in other countries, German mainstream environmentalism has often tended toward the philosophical, a Weltanschauung more concerned with ethical stances and behavioral norms than mere practical matters like cleaning up lakes and rivers.

At the time, protests centered on Hoechst, a pharmaceutical giant that had developed artificial insulin for diabetics, replacing a cumbersome and expensive "natural" process that derived insulin from the pancreases of millions of slaughtered pigs. That Hoechst had once been a part of IG Farben - the company that produced the gas for Auschwitz during World War II - added an additional narrative of moral outrage to the activists' campaign: that of an unaccountable capitalist corporation bent on doing evil for profit. Former foreign minister Joschka Fischer, then environment minister of the state of Hesse, where Hoechst was located and Fischer's Green Party first took power, blocked Hoechst's insulin production plant. For 14 years, the company battled red tape before finally opening the plant in 1988. By then, most German diabetics were already supplied from France using Hoechst's technology. Thanks to the crackdown in Hesse and several other states, the reputation of medical genetics took a long time to recover. It wasn't until the early 2000s that a nascent German biotech industry took off.

Today the prime target of activists is Monsanto, a secretive U.S.-based agro giant that controls the majority of the GMO market. Like Hoechst, it has a past that can be painted in evil highlights, as the purveyor of Agent Orange to the U.S. military in the Vietnam War. The irony is that companies like Monsanto are making fat profits at Germany's expense. Because most applications can't be further developed in Germany, the prime beneficiaries of the German crackdown on field trials have been foreign competitors like Monsanto, which can build on the German research, says Klaus-Dieter Jany, head of the Center for Molecular Biology in Karlsruhe. All but ignored in the public debate is the fact that Germans are already eating GMO-derived foods every day, much of it developed by Monsanto, including GMO soy-based food additives and meat produced from animals raised on GMO feed crops imported from North and South America. Similarly, despite the decision to abandon nuclear power, few German environmentalists have ever protested the fact that they are surrounded by nukes around their borders, or that their electric companies import atomic power from neighboring France.

Such inconvenient facts have little place in a debate that has turned rational issues into deeply moral ones. When it came of age in the 1980s, Germany's green movement defined nature - or what is mythified as such, for there is no wild nature left in densely settled Germany - as "good," and viewed technological intrusions with suspicion. These modern Greens harked back to powerful back-to-nature movements that defined science and scientists as "cold," corrupted by capitalist masters, and blind to catastrophic risk. Young, idealistic Germans in search of their post-World War II identity embraced these themes as a way to prove to themselves that they were "good" again. That movement's victory in the German culture wars produced the powerful taboos, which seem especially strong concerning any tampering with nature on an invisible level - whether it's the climate, the atom, the cell, or (potentially) machines that operate on a nano level. "Technophobia, a fear of risks of all kinds, is just another version of our extreme desire for stability," says Thomas Petersen, a political analyst at the Allensbach Institute. Now, as environmentalism has gone mainstream, a skepticism against nature-tampering technologies like GMO has taken hold in all the major political parties, says Hans-Werner Sinn, director of the IFO Institute in Munich.

Today, in a rich and stable country, these fears can seem a little peculiar. Until a few years ago, German schoolbooks were full of apocalyptic warnings that PCs would destroy jobs, kill interpersonal communication, and turn humans into an "anonymous code" - just about the opposite of what happened. The good news is that despite the indoctrination, younger Germans tend to be a lot more relaxed about technology than their schoolbook-writing elders. German companies remain world leaders in information and alternative-energy technologies, and the hurdles they face have more to do with a lack of venture capital than technophobia. "The moment we're talking about 'good' technology, like wind or solar power, people can't get enough of it," says Petersen.

He expects this new movement - the rise of green industry - to shift the debate in Germany, as it has in other countries. Someday, Germans could take their cue from environmentalists like Greenpeace cofounder Patrick Moore, who has changed his mind about nukes and GMOs, arguing that by cutting emissions and creating better biofuels, both help fight global warming. Already, a small but rising majority of Germans say the decision to shut down nuclear power was wrong. That is, perhaps, a sign that Germans may be letting go of their old technological anxieties at last.

17 July 2009

Second round of fighting begins over genetically modified wheat

Digital Journal [USA], 17 July 2009. By Stephanie Dearing:
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/276000

Picture a boxing ring. In one corner is Monsanto, a corporate giant, the biggest in the agricultural biotechnology sector. In the other corner are farmers, organic growers, environmentalists, activists and consumers.

Until this week, it wasn't even a sparring match. According to Monsanto; it was just a case of the opposition engaging in shadow-boxing. But suddenly, not only is there a boxing match, it looks like the stage has been set for the gloves to come off.

Round one took place in the late 1990s-early 2000s. The issue? Genetically engineered (GE) wheat. While Monsanto had invested almost $5 million in developing Roundup-ready wheat, "Roundup-ready wheat does not exist," said Monsanto Canada spokeswoman, Trish Jordan by telephone yesterday. Yes, Monsanto was working on the wheat product. Yes, Monsanto had applied to North American governments for permission to commercialize the GE wheat. Yes, Monsanto decided to pull out of the Roundup-ready spring wheat because of a "lack of industry alignment."

What Jordan omitted to say, however, was that not only was Monsanto facing widespread opposition to the wheat from farmers and consumers, AgCanada pulled its funding of the GE wheat in 2004, further influencing Monsanto's decision to drop the project.

The "lack of alignment" cited by Jordan disappeared in May 2009 when a consortium of wheat producers from Canada, the United States and Australia issued a statement to the public stating that they were working on the:

"synchronized commercialization of biotech traits in the wheat crop."

With this encouragement, Monsanto just spent $45 million on its purchase of an U.S.-based wheat research and development company, Westbred, and has announced plans to proceed with the development of a GE wheat product. Until this week, Monsanto has been conspicuously absent from the GE wheat debate. The future GE wheat "will not be Roundup ready, said Jordan.

"It will have increased drought tolerance, increased yield and improved nitrogen efficiency."

The initial focus, Jordan said, would be on the "traditional" enhancement of wheat, such as inserting molecular markers. She added that it would take from eight to ten years before Monsanto had a product that was ready for the market.

While some wheat producers like the proposed features of the GE wheat touted by Monsanto, that's not enough just yet for Canadian wheat producers, says the Canadian Wheat Board. The Board opposed Monsanto's Roundup ready wheat in 2004, and it still has reservations about GE wheat.

Their primary concern is the potential loss of market share caused by opposition of consumers and the European Union (EU) to GE wheat. Wheat producers also want to see more benefits from the GE wheat. However, because the EU just lifted a six-year old ban against Canadian GE canola, there is some hope that future bans of GE foods might be prevented.

Stockwell Day, Canada's Trade Minister, was quoted as having said the lifting of the ban was

"...positive news for Canadian producers of all agricultural genetically modified organism products."

The lifting of the ban on GE canola does seem to promise a brighter potential for GE wheat. Reached yesterday through Skype, Lucy Sharratt, Coordinator of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN), the non-profit organization spearheading a global rejection to GE wheat said that there is no action the Canadian government can take right now because Monsanto has not submitted an application for the commercial use of GE wheat.

However, Sharratt said that CBAN would continue to pursue the global rejection of GE wheat with the goal to "close down the debate before it continues."

Too late, as it turns out that round two of the GE wheat fight is well underway.

When asked what Monsanto's position is regarding the opposition to GE wheat, spokeswoman Jordan said that there was no official position, because there is no GE wheat product.

"People are entitled to their opinion," she added." I don't think their opposition is based on rational thought or legitimate concern. It is not a food safety concern."

Reaction in Australia to the wheat consortium's commitment to have GE wheat available to farmers was much stronger. The Tasmanian Times reported a spokesperson for the Network of Concerned Farmers as saying they were "horrified" that some farmers want to grow GM wheat. The Network said, "... the introduction of GM wheat is nothing short of sabotage."

While the safety of GE wheat can only be assessed in the future, there are substantial concerns about the safety of Monsanto's other products. There are years of controversy surrounding Monsanto, from Agent Orange (used in Vietnam) to Bovine Growth Hormone.

The safety of Roundup is one issue. Monsanto claims Roundup is safe and environmentally friendly. Roundup uses an ingredient called Glyphosate. In Glyphosate Formulations Induce Apoptosis and Necrosis in Human Umbilical, Embryonic, and Placental Cells, a study published at the end of 2008, scientists found that Roundup causes embryonic kidney cell death, and the death of placental cells.

Another recently published study, How Subchronic and Chronic Health Effects can be Neglected for GMOs, Pesticides or Chemicals, is a collaboration between eight scientists from five different countries that found that the testing of one of Monsanto's products, MON 863 maize did not receive sufficient testing to be able to ascertain the safety of the product.

Other concerns involve the inability of farmers to save seed for the next growing season. Monsanto regularly sues its customers for this practice, which is not permitted with genetically engineered seed stock. Once Monsanto has engineered a seed, it applies for a patent and thus becomes the exclusive owner of the product.

Monsanto has a commitment to

"... apply innovation and technology to help farmers around the world produce more while conserving more... so they can be successful, produce healthier foods, better animal feeds and more fiber, while also reducing agriculture's impact on our environment,"

Monsanto dominates the agricultural biotechnology industry owning about 90 per cent of all GE seed patents, according to CBAN's Sharratt. The seed market is indeed profitable for Monsanto, which saw net profits of $694 million during the first quarter of 2009.

Research Centre of the EU Commission:
Regional differences in gene technology policy lead to problems in the agriculture market

CheckBiotech.org, 17 July 2009:
http://greenbio.checkbiotech.org/news/research_centre_eu_commission_regional_differences_gene_technology_policy_lead_proble

More and more genetically modified plants are entering the market world-wide. In Europe, in contrast, approvals are stagnating. A report by the 'Joint Research Centre' of the EU Commission perceives in this lack of coordination a problem for the global agricultural trade.

Due to varying legal requirements, and also because of divergent political evaluations of genetically modified (GM) products, GM plants are not approved world-wide at the same time. This 'asynchronous approval practice' leads to growing problems in the agricultural trade world-wide, according to the report from the EU Joint Research Centre (JRC).

Some states, as well as the European Union, legislate that unapproved GM plants fundamentally are not allowed to enter the country as an import, even in the case that their cultivation is approved in their country of origin and that the plants are classified there as safe. Even the smallest traces of such unapproved GM plants result in the agricultural deliveries in question being refused entry at the border. Many times in the past, this EU policy of 'zero tolerance' has led to import bans that primarily have affected animal feed.

The JRC report postulates that the problems resulting from asynchronous GMO policy will increase. Currently, approximately thirty different GMO plants (Events) are in commercial use and JRC scientists expect an increase in this number to 120 by the year 2015. Additionally, in some countries hybrids from two different GM plants ('stacked genes') are regarded as new GM plants that must be submitted to their own approval procedure. In other countries, such hybrids are tolerated if both original lines have been approved.

If the EU retains its policy of 'zero tolerance' for unapproved GM plants, it may become increasingly difficult on the world market to obtain agricultural products that are free from admixtures of any kind of the numerous GM plants that are cultivated in other countries but unapproved in the EU. The JRC report estimates that the price for such products will rise significantly. The EU is dependent on the import of animal feed.

A report by the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) also projects a marked rise globally in the commercial use of genetically modified plants. By 2015, GM varieties are expected to represent as much as 76 per cent of global soy production. In the case of cotton, this figure is expected to be 45 per cent and for maize and rapeseed 20 per cent. The OECD report predicts that for beans, peanuts, barley, potatoes, rice and sunflowers, herbicide-tolerant or insect-resistant GM varieties may be market-ready by 2015. In the case of other domesticated plants such as wheat, apples, rice or tomatoes, the development of new varieties with modified product quality or agronomic traits is seen to be so advanced that a market entry would appear to be possible from 2015.

Source: GMO Safety http://www.gmo-safety.eu/

Africa: Organic Farming Could Be Answer To Food Insecurity

Inter Press Service, 17 July 2009:
http://www.ipsnews.net/africa/nota.asp?idnews=47704

CAPE TOWN, South Africa -- Commercial farmers sometimes fail at organic farming because they switch over too quickly, ditching all chemicals, which is as traumatic for the soil as "a drug addict going cold turkey".

This is how Cornelius Oosthuizen, the head of the South African Biofarm Institute's management team, explains why there are relatively few organic farming success stories in South Africa. The South African Biofarm Institute promotes sustainable and profitable biological and organic farming.

"Failure occurs when a farmer who has been using chemicals on a farm for a long time suddenly switches to 100 percent organic farming. If you have 1,000 hectares of land, you cannot start monoculture organic farming on all the land. One first has to farm biologically.

"If you suddenly take away all the chemicals from land that has been chemically farmed, it experiences trauma. It is like a drug addict that goes cold turkey."

The soil has to be primed - the micro and macro minerals have to be brought into balance; the ecological system has to be reinstated (there has to be robust insect and worm activity in the soil); and soil erosion has to be countered in various ways. With biological farming, non-harmful chemicals are used while organic farming does not permit the use of any kind of chemicals.

This is one of the factors that need to be addressed if South African farmers are to make inroads into organic farming which is not only lucrative but will address the African continent's perennial problem with food security.

The international market for organic produce is worth 50 billion dollars annually, but Africa's potential in this field is still largely untapped.

Organic farming can be the answer to the continent's food security problems. In June, the aid organisation Oxfam warned that sub-Saharan Africa will suffer great maize losses of up to two billion dollars annually due to changing global patterns.

The region is susceptible to water shortage, natural disasters and drought. Experts warn that Africa's scarce resources have to be used carefully to ensure food security.

According to Raymond Auerbach, a well-known advocate of organic farming in Africa, research done by a number of organisations proves that organic farming can double or treble production in the developing world. It reduces non-solar energy use by 33 to 56 percent; it uses water up to 40 percent more effectively and organically produced food has higher levels of vital nutrients.

Auerbach is the director of the South Africa-based Rainman Landcare Foundation. The organisation teaches producers to farm in an ecologically sound way and to make optimal use of Africa's scarce water resources. It also helps farmers to organise into effective groups and to develop markets.

A 2008 report by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) showed that in 114 projects in 24 African countries crop yields more than doubled when organic farming methods were used.

Yet ignorance and resistance to organic farming as well as the financial dominance of seed and fertiliser companies with their strong political links are some of the reasons why organic markets have not been fully developed. Auerbach told IPS that South African organic farmers face many obstacles. "First, there is little research locally to guide them. Second, the government will often not help farmers unless they use fertilisers and poisons. And, third, getting certified 'organic' is difficult and costly.

"Resistance to organic farming is fuelled by two factors - vested interests and professional ignorance. Companies support methods that help to sell their products. But who benefits from organics? Not companies, but farmers and their customers, as well as the environment," he argued.

"Professionally, those who have been trained in our (South African) colleges and universities have been told that fertilisers, poisons and GE [genetically engineered] seeds are scientific and progressive, while 'old-fashioned' methods are unscientific."

Yet the income potential from organic farming is enormous. According to Auerbach, organic farmers in Uganda are generating 22 million dollars annually in export earnings. They also provide food for local communities.

Oosthuizen added that commercial farmers are motivated by the profit motive, and that quantity is therefore more important to them than quality. "Farmers have to show a profit and they will use seed and fertiliser that help them attain this goal - even if the resultant product is poor in nutritional value."

Genetically modified seeds ensure huge crop yields and pesticides and herbicides are sprayed over crops in huge quantities. The multinational seed and pesticide companies, which produce these products, often have links to government officials. In this way they ensure that they have prime access to markets.

"Fertiliser, for example, is a by-product of the petro-chemical industry. Billions of dollars have been invested in these industries. Organic farmers do not buy from these multinationals, so of course there will be resistance from the multinationals to organic farming," Oosthuizen explained.

According to Auerbach, "food security lies at the heart of the organic movement. In general large agribusiness organisations are less interested in food security than in selling their products.

"Even some aid organisations at work in Africa boast that most of the money they invest in development goes back to the United States in the form of payment to American technical experts and provision of technologies and products."

For Oosthuizen the answer to food insecurity lies in returning farming to the local level in Africa. "Each village should have its own farms, and its own mill and bakery to feed its people. When the local people are being fed then only should one look to wider markets.

"This is where governments could play an important role. Marketing strategies should be centralised and co-ordinated. For example: a government could appoint 20 small holder farmers in a certain area to jointly supply five tons of maize to a specific client."

The empowerment of women farmers can be achieved when this model is followed. In Africa women form the backbone of the agricultural economy. The potential benefits to women are obvious if governments employ a gender equity principle in allocating projects.

Across South Africa poor urban and rural woman are already keeping hunger at bay with community food gardens. The resultant produce not only feed them and their families, but surplus food is sold at local markets, generating an income for the women who are often the sole breadwinners in extended families.

In rural areas women can benefit from organic farming in two ways, says Auerbach. "They can use the inputs that they find around the farm, so they do not have to travel far to buy expensive inputs. They are also the ones who use the food for their children, so both in production and in consumption no one will be exposed to poisons."

Polish ban on genetically modified food production 'illegal'

Polish Market Online, 17 July 2009:
http://www.polishmarket.com.pl/document/:20545?p=%2Flate%2F

Poland has violated its obligation towards the EU in connection with GMO, the European Tribunal of Justice has declared in Luxembourg. Poland, which fighting to become a GMO free-zone had been in dispute with the European Commission over GMOs for years and finally passed a law banning GMO seeds on April 27, 2006.

The regulation prohibited GMO seeds trade, made it impossible to register GMO crop which in consequence blocked GMO cultivation, TVN24 reports.

Under EU regulations, EU member states do not have the power to ban, limit or hinder GMO trade if it is allowed on the European level. The Polish government adopted a policy on GMO food in November 2008. It allows cultivating GMOs only in laboratories and bans GMO trade; it also opposes cultivation of genetically modified foods.

Note from GM-free Ireland:

The full text of the ruling, together with a summary of the arguments by both sides, may be found here: http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=en&jurcdj=jurcdj&newform=newform&docj=docj&docop=docop&docnoj=docnoj&typeord=ALLTYP&numaff=&ddatefs=11&mdatefs=7&ydatefs=2009&ddatefe=18&mdatefe=7&ydatefe=2009&nomusuel=&domaine=&mots=&resmax=100&Submit=Rechercher

The ruling states that the European Court of Justice

"Declares that, by prohibiting the free circulation of genetically modified seed varieties and the inclusion of genetically modified varieties in the national catalogue of varieties, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 22 and 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC, and under Articles 4(4) and 16 of Council Directive 2002/53/EC of 13 June 2002 on the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species."

But the story is far from over.

Poland's national ban on the importation of GMO seeds is unanimously supported all the country's administrative regions.

And Austria's recent proposal for the right of EU member states to implement national blanket bans on the cultivation of GM crops has already been signed Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Slovenia and the Netherlands, and is backed by France, Poland, Portugal, and parts of the German government. "Nobody argued against our proposal," said Austrian Environment Minister Nikolaus Berlakovich.

Moreover, Karl Falkenberg, the most high ranking EU officer to work for Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas, recently confirmed a change in the Commission's hard-line pro-GM policy, stating that it will no longer approve new GMOs against the will of the EU Council in the near future.

Dimas also announced he will ask all member states to give their input on socio-economic criteria that would allow EU member states to opt out of GMO cultivation.

European resistance to GMO is growing rapidly. It will be interesting to see what happens next.

World still wary as biotech wheat advances

Reuters, 17 July 2009. By Carey Gillam:
http://www.reuters.com/article/internal_ReutersNewsRoom_BehindTheScenes_MOLT/idUSTRE56G5ZF20090717

KANSAS CITY (Reuters) - Many U.S. farmers have welcomed renewed efforts by biotech crop leader Monsanto Co to genetically modified wheat, but convincing world markets to embrace genetic alteration of the key food crop remains a high hurdle to overcome.

Monsanto added fuel to a debate over biotech wheat on Tuesday when it announced it was buying WestBred LLC, a wheat germplasm specialist as a platform to develop higher-yielding biotech wheat that would be more tolerant of drought and require less nitrogen.

Along with Monsanto, rival seed technology companies such as Syngenta AG, BASF and Dow AgroSciences, a unit of Dow Chemical Co, are pouring resources into wheat development. Some companies are focusing on transgenic alterations using DNA from other species and some are manipulating genes already found in wheat.

Currently there is no biotech wheat grown on a commercial-scale anywhere in the world due to opposition from consumers and food industry players.

Most notably, Japan, one of the world's largest importers of wheat and a leading critic of past efforts to introduce genetically altered wheat, remains a steadfast opponent. Many European countries also continue to resist genetically modified crops.

"There is still strong concern and some opposition," said Alan Tracy, president of U.S. Wheat Associates, the industry's global market development organization that has been working to convince Japan and other countries to accept biotech wheat.

Japan, which imports around 5.5 million tonnes of wheat each year, including about 3 million tonnes from the United States, is starting to acknowledge that there might be a valid argument for biotech wheat. But much work remains to be done before full acceptance, Tracy said.

U.S. Wheat is still working to get Japan and other countries to establish regulatory systems and tolerance levels that would allow for continued imports if biotech wheat is commercialized, he said.

Some U.S. farm groups also remain wary of biotech wheat. They say conventional breeding can bring many of the same benefits without negative market consequences.

These critics also say biotech wheat work is aimed more at improving profits at corporations such as Monsanto than at helping farmers.

Many consumer and environmental groups fear introducing genes from other species into wheat could make it harmful for humans, and say it would be hard to keep biotech wheat segregated from conventional wheat seed and products.

"There has been no change in the opposition and rejection of foreign markets," said Bill Wenzel, director of the Farmer to Farmer Campaign on Genetic Engineering, a grower group based in Wisconsin. "I don't think that anybody should be rushing in to try to commercialize GMO wheat."

Monsanto, a global leader in biotech corn and soybeans, backed away from commercializing a herbicide-tolerant wheat five years ago as foreign buyers threatened boycotts.

Opponents say a biotech wheat introduction could still deal a significant blow to U.S. markets, recalling how U.S. corn lost European buyers when genetically modified corn was introduced.

But biotech wheat supporters say the global wheat crop needs a technological boost. They note that over the last few years, farmers have reduced wheat acreage in favor of more-profitable, easier-to-grow crops such as corn and soybeans.

They also point to fears mount about global food shortages and a rapid rise in world population. Just last year, shortages drove wheat prices to record highs, and prices remain historically high this year despite ample supplies.

Those factors have prompted corporations and researchers in the United States and Australia to increase development efforts in wheat.

Some farmer groups support commercialization of biotech varieties, saying they will have several years to address buyer fears before any biotech wheat is commercialized.

"We're always concerned about the marketplace but we've pretty much proven we have the ability to deliver the types of grains customers want," said Allan Skogen, chairman of Growers for Biotechnology and a North Dakota spring wheat farmer. "If somebody chooses a nonbiotech grain, we can deliver it."

(Reporting by Carey Gillam; Editing by David Gregorio and Lisa Shumaker)

'GM food can cause the biggest health crisis'

Business Standard [India], 17 July 2009, by Latha Jishnu:
http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/%5Cgm-food-can-causebiggest-health-crisis%5C/364139/

Q&A: Gilles-Eric Seralini

For a country that doesn't take much interest in scientists, Gilles-Eric Seralini can probably be termed well-known in India. Seralini is professor of molecular biology at the University of Caen in France, and he hit the headlines here early in 2009 when his analysis of the research data on the country's first transgenic vegetable, the Bt brinjal [GM aubergine modified to produce its own pesticide], was presented to the Supreme Court. He said the tests conducted by [Monsanto subsidiary] Mahyco, the company producing the Bt brinjal, were simply not valid and raised serious health concerns.

He also flagged several issues which India's top scientists who sit as the apex regulators on the Genetic Engineering Approvals Committee (GEAC) had overlooked. There are compelling reasons why India cannot afford to ignore Seralini's findings. He comes with impeccable academic and research credentials and has been a member of two commissions evaluating the environmental and health risks of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in Europe. Algeria-born Seralini, 49, is a genial man who speaks softly in halting English and has a sense of humour which can be as unexpected as it is deadly, says Latha Jishnu. Excerpts from an interview conducted last week in Delhi:

You head the Committee for Independent Research and Information on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN). Is its expertise and independence recognised globally?

We have undertaken studies for the EU, the directorate of agriculture of the European Commission, Quebec's ministry of environment, the governments of Tunisia, Egypt, the Carrefour Group [the word's second largest retailer after WallMart]; we did studies on transgenic salmon for the University of Montreal, the European Spatial Agency and Greenpeace among others.

What is the biggest problem with GMOs?

You may not be aware that 99.9 per cent of edible GMOs are designed to contain toxic pesticides whose effect on the human body and the environment are not known. At CRIIGEN, we believe there should be transparency on the development of GMOs. This is the biggest problem. Everything is kept confidential by the biotech companies whose data governments accept without validation. We need many more tests on the environmental and health-safety aspects of GMOs and it should be assessed independently. We want science to be used for the benefit of people, not companies.

Are the tests on GMOs inadequate?

No government anywhere has asked a company to do more than 90-day tests on GMOs. It's unbelievable that such tests are considered adequate for food that is given to babies and old people. Most companies also keep their test data secret, especially blood analyses of animals fed on GMOs. This is not science; we are still living in the Middle Ages. No tests have ever been conducted by companies of the pesticides associated with GMOs on human cells. The blood analyses are performed only on rats and are kept unbelievably confidential.

I must congratulate India on making the Mahyco data on Bt brinjal public. (This came about as a result of the Supreme Court case and a campaign launched by Greenpeace India). I must also congratulate Mahyco for tests conducted on three mammals but it did the tests for only two doses against three mandated in the OECD protocol (India claims to be following this protocol).

What is the most dangerous finding from your analyses of the Mahyco data?

The dossiers submitted by Mahcyo raise serious concerns. They are not signed by the researchers who did the tests, which means these can be considered invalid. But most significant, Bt brinjal has been modified to produce an unknown chimeric insecticide toxin. In the toxicity tests on target and non-target insects, this chimeric toxin was not used. Instead, an improper Cry1Ac toxin was used because this control was easier. Also, Bt brinjal is resistant to antibiotics, at least the well-known kanamycin.

How serious a health risk is that?

Antibiotic resistance, you must be aware, is recognised as a major health problem because of the growing genetic resistance to antibiotics, both in the environment and humans. You simply should not consider commercialising a food item that is resistant to antibiotics. Besides, several biotechnology companies have already developed transgenic plants without this marker gene.

So why is Mahyco unable to do so with its Bt brinjal?

It is possible that Mahyco bought an old unused GMO technology from Monsanto (The US biotech giant is the parent company of Mahyco).

Are there other concerns with Bt brinjal?

Bt brinjal appears to contain 15 per cent less kcal per 100 gram. It also has a different alkaloid content and 16-17 mg per kg of Bt insecticide toxin that is poorly characterised for side-effects. Significantly, rats fed on the Bt brinjal had diarrhoea, suffered liver weight loss while other animals, too, showed significant biological changes.

Given all these risks why is it that the GEAC did not bring it to the attention of the government?

I think the GEAC has not gone through the data on Bt brinjal. I have received mails from the GEAC asking me, "Why do you call it chimeric toxin?" So I had to point out the page and paragraph where it was mentioned in the Mahcyo dossiers! They should scrutinise the data carefully, go through it table by table to discover what lies hidden in these figures, and not go by the conclusions of the company.

What should India do?

It should seek absolute transparency on GMO testing. GEAC and Mahyco must respond to the concerns raised on the side effects of Bt brinjal and the results should be available for public scrutiny. Also, GEAC should compel Mahyco to compare Bt brinjal with the same variety of brinjal, and not any variety that the company finds appropriate as it has done so far. This is not proper science because it masks the real effects of the Bt toxin. Most important, the regulators must insist on full transparency in the blood analyses of animals fed on Bt brinjal. The best way would be to set up an independent testing facility. This way India will become the symbol of not only good science but also the source of good food for the rest of the world.

Should GMOs be banned altogether?

GMOs should be tested like drugs. This means full life-cycle tests on rats and other mammals. That's the only way one can assess their safety for human consumption. As for the environment, remember that once it is out in the open, you cannot confine it. In India, it will be the end of your rich biodiversity. I understand that there are 2,000 varieties of brinjals in this country. You risk contaminating all of these. Let me give you an example: A tiny quantity of sterile GM maize producing a vaccine for pigs in the US has contaminated 500,000 tons of soya.

Even Europe is under US pressure on GMOs

In spite of that, GM crops account for only 0.05 per cent of the acreage in Europe (100,000 hectares in Spain), while it is 18 per cent of US agriculture which produces 96 per cent of the world's edible GMOs. The European approach is that we don't know enough about this technology so long-term assessments must be made of the environmental and health impact. The EU also stands for transparency and counter expertise, meaning independent scientific tests. I believe that the world is headed for the biggest health crisis ever because of the lack of transparency. It will make the financial crisis seem like a blip.

Anti-GM group unimpressed by Monsanto wheat research

Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 17 July 2009:
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/200907/s2628753.htm

An Australian group that opposes genetically modified produce says consumers won't accept products containing GM wheat.

Biotech giant Monsanto has announced it's resuming its research into GM wheat, after abandoning it five years ago.

But Genethics director Bob Phelps says products containing GM wheat would have to be labelled as such, and he doesn't believe anyone would buy them.

"I think Monsanto should now review world-wide opinion about genetically manipulated crops and foods, and decide, as it did in 2004, that it's simply a bad deal, a bad idea and a waste of money," he says.

16 July 2009

Into the inferno

New Statesman, 16 July 2009. By Arundhati Roy:
http://www.newstatesman.com/international-politics/2009/07/india-democracy-market

The Indian government has joined forces with corporate giants to create a police state, making people surrender land and livelihoods at gunpoint. What can we do, now that democracy and the free market are one?

While we're still arguing about whether there's life after death, can we add another question to the cart? Is there life after democracy? What sort of life will it be? By democracy I don't mean democracy as an ideal or an aspiration. I mean the working model: western liberal democracy, and its variants, such as they are.

So, is there life after democracy? Attempts to answer this question often turn into a comparison of different systems of governance, and end with a somewhat prickly, combative defence of democracy. It's flawed, we say. It isn't perfect, but it's better than everything else that's on offer. Inevitably, someone in the room will say: "Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia . . . is that what you would prefer?"

Whether democracy should be the utopia that all "developing" societies aspire to is a separate question altogether. (I think it should. The early, idealistic phase can be quite heady.) The question about life after democracy is addressed to those of us who already live in democracies, or in countries that pretend to be democracies. It isn't meant to suggest that we lapse into older, discredited models of totalitarian or authoritarian governance. It's meant to suggest that the system of representative democracy - too much representation, too little democracy - needs some structural adjustment.

The question here, really, is what have we done to democracy? What have we turned it into? What happens once democracy has been used up? When it has been hollowed out and emptied of meaning? What happens when each of its institutions has metastasised into something dangerous? What happens now that democracy and the free market have fused into a single predatory organism with a thin, constricted imagination that revolves almost entirely around the idea of maximising profit? Is it possible to reverse this process? Can something that has mutated go back to being what it used to be?

What we need today, for the sake of the survival of this planet, is long-term vision. Can governments whose very survival depends on immediate, extractive, short-term gain provide this? Could it be that democracy, the sacred answer to our short-term hopes and prayers, the protector of our individual freedoms and nurturer of our avaricious dreams, will turn out to be the endgame for the human race? Could it be that democracy is such a hit with modern humans precisely because it mirrors our greatest folly - our nearsightedness? Our inability to live entirely in the present (like most animals do) combined with our inability to see very far into the future makes us strange in-between creatures, neither beast nor prophet. Our amazing intelligence seems to have outstripped our instinct for survival. We plunder the earth hoping that accumulating material surplus will make up for the profound, unfathomable thing that we have lost. It would be conceit to pretend that my new book of essays, Listening to Grasshoppers, provides answers to these questions. It only demonstrates, in some detail, the fact that it looks as though the beacon could be failing and that democracy can perhaps no longer be relied upon to deliver the justice and stability we once dreamed it would. All the essays were written as urgent, public interventions at critical moments in India - during the state-backed genocide of Muslims in Gujarat; just before the date set for the hanging of Mohammad Afzal, the accused in the 13 December 2001 parliament attack; during US President George Bush's visit to India; during the mass uprising in Kashmir in the summer of 2008; and after the 26 November 2008 Mumbai attacks. Often they were not just responses to events, they were responses to the responses.

Though many of them were written in anger, at moments when keeping quiet became harder than saying something, the essays do have a common thread. They're not about unfortunate anomalies or aberrations in the democratic pro?cess. They're about the consequences of and the corollaries to democracy and the ways in which it is practised in the world's largest democracy. (Or the world's largest "demon-crazy", as a Kashmiri protester on the streets of Srinagar once put it. His placard said: "Democracy without Justice = Demon Crazy.")

In January 2008, on the first anniversary of the assassination of the Armenian journalist Hrant Dink, I gave a lecture in Istanbul. Dink was shot down on the street outside his office for daring to raise a subject that is forbidden in Turkey - the 1915 genocide of Armenians, in which more than one million people were killed. My lecture was about the history of genocide and genocide denial, and the old, almost organic relationship between "progress" and genocide.

I have always been struck by the fact that the political party in Turkey that carried out the Armenian genocide was called the Committee for Union and Progress. Most of the essays in Listening to Grasshoppers are, in fact, about the contemporary correlation between union and progress, or, in today's idiom, between nationalism and development - those unimpeachable twin towers of modern, free-market democracy. Both of these in their extreme form are, as we now know, encrypted with the potential of bringing about ultimate, apocalyptic destruction (nuclear war, climate change).

Though the essays were written between 2002 and 2008, the invisible marker, the starting gun, is the year 1989, when in the rugged mountains of Afghanistan capitalism won its long jihad against Soviet communism. (Of course, the wheel's in spin again. Could it be that those same mountains are now in the process of burying capitalism? It's too early to tell.) Within months of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Indian government, once a leader of the Non-Aligned Movement, performed a high-speed somersault and aligned itself with the United States, monarch of the new unipolar world.

The rules of the game changed suddenly and completely. Millions of people who lived in remote villages and deep in the heart of untouched forests, some of whom had never heard of Berlin or the Soviet Union, could not have imagined how events that occurred in those faraway places would affect their lives. The process of their dispossession and displacement had already begun in the early 1950s, when India opted for the Soviet-style development model in which huge steel plants and thousands of large dams would occupy the "commanding heights" of the economy. The era of privatisation and structural adjustment accelerated that process at a mind-numbing speed.

Today, words like "progress" and "development" have become interchangeable with economic "reforms", deregulation and privatisation. "Freedom" has come to mean "choice". It has less to do with the human spirit than it does with different brands of deodorant. "Market" no longer means a place where you go to buy provisions. The "market" is a de-territorialised space where faceless corporations do business, including buying and selling "futures". "Justice" has come to mean "human rights" (and of those, as they say, "a few will do").

This theft of language, this technique of usurping words and deploying them like weapons, of using them to mask intent and to mean exactly the opposite of what they have traditionally meant, has been one of the most brilliant strategic victories of the tsars of the new dispensation. It has allowed them to marginalise their detractors, deprive them of a language in which to voice their critique and dismiss them as being "anti-progress", "anti-development", "anti-reform" and of course "anti-national" - negativists of the worst sort. Talk about saving a river or protecting a forest and they say, "Don't you believe in progress?" To people whose land is being submerged by dam reservoirs and whose homes are being bulldozed they say, "Do you have an alternative development model?" To those who believe that a government is duty-bound to provide people with basic education, health care and social security, they say, "You're against the market." And who except a cretin could be against a market?

This language heist may prove to be the keystone of our undoing. Two decades of this kind of "progress" in India have created a vast middle class punch-drunk on sudden wealth and the sudden respect that comes with it - and a much, much vaster, desperate underclass. Tens of millions of people have been dispossessed and displaced from their land by floods, droughts and desertification caused by indiscriminate environmental engineering - the massive infrastructural projects, dams, mines and Special Economic Zones. All of them promoted in the name of the poor, but really meant to service the rising demands of the new aristocracy.

The battle for land lies at the heart of the "development" debate. Before he became India's finance minister, P Chidambaram was Enron's lawyer and member of the board of directors of Vedanta, a multinational mining corporation that is currently devastating the Niyamgiri Hills in Orissa. Perhaps his career graph informed his world-view. Or maybe it's the other way around. In an interview a year ago, he said that his vision was to get 85 per cent of India's population to live in cities. Realising this "vision" would require social engineering on an unimaginable scale. It would mean inducing, or forcing, about 500 million people to migrate from the countryside into cities. That process is well under way and is quickly turning India into a police state in which people who refuse to surrender their land are being made to do so at gunpoint. Perhaps this is what makes it so easy for P Chidambaram to move so seamlessly from being finance minister to being home minister. The portfolios are separated only by an osmotic membrane. Underlying this nightmare masquerading as "vision" is the plan to free up vast tracts of land and all of India's natural resources, leaving them ripe for corporate plunder.

Already forests, mountains and water systems are being ravaged by marauding multinational corporations, backed by a state that has lost its moorings and is committing what can only be called "ecocide". In eastern India, bauxite and iron ore mining is destroying whole eco?systems, turning fertile land into desert. In the Himalayas, hundreds of high dams are being planned, the consequences of which can only be catastrophic. In the plains, embankments built along rivers, ostensibly to control floods, have led to rising riverbeds, causing even more flooding, more waterlogging, more salinisation of agricultural land and the destruction of livelihoods of millions of people. Most of India's holy rivers, including the Ganga and the Yamuna, have been turned into unholy drains that carry more sewage and industrial effluent than water. Hardly a single river runs its course and meets the ocean.

Sustainable food crops, suitable to local soil conditions and microclimates, have been replaced by water-guzzling hybrid and genetically modified "cash" crops which, apart from being wholly dependent on the market, are also heavily dependent on chemical fertilisers, pesticides, canal irrigation and the indiscriminate mining of groundwater.

As abused farmland, saturated with chemicals, gradually becomes exhausted and infertile, agricultural input costs rise, ensnaring small farmers in a debt trap. Over the past few years, more than 180,000 Indian farmers have committed suicide. While state granaries are bursting with food that eventually rots, starvation and malnutrition approaching the same levels as in sub-Saharan Africa stalk the land.

It's as though an ancient society, decaying under the weight of feudalism and caste, was churned in a great machine. The churning has ripped through the mesh of old inequalities, recalibrating some of them but reinforcing most. Now the old society has curdled and separated into a thin layer of thick cream - and a lot of water. The cream is India's "market" of many million consumers (of cars, cellphones, com?puters, Valentine's Day greeting cards), the envy of international business. The water is of little consequence. It can be sloshed around, stored in holding ponds, and eventually drained away.

Or so they think, the men in suits. They didn't bargain for the violent civil war that has broken out in India's heartland: Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Orissa, West Bengal.

As if to illustrate the connection between "union" and "progress", in 1989, at exactly the same time that the Congress government was opening up India's markets to international finance, the right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), then in the opposition, began its virulent campaign of Hindu nationalism (popularly known as "Hindutva"). In 1990, its leader, L K Advani, travelled across the country whipping up hatred against Muslims and demanding that the Babri Masjid, a 16th-century mosque that stood on a disputed site in Ayodhya, be demolished and a Ram temple built in its place. In 1992 a mob, egged on by Advani, demolished the mosque. In early 1993, a mob rampaged through Mumbai attacking Muslims, killing almost 1,000 people. As revenge, a series of bomb blasts ripped through the city, killing about 250 people. Feeding off the communal frenzy it had generated, the BJP defeated the Congress in 1998 and came to power at the Centre.

It's not a coincidence that the rise of Hindutva corresponded with the historical moment when America substituted communism with Islam as its great enemy. The radical Islamist mujahedin - whom President Reagan once entertained in the White House and compared to America's Founding Fathers - suddenly began to be called terrorists. The Indian government, once a staunch friend of the Palestinians, turned into Israel's "natural ally". Now India and Israel do joint military exercises, share intelligence and probably exchange notes on how best to administer occupied territories.

By 1998, when the BJP took office, the "progress" project of privatisation and liberalisation was about eight years old. Though it had campaigned vigorously against the economic reforms, saying they were a process of "looting through liberalisation", once it came to power the BJP embraced the free market enthusiastically and threw its weight behind huge corporations like Enron. (In representative democracies, once they are elected, the people's representatives are free to break their promises and change their minds.)

Within weeks of taking office, the BJP conducted a series of thermonuclear tests. Though India had thrown its hat into the nuclear ring in 1975, politically, the 1998 nuclear tests were of a different order altogether. The orgy of triumphant nationalism with which the tests were greeted introduced a chilling new language of aggression and hatred into mainstream public discourse. None of what was being said was new, only that what was once considered unacceptable was suddenly being celebrated. Since then, Hindu communalism and nuclear nationalism, like corporate globalisation, have vaulted over the stated ideologies of political parties. The venom has been injected straight into our bloodstream.

In February 2002, following the armed raid on a train coach in which 58 Hindu pilgrims returning from Ayodhya were burned alive, the BJP government in Gujarat, led by Chief Minister Narendra Modi, presided over a carefully planned genocide of Muslims in the state. The Islamophobia generated all over the world by the 11 September 2001 attacks put the wind in their sails.

The machinery of the state of Gujarat stood by and watched while more than 2,000 people were massacred. Gujarat has always been a state rife with tension between Hindus and Muslims. There had been riots before. But this was not a riot. It was a genocidal massacre, and though the number of victims was insignificant compared to the horror of, say, Rwanda, Sudan or the Congo, the Gujarat carnage was designed as a public spectacle whose aims were unmistakable. It was a public warning to Muslim citizens from the government of the world's favourite democracy.

After the carnage, Narendra Modi pressed for early elections. He was returned to power with a decisive mandate from the people of Gujarat. Five years later he even repeated this success: he is now serving a third term as chief minister, widely appreciated by business houses for his faith in the free market, illustrating the organic relationship between "union" and "progress". Or, if you like, between fascism and the free market. In January 2009, that relationship was sealed with a kiss at a public function. The CEOs of two of India's biggest corporations, Ratan Tata (of the Tata Group) and Mukesh Ambani (of Reliance Industries), celebrated the development policies of Narendra Modi and warmly endorsed him as a future candidate for prime minister.

Only two months ago, the nearly $2bn 2009 general election was concluded. That's a lot more than the budget of the US elections. According to some media reports, the actual amount that was spent is closer to $10bn. Where, might one ask, does that kind of money come from?

The Congress and its allies, the United Progressive Alliance (UPA), have won a comfortable majority. Interestingly, more than 90 per cent of the independent candidates who stood for elections lost. Clearly, without sponsorship, it's hard to win an election. And independent candidates cannot promise subsidised rice, free TVs and cash-for-votes, those demeaning acts of vulgar charity that elections have been reduced to.

When you take a closer look at the calculus that underlies election results, words like "comfortable" and "majority" turn out to be deceptive, if not outright inaccurate. For instance, the actual share of votes polled by the UPA in these elections works out at only 10.3 per cent of the country's population. It's interesting how the cleverly layered mathematics of electoral democracy can turn a tiny minority into a thumping mandate.

In the run-up to the polls, there was absolute consensus across party lines about the economic "reforms". Several people have sarcastically suggested that the Congress and BJP form a coalition. In some states they already have. In Chhattisgarh, for example, the BJP runs the government and Congress politicians run the Salwa Judum, a vicious, government-backed "people's" militia. The Judum and the government have formed a joint front against the Maoists in the forests, who are engaged in a brutal and often deadly armed struggle. Among other things, this has become a fight to the finish, against displacement and against land acquisition by corporations waiting to begin mining iron ore, tin and all the other wealth stashed below the forest floor. So, in Chhattisgarh, we have the remarkable spectacle of the two biggest political parties of India in an alliance against the Adivasis of Dantewara, India's poorest, most vulnerable people. Already 644 villages have been emptied. Fifty thousand people have moved into Salwa Judum camps. Three hundred thousand are on the run, and are being called Maoist terrorists or sympathisers. The battle is raging, and the corporations are waiting.

It is significant that India is one of the countries that blocked a European move in the UN asking for an international probe into war crimes that may have been committed by the government of Sri Lanka in its recent offensive against the Tamil Tigers. Governments in this part of the world have taken note of Israel's Gaza blueprint as a good way of dealing with "terrorism": keep the media out and close in for the kill. That way they don't have to worry too much about who's a "terrorist" and who isn't. There may be a little flurry of international outrage, but it goes away pretty quickly.

Things do not augur well for the forest-dwelling people of India. Reassured by this "constructive" collaboration, this consensus between political parties, few were more enthusiastic about the recent general elections than major corporate houses. They seem to have realised that a democratic mandate can legitimise their pillaging in a way that nothing else can. Several corporations ran extravagant advertising campaigns on TV - some featuring Bollywood film stars - urging people, young and old, rich and poor, to go out and vote. Shops and restaurants in Khan Market, Delhi's most tony market, offered discounts to those whose index (voting) fingers were marked with indelible ink. Democracy suddenly became the cool new way to be. You know how it is: the Chinese do sport, so they had the Olympics; India does democracy, so we had an election. Both are heavily sponsored, TV-friendly spectator sports.

Even the BBC commissioned the India Election Special - a coach on a train - that took journalists from all over the world on a sightseeing tour to witness the miracle of Indian elections. The train coach had a slogan painted on it: "Will India's voters revive the World's Fortunes?" BBC (Hindi) had a poster up in a cafÈ near my home. It featured a $100 bill (with Ben Franklin) morphing into a 500 rupee note (with Gandhi). It said: Kya India ka vote bachayega duniya ka note? (Will India's votes rescue the world's currency notes?)

In these flagrant and unabashed ways, an electorate has been turned into a market, voters are seen as consumers, and democracy is being welded to the free market. Ergo: those who cannot consume do not matter.

For better or for worse, the 2009 elections seem to have ensured that the "progress" project is up and running. However, it would be a serious mistake to believe that the "union" project has fallen by the wayside.

As the 2009 election campaign unrolled, two things got saturation coverage in the media. One was the 100,000-rupee ($2,000) "people's car", the Tata Nano - the wagon for the volks - rolling out of Modi's Gujarat. (The sops and subsidies Modi gave the Tatas had a lot to do with Ratan Tata's warm endorsement of him.) The other is the hate speech of the BJP's monstrous new debutant, Varun Gandhi (another descendant of the Nehru dynasty), who makes even Narendra Modi sound moderate and retiring. In a public speech Varun Gandhi called for Muslims to be forcibly sterilised. "This will be known as a Hindu bastion, no ***** Muslim dare raise his head here," he said, using a derogatory word for someone who has been circumcised. "I don't want a single Muslim vote."

Varun Gandhi won his election by a colossal margin. It makes you wonder - are "the people" always right? The BJP still remains by far the second largest political party, with a powerful national presence, the only real challenge to the Congress. It will certainly live to fight another day.

The hoary institutions of Indian democracy - the judiciary, the police, the "free" press and, of course, elections - far from working as a system of checks and balances, quite often do the opposite. They provide each other cover to promote the larger interests of union and progress. In the process, they generate such confusion, such a cacophony, that voices raised in warning just become part of the noise. And that only helps to enhance the image of the tolerant, lumbering, colourful, somewhat chaotic democracy. The chaos is real. But so is the consensus.

Speaking of consensus, there's the small and ever-present matter of Kashmir. When it comes to Kashmir, the consensus in India is hardcore. It cuts across every section of the Establishment - including the media, the bureaucracy, the intelligentsia and even Bollywood.

The war in the Kashmir Valley is almost 20 years old now, and has claimed about 70,000 lives. Tens of thousands have been tortured, several thousand have "disappeared", women have been raped and many thousands widowed. Half a million Indian troops patrol the Kashmir Valley, making it the most militarised zone in the world. (The United States had about 165,000 active-duty troops in Iraq at the height of its occupation.) The Indian army now claims that it has, for the most part, crushed militancy in Kashmir. Perhaps that's true. But does military domination mean victory?

Kashmir is set to become the conduit through which the mayhem unfolding in Afghanistan and Pakistan spills into India, where it will find purchase in the anger of the young among India's 150 million Muslims who have been brutalised, humiliated and marginalised. Notice has been given by the series of terrorist strikes that culminated in the Mumbai attacks of 2008.

India's temporary, shotgun solutions to the unrest in Kashmir (pardon the pun) have magnified the problem and driven it deep into a place where it is poisoning the aquifers.

Perhaps the story of the Siachen Glacier, the highest battlefield in the world, is the most appropriate metaphor for the insanity of our times. Thousands of Indian and Pakistani soldiers have been deployed there, enduring chill winds and temperatures that dip to minus 40ƒ Celsius. Of the hundreds who have died there, many have died just from the cold - from frostbite and sunburn. The glacier has become a garbage dump now, littered with the detritus of war, thousands of empty artillery shells, empty fuel drums, ice-axes, old boots, tents and every other kind of waste that thousands of warring human beings generate. The garbage remains intact, perfectly preserved at those icy temperatures, a pristine monument to human folly.

While the Indian and Pakistani governments spend billions of dollars on weapons and the logistics of high-altitude warfare, the battlefield has begun to melt. Right now, it has shrunk to about half its size. The melting has less to do with the military stand-off than with people far away, on the other side of the world, living the good life. They're good people who believe in peace, free speech and human rights. They live in thriving democracies whose governments sit on the UN Security Council and whose economies depend heavily on the export of war and the sale of weapons to countries like India and Pakistan. (And Rwanda, Sudan, Somalia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Iraq, Afghanistan . . . it's a long list.) The glacial melt will cause severe floods in the subcontinent, and eventually severe drought that will affect the lives of millions of people. That will give us even more reasons to fight. We'll need more weapons. Who knows, that sort of consumer confidence may be just what the world needs to get over the current recession. Then everyone in the thriving democracies will have an even better life - and the glaciers will melt even faster.

Arundhati Roy's "Listening to Grasshoppers: Field Notes on Democracy" is published by Hamish Hamilton (£14.99)

GM issue needs immediate attention

Irish Farmers Journal, 16 July (dated 18 July) 2009.

A fourth alert occured this week where a boat of soya was blocked due to the EU's ludicrous zero-tolerance policy on the presence of GM material; effectively, dust.

We continue to sit on our hands, ignoring the potentially devastating consequences of higher feed costs for our industry.

The Commissioner, Mariann Fischer Boel, shares our concern. At Monday's post Council of Ministers meeting press conference, she questioned the wisdom of the EU's zero tolerance policy, underlining that total segregation is impossible.

She warned that the Commission would have huge difficulties, politically, if the policy blocked imports - and potentially lead to the EU having to import more meat instead (and that from animals fed on GMOs).

---

Comment from GM-free Ireland:

As usual, the Irish Farmers Journal swallows agri-biotech propaganda without critical analysis. The article gives the false impression that the "zero tolerance" policy applies to all GM animal feedsuffs (mostly soya and maize products), and that, for this reason, Irish farmers can't use GM animal feed.

The truth is quite different:

•

Most Irish meat, poultry, farmed fish and dairy produce comes from livestock fed on approved feedstuffs containing GM soya, GM maize, and GM oilseed rape products: Ireland imports around 1.4 million tonnes of such GM feedstuffs every year.

•

The EU "zero tolerance" policy only applies to animal feedstuffs that are contaminated with either (a) illegal GM ingredients which have not been approved by any regulatory body either in the USA or the EU (including GM pharma crops that produce industrial plastics, chemicals, blood thinners, blood clotters and contraceptives etc.), and/or (b) GM ingredients which are approved in the USA but not in the EU because of scientific questions over their safety and/or democratic opposition by member states.

The article conveniently fails to mention that competing farmers in 53 EU Regions routinely use certified GM-free animal feed as part of their Quality Agriculture Strategies to secure the prime section of the EU meat, poultry and dairy markets.

For example, 20% to 25% of France's annual soymeal imports (between 500,000 and 600,000 tonnes annually) are already certified Non-GMO (equivalent to all of Ireland's soymeal imports in 2007). Most comes from Brazil, some from India. France's leading importer, Agrifeed (based in Brest, Brittany), charges a small premium (approx €25-27 per tonne in summer, €30 - 32 in winter) for certified Non-GM soymeal imported weekly via the port of Montoire, near Nantes. These ships could easily unload part of their cargo at Foynes, Cork, Waterford or Dublin, providing enough certified Non-GMO soy to enable all Irish farmers to capture Europe's quality food market.

Thanks to agri-biotech propaganda disseminated by the Irish Farmers Journal and the feed import cartel, Irish farmers are being refused access to affordable Non-GM feedstuffs, are rapidly being squeezed out of the top food markets in the EU. This is particularly ironic since - because of our livestock's mostly grass based diet - Irish farmers could phase out GM feed more easily than many of their EU competitors, thus leveraging Ireland's famous clean green food island assets to create a unique selling point: the most credible, safe GM-free brands of meat, poultry, fish and dairy produce in the EU.

For more information, download the following (1.9MB pdf file):

The transition to GM-free meat and dairy production in Ireland - the food island
Presentation to the Second International Non-GMO Soy Summit
Brussels, 7 - 9 October 2008 - www.nongmosoysummit.com
http://www.gmfreeireland.org/feed/documents/SoySummit2/GMFI-SoySummit2008.pdf

Organic heavy hitters organize against GMO crops
• Public meeting scheduled for next week on genetically modified beets

Daily Camera [Boulder, Colorado, USA], 16 July 2009. By Laura Snyder:
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/200907/s2628753.htm

BOULDER, Colo. - Genetically modified crops could contaminate their conventional counterparts, critics say. Their effects on humans haven't been adequately studied, and their cultivation could lead to herbicide-resistant "super weeds," among other concerns.

But organic-industry heavyweight Steve Demos, who founded the food company White Wave 30 years ago in Boulder, isn't principally concerned with those kinds of arguments against allowing genetically modified sugar beets to be grown on Boulder County land. He's no scientist, after all.

"I'm not going to argue the merits of the science or lack of," he said. "I think that there's a bigger issue, personally. ... The Boulder community derives billions of dollars in revenues - and I mean that literally - from association with the organic and natural products industry."

And allowing Roundup Ready sugar beets - which are genetically tinkered with to create a resistance to the active chemical in Roundup herbicide - to be grown on open space land, as is now being proposed, besmirches Boulder's good, organic name, he said. In the land of organic products, in fact, Boulder is something of its own brand; one that's become associated with natural foods.

"If the headline when you wake up in the morning says on the national wire that the organic mecca has decided to grow GMO (genetically modified organism) beets on public land," Demos said, "that's almost as effective in diluting a brand as if Rolls-Royce announced it was making an economy-model engine for airplanes. ... You're playing with the identity of Boulder, Colorado."

In December, six farmers who lease agricultural land from the county asked for permission to grow Roundup Ready sugar beets, a new variety of plant, manufactured by the agribusiness giant Monsanto, that is quickly replacing conventionally grown sugar beets.

The farmers argued that the new variety of beet would allow them to lower labor costs, use less pesticide and better compete with other farmers. Conventional sugar beets typically require a lot of weeding and a careful mix of herbicide application to kill the weeds and not the crop.

The county, which has allowed Roundup Ready corn to be grown on its land since 2003, is now considering whether the Roundup Ready sugar beets should be allowed as well, said Tina Nielsen, who is overseeing the process at the county.

Demos said he and his colleagues in the local natural foods industry are now organizing to fight the proposal, which could mean e-mail campaigns, ads in the paper and even picketing - anything to raise awareness.

"I'm convinced that if we held a referendum, the majority of people in Boulder would say no to the GMO," said Mark Retzloff, who heads Aurora Organic Dairy. "But I don't think the residents know that this is happening."

Retzloff served on the county's GMO technical advisory committee almost a decade ago when Roundup Ready corn was considered - and was in the minority of members who did not recommend that the crop be allowed. Now, he said, the sugar beet issue may provide an opportunity for the county to re-examine its corn policy as well.

In place of GMOs, he is advocating that county land be used for organic farming. And he's willing to put his money where his mouth is.

"We would buy all they produce," said Retzloff, who is always looking for local feed for his dairy cows. "Any kind of alfalfa, grass, hay, corn or corn silage that's grown in Boulder County."

GMO sugar beets

Six farmers who lease Boulder County open space land have asked to plant Roundup Ready sugar beets, a type of genetically modified beet that is resistant to gly