NEWS ABOUT GM ISSUES • October 2009

2009: Jan • Feb • Mar • Apr • May • Jun • Jul • Aug • Sep
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

This page provides global media coverage of GM issues. For related email updates, we recommend you subscribe to GM Watch Newsletters at www.gmwatch.org/newsletters

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

"An organic universe sounds delightful, but it would consign millions in Africa and in much of Asia to malnutrition and death."

To hear Specter tell it, the only thing standing between the African continent and a future marked by widespread famine is a complete surrender to GMO technology. But in declaring that vision, he's brazenly denying the conclusions of the largest and most comprehensive study on the future of agriculture in the global south, the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD).

Under the auspices of the United Nations, World Bank, WHO, and other institutions, the IAASTD gathered 400 scientists and development experts from dozens of nations to assess the very problems that concern Specter. A three-year project, it has been called the IPCC of agriculture. Its conclusion: agroecological practices - including the very organic-farming techniques Specter finds so frightful - are at least as important as biotechnology in terms of "feeding the world" in the decades to come.

The study [PDF] is at best lukewarm on GMOs. It openly doubts whether GMOs actually increase yields; and deplores the patent regime that now governs them. The IAASTD states:

"In developing countries especially, instruments such as patents may drive up costs, restrict experimentation by the individual farmers or public researchers while also potentially undermining local practices that enhance food security and economic sustainability. In this regard, there is particular concern about present IPR instruments eventually inhibiting seed-saving, exchange, sale and access to proprietary materials necessary for the independent research community to conduct analyses and long term experimentation on impacts. Farmers face new liabilities: GM farmers may become liable for adventitious presence if it causes loss of market certification and income to neighboring organic farmers, and conventional farmers may become liable to GM seed producers if transgenes are detected in their crops."

The IAASTD turned out to be so unenthusiastic about GMOs, in fact, that Croplife International, the trade group for the globe's dominant GMO/agrichemical purveyors, angrily pulled out of participation shortly before its release.

I'm not blasting Specter for refusing to agree with the IAASTD's conclusions; but I do find it inexcusable that he failed to grapple with this vast scientific undertaking. In doing so, he lurches toward a kind of denialism of his own.

Generally, he might have more fully engaged the major literature on ag development in the global south. He glancingly refers to the FAO's 2003-'04 "State of Food and Agriculture" paper that gave tepid support for GMOs among poor farmers (while stressing that they're "not a panacea"). Yet Specter ignores a more recent paper (this one from 2008, by the UN Conference on Trade and Development that's directly relevant to the topic of his chapter: its on the potential of for organic ag in Africa. The paper concludes:

"Organic agriculture can increase agricultural productivity and can raise incomes with low-cost, locally available and appropriate technologies, without causing environmental damage. Furthermore, evidence shows that organic agriculture can build up natural resources, strengthen communities and improve human capacity, thus improving food security by addressing many different causal factors simultaneously ... Organic and near-organic agricultural methods and technologies are ideally suited for many poor, marginalized smallholder farmers in Africa, as they require minimal or no external inputs, use locally and naturally available materials to produce high-quality products, and encourage a whole systemic approach to farming that is more diverse and resistant to stress."

Again, no need to agree with every science-based report that praises organic ag. But to pretend such papers don't exist is poor journalism. Judging from his organic chapter, Specter spent a lot of time trolling the aisles at Whole Foods, marvelling at the simplistic comments of the shoppers. Fine. I have no doubt that he heard silly, science-denying things there. But where is the push to find the intersections between organic and science - such at the Rodale Institute in Pennsylvania, which has for years been running a test organic farm, complete with control farm? The results of its work, often in conjunction with USDA researchers, show that innovative organic techniques have at least as much promise for mitigating and surviving climate change as some patent-protected transgenic seed cooked up in a Monsanto lab.

Scientific output is messy and full of contradictions. And that brings me back to my broader critique of this book: that Specter defends an ideal, objective science that doesn't exist in this world. There is no greater case study of the grubbiness of real-world science than the rise of Specter's beloved GMOs.

(I'm still marveling at this statement, from the introduction: "I wonder, as the ice sheet in Greenland disappears, the seas rise, and our sense of planetary foreboding grows, will denialists consider the genetically engineered organisms that propel our cars and sustain our factories as a continuation of what [organic champion] Lord Melchett described as a war against nature?")

GMOs are hardly a product of the kind of pure and objective science that Specter celebrates. Indeed, the few companies involved in GMO seed production have been accorded such extraordinary intellectual property power by the U.S. government that research scientists have risen up in rebellion.

In an article published in February of this year - maybe too late for consideration by Specter - The New York Times reported that 26 corn-insect specialists signed a letter to the EPA complaining that "no truly independent research [on GMOS] can be legally conducted on many critical questions" because the patent-holding companies have so much power over research. From the Times:

"The problem, the scientists say, is that farmers and other buyers of genetically engineered seeds have to sign an agreement meant to ensure that growers honor company patent rights and environmental regulations. But the agreements also prohibit growing the crops for research purposes."

Shockingly, "The researchers ... withheld their names [from the EPA letter] because they feared being cut off from research by the companies." Now there's an example of scientists who are free to pursue the path of truth!

I'd also urge Specter to read a paper by Don Lotter, published early this year in the International Journal of the Sociology of Food and Agriculture. Lotter's paper, provocatively titled "The Genetic Engineering of Food and The Failure of Science," shows how the collapse of biology's "central dogma" - the one-gene, one-trait thesis that fell apart with the mapping of the human genome - exposed GM plant breeding as a rather crude tool. He traces the rise of GMOs, convincingly arguing that political and economic power, not scientific rigor, have driven the technology's ascent.

But political and economic power are precisely what elude Specter's gaze. This great defender of science appears to be cursed with something that a love of science should have cured: naivetÈ. To be sure, the kind of know-nothing, reflexive anti-scienticism that Specter deplores certainly exists; and its adherents need a kick in the pants. Specter's boot misses the target. Moreover, he sees deniers everywhere, except where they are actually powerful and effective: denying climate change.

Farm and Food: Trust busters are tardy

Alan Guebert / Columnist
Journal Star [USA], October 31 2009:
http://journalstar.com/business/article_cda806b8-c59d-11de-ac00-001cc4c03286.html

Almost before her first cup of government coffee cooled, Christine Varney, the antitrust chief at the U.S. Department of Justice since April 20, tossed the Bush administration's antitrust guidelines - described as toothless - out the window.

There's a new collusion cop in town, she explained May 9, and DOJ's "Antitrust Division will be aggressively pursuing cases where monopolists try to use their dominance in the marketplace to stifle competition and harm consumers."

"Hurray!" cried many farmers, ranchers and antitrust attorneys who've been barking at Justice to unleash its legal hounds on Big Meat, Big Milk and Big Seed almost since Adam and Eve accepted a consent decree to give up the apple monopoly.

Six months after laying down that marker, however, Varney and her trust busters have their eyes still fixed on ag but have yet to file one suit to fix ag. Others, though, aren't waiting.

On Aug. 6, three U.S. senators, "encouraged by (her) commitment to take a hard look at dairy industry consolidation," sent Varney a detailed letter on seven milk ventures and lawsuits (mostly involving milk giants Dean Foods, Dairy Farmers of America and National Dairy Holdings) that targeted "areas that we believe are particularly ripe for review."

To ensure Varney got the full flavor of that ripeness the Senate Judiciary Committee held a "field" hearing on dairy antitrust issues in St. Albans, Vt., on Sept. 18. The two senators holding forth were the two senators from the Holstein Kingdom of Vermont: Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and Bernie Sanders, chairman - and only member - of the Senate's Independent Party.

The star witness at the hearing was one Christine Varney who, again, pledged her allegiance to antitrust enforcement and to "a careful and comprehensive examination of the marketplace."

A comprehensive examination of the marketplace is exactly what the American Antitrust Institute made public Oct. 23 in its white paper on the seed industry. Written by Diana Moss, the Institute's vice president and senior fellow, the report provides answers to the question in its title, "Transgenic Seed Platforms: Competition Between a Rock and a Hard Place?"

Any look-see into today's seed business, writes Moss, requires a rock-hard look into Monsanto, "the industry's dominant player." She begins that look exactly two sentences into the 29-page report.

"A threshold question," Moss posits, "is whether Monsanto has used its market power to foreclose rivals from market access, harming competition and thereby slowing the pace of innovation and adversely affecting prices, quality, and choice for farmers and consumers of seed products."

Moss's report, online at www.antitrustinstitute.org, raises as many economic points as legal ones.

For example, she wonders if today's fabulous new technologies and evolving views of patents also require new ways to enforce antitrust rules so markets and consumers have the same legal standing as the new technologies.

After all, observes Moss, new technologies that "enjoy widespread and rapid adoption typically experience precipitous declines in cost as innovators-by-doing and competitive pressures drive prices down."

And "just the opposite has occurred in seed and other ag areas, hasn't it?" observes Fred Stokes, executive director of the Organization for Competitive Markets. "Every farmer and rancher knows this and, I now believe, so does Assistant Attorney General Christine Varney."

And so may Monsanto. On Oct. 9, the leader in transgenic seeds announced it had "received questions" from Justice "this year regarding competition in the seed industry."

Early next year Varney and counterparts at the U.S. Department of Agriculture will hear from farmers and ranchers in a series of meetings (rumors suggest four with one in Des Moines, another in Denver) on ag antitrust issues.

Let's all hurry - while there's still something to talk about.

Alan Guebert is a freelance agricultural journalist. He can be reached at agcomm@sbcglobal.net or at agcomm, 21673 Lago Drive, Delavan, IL 61734.

---

Note: See the related article "American Antitrust Institute Says Competition in the Transgenic Seed Industry is Impaired by Monsanto" under 23 October below.

Europe gives green light to three genetically modified corn varieties

Michael Cosgrove
Flesh & Stone, 31 October 2009:
http://www.fleshandstone.net/healthandsciencenews/1669.html

The European Commission decided Friday to authorize the importation of three types of genetically modified corn which are mainly used in animal foods.

When European agriculture ministers met October 19 to consider importation of three types of genetically modified (GMO) corn they failed to produce an agreement. Instead, the ministers forwarded the issue to the European Commission for a final decision, says French daily Liberation.

The varieties concerned are two Monsanto products, MON 88017 and MON 89034, and one from Pioneer Hi-Bred (a Dupont company). They are now cleared for legal importation into Europe over the next 10 years for use in animal foods and their transformation in other food products, but growing them remains unlawful.

All three products had already been cleared by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).

The decision represents a victory for European agriculture commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel, who had been campaigning for their authorization for a long time.

Boel has always insisted upon the risks of severe corn shortages in Europe, noting that entire shiploads of corn had been refused at European ports after minute traces of unauthorized GMO corn had been discovered in them.

She reminded the Commission that not only is Europe heavily dependant on American corn imports, most notably during winter, but unfavorable world corn market conditions are not helping the situation. For example, Argentinean corn production dropped 30 percent this year due to a drought.

These are not the first GMOs to be authorized for use in Europe, but European public opinion has traditionally been hostile towards their use, resulting in a limited number of authorized GMO products.

Only one GMO seed variety, Monsanto's MON 810, has ever been authorized for both cultivation and use in food products in Europe, and several more are present in test field-growing conditions. Farmers testing them often take great pains to conceal their activities due to the likelihood of their plants being destroyed if discovered by anti-GMO protest groups.

Colin Tudge: "Feeding People is Easy," unless we use GM seeds

Interview / video by Ann Danylkiw, Vimeo.com:
http://vimeo.com/adanylkiw

Note: These are transcripts of two video interviews with the biologist and award-winning science writer Dr Colin Tudge, the author of numerous works on food, agriculture, genetics, and species diversity. Among his more recent books on food and farming are "So shall we reap" and "Feeding People is Easy".

In the first video, Tudge shares his thoughts on GM crops and the Millennium Seed Bank Project. In the second video, he explains how the large agribusiness model has fundamentally changed the nature of how we feed ourselves and how this model threatens climate adaptation strategies.

Both interviews took place at the The Bigger Picture Festival hosted by the New Economics Foundation at Kew Gardens near London on 24 October 2009.

---

Video: http://vimeo.com/7260884

Transcript:

There's no doubt that if we are serious about our own long-term future, we have to have the maximum possible variety of genes, as it were, in store, from all possible crops. So you need a huge variety of potential crops to be kept in store, in the form of seed usually, and you need a great variety within each crop species. [...]

It has to do with natural selection and the nature of change. Because it's clear, we all know that the climate is going to change radically over the next hundred years all over the world, and nobody can predict exactly what's going to happen in what place. Plants gear themselves to day length because that's so reliable. With global warming you're going to have unprecedented combinations of day length, temperature and rainfall. It could throw present-day plants completely - even if they survive, they won't know how to gear their life cycle - flowering and seed setting and the rest. The dreadful thing is that we have no idea in detail what kind of crops we are going to need for which areas.

The trouble with GMOs is that you are immediately narrowing your base because you have to tailor-make a crop to fill a particular niche. If you have no idea where the niches are going to be, of what anywhere is going to be like, you could be climbing up a gum tree. You've got to have variety in there.

There's a whole vogue which is running in parallel with GMOs, of planting crops which on one hand are high-performance but on the other hand are genetically very varied. They may be phenotypically very uniform but genetically they are very varied so the crops between them will be valid in very different conditions.

GMOs are the opposite of that. GMOs could really land us in trouble for the reason alone that they will narrow the genetic base available to us. So this movement, of conserving as much seed as possible, which has been going on in one form or other since the 1920s, is absolutely vital. It's probably the most vital thing there is at the moment.

---

Colin Tudge: agribusiness presents a threat to climate adaptation strategies

Video: http://vimeo.com/7279631

Transcript:

The thing is, that everybody in the world these days is supposed to be in competition with everybody else. Maximum competitive economy. And they, the powers that be, make a huge virtue about this. It's meant to make us all work harder and concentrate the mind and all that kind of stuff. Success or failure is judged entirely by how much money you make. If you make a lot of money you are attractive to shareholders and if you don't, you go bust. So we have this frantic competition in all walks of life these days to make as much money as possible in the shortest time.

And this absurd mentality, which is grotesque in most contexts, is applied equally to agriculture. If you are just selling something neutral, like computers then maybe that doesn't matter. But if you are selling that really matters, like food, and also something where the production itself is quite uncertain because of climate, it becomes an absolute disaster.

If you try to maximize yield in the short term in farming, you could find you make it impossible to produce anything in ten years' time. Because you wreck the soil, you waste the water, putting on too much fertilizer, etc. So this idea of short-term maximization of yield - disastrous.

"Value-added" means you add a load of packaging and processing, which you don't really need to do, but even worse than that, you take your grain, which you could be eating as the basis of good traditional cuisine, and you turn it into meat because then you can really make money.

So we have this tremendous push towards livestock. Not because we need it, not because it makes great cooking, but because it's potentially very profitable. Cutting costs is the most disastrous thing of all in the context of agriculture. But even worse, it puts people out of work. There's this great drive, in the interests of cutting costs, just to throw farmers off the land. It's bad enough in this country (Britain), but in a country like India, where you've got 600 million people working on the land, if you cut down the amount of labour, if they had agriculture like we have, with only 1% of people working on the land, you would put half a billion people out of work, almost twice the population of the United States.

30 October 2009

Turkey Bans Imports of Biotech Products

USAgNet, 30 October 2009:
http://www.wisconsinagconnection.com/story-national.php?Id=2256&yr=2009

Turkey, the 27th largest export market for all U.S. goods, issued a new regulation placing additional requirements on all food and feed products containing genetically enhanced components. This new regulation essentially came without warning, according to U.S. Grains Council Regional Director in the Middle East and Subcontinent Joe O'Brien.

"This ban came at us pretty much out of the blue," he said. "This regulation impacts everything from a bag of potato chips to grains and co-products." The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) reported on its Web site that this signifies approval of the fourth draft of a National Biosafety Law and is similar in nature to the draft reviewed last year.

O'Brien said the potential impact is substantial to U.S. coarse grains and producers. For example, Turkey is the largest buyer of U.S. corn gluten feed (GCF) and the third-largest buyer of U.S. distiller's dried grains with solubles (DDGS).

Turkey imported 435,378 metric tons of CGF in 2008 and 202,422 tons in the first six months of 2009. Turkey imported 465,212 tons of U.S. DDGS in 2008 and 199,173 tons from January through August of this year. USTR reports the U.S. goods trade surplus with Turkey was $5.8 billion in 2008, an increase of $3.8 billion from 2007.

USTR also notes the total value of U.S. "transgenic" crop exports to Turkey exceeded $1 billion in 2007, which are endangered depending on how this new regulation is implemented. O'Brien said one issue currently "up in the air" is the fate of the vessels currently on the water loaded with U.S. goods.

Turkey's Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs has to give instructions to the ports regarding this regulation and that has not happened yet. According to Rebecca Fecitt, USGC director of biotechnology programs, the food and feed industry in Turkey can make a significant difference in this matter.

A federal judge can reportedly overturn this regulation. Thursday, Oct. 29, marks Turkey's Independence Day [note!], which will keep any immediate information on this new regulation at bay. O'Brien said Turkey has a history of making decisions unexpectedly.

Justice investigation targets Monsanto

Greg Edwards
St. Louis Business Journal [USA], 30 October 2009:
http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2009/11/02/story1.html?b=1257138000^2355911

The U.S. Justice Department's inquiry into Monsanto Co.'s marketing tactics in the biotech seed industry may be a leading indicator of the Obama administration's approach to antitrust matters in general.

Monsanto said earlier this month that it has provided interviews and documents in response to an inquiry from the Justice Department in connection with anti-competitive allegations raised by DuPont. The two are fierce competitors in the lucrative seed industry.

"The Justice Department has clearly begun a major investigation and is moving ahead, which is more than happened in the last eight years," said Peter Carstensen, a former Justice Department lawyer who teaches antitrust law at the University of Wisconsin Law School and studies mergers in the agriculture industry.

However, Carstensen said, that doesn't mean the government will bring an antitrust case against Monsanto. "We are more than nine months into the Obama administration, and I am still waiting for a shoe to drop, as opposed to talking about dropping a shoe. Is the administration really going to walk the walk?"

Another former Justice Department lawyer, Tim Greaney, who teaches antitrust law at Saint Louis University School of Law, said, "My guess is that they are looking at a number of situations that involve dominant firms with near monopoly power and are interested in reviving and enforcing the Sherman Act, Section 2, which governs monopolization. Very few Section 2 cases were brought under the Bush administration."

The inquiry comes at an inconvenient time for Monsanto, which considers the next year critical as it tries to offset lower earnings from its Roundup weed killer with higher earnings from its core traits and seeds business.

Hugh Grant, Monsanto chairman, president and chief executive, said in a fourth-quarter conference call with analysts Oct. 7 that a strong 2010, Monsanto's current fiscal year, would put the company "in a great position for 2011 and 2012." Roundup had long been a cash cow for Monsanto, helping to fund seeds and traits research, but more recently its sales have suffered because of price cuts from Chinese competitors.

Sales of Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicides were $3.5 billion in fiscal 2009, which ended Aug. 31, down from $4.1 billion a year earlier. Meanwhile, sales of seeds and traits totaled $7.3 billion, up from $6.4 billion.

Monsanto reported a profit of $2.1 billion for the year, up slightly from $2 billion the previous year.

Carstensen said a government inquiry is inevitably a distraction. "It's going to take a bigger piece of management's time," he said. "A full-blown trial would really eat up management's time."

In addition, competition is intensifying. J.P. Morgan analyst Jeffrey Zekauskas pointed out in an Oct. 8 note to investors that Monsanto reported no U.S. market share gain in corn or soybean seeds in the most recent year, while DuPont's subsidiary, Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc., recorded gains of 2 percent and 3 percent, respectively.

The background of the antitrust inquiry is this:

Monsanto sued DuPont last spring to prevent what it called "unlawful use" of Monsanto's herbicide-tolerant technologies in corn and soybeans. Monsanto contended Pioneer was misusing Monsanto's Roundup Ready trait "to mask problems" with Pioneer technology.

In response, DuPont countersued, arguing that combining its technologies with Monsanto's was "clearly within its rights" under a licensing agreement with Monsanto, which broadly licenses its technologies to competitors. In addition, Monsanto was blocking innovation with restrictive licensing agreements, DuPont said.

"We believe we have every right through our existing Monsanto license agreement to 'stack' our Optimum GAT trait with Pioneer soybean genetics already containing a Roundup Ready trait," said DuPont Group Vice President James Borel.

In late summer, the Obama administration said it would look at U.S. agriculture as part of an increased emphasis on antitrust enforcement. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack also announced plans to meet with farmers to hear their concerns about possible antitrust concerns.

Philip Weiser, a deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department, told a farmers advocacy conference in August that federal antitrust regulators are "committed to examining" competition in agribusiness, including the sale of genetically modified seed. He did not single out any companies, but, perhaps tellingly, the conference of the Organization for Competitive Markets, a Monsanto critic, was held in St. Louis.

Less than a week later, Grant called for a probe into what he described as DuPont's "deceitful attacks" against Monsanto, including what he said was DuPont's promotion of the conference.

"Your lobbying and communications that paint your company as a victim of limiting technology licenses is dishonest, disingenuous and downright deceitful," Grant wrote in a letter to Charles Holliday Jr., chairman of E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., DuPont's formal name.

Monsanto announced earlier this month that though it had been informally questioned by the Justice Department about its marketing in the biotech seed industry, it had not received a subpoena or formal notice of investigation. The Justice Department also had contacted DuPont and Swiss-based Syngenta, another competitor.

Drought tolerant plant gene discovered

ANU News (Australian National News), 30 October 2009:
http://news.anu.edu.au/?p=173

An international group of plant scientists, led by Dr Gonzalo Estavillo and Professor Barry Pogson at The Australian National University have discovered a subtle mutation in Arabidopsis, a small, rapid growing plant, which may have important and far reaching implications for establishing drought resistance throughout the plant kingdom.

"This work actually began when we were looking at different mutant varieties of Arabidopsis that had unusual responses to high light," said Dr Estavillo. "We discovered a particular mutant gene called SAL1 that enabled plants to survive longer without added water, and seeing the obvious potential, we began to investigate."

One potential the group is currently exploring is the application of the mutation to food crops such as rice or wheat, and the researchers will now begin to introduce the mutant characteristics into the elite wheat cultivars currently used in agriculture industry.

"The ultimate aim of the project is to develop wheat lines with improved drought tolerance and water use," explained Dr Estavillo. "The next step will be to identify wheat mutant plants lacking SAL1 genes identified by molecular biology procedures. We expect that these mutants should remain green, turgid and photosynthetically active, producing more leaves, flowers and seeds during mild to moderate water deficit."

Estavillo points out that with most climate models predicting that the vast wheat growing areas of southern Australia will become drastically drier over the next fifty years the prospect of drought resistant wheat offers much promise for ensuring long term food supply and economic wellbeing. This has been recognised by the Australian Government's Grains Research Development Corporation, which recently provided further funding for Dr Estavillo and Professor Pogson to identify genetic variants of the SAL1 gene in wheat, in conjunction with CSIRO Plant Industry.

The SAL1 mutation also has the advantage of facilitating less controversial solutions to the enhancement of food crops. Because the basis of the mutation is a missing gene it would also be potentially possible to create drought tolerance in a plant like wheat without employing transgenic methods, or what is commonly referred to as Genetic Modification (GM) Technology, which rely on splicing genes into existing genomes.

Instead, using traditional plant breeding techniques, drought resistance traits could potentially be introduced through a process of interbreeding, alleviating both public concerns about GM food stock, as well as introducing drought resistance to commercial varieties of the plant as quickly as possible.

Filed under: Media Release, ANU College of Medicine Biology and Environment, Environment, Science, Staff Contacts: For interviews: Gonzalo.Estavillo@anu.edu.au or Barry.Pogson@anu.edu.au , 02 6125 5629. For media assistance: James Giggacher, 02 6125 4171, 0416 249 241.

Greenpeace tries to block GMO corn in Mexico

Associated Press, via Taiwan News, 30 October 2009:
http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news_content.php?id=1094914&lang=eng_news

Greenpeace has filed a legal demand that Mexico cancel 22 experimental permits granting agriculture companies permission to plant genetically modified corn.

The environmental organization says it filed the challenge with the Mexican Agriculture Ministry, alleging the government did not correctly review the permit requests. Until now, biotech corn has been banned in Mexico, which has more than 200 varieties of the grain. Greenpeace supports a total ban.

Corn originated in pre-Hispanic Mexico, and environmentalists fear biotech genetic material could spread and contaminate native varieties, whose genes could be needed in the future for new hybrids.

29 October 2009

Save us, [insert techno-fix here], you're our only hope!

Tom Laskawy
Grist [USA], 29 October 2009:
http://www.grist.org/article/help-us-insert-techno-fix-here-youre-our-only-hope/

[Note: the original text features many hyperlinks not included here]

Watching SuperFreakonomics author Steve Levitt sitting next to Jon Stewart as they shook their heads in disbelief that everyone wasn't on the climate change/geo-engineering bandwagon (It's easy! it's cheap! We know it works!) depressed me no end. It seems like every challenge we face now has an "easy" technological silver bullet that will spare us sacrifice or even change. GMOs will end hunger. Geo-engineering will solve climate change. A pill will cure obesity. Cellulosic ethanol will eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. It doesn't seem to bother anyone that none of these phantasms currently exist. Indeed, if you ask an expert when exactly we'll get one or the other of these whiz-bang items, the answer is almost always the same: "within ten years." And so it's been for decades.

At root, I don't think this is really about faith in technology. After all, the only plot twist more hackneyed and familiar than the miraculous, world-changing invention (a plot twist the media have a long history of falling for) is the unintended consequences that cause it all to go horribly wrong. Instead, this is, as Ralph Loglisci of the Center for a Livable Future put it regarding GMOs, "about political expediency." I would also add a healthy dose of denial to that mix. Not necessarily a denial of whatever impending disasters face us. Rather it's denial of the failure of progress - in other words, an unwillingness to accept that what we've been doing in this country more or less since WWII represents anything other than progress. Techno-fixers' courage and will quails at the thought that we might be heading for dead-ends and not the limitless plains of the future.

Topping it all off is the feeling among elites in this country (in the media, in politics, in business) that they neither want to do the heavy-lifting that's required to deal with our problems nor do they think Americans will accept any real changes to their fossil-fueled, meat-powered, SUV'd way of life (although I think it's an open question as to whether the elites are considering "typical" Americans' desires or their own). We can't change our ways, they say, so you scientists better get out your magic wands and start waving.

GMOs are, of course, a perfect example of this phenomenon. The NYT hosted a recent debate asking if "Biotech food can feed the world." As usual, "activists" were the voices in opposition to a biotech solution while scientists provided the favorable opinion. This despite the fact that there are indeed scientists who remain skeptical of GMOs - like those behind the landmark analysis of GMO shortcomings, Failure to Yield. And to read the pro-GMO arguments, you'd think that there were piles of magic seeds sitting around that could cure hunger if only the "activists" would let farmers plant them. There aren't.

The only GMO seeds available are ones that have been engineered to survive dousings of particular herbicides or to produce their own pesticide. Of course, they do still require heavy applications of fertilizer and water (and even pesticides and herbicides). But drought tolerance? Or supersized fruit? Or any other really promising development? Ten years away, swears Monsanto. And health risks? No worries - it's not like anyone's gotten sick from eating GMO food, supporters declare. Of course, we've never had an industrial product whose health effects on humans, animals or insects only became clear years or even decades later (at which point early studies suggesting risks are once again unearthed). Critics are such a bunch of lily-livered worry-warts!

And when scientists do create a more useful GMO trait, like virus resistance in squash, things still don't turn out right. In field trials, the GMO squash was indeed more resistant to the viruses, but more susceptible to a squash-killing bacteria. As a result, the conventional squash out-performed them. Meanwhile, we're seeing more and more examples of seeds developed through advanced but standard breeding techniques out-perform even the highest-tech GMOs.

If this were really about preventing the catastrophe of 9 billion mouths to feed in 2050 (as GMO proponents incessantly remind us), the obvious answer isn't a magic seed, it's to do all we can to ensure there aren't 9 billion mouths to feed in 2050. Some might read that sentence and call it "population control." Others, like Nick Kristof, might observe that policies which empower women in the developing world can actually accomplish the goal of reduced birthrates (not to mention higher standards of living) - and probably for less money that we'd pay Monsanto and its ilk in their fruitless quest for super seeds. But those kinds of on the ground, "small-scale" policies get far more rhetorical support than they do financial support. After all, cynicism about the ability to make change in this country pales in comparison to cynicism about the ability to make change in Africa. It's much easier to invent some magic seed, give it to African farmers and leave it at that.

I recommend keeping the GMO story in mind when you hear about the next great techno-fix, whether it's spraying sulfate particles into the upper atmosphere to solve global warming or turning to agriculture to solve our gasoline addiction. Hyping these mythical future developments has nothing to do with the success of science and everything to with the failure of politics and our collective imaginations.

Tom is a media and technology professional who thinks that wrecking the planet is a bad idea. He twitters madly and blogs here and at Beyond Green about food policy, alternative energy, climate science and politics as well as the multiple and various effects of living on a warming planet.

Beverage giants join Greenpeace food guide

Canadean, 29 October 2009:
http://www.canadean.com/Default.aspx?TabId=184§ion=IndustryNews&newsId=1237&title=Beverage_giants_join_Greenpeace_food_guide_General

Nestle, Foster's and Schweppes are among hundreds of companies listed in Greenpeace's Truefood Guide, which was released in Australia this week

The beverage companies earned a place in the guide by instituting a ban on the use of genetically engineered (GE) ingredients.

Australia currently has limited labelling laws for GE foods but the guide aims to help the public to become better informed about what they are consuming.

Food brands and products are rated as Green (GE-free) and Red (may contain GE ingredients).

Companies and supermarkets listed as green have implemented policies and procedures throughout their supply chain to actively avoid ingredients derived from GE crops.

Pepsi, Gatorade and Cadbury Drinking Chocolate were among the companies that rated Red.

According to the Food Standards Agency, Genetically Modified (GM) food involves altering a plant, animal or micro-organism's genes or inserting one from another organism.

Any GM foods intended for sale in the European Union are subject to a rigorous safety assessment, which is the responsibility of the European Food Safety Authority.

Written by Jessica Davies.

'Feed crisis looming without faster GM approvals'

Mike Abram
Farmers Weekly Interactive [UK], 29 October 2009:
http://www.fwi.co.uk/Articles/2009/10/29/118496/39Feed-crisis-looming-without-faster-GM-approvals39.htm

An animal feed crisis is looming with the continued inability of EU ministers to either approve or reject genetically modified traits for import into Europe, agrochemical company Monsanto has warned.

"The EU situation is 'chaos as normal'," Monsanto's Colin Merritt told a Crop Protection Association-organised meeting of representatives from food chain-related trade associations. "There is still the absurdity of no GM trait goes through as a qualified majority."

The delay in approving traits being grown commercially elsewhere in the world, combined with the EU's zero tolerance for importing feed or food contaminated with unapproved traits, was putting huge pressure on animal feed supplies, he said.

"A crisis is looming, driven by the contamination issue. It is not just me saying this, Mariann Fischer Boel used similar words recently," said Dr Merritt.

Animal feed shipments containing just traces of an unapproved GM trait have been turned away from ports this summer. "You only need some dust from a previous shipment of maize containing one of those traits, say, in a shipment of soya for it to be rejected because of the extreme sensitivity of the testing," Dr Merritt told Farmers Weekly. "But it doesn't add up to any significant level of GM content. It just throws the system into chaos."

Once approval was given, then the contamination level in non-GM feed for that trait was set at 0.9%, he explained.

Whether a crisis occurred or was averted depended on coming up with a solution to zero tolerance, he said. "Talking to suppliers, some are managing to find feed supplies, but with more and more traits coming through, particularly in the US, if we don't get it cracked, it will become increasingly difficult to source non-GM feed."

Some experts are suggesting there will be shortages by December, although Dr Merritt is more circumspect. "It could happen in the next year to 18 months, but I have been hearing that time-scale for the past two years," he admitted.

Two solutions had been discussed, he said. "One is to redefine the 0% threshold, the other, which we would prefer, is to make the current system work according to the timelines set. If traits were approved or rejected in those timelines on the basis of science, rather than the political decisions we have now, there wouldn't be a problem."

---

Comment from GM-free Ireland:

For years, Monsanto and the animal feed cartels have claimed that European livestock face imminent starvation unless the EU agreees to legalise the importation of US animal feed contaminated by new and untested GMOs.

But in the article above, Monsanto finally admits that this much-hyped catastrophic "shortage" of legal GM feed continues to remain on the far side of an ever-receding 12 to 18 month horizon!

The EU's resistance to GM food and farming is a crisis for Monsanto, whose profits are decreasing. But informed European farmers continue to source certified Non-GM soy feed from Brazil and other countries. And the US and EU markets for Non-GM fed animal produce are increasing rapidly.

Despite the massive agri-biotech propaganda and lobbying campaigns for the EU to abandon its "zero tolerance" food safety policy for unapproved GM contamination, the issue was not even on the agenda of the last meeting of the Council of EU Agriculture ministers.

Monsanto's suggestion that EU approvals are not based on science is laughable. Regardless of EFSA's opinions on the subject, it's precisely because of the published scientific evidence of their health and environmental dangers that European farmers and consumers simply don't want anything to do with GM food and farming.

Apart from science, we Europeans also use our common sense. We will never allow our food sovereignty to be threatened by patent infringement lawsuits against farmers who would be inevitably contaminated by the introduction of Monsanto's patented GM seeds. This is very political indeed. Monsanto's whining about such political considerations is a further example of the company's absolute disdain for democracy.

DOH and COA say no to genetically modified rice from United States
• The denials follow the uproar about government deciding to allow the import of beef products from U.S.

Taiwan News, 29 October 2009:
http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news_content.php?id=1093323&lang=eng_news&cate_img=49.jpg&cate_rss=news_Society_TAIWAN

Taiwan is not about to allow the import of genetically modified rice from the United States, the Department of Health and the Council of Agriculture said yesterday.

The denials followed the uproar about last week's government deciding last week to allow the import of bone-in beef and other beef products from the United States.

"If (genetically modified rice) is imported, I will step down," COA Minister Chen Wu-hsiung told reporters.

Media reports speculated the import would begin at the end of next month as the DOH would complete a registration system for genetically modified foods in general by that time. The system had reportedly been announced on Oct. 22 and would become official one month later if no protest was registered, reports said.

DOH officials said the COA was right that there were no plans to import the rice. Some countries already sold genetically modified rice and papayas, so Taiwan should also be prepared for any eventuality, officials said. According to the DOH, collecting information and hearing various opinions on the subject did not signify that Taiwan was about to allow the import. Foreign countries expecting to import rice into Taiwan still had to submit documents listing its genetic background, the COA said. Vietnam, Japan and the U.S. are the only countries exporting rice to Taiwan at present, and none of the product is genetically modified.

Local rice farmers said the genetically modified variety could be mixed in with other rice, causing panic and making consumers lose confidence in Taiwanese rice as well. Such a development would damage the livelihood of many people, farmers said. Taiwan is following World Trade Organization rules on the import of rice, being allowed an annual quota, officials said. Any genetic altering done domestically will center on grains not for use as food for people, according to government sources.

Programme for government commitment welcomed

Oliver Moore
Irish Examiner Farming, Organic Diary:
http://www.irishexaminer.com

[Extract]

The commitment to GM free is far stronger than the previous quite vague, aspirational commitment.

Not only does the new programme commit to "Declare the Republic a GM-Free Zone, free from the cultivation of all GM plants... a voluntary GM-free logo for use in all relevant product labellling and advertising, similar to a scheme recently introduced in Germany," is being introduced.

This element of the programme has received much negative press, mainly in relation to the price and availability of feed.

However, there are counter arguments. It is claimed by GM free Ireland that there is ample affordable GM-free feed availability. They cite availability from Brazil, where they claim 45% of soy produced is now GM-free.

Indeed, they claim that "France imports around 500,000 to 600,000 tonnes of non-GM soya annually, equivalent to Ireland's total soya feed imports for 2007."

They go on to claim that while GM free soy is charged at a premium, the premium is recouped with a mark up for GM-free labelled produce.

It is also the case that Ireland is less feed dependent than farming elsewhere: Ireland has a very long grass growing season. The potential to aim for the higher end, grass fed, GM free and occasionally even organic markets across the EU and further afield is certainly there.

This will involve a leap of faith into a brave new world of finding better paying markets, but that is a task surely worth taking on.

Ireland - Total GM food ban

Meat Trade News Daily [UK], 29 October 2009:
http://www.meattradenewsdaily.co.uk/news/291009/ireland___total_gm__food_ban.aspx

Ireland has been making eco-headlines of late for taking the unusual step of banning the cultivation of genetically modified crops. The Green Isle now joins a growing number of countries that have opted to ban the growing of GM crops including Japan, Egypt and Germany.

GM Free Ireland reports that the Irish Government will now ban the cultivation of all GM crops and introduce a voluntary GM-free label for food - including meat, poultry, eggs, fish, crustaceans, and dairy produce made without the use of GM animal feed.

The policy was adopted as part of the Renewed Programme for Government agreed between the two coalition partners, the centre-right Fianna FaÌl and the Green Party, after the latter voted to support it last week. The agreement specifies that the Government will "Declare the Republic of Ireland a GM-Free Zone, free from the cultivation of all GM plants".

Friends of the Earth Europe's GMO campaign coordinator Helen Holder said "All around Europe, countries are putting up bans or other limits to growing genetically modified crops and the Irish government is to be congratulated. The EU should drop genetically modified food and crops, and instead support green farming which is good for the economy and for the planet".

---

Comment from GM-free Ireland:

Lousy journalism! Ireland has NOT instituted a total ban on GM food! The policy will only ban field trials and cultivation of GM crops.

Contrary to the article's claim that such bans are "unusual", most EU member states and Switzerland oppose the cultivation of GM crops, and many of them have banned GM crops at the national and/or regional levels. For details see http://www.gmo-free-regions.org/gmo-free-regions.html

Moreover, at the EU Council of Environment Ministers in March 2009, the Netherlands issued a declaration calling for Member States to have the right to decide on the cultivation of GM crops approved by the EU. In June 2009, Austria submitted a follow up proposal supported by Bulgaria, Ireland, Greece, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland and Slovenia. Entitled "Genetically Modified Organisms - A Way Forward", this proposal calls for the European Commission to allow Member States to ban GMOs for socio-economic as well as environmental reasons: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/reserve/Austrian-et-al-proposal.pdf

GMO Giant Monsanto Loses Another Day in Court

Aaron Turpen, citizen journalist
Natural News [USA], 29 October 2009:
http://www.naturalnews.com/027352_Monsanto_GMO_Roundup.html

France's highest court has ruled that Monsanto lied about the safety of its weed killing herbicide Roundup. The decision came just days ago and confirms an earlier court judgment in France finding that Monsanto had falsely advertised Roundup as being "biodegradable" and that it "left the soil clean."

The original case was brought to court in 2001 by several French environmental groups alleging that Roundup's main ingredient, glyphosate, has a classification as "dangerous to the environment" by the European Union. That case drug on for years and finally ended in a ruling against Monsanto in 2007. (1)

The GMO giant quickly appealed and that appeal was heard in 2008 in the Lyon court. Monsanto lost that case as well. They appealed again. This time it went to France's Supreme Court; it lost that hearing and now faces fines and nowhere else to go for further appeals.

The court levied a 13,800 Euro fine against the company (about $22,400USD). Monsanto is also looking at continued losses with fourth quarter losses of $233 million (US), mostly due to plummeting sales of the Roundup brand. (2) So far, Monsanto has made no public statement about the court's ruling, but it is also possible that the ruling could mean civil cases from farmers and communities harmed by the false advertising. That could mean millions of dollars more in losses.

Roundup is the world's best-selling herbicide and is marketed as a weed-killer to both commercial farmers and home owners. Monsanto is also the world's largest purveyor of genetically modified seeds (GMO seeds). Often, the seeds are sold in conjunction with Roundup, the seeds being modified to be "herbicide tolerant" (HT-ready).

Some have argued that these GM crops and seeds are worse for the environment and could be a real problem. Crop failures of GMO seeds in Africa have highlighted the lack of a crop diversity issue while other studies have found that GM versus non-GM seeds have little or no bearing on higher yields, as seed companies like Monsanto have claimed.

Currently, in the United States, nearly all of our soybean plants and most of our corn crops are now GMO, and most of the seed crops for those plants are Monsanto-owned. In fact, at least 68% of corn and 90% of soy is a GMO (HT-ready) crop in the U.S. now and Monsanto is working hard to make that a fact worldwide. (3)

Recent decisions, such as this one in France and a court finding in the U.S. earlier this month, as well as a common blockade in many European countries, are pushing back against the Monsanto takeover of our food crops. Other initiatives, such as Shelly Roche's "Replace Roundup Challenge," are using consumer boycotts to further take it to Monsanto's pocketbook. (4, 5, 6)

Resources:

1- BBC News Monsanto: guilty in 'false ad' row:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8308903.stm

2 - BBC News: Low herbicide sales hit Monsanto:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8295479.stm

3 - Huffington Post: Racing Towards a Roundup-Ready Food
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nancy-scola/racing-toward-a-roundup-r_b_238392.html

4 - NaturalNews: Judge rules GMOs violate environmental law:
http://www.naturalnews.com/027177_food_GMOs_GMO.html

5 - NaturalNews: How to fight back against genetically modified foods
http://www.naturalnews.com/026908_food_GMO_Monsanto.html

6 - Bytestyle.tv: Take the "Replace Roundup" Challenge:
http://bytestyle.tv/content/take-replace-roundup-challenge

Crops genetically modified to kill herbivorous insects may also have an effect on their natural enemies

Farming UK, 29 October 2009:
http://www.farminguk.com/news/Crops-genetically-modified-to-kill-herbivorous-insects-may-also-have-an-effect-on-their-natural-enemies_17313.html

Some GM crops are designed to kill predatory insects. Results It's a dog eat dog world out there in the farmer's field. Crops can either be lucky and grow in peace until harvest time, or they can be unlucky and succumb to an attack by harmful insects. In turn, the plant's pests have enemies of their own, such as predators or parasites. This is the tough, but natural course of events.

We humans tend to be on the side of the crops in this eternal battle of survival, because we need the crops for food and feed. We therefore assist the crops in various ways, such as breeding pest-resistant crops, spraying crops with pesticides or more recently, genetically modifying crops.

The advantages are many and well known, but not so well elucidated are the potential effects of GM crops on the natural chain of events. Do crops that are engineered to kill pests affect the predators that normally feed on these pests?

Senior scientist Gabor Lövei from the Faculty of Agricultural Sciences at Aarhus University and his colleagues set out to find some answers using a novel approach. They carried out a literature review using a data-driven, quantitative method to summarize the peer-reviewed literature about the impact of genetically modified plants on arthropod natural enemies in laboratory experiments.

Revealing review

The review revealed surprising results - results that the individual reviewed papers had not revealed or written about.

- First, while many claim that "these aspects have been studied to death", only 55 natural enemy species have ever been studied in the laboratory, and most of them in a single experiment. Beneficial arthropods are numerous; even in Danish fields, there can be 6,000 species or more. Additionally, there is a bias towards a few predator species, especially the green lacewing (Chrysoperla carnea ), which seems to be more sensitive to GM insecticidal plants than predators in general,says Gabor Lövei and continues:

- In contrast to a simple author-vote counting method used by several earlier reviews, this method gave us an objective data-driven summary of existing knowledge about these effects. We found that there are both negative and positive effects of GMO on the natural enemies of the pests, with an overall tendency towards negative effects.

The additional results that the literature review found from studying the reviewed papers from another angle were not all that came to light. The authors of the review article demonstrated - albeit unwittingly - that writing about potential negative side effects of GMO is like poking a stick into a hornet's nest.

In fact, expressing an opinion on the environmental impacts of GM plants, be it negative or positive, cautious or more partisan, can be so precarious that the prestigious science magazine Nature covered the subject in a recent news feature, in which reactions to Gabor Lövei's and his co-authors' article is highlighted as an example.

Scientists and others tell President of Mexico, NO A LOS TRANSGENICOS!

Unión de Científicos Comprometidos con la Sociedad
(Union of Socially Engaged Scientists) [Mexico], 29 October 2009:
http://www.unionccs.net/comunicados/index.php?doc=sciencetrmaize

President of Mexico, Mr. Felipe de Jesús Calderón Hinojosa:

This year you stand in a historical position to prevent irreversible damage to one of the World's most precious resources: Mexico's maize diversity. We observe that your Administration may be rushing to introduce genetically modified (GM) maize into the Mexican environment and we are convinced, from our understanding of the scientific evidence, that this move represents a disproportionate risk which should be avoided for the benefit of Mexico and the World. Joined together in our well-informed concern, we urge you to move aggressively to ensure that no GM maize is planted in Mexico, the Center of Origin and Diversification of this important crop.

We are scientists, intellectuals and artists with expertise ranging from biology, biotechnology, agronomy and ecology, to the humanities, social sciences, anthropology, economy, biosafety, policy and jurisprudence; our joint expertise is the minimum that would be needed to understand the complexities posed by the agroecological as well as socioeconomic and cultural significance of maize in Mexico. We have noted with dismay that well-founded scientists and cultural experts' pleas to apply best scientific and social practices to the question of whether to introduce GM maize into the Mexican environment have gone largely unheeded. Indeed, experimental evidence produced in Mexico 15 years ago in trials leading to a justified moratorium on GM plantings from 1998 to 2003, has been set aside in a new drive towards unbridled release of GM maize in Mexico.

We are compelled to write this letter, given the latest element of a scientifically unjustifiable drive, embodied in the publication of amendments to the Law for the Biosafety of Genetically Modified Organisms (published by the Diario Oficial de la FederaciÛn on March 6, 2009), which disable the Special Protection Regime for Maize and other crops, for which Mexico is center of origin and diversification. Such amendments prepare the legal grounds to authorize field releases of GM maize varieties in the states of Sinaloa, Sonora, Tamaulipas, Jalisco, Nayarit and Chihuahua. Given the proven capacity of the maize germplasm to disperse through pollen or seed-flow, we can be certain that such release will lead to the increased presence of transgenic materials elsewhere throughout the Mexican territory.

After a quarter-century of experimental releases and more than a decade of commercial distribution of transgenic maize, there is plenty of evidence that the benefits offered by such lines do not compensate for the risks posed by their release. A review of the scientific literature and even the expert opinions offered by some of us through the official consultation of the Mexican Ministry of Agriculture agencies (SENASICA) makes this fact clear. Many other governments in the world have taken this experience into account to stop the planting, and in many cases even the importation of transgenic maize materials, making the position of your government, Mr. President, even more puzzling and unjustifiable.

The risks of GMO release may escalate at centers of crop origin and diversification. Here, transgenes will inevitably become inserted in a variety of different landraces (with diverse genomic contexts and backgrounds).

Below you will find a detailed listing of concerns and problems associated with the possibility of transgenic maize being released in Mexico, but we would like to highlight here a few particular examples. We are specially concerned by the fact that maize is currently used as a "bioreactor", a biological factory planted in the field to yield not food, but industrial products such as plastics, industrial oils, biofuels and pharmaceuticals. Because of the open cross pollination nature of maize reproduction and the specific conditions of the Mexican agroecosystem, it is to be expected that transgenic bioreactor materials will permeate the human food-chain, a risk of enormous consequences for the Mexican and world human populations. Accidental mixing of non-transgenic seed by bioreactor transgenic maize from experimental and commercial plantings has already occurred in seed storage silos in the United States.

Equally troubling are the consequences of the penetration of patented transgenes into maize lines cultivated by most farmers in Mexico, opening the prospect of complex, large and expensive liabilities for individuals that use, trade or exchange maize seed or grain containing them. These examples add to the possibility of transgene contamination of the Mexican teosinte (the wild relative and ancestor of maize), which in itself implies potential negative impacts to the genetic pool of the species and the agronomical management of teosinte.

Unlike chemical pollution, the transgenic transformation of maize germplasm, a heritage stewarded by indigenous people and farmers in Mexico, might be irreversible and likely to accumulate of transgenes in its genome, making the responsibility of our generation towards future populations even greater. Because there is no visible difference between GM and non-GM maize varieties, which nevertheless hold extremely different physiological qualities, the responsibility of producers and regulators, farmers and food processors to protect the environment and the public is also much greater than for other kinds of pollution. Because there is no visible difference between GM and non-GM maize varieties, which nevertheless hold extremely different physiological qualities, the responsibility of producers and regulators, farmers and food processors to protect the environment and the public is also much greater than for other kinds of pollution. Furthermore, given the complex structure of native maize populations resulting form the informal seed sector and gene flow via pollen, a reliable tracing system in Mexico for segregating GM and non-GM maize lines at any typically acceptable level is not available or indeed possible. Therefore, release of GM lines into the open field in Mexico will only increase the chance of introgression and accumulation of transgenes in the genomes of native maize stocks. This will remove the possibility of a responsible involvement of farmers, food-processors and consumers in ensuring that their stocks remain free of unwanted transgenic elements. Yet despite this increased onus of responsibility on producers of transgenic lines and regulators, the introduction of GM germplasm into Mexico is done with only partial or no consultation, and the details of the materials introduced are not disclosed due to business interests.

Also, the infrastructure that would be necessary to review proposed releases and to monitor the panoply of potential damages caused by such releases is not available in Mexico or elsewhere. We believe that under these circumstances, the only justifiable protection of the invaluable Mexican maize germplasm is to establish an official and effective moratorium on the cultivation of GM maize cultivars until long-term research on the impact of transgenic maize in Mexico is conducted. Such research should not imply the risks that wanted to be avoided.

In sum, Mr. President, we beseech you to engage actively with your administration to achieve the following goals that we believe are reasonable, easily achievable and scientifically justified as the most basic requirement to ensure the safety and long-term availability of key genetic resources for Mexicans and for the world:

1. Establish an official banning of any and all field releases of commercial GM maize varieties, and at the same time, support rigorous scientific investigation on the potential of diverse and alternative agro-technologies in Mexico, as well as the risks implied in their use in centers of origin and diversification. That research must be designed and performed in public institutions and/or by independent scientists free of conflicts of interest.

2. Increase to a level of scientifically-sound efficacy the infrastructure necessary to monitor and independently evaluate seed and grain entering Mexico from countries that produce GM maize varieties.

3. Adopt a clear and effective policy to ensure that no food plant, such as maize, will be used as a bioreactor to produce non-edible substances in Mexico or in any other country.

We are ready to provide more detailed scientific data or expand the arguments that further support our statements, as well as to collaborate in initiatives that guarantee the prevention of transgene accumulation in the world's maize genetic resources.

Looking forward to your response concerning this urgent and delicate matter,

Sincerely yours,

NAME FIELD OF STUDY INSTITUTION POSITION & AWARDS COUNTRY

1. Antonio Serratos, PhD., BiotecnologÌa y Bioseguridad, Universidad Autonoma de la Ciudad de Mexico 1er Premio de ICyT DF (2009), Mexico

2. Elena Alvarez-Buylla Roces, PhD., Genetica Molecular de Plantas, Instituto de Ecologia UNAM, Premio Ciudad Capital: "Heberto Castillo MartÌnez" ICyTGDF 2008

[for all the signatures: http://www.unionccs.net/comunicados/index.php?doc=sciencetrmaize]

Here we present a synthesis of the main issues that translate into important uncertainties and potential risks that have not been adequately addressed with scientific research. These issues can pose important threats to human health, to maize genome or diversity and the biodiversity of its agroecosysem if GM maize is introduced into Mexico in its present form.

1) There is still insufficient scientific evidence on the technological potential and risks of the present-day GM maize lines, and the ones being proposed for release are already obsolete. Moreover, the legal and technological instruments and institutional capabilities that are required for such evaluations are not in place. Experimenting with GM maize in the agroecosystems of Mexico implies high uncertainties and potential risks, while this technology does not guarantee benefits for the great majority of Mexican maize producers. Alternative technologies should be explored before adopting this transgenic maize technology, which has been tailored for different environmental and socioeconomic conditions. Some examples that support this statement:

•

Pests for which maize transgenic lines have been engineered are not important or present in Mexico. Local maize varieties are well adapted to resist important pests in each locality and the introduction of transgenic lines may also affect the ecological balance of different pests and create new pest problems for Mexican agriculture.

•

Recent technical assessments have shown that the GM maize lines used to date have not increased yields. In the few observed cases that yield has increased, this has been due to techniques from classical maize breeding rather than to an introduced transgene. See report "Failure to Yield" by Union of Concerned Scientists.

•

The use of maize genetic variation combining bioinformatics, contemporary molecular biology approaches and the use of novel transgenic approaches that overcome some of the limitations and risks of the first generations of GMO is promising. Such approaches would render native varieties very valuable and should be a much more appropriate biotechnological approach for Centers of Crop Origin and Diversification. Mexico should devote enough resources to develop a truly scientific and cutting-edge program of crop improvement and development for national and international needs, taking advantage of its diverse crop germplasm.

•

Recent technological breakthroughs in maize transgenesis imply fewer negative side-effects that render all lines to be tested obsolete (Shukla et al. 2009. Nature 459: 437- 440)

2) Some of the current experimental field trials under evaluation violate the LBOGM. Furthermore, the amendments to the biosafety regulations published on March 6th, 2009, eliminate the Special Protection Regime present in the aforementioned Law. Such Regime was meant to safeguard the genetic diversity of local, wild and/or cultivated varieties of crop plants that had their origin or diversification in Mexico.

Current requests for experimental field trials submitted for approval contradict the LBOGM in articles 40, 42 and 43 since some of the GM maize lines, that are currently under review, posses novel transgene combinations that have not been de-regulated in their country of origin (USA; see table 1). The LBOGM clearly states "GMOs, that have not been authorized in their country of origin or by the National Ministry of Health, shall not be imported or released in Mexico under any regime".

The amendments not only affect the Special Protection Regime but also oversee the fact that the centers of origin, domestication and diversification of maize have not been established. The decision on the requested permits must be on hold until the relevant agency on this issue, the National Commission for the Knowledge and Use of Biodiversity (CONABIO, in Spanish), publishes this information.

3) Recent scientific evidence has shown that transgenes have made their way into native maize varieties within several different agricultural zones in Mexico. This data suggest that coexistence of GM-maize lines with conventional maize varieties without gene-flow is virtually impossible once the former are planted in the field. Furthermore, detection of such gene flow has been hindered by the lack of public access to reliable sequence data on all the recombinant constructs that could be involved, as well as restricted access to the plasmids and transgenic lines needed as positive controls. This impedes expedite and accurate detection of transgenes in Mexico. Furthermore, the certified standard methods to detect transgenes in hybrid maize in the USA and Europe are inadequate for monitoring transgenes in landrace varieties.

Scientific papers documenting the presence of transgenes in Mexican native maize varieties: 1) In Sierra Ju·rez, state of Oaxaca in 2000: Quist and Chapela. (2001) Nature, 414, 541-543; 2) In the conservation area of the Federal District (Mexico City), in 2003: Serratos-Hern·ndez et al. (2007) Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 5(5): 247-252; 3) In Sierra Ju·rez, state of Oaxaca in 2001 and 2004: PiÒeyro-Nelson et al. (2009) Molecular Ecology, 18:50-761. ; 4) In localities of the states of Guanajuato, Veracruz, Oaxaca and Yucat·n in 2002: Dyer, G. et al. (2009) PlosOne. Vol. 4(5): e5734 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005734; 5) Peer-reviewed papers addressing other transgene biomonitoring efforts made by governmental agencies and NGOs in Mexico: Mercer and Wainwright (2008) Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 123, 109 -115. 6) Recent comments in Molecular Ecology concerning transgene detection methods (PiÒeyro et al. in press: "Resolution of the Mexican transgene detection controversy: error sources and scientific practice in commercial and ecological contexts").

4) Mexican Government agencies in charge of biosafety (Agriculture, Environment and Health, among others) have been unable to detect, investigate and prevent the introduction or impact of transgenes in Mexican native maize varieties. Changes in policy have precluded consolidation of a biosafety system in Mexico, paradoxically, after more than twenty years of experience in this area. The biosafety and biomonitoring infrastructure provided by the Mexican authorities is insufficient: there is only one national laboratory certified for GM maize detection, the CENICA, which was certified for this activity until 2005. Since 2007, a national network of GMO monitoring laboratories has been created, but it is still not operating and it is not clear how will it be supervised by the Government.

Publication where no transgenes were detected based on analyses made in a commercial laboratory in the United States (no data from a National laboratory are provided) in the Sierra Ju·rez of Oaxaca in 2003-2004: OrtÌz-GarcÌa et al. (2005) Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102:12, 338-343; 2) Web page to the CENICA laboratory: http://www.ine.gob.mx/dgcenica/certificado2006.html; 3) Information about the national network of GMO biomonitoring laboratories: http://www.ine.gob.mx/bioseguridad/red_laboratorio.html

5) Mexico comprises the centers of origin, domestication and diversification of maize and thus, harbors the majority of the genetic diversity of maize worldwide, while being home of all its known wild relatives. This genetic diversity is dynamically recreated in the fields of many small-scale farmers that produce maize for their subsistence, for local or regional markets. Farmers in the diverse agronomical systems present in different parts of Mexico, rely on saving seed from one agricultural season to the next as well as on frequent seed exchange among farmers within and outside of the communities. These activities are at the heart of the dynamic system that ensues the generation and maintenance of genetic diversity in maize. This system also implies that dispersal of GM maize and introgression of transgenes into native maize varieties cannot be avoided in Mexico if GM maize lines are planted in the open field. Such dispersal should be avoided by monitoring entries (grain imported from countries which produce and plant GM maize, commercial maize hybrids that are sold in Mexico, etc.) of such materials and cancelling (eg., treating grain to avoid viability; this could be achieved by radiation treatments that also kill harmful fungi) their way to local landraces. The recent publication of: "Origen y DiversificaciÛn del MaÌz, una revisiÛn analÌtica"; By Kato and collaborators, funded by CONABIO and other agencies, shows that practically all areas of Mexico are under landrace transgene contamination risk, if GM maize is planted in the open field. Ongoing new collections to those considered in this study are likely to demonstrate that there are additional landraces in several locations of Mexico; specially in the North. Therefore, the map will likely show a high risk of contamination in practically all of the Mexican territory. This is further supported by computer simulations (Van Heerwaarden and Alvarez-Buylla, in preparation) that forecast GM dispersal by considering both pollen and seed flow. This study demonstrates that transgene movement might occur at longer distances, than those that were considered in order to establish the risk categories considered in the work by Kato and collaborators. Under these circumstances, unwanted and unpredictable gene stacking will likely occur, giving way to additional uncertainties and risks.

Additional scientific papers addressing seed management dynamics among Mexican farmers: 1) G. Dyer and Taylor. 2008. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 105(2), 470-475; 2) Dyer, G. et al. (2009) PlosOne 4(5): e5734 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005734; 3) Serratos et al. (2004) Environmental Biosafety Research 3(3): 149 - 157; 4) Turrent y Serratos (2004) Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation of North America; 5) Turrent et al. (2009) Agrociencia 43: 257 - 265.

6) Maize is a basic staple of the country, consumed daily with little processing and in large quantities, and thus possesses a critical agricultural, nutritional, economic and cultural significance for Mexican people. Furthermore, it's the third staple of the world, with increased consumption in countries within Africa and an important source of feed in many other nations. The health consequences of GMO consumption under these regimes have not been investigated thoroughly, but the few available appropriate experiments point to possible negative effects. This issue is being actively discussed in the United States, Europe and Latin America by groups of medical professionals, scientists, regulators and non-government organizations.

See upcoming meeting to discuss these issues by the European Food Safety Authority to be held in Parma, Italy (October 2nd, 2009).

See FAOstats: http://faostat.fao.org

7) In the USA, transgenic and non-transgenic maize seeds are not segregated and maize stocks that should not have transgenes have been reported to harbor more than 1% of GM maize. This shows that even in a country in which seed systems are mostly closed and controlled by relatively few companies, transgenes have not been contained within approved stocks, lines or sites of release.

Union of Concerned Scientist Report: "Gone to Seed" http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/food_and_agriculture/seedreport_fullreport.pdf and several other reports and scientific papers.

This fact is of great concern, given fact (2) and that:

8) Multiple maize lines expressing pharmaceuticals and other industrial substances (so called pharma and industrial crops), that should not be consumed by animals or humans have been produced and tested in experimental fields in the United States for over a decade (see below). Companies have not been able to keep transgenic and non transgenic lines segregated and several escapes from experimental plots of pharma-crops unauthorized for consumption have been reported. Therefore, even if such events could occur at very low probabilities and have limited impact on maize stocks in the USA, once in the Mexican territory, the frequency and dispersal of such sequences could be amplified. For that reason, the probabilities of occurrence of such escapes in Mexico should be estimated rigorously in order to establish efficient monitoring and biosecurity methods.

The use of maize as a pharma-crop is more worrisome if we consider that the identity, name, and sequence of current proteins expressed in such crops is not available publicly and thus, hinders biomonitoring. It is clear, from points 2 and 3, that conventional maize varieties can inadvertently be introgressed with transgenes from pharma-crops, significantly affecting the human food chain.

9) Once GM maize lines are released, transgenes will insert and accumulate in diverse landraces and wild maize relative species (teosintes). It is well documented that the phenotypic effect of a transgene largely depends on the genome context and background where it is inserted. Therefore, unavoidable gene flow will lead to uncertainties and ramified ecological and agroecological consequences.

Ellstrand et al. (2007) J. of Heredity, 98(2):183-187; Timmons et al. (1996) Nature 380: 487; Warwick et al. (2008) Molecular Ecology 17:1387-1395. Hails and Morley (2005) Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20:245-252; Pilson et al. (2004) Annual Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 35: 149-174.

10) There is ample evidence demonstrating that stable alternatives exist that can meet and even exceed the needs which transgenic maize is purported to meet, without the risk that its release involves.

CONCLUSIONS:

All experimental field trials of GM maize should be banned until the issues mentioned above are settled and scientific evidence regarding the biosafety of GM maize in Mexico is reached, based on a thorough analysis of the best available data.

Table 1. Applications to test maize transgenic lines in the open field of Mexico (presented by Monsanto, Agro Dow and Pioneer Hybred corporations between april and may of 2009)

Event	Trait	No. exps. (2 ha each)	Location	Application #
I MON- 00603-6	Glyphosate (herbicide) tolerance; Faena® family. Gene cp4 epsps from Agrobacterium sp.Strain: CP4.	8 (16)	Sonora, Sinaloa, Tamaulipas & Chihuahua.	0014_2009 0019_2009 0020_2009 0023_2009 0005_2009 0006_2009 0009_2009 0012_2009
II MON-00603-6 x MON-89034-3	Insect resistant (Lepidoptera) and glyophosate. Combines gene cp4-epsps from Agrobacterium sp. Strain: CP4 and from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), proteins: Cry1A.105 y Cry2Ab2.	4	Sonora, Sinaloa & Tamaulipas	0015_2009 0017_2009 0022_2009 0025 2009
III MON-89034-3 x MON-88017-3	Insect resistant (Lepidoptera and Coleoptera), and glyphosate tolerant. Expresses Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) proteins: Cry1A.105 and Cry2Ab2; plus cp4 epsps gene from Agrobacterium sp. strain CP4, plus Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) subsp. Kumamotoensis Cry3Bb1 protein.	4	Sonora, Sinaloa & Tamaulipas	0013_2009 0018_2009 0021_2009 0024_2009
IV DAS-01507-1	Insect resistant and herbicide tolerant. Expresses truncated Cry1F protein, strain PS81I (NRRL B-18484) and Bacillus thuringiensis var. aizawai and PAT protein.	4	Sonora, Chihuahua, Sinaloa y Tamaulipas	0001_2009 0004_2009 0007_2009 0010_2009
V DAS-01507-1 x MON-00603-06	Insect resistant and herbicide tolerant. With gene cp4 epsps from Agrobacterium sp. strain CP4	4	Sonora, Chihuahua, Sinaloa & Tamaulipas	0002_2009 0005_2009 0008_2009 0011_2009

Response to Monsanto's omega-3 GM soybean

Gene Watch UK press release, 29 October 2009:
http://www.genewatch.org/article.shtml?als[cid]=564515&als[itemid]=565536

This week's announcement by Monsanto that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) notice for omega-3 oil made from a genetically-modified (GM) soybean enables food companies to develop and test foods containing the ingredient (1).

Responding to the announcement, Dr Helen Wallace, Director of GeneWatch UK, said:

"The nutrient-by-nutrient approach to engineering 'healthy' fats back into the food chain is essentially a scam. Factory farming of meat and the use of products such as palm oil in margarine has shifted people's diets to consist of increasingly unhealthy fats. Engineering omega-3 oils back in to fundamentally poor diets is not a credible approach to improving people's health".

In addition, GeneWatch warned that the products will not be tested sufficiently to tell whether they are safe, which would require large scale long-term clinical trials.

"The problem with engineering supposedly healthy ingredients into the bottom of the food chain is that it may not be reversible if something goes wrong," said Dr Wallace. "In the long-term, other products will become contaminated: this does not happen when new ingredients are added to a final processed product rather than a plant. There is a long history of 'magic ingredients' turning out to be harmful to some people and even having the opposite effect on health from that originally claimed" (2).

Mass production of soya also creates serious environmental problems (3).

Contact

Dr Helen Wallace, Office: 01298-23400; Mobile: 07903-311584

Notes for Editors

(1) See joint Monsanto, Solae press release on: http://www.sys-con.com/node/1158479. Solae is an alliance between the multinational companies DuPont and Bunge Ltd.

(2) For example, antioxidants (including the beta-carotene engineered into GM 'Golden Rice') may be beneficial to some people but harmful to others, and some may increase risk of cancer. See, for example: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19125631.500-the-antioxidant-myth-a-medical-fairy-tale.html. The experimental GM 'purple tomato', claimed to reduce cancer risk, is engineered to contain increased levels of anthocyanins, a poorly tested antioxidant.

(3) See, for example: http://www.theecologist.org/trial_investigations/336873/killing_fields_the_true_cost_of_europes_cheap_meat.html

28 October 2009

A golden age for GM crops?

New Scientist (Opinion), 28 October 2009:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427322.300-a-golden-age-for-gm-crops.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=editorials

THE war over genetically modified foods is entering a new phase. At last, the GM industry has produced what it promised at the outset: a product designed to have real benefits for consumers. It's an oil from soybean modified to produce omega-3 fatty acids essential for health and proven to reduce the risk of heart disease. It can be added unobtrusively to ordinary food products, potentially bringing health benefits to millions (see "US FDA says Omega-3 oils derived from GM soya safe to eat").

The oil contains a dietary precursor of EPA, an omega-3 fatty acid that is vital for heart health. One study calculated that in 2005, 84,000 Americans died of heart disease that might have been avoided had they had a sufficient amount of this fatty acid in their diets. That makes omega-3 deficiency the sixth most common cause of preventable death in the US.

The new crop could also relieve some pressure on the world's fish stocks. Demand for omega-3 fatty acids is rising, and at present, the principal way to obtain them is from fish.

Created by Monsanto, the soybean is a far cry from just about everything that the industry has thrown at us so far: modified crops benefiting no one but seed companies and farmers. With these, the perception - perhaps rightly - was that Monsanto and its peers were foisting a technology on us with few benefits for consumers but unknown risks for human health and the environment.

Monsanto's oil ought to nullify that line of attack. Can Friends of the Earth and its allies justify campaigning against a product that could save lives and help reduce overfishing? Of course, they could try the argument that GM technology per se is risky, but that position looks increasingly untenable too. GM crops have been grown on a large scale for more than a decade, and by and large, the predicted environmental catastrophes haven't materialised, nor has anyone suffered health problems through eating GM food.

First-generation GM crops may even have brought unexpected benefits. A recent report from UK consultancy PG Economics charting the global impact of GM crops from 1996 to 2007 found that over that period, pesticide spraying dropped by 8.8 per cent. And because fields don't have to be tilled before planting GM crops, energy savings in 2007 alone amounted to the equivalent of removing 6.3 million cars from the road. These findings are disputed by environmental groups and need to be independently confirmed, but if they hold up it will be time for the technology's critics to reconsider.

Monsanto's oil could represent a defining moment in the debate over genetic modification. Providing cheap access to a proven superfood and relieving pressure on fish stocks are worthy objectives. Only a Luddite would disagree.

India: Government postpones decision on GM aubergine

Fresh Plaza, 28 October 2009:
http://www.freshplaza.com/news_detail.asp?id=52877

The Indian government has postponed its decision on the approval of genetically modified Bt aubergines. It reacted thereby to a campaign mounted by environmental and consumers' groups demanding a ban on the plant. Previously, the majority of a committee of experts from the Indian bureau responsible for approval had assessed the Bt aubergine as safe and had recommended its approval.

Jairam Ramesh, Indian Minister for the Environment, stated that the government intends initially to provide an opportunity for public comment. At the beginning of next year, a series of consultations with scientists, with associations representing farmers, consumers and the environment and with social organisations subsequently will be conducted. A decision on further steps will follow.

Scientists have criticised the postponement. They suggest that the minister indeed sends the wrong signal by overriding the scientific decision of the responsible bureau (the Genetic Engineering Approval Committees, GEAC). The Bt aubergines have been examined in twenty-five studies without an indication of safety flaws with regard to health and the environment. An additional consultation would not be expected to yield new findings.

Nonetheless, three members of the twenty-strong committee of scientists had spoken out against the approval of the Bt aubergines. They stated the desire to address all doubts that had been raised through a study conducted by the French scientist Gilles-Eric Seralini. Seralini claims to have found that Bt aubergines effect harm to goats and rabbits. He regards the Bt aubergine as "unfit for human consumption". As already has been the case with earlier investigations by Seralini, his experiments with aubergines have been criticised by a majority of scientists as methodically faulty and his conclusions refuted.

The Bt aubergine - known as brinjal in India - was developed in the framework of a cooperative project in which three Indian research institutes as well as Monsanto and the Indian seed company Mahyco participated. Similarly to Bt maize or Bt cotton, the Bt aubergine produces a protein that is effective against certain insect pests, such as the aubergine fruit borer in this case. The use of chemical plant protection agents currently employed to combat this pest is expected to be reduced radically. The approval procedure applies to four different types of aubergine.

Canadian farm exports snagged in world safety net
• Canola, flax, pork under trade restrictions
• Futures, cash prices under pressure
• WTO process long to resolve complaints

Rod Nickel
Reuters, via Forbes, 28 October 2009:
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/reuters/2009/10/28/2009-10-28T204648Z_01_N28307087_RTRIDST_0_CANADA-CROPS.html

WINNIPEG, Manitoba - A series of trade restrictions on Canadian farm products this year has ratcheted up the pressure on farmers, many of whom say the barriers reflect protectionism rather than genuine concern over food safety.

From China to Europe, various foreign markets have banned shipments of Canadian-produced raw materials for cattle feed, vegetable oil, linoleum flooring and hot dogs, driving down prices at the farm gate.

Making matters worse, the trade bans causing farmers so much pain seem strangely arbitrary to many Canadians.

"A lot of it comes down to recessionary (pressure) that they're under," Canadian Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz said Wednesday. Export markets "tend to get more protectionist as they safeguard their own folks."

As for the specific restrictions, Ritz said: "Some are based on a bit of reality, some are a real stretch."

Whatever the basis for trade restrictions, the results are clear. ICE Canada canola futures plunged 4 percent Thursday with news China would not accept Canadian canola with blackleg disease. Prices of flax, cattle and hogs, which have also been targeted, are also under pressure.

Much of the price pain traces to disingenuous safety concerns, Canadian agriculture sources say. In particular:

•

China's ban on Canadian and Australian canola with blackleg targets a disease already present in China. Some analysts believe China is seeking to draw down its supply of canola, which is crushed for use in vegetable oil.

•

Four Canadian canola-crushing plants owned by Cargill, Viterra and two by Bunge are under U.S. shipping restrictions because of salmonella bacteria in meal shipments. Salmonella is a serious concern in human food, but canola meal is cattle feed. Some believe the Obama administration is scoring political points based on food-illness fears. Even so, U.S. food safety officials maintain that animal feeds can act as vehicles for transmitting harmful bacteria to humans and animals.

•

A U.S. country-of-origin labelling law has sharply reduced Canadian cattle and hog exports to the United States. Some U.S. packers and farm groups oppose the law, causing Canadian farmers to suspect reflects effective lobbying by certain cattle groups rather than food traceability concerns.

Restricting imports gives an immediate boost to local farmers, said William Kerr, a professor in agricultural economics at University of Saskatchewan.

Canada, which is under more trade restrictions at one time than usual, is a target because it is a big farm product producer, Kerr said.

Consumers' voice is also finding more ears, leading to other trade bans:

•

Flax, used in food and industrial uses like flooring, lost its top market Europe this summer after two dozen countries found genetically modified flaxseed in Canadian flax shipments. European consumers are reluctant to eat GMO food because of concerns about unproven long-term health effects. Stricter regulation in Canada of GMO crops is needed to prevent similar threats to farmers, the National Farmers Union of Canada has said.

•

More than a dozen countries, notably Russia, banned North American pork in spring after the discovery of the H1N1 flu virus on a Canadian hog farm. The World Health Organization said pork is safe to eat, but the bans were slow to disappear.

"The H1N1 thing is (about) politicians covering their butts essentially and in direct violation of international agreements," Kerr said.

That points to another reality -- the WTO complaint process isn't swift enough to prevent industry pain, Kerr said.

"Any time you're banned from a market, you're going to suffer. The unfortunate thing is we probably would win some of these cases at the WTO, but it takes a long time."

(Additional reporting by Randall Palmer in Ottawa; Editing by Frank McGurty)

Pledge to protect Wales

Wales Online, 28 October 2009:
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2009/10/28/pledge-to-protect-wales-91466-25029811/

LABOUR leadership candidate Carwyn Jones will launch his policies on rural affairs, heritage, sport and language today.

He is expected to say Wales has some of the finest natural assets in the world and will commit to investing in the widest range of arts and sporting facilities.

In his speech, Mr Jones will say: "Wales has some wonderful natural assets which we need to cherish and preserve.

"As First Minister, I will pledge to maintain my commitment to our GM-free status and continue support for the development of organic farming."

Frankenfoods? Transgenes on the Loose!

Sarah Dowdey
Discovery Channel, Earth Pub Global Science Blog, 28 October 2009:
http://blogs.discovery.com/earth/2009/10/frankenfoods-transgenes-on-the-loose.html

Transgenes, those little bits of genetic material that give crops desirable traits, have a habit of jumping ship, wandering and finding new homes. They start off as the key players in a genetically modified (GM) crop, usually granting disease- or pest-resistance to foods like corn, potatoes or squash. But their unpredictable nature worries many ecologists, who fear that if wild plants absorb transgenes and take on their superpower resistance, they'll quickly grow out of control.

It makes sense: Adding a finely tuned GM transgene to an already hearty wild plant could equal a fitness advantage, something that might have far-ranging consequences for the ecosystem. But it doesn't always play out how ecologists might expect.

NPR's "All Things Considered" reported on an experiment performed by Andrew Stephenson of Penn State University. Stephenson created a strain of cucurbita, or Texas gourd, with the transgene used to protect commercial squash crops. He grew the modified gourd next to its unmodified kin. Spring brought aphids, which then infected the crop with a virus. As expected, the plants with the transgene were fine, while the others got sick.

But then a plague of cucumber beetles arrived, carrying with them a plant bacteria. While the beetles weren't very interested in the sickly looking, virus-infected cucurbitas, they liked the looks of the healthy transgene-backed gourds and ate away, in turn exposing the virus-resistant plants to bacteria.

Stephenson noted that no one had expected such results -- so much for a fitness advantage when the advantage just attracts another pest. But while a transgene seems to cancel out its effectiveness in wild cucurbitas, the experiment just goes to show how unpredictable genetic modification really is.

Chickens immunised by GM peas

Wagdy Sawahel
SciDevNet, 28 October 2009:
http://www.scidev.net/en/news/chickens-immunised-by-gm-peas.html

Genetically modified peas that can protect chickens against a common infection have been successful in trials, say scientists.

The plants, which protected the chickens from a parasite called Eimeria, which costs the poultry industry US$2.4 billion a year, were developed by Sergey Kipriyanov and colleagues at Novoplant GmbH, a German plant biotechnology company.

Scientists inserted a gene that caused the plants to produce an antibody that stops the parasite invading the chicken's gut cells.

The peas can be ground into flour and then added to cheap chicken fodder, making the approach suitable for rural poultry farming in developing countries, the researchers say.

Even in chickens infected with high doses of the parasite GM pea flour reduced infections, say the researchers.

"This work demonstrates for the first time the feasibility of using antibody-expressing GM crop seeds to control infectious diseases," Kipriyanov told SciDev.Net.

Previous work has shown that plants can be engineered to trigger chickens to produce their own antibodies against diseases, but the scientists say this is the first time that crops have been altered to produce antibodies themselves.

Kipriyanov says that immunisation through food is easier than traditional methods such as injections. In addition, the method protects the chickens immediately.

He says his team is working on increasing the level of antibodies in the peas and improving their stability in the chickens' guts.

"We will need probably 3-5 years for propagating GM pea plants, producing sufficient amounts of seeds and performing large-scale animal trials," says Kipriyanov.

Mario Pezzotti, a plant geneticist at the University of Verona, Italy, told SciDev.Net: "[The research] is a great example of how plants - which need only inexpensive inputs like sunlight, water and nutrients to grow - can be exploited".

He adds that the antibody's stability in the peas eliminates the need to keep them cold during transport and storage, "therefore tremendously cutting production costs to levels affordable for developing countries".

Mohammed Ahmed Hamoud, a plant molecular biotechnologist at Tanta University, Egypt, cautiously welcomes the news.

"To prevent negative health, environmental and socioeconomic impacts, the GM pea plant must be genetically isolated using new male sterile lines that don't produce pollen and cultivated in dedicated land away from food crops," he says.

The research was published last month (September) in BMC Biotechnology.

Link to full paper in BMC Biotechnology http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6750/9/79

Latin America leads agrochemicals growth
• Latin fertilizers grow

ICIS.com, 28 October 2009:
http://www.icis.com/Articles/2009/11/02/9258935/latin-america-leads-agrochemicals-growth.html

Watch an interview with Rudiger Scheitza
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tH0rqY3YUUU

The region is leading a worldwide growth in agrochemicals, thanks to a burgeoning demand for soy in animal feed

INCREASED PRODUCTION of soybeans and sugarcane in Latin America is driving growth in agrochemical consumption in the region.

Latin America is the world's fastest-growing agrochemical market, thanks to Brazil's strengthening agribusiness and economic improvements in Argentina.

Gautam Sirur, director of UK-based consultancy and market research firm Cropnosis, attributes the strong market growth to increased planting of soy in Brazil and Argentina and of sugarcane in Brazil.

The US is the world's largest soybean supplier, followed by Brazil and Argentina. Paraguay is another large producer. "If you look at the total acreage coming out of Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay, it's more than the US," says Sirur.

Brazil produces a wide range of crops but in the past two years, soybeans have gained in importance as a result of the strong demand for protein for animal feedstuff, observes Rudiger Scheitza, a member of Bayer CropScience's board. The German group is a key player in Latin America, registering revenues of about €1.2bn ($1.79bn) in the region in 2008.

"The world urgently needs this protein, and the Asian countries are large importers," Scheitza says.

Expanding political and economic relations between China and Brazil are helping to sustain the growth of the biggest South American country as a major regional power. In the first half of the year, China became Brazil's main export destination, and China is a key client for Brazilian soy.

Brazil also has the advantage that it can offer non-genetically modified (GM) soy varieties. While Argentina and the US now supply almost exclusively GM soy, Brazil still has about 40% non-GM soybeans, says Sirur.

In general, China, Japan and some European countries are more interested in non-GM soy, which is becoming increasingly difficult for animal feed manufacturers to source, he adds.

Demand for Brazil's non-GM soy is helping Brazil's soy exports overtake those of the US. "The main reason is the GM situation," remarks Sirur. "But also Brazil has become more competitive in terms of cost per tonne."

Brazil is the world's second-largest agrochemical market, after the US, and represents about 70% of the Latin American market. Over the past five years, Brazil has climbed from fourth to second place in the global ranking of agrochemical markets, overtaking Japan and France, Sirur says.

Brazil and Argentina are the world's two fastest-growing agrochemical markets, according to an analysis of the top 15 country markets by Cropnosis. The consultancy forecasts that between 2007 and 2012, the Brazilian market will grow by an average of 9.8%/year and the Argentina market by an average of 7.7%/year. "The two main crops driving growth in these countries are soybeans and sugarcane," says Sirur.

Brazilian eminence

Brazil's emergence as an agricultural superpower has been spurred by the increased use of mechanized agriculture. "Investing in mechanization has resulted in extremely large-scale farming operations that are even bigger than operations in the US or Europe," explains Sirur.

Brazil also has the greatest potential in Latin America to improve or increase cropping, observes Scheitza. "[It has] a lot of land reserves that are not intensively used and are not part of the rainforest."

The preservation of Brazil's rainforest is a sensitive subject. The country has been criticized by environmental groups for destroying Amazon rainforest to allow increased animal feed production and cattle ranching.

Soybean output in Brazil will continue to rise next year as some farmers switch to the oilseed from corn. Soy is currently a more attractive crop than corn and wheat, says Scheitza. "Brazil could take advantage of this and grow a few million more hectares of soybeans."

According to the Brazilian Agriculture Ministry's forecasting agency, Conab , the current soybean planting, which started in September, is expected to rise to 22.3m-22.6m ha (55.1m-55.8m acres), from 21.7m ha harvested this year.

Sugarcane planting is also expanding in Brazil, thanks to growing demand for sugar and ethanol. Planting of other long-standing crops, such as coffee, has also been increasing, notes Sirur.

Argentine recovery

Argentina had a slow start this year following a drought, which also affected parts of southern Brazil. "Now, fortunately, we are getting rainfall, so we hope that farmers will start normal cropping behaviors and that the conditions in Argentina, after a very severe drought at the beginning of the year, will improve in the second half," says Scheitza.

Argentina's economic recovery has enabled the country's agrochemical market to expand sharply since 2002. Argentina, which is a large producer of cereals as well as soy, is now the world's eighth-largest agrochemical market. The country is a net exporter of wheat, which requires some of the higher-priced fungicides and herbicides, notes Sirur.

Bumper US corn crop

Latin American farmers are also favouring soybean planting as a result of the expected record grain harvests in the US and Europe, according to Cropnosis. Brazil is finding it cheaper to import corn from the US than produce it itself, motivating farmers to plant more soybeans, explains Sirur. Corn is more expensive to grow than soy, partly because it requires more fertilizer, he notes.

The situation is similar in Argentina. "Normally, they would be planting a lot of wheat at this time but they are switching in favor of soybean because, again, wheat consumes more fertilizer than soybean," Sirur adds.

While the Latin American agrochemical market has enjoyed strong growth over the last two years, a fall in the price of glyphosate-based herbicides contributed to a weakening in the first half of 2009.

Glyphosate represents a substantial proportion of the agrochemical market in Brazil and Argentina. The product is branded Roundup by Monsanto and commonly used with US agricultral giang Monsanto's Roundup Ready GM soybeans. Generic formulations are also available.

The Latin American agrochemical market is expected to recover in the second half, thanks to the increased planting. "We expect at least 18-25% growth in soybean acreage in Argentina and Paraguay and 5-7% growth in soybean acreage in Brazil. Plus, we expect about 8-9% increase in sugarcane acreage in Brazil," says Sirur. Drought problems in some major sugar producing countries, such as India, are helping to spur sugarcane production in Latin America, he adds.

Bayer CropScience does not produce glyphosate and therefore has not been hit by the fall in prices. However, last year the German group did not benefit from increases of 30-40% in the price of glyphosate-based herbicides, precipitated in part by plant shutdowns in China ahead of the Olympic games and rising demand, particularly in Brazil, says Scheitza.

The subsequent fall in glyphosate prices, caused by oversupply, is bad news for some of Bayer CropScience's competitors. "But it was bad news for us last year," remarks Scheitza. "This year will have the opposite effect."

Bayer CropScience reported a 7.7% decline in revenues in Latin America, Africa and the Middle East to €537m for the first half of the year. The company is expecting an improvement in the second half, which is the main growing season, Scheitza says. Last year, Bayer CropScience posted revenues of €1.4bn for Latin America, Africa and the Middle East, of which Latin America represented about €1.2bn.

"This year, we are expecting growth in Latin America, thanks to high demand and good prices for soybeans," he continues. However, growth will not be at the exciting levels achieved last year, he says.

The glyphosate effect is expected to constrain growth in the Latin American agrochemicals market this year.

"There might even be a slight decline," says Scheitza. "But Latin America will be a key region to supply the world with food in the future and there is a strong growth potential in these countries, especially Brazil and Argentina, in the coming years."

By: Anna Jagger icisnews.europe@icis.com +44 20 8652 3214

Pressure groups rise against use of GMO, agrofuels to boost farm yield

Roseline Okere
The Guardian [Nigeria], 28 October 2009:
http://www.ngrguardiannews.com/business/article02//indexn2_html?pdate=281009&ptitle=%20Pressure%20groups
%20rise%20against%20use%20of%20GMO%20Agrofuels%20to%20boost%20farm%20yield

A CONSORTIUM of pressure groups from Africa has dismissed use of Genetic Modified Organism (GMO) and agro fuels promoted by top stakeholders in agribusinesses, noting that the practice would erodes the continent's traditional systems of farming and contaminates indigenous seedlings.

According to stakeholders at a four-day conference on AGRA, Land Grabs and Non-Ecological Agriculture, held in Abuja recently, the convergence of all the agricultural initiatives of the biotechnology industry and their allies in the donor-driven research institutions towards Africa, is targeted at re-colonizing the continent and entrenching hunger by undermining its food sovereignty.

In a communiqué issued at end of the deliberation and made available to The Guardian, participants observed that enormous tracts of land on the African continent have been taken over by trans-nationals for agribusinesses, governments and individuals interested only in profits and not in the interest of smallholders' livelihoods.

The communiqué jointly signed by participating interest groups from Africa, stated that agricultural systems proposed by most donor/transnational agencies and implemented by African governments have so far proven to be unsustainable and not pro-farmers.

They added: "GMOs have failed to produce promised results such as higher yields, producing more nutritious crops and reduction of chemical inputs, including herbicides.

"Up to 80 per cent of GMOs currently produced in the world are destined for animal feeds, not to fight hunger and malnutrition. Also the use of GMOs imply the use of a lot of agrochemicals, which contaminate our food, lands, water and peoples".

The group said that African governments have failed to sufficiently fund farmers and indigenous solutions to boost farm yields. "Instead, they hobnob with neo-liberal research institutions that promote alien solutions to traditional African problems. Agro fuel are false solution to climate change and are neither climate- friendly nor are they replacement for fossil fuels", they said.

The group therefore recommended that Africa should not be a dumping ground for unverified technologies such as genetically modified crops.

Governments in Africa, they said must initiate, implement and sustain policies that guarantee the protection of small-scale farmers and provide them subsidies and needed inputs to ensure increased food production and general food sovereignty.

"African governments must adequately fund local research to boost agricultural yields. They must also shun all donor-driven funds that will not support indigenous solutions to hunger in Africa.

"The capacity of local scientists must be built to strengthen home-grown approaches to agriculture that is suitable for the environment and economy.

"The capacity of communities, journalists and food advocacy groups must be strengthened to enable them adequately play their roles as watchdog in the society. The media must be allowed unfettered access to information through initiation of laws that will guarantee freedom of information".

They also emphasized the need for transparency in government dealings on biotechnology industry with citizens.

The group added that laws on land policy on the continent must be reviewed to eliminate all forms of diplomatic immunity or unnecessary privilege conferred on investors in community lands.

"We demand that African governments take adequate steps to protect local farmers and the entirety of Africans from unhelpful schemes that have created hunger and food shortages on the continent."

Monsanto's mutated world and the FDA's human experiment

Byron J. Richards, CCN
NewsWithViews.com, 28 October 2009:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Richards/byron186.htm

America's sugar crop is under GMO assault and the FDA has begun a new era of human experimentation. America is in dire need of a new super hero - and he has arrived. It is Larry Leptin, defending your right to be healthy.

See Larry Leptin's first episode: Halloween fun as he takes on the GMO mutated sugar beets.

Monsanto's Toxic and Mutated World - Is Sugar Safe to Eat?

It should come as no surprise when a Monsanto product poisons the earth and our food. Our planet has never recovered from the forty-year Monsanto-led PCB contamination that was banned in the U.S. in 1977. To this day environmental PCBs continue to degrade into highly toxic furans and dioxins, wreaking all manner of human health problem. The new case in point involves several aspects: 1) the bizarre alteration of the nature of food itself by splicing viral, bacterial, and other life forms into the DNA of food (GMO seeds and crops), and 2) the massive increase in the use of glyphosate pesticide (Round Up), which is polluting the water, soil, and food across the globe. Both issues are extremely problematic to human health.

On September 21, 2009 a stunning shot was fired across the bow of Monsanto and its new legion of Frankenfood sugar beet growers. Judge Jeffrey S. White of Federal District Court in San Francisco said the Agriculture Department should have done an environmental impact statement as required by law. He said it should have assessed the consequences from the likely spread of the genetically engineered trait to other sugar beets or to the related crops of Swiss chard and red table beets. He said that the potential elimination of farmer's choice to grow non-genetically engineered crops, or a consumer's choice to eat non-genetically engineered food constituted a significant effect on the environment that necessitated an environmental impact statement. The case is ongoing, with the next phase scheduled for October 30.

Meanwhile, Monsanto is attempting damage control during the second growing season of this genetic monstrosity masquerading as food. The judge hasn't banned the current year's crop or the sale of Halloween candy which is now full of GMO sugar. Of course, GMO sugar, like other GMO "foods," doesn't need to be labeled as such (because nobody in their right mind would buy it if it were). Half the refined sugar in the U.S. is from beets - and insiders say the industry has quickly converted to the GMO Frankenfood beets, estimating up to 95% of farmers are now using them.

Beet sugar is often mixed with cane sugar, meaning that unless a product lists the ingredient as cane sugar or organic cane sugar then it now likely contains GMO mutant beet-derived sugar.

Only the biotech industry and its financially-associated friends believe GMO Frankenfoods are safe to eat. The despicable management at the FDA approved them, while squashing and hiding from public view the numerous safety objections of their scientific staff. Common sense will tell virtually anyone that having foreign organism DNA spliced into the essence of food is an atrocity.

Earlier this year the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) called on physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid genetically modified foods and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks. They called for a moratorium on GM foods, long-term independent studies, and labeling. AAEM's position paper stated, "Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food, including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system... There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation."

All of these Round Up ready Frankenfood crops are leading to unprecedented use of Round Up (glyphosate). In 1994 glyphosate pesticide use was 7.9 million pounds. By 2005, with the widespread use of Round Up, that number jumped to 119.1 million pounds. This is breeding super weeds that require ever increasing amounts of Round Up, not to mention other new "super toxic" pesticides just to keep up with the war on weeds. The environmental impact of glyphosate overuse has been reviewed in an article published by Organic Consumers Association.

In August of 2009 French researchers reviewed the evidence showing how glyphosates disrupt human reproductive hormones (androgens and estrogens). Their data indicates that glyphosate-based herbicides residues in food, feed, and the environment should be considered and classified as carcinogens and reproductive toxins - not unlike the PCBs of years gone by. Once again Monsanto sits in the middle of the controversy with human health hanging in the balance.

Does anyone trust Monsanto?

Avoid GMO food like the plague. Don't buy any product made with GMO food or any product made by a company that uses any GMO food. Demand that GMO food be labeled so that consumers have a clear choice. And look out for sugar, the latest food to undergo Frankenfood mutation.

The FDA's Peramivir H1N1 Swine Flu Experiment

The FDA has now opened the door for widespread human experimentation during this year's flu season, allowing an antiviral drug called Peramivir to be used even though it has not passed traditional standards of safety testing. Ever since the FDA crafted its Critical Path agenda it has been looking for excuses to expose vulnerable Americans to toxic drugs under the false pretense of the greater good for all. The H1N1 Swine Flu fear-mongering is providing the cover that the FDA needs to unleash an experiment. The new Obama FDA administration has accepted the baton pass from the recently departed Bush FDA management team (von Eschenbach, et al.).

Hypocrisy at the FDA runs deep in their culture. The organization fails to warn the public of the known immunosuppressive effects of commonly used drugs such as antacids and statins - drugs that have been shown to increase the risk for infection. At the same time, the FDA has branded all nutrition as fraud. What right does the FDA have to brand nutrition as fraud? Nutrition has been battling influenza since humans have been around. Without nutrition humans would have never survived any flu pandemic. Nutrition is harmless to human health and invaluable to survival. In the FDA's mind it is illegal. Rather, human experimentation is now deemed legal by the FDA. It's all about protecting and expanding the profits of Big Pharma and Big Biotech.

Like Tamiflu and Relenza, Peramivir is a neuraminidase inhibitor. Neuraminidase (the N part of H1N1) is a viral protein that must be active in order for new viruses to emerge from a virally infected cell. If it can be blocked, then viral spreading can be reduced.

Tamiflu and Relenza only bind to neuraminidase for a brief period of time, limiting their biological activity against a virus. In contrast, Peramivir binds very tightly to neuraminidase and is longer lasting - meaning it is a much more potent drug. The FDA has approved it for use in advanced Swine Flu cases that are not responding to Tamiflu or Relenza.

On the one hand, this sounds like a reasonable approach to helping people with extreme Swine Flu. What is likely to happen in actual practice is another matter entirely. Doctors will hear on the grapevine how well Peramivir seems to work and it will be used on more and more patients. And what's wrong with that?

It is a human experiment. Human experiments are against the Nuremberg code, which has been agreed to by the world following the atrocities of Nazi Germany. Human experiments run counter to the basic decency and morality of any culture - except the culture of the FDA and its profit-driven pharmaceutical allies.

The problem with neuraminidase blocking is that there are four known human genes that utilize neuraminidase for normal and healthy cell function (NEU1, NEU2, NEU3, NEU4). The next problem is that these genes are not passive and secondary in cellular function. They regulate carbohydrate-related communication taking place on human cell membranes (glyconutrition and glycobiology). In other words, they are instrumentally involved in how cells talk to each other, as well as in many processes of a cell's internal communication. Any neuraminidase blocking drug runs the risk of interfering with general communication needed for healthy cell function.

The adverse side effects of Tamiflu are in many cases rather extreme and include panic attacks, delusions, delirium, convulsions, depression, loss of consciousness, and even suicide. Oxford researchers have publicly warned that Tamiflu is not for children. Tamiflu is a relatively weak binder of neuraminidase.

What is going to happen when a strong binder of neuraminidase, Peramivir, latches on to the human cellular communication system based on neuraminidase genes? The FDA has no idea, but their unelected bureaucratic management team has decided in their infinite wisdom that the benefits outweigh the risks, even though they have no way of knowing. The era of sanctioned human experimentation is upon us.

What if there was a substance that blocked neuraminidase regarding viral activity and left human neuraminidase alone? Wow, what a breakthrough that would be. Welcome to the world of nutrition. The real fraud can be found in the management team of the FDA.

Byron J. Richards, Board-Certified Clinical Nutritionist, nationally-renowned nutrition expert, and founder of Wellness Resources is a leader in advocating the value of dietary supplements as a vital tool to maintain health. He is an outspoken critic of government and Big Pharma efforts to deny access to natural health products and has written extensively on the life-shortening and health-damaging failures of the sickness industry.

His 25 years of clinical experience from the front lines of nutrition have made him a popular radio guest who callers find impossible to stump. He has personally developed 75 unique nutraceutical-grade nutritional supplement formulas with a focus on thyroid nutrition, healthy weight loss supplements, cardiovascular nutrition, and stress management.

27 October 2009

Mexico Issues Permits For Genetic-modified Corn

Associated Press (via TheStreet.com), 27 October 2009:
http://www.thestreet.com/story/10617802/1/mexico-issues-permits-for-genetic-modified-corn.html

MEXICO CITY - Mexican authorities are allowing 22 experimental plots of biotech corn to be grown in several northern states of the ancestral homeland of the crop, over protests from environmental activists.

In a joint announcement Tuesday, the Agriculture and Education secretaries say the permits to grow genetically modified corn require that the experimental plots be kept "totally isolated" from other crops.

Environmentalists say modified genes could spread and contaminate genetically valuable native varieties of corn, which originated in Mexico.

New Agribusiness Colonialism Threatens Africa

Nasir Imam
AllAfrica.com, 27 October 2009 :
http://allafrica.com/stories/200910270295.html

Abuja [Nigeria] - A new form of colonialism driven by agribusinesses has been unleashed on the African continent and it is threatening livelihoods, ecological balance and portends new forms of resource conflicts on the continent.

This declaration was part of a communiquÈ issued at the end of the Conference on Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), Land Grabs and Non-Ecological Agriculture in Abuja.

Participants at the conference were hosted by the Environmental Rights Action/Friends of the Earth Nigeria (ERA/FoEN).

The conference discussed the challenge posed by the AGRA - an initiative of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation - and the need to build knowledge and resistance to land grabs on the continent and other non-ecological agriculture that threaten African agriculture and food sovereignty.

ERA/FoEN's Executive Director Nnimmo Bassey said that the novelty christened AGRA, and the GMO/Agrofuels initiatives promoted by big agribusinesses only aim to erode Africa's traditional systems of farming and contamination of indigenous seeds in favour of engineered varieties.

Bassey noted that the convergence of all the agricultural initiatives of the biotechnology industry and their allies in the donor-driven research institutions towards Africa is targeted at re-colonizing the continent and entrenching hunger by undermining its food sovereignty.

At the end of deliberations, participants observed that enormous tracts of land on the African continent have been taken over by trans-nationals for agribusinesses, governments and individuals interested only in profits and not in the interest of smallholders' livelihoods

Participants therefore strongly recommended for urgent need for public debate/awareness on GMO/Agrofuels and AGRA, and that Africa should not be a dumping ground for unverified technologies such as genetically modified crops.

GM-Free Zone

Slow Food International, 27 October 2009:
http://www.slowfood.com/sloweb/eng/dettaglio.lasso?cod=3E6E345B191352C3FBujI3D4B4DD

The Irish government has made a move to ban the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops following an agreement between the country's two coalition partners last week. The agreement, which declares Ireland a 'GM-free Zone', will ban the growing of all GM crops and introduce a voluntary 'GM-free' label for food, including meat, eggs, poultry, fish, crustaceans and dairy products made without the use of GM animal feed.

The move will put additional breaks on what Greenpeace EU GMO Policy Director Marco Costiero called 'the global expansion of the risky, unproven and costly technology of genetically modified agriculture'. He remarked that 'Ireland's GM-free policy answers the serious concerns which European consumers have on GM food, and will allow Irish retailers and businesses to be rewarded for the good quality produce they bring to the market.'

GM-Free Ireland Co-ordinator Michael O'Callaghan commented that in addition to benefits to consumers and the environment, the ban will help Irish farmers who cannot compete with subsidized agriculture powerhouses. 'The WTO's economic globalization agenda has forced most Irish farmers to enter an unwinnable race to the bottom for low quality GM-fed meat and dairy produce, in competition with countries like the USA, Argentina and Brazil which can easily out-compete us with their highly subsidized GM crop monocultures, cheap fossil fuel, extensive use of toxic agrochemicals that are not up to EU standards, and underpaid migrant farm labor', he said.

Ireland joins a growing number of other countries that have opted for banning GM crops, includine Japan, Egypt and Germany. Agro-engineering giant Monsanto is yet to comment on the move.

Attack of the Triffids has flax farmers baffled
• Genetically modified flaxseeds have contaminated prairie fields, threatening a lucrative market overseas

Martin Mittelstaedt
Globe and Mail [Canada], 27 October 2009:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/attack-of-the-triffids-has-flax-farmers-baffled/article1340838/

In the waning days of fall, prairie flaxseed farmers should be hopping onto their tractors and harvesting their crops of the trendy health food, but instead they're in the midst of a major whodunit, with echoes of a long-forgotten movie thriller.

Somebody has contaminated Canada's flax crop with trace amounts of a genetically modified variety, whimsically called Triffid after a 1960s horror flick that starred a villainous breed of plants replete with legs, intelligence and a venom-filled stinger.

To keep the Triffids at bay, Europe, which is hypersensitive to all things genetically modified, has slammed the doors on further imports of flaxseed from Canada, threatening a lucrative $320-million annual market for farmers. Already prices for flax have plunged by $2 to $3 a bushel from around $11 before reports of the contamination.

Farmers are mystified about why the Triffids are showing up now. The seeds, developed at the University of Saskatchewan in the 1990s, were never sold commercially in Canada and were all supposed to have been destroyed in 2001. But seeds derived from the university's plant engineering program are being found all over Europe.

Since early September, confectionery companies there have been yanking pastries and other baked goods containing flax from their shelves, blaming imports from Canada for the contamination. The genetically modified seeds have been found in 34 countries, according to the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network.

The strange turn of events has prompted head scratching all around.

The developer of the seeds, Alan McHughen, now a biotechnologist at the University of California, Riverside, said he has no idea why flax plants he created years ago are now contaminating the Canadian crop. Dr. McHughen did prompt controversy by giving away packets of the seeds free of charge for what he calls "educational purposes." A condition of accepting his Triffids was to agree not to grow them, but he concedes some farmers might have thrown the seeds into their hoppers and planted them anyway. "I can't rule out that possibility," he said.

He called them Triffids because he wanted a catchy, easy-to-spell name that farmers would remember. The name was "a bit of black humour that Dr. McHughen threw into the mix. ... I'm sure he thought that he was being quite clever, but he's alone in that regard," said Barry Hall, president of the Flax Council of Canada, the Winnipeg-based industry trade group.

"Our organic market is probably sabotaged because of this "- Organic flax grower Arnold Taylor

Terry Boehm, a flax grower near Saskatoon and one of the approximately 15,000 prairie farmers who produce the crop, is worried about the fallout from the food scare. The cause of the contamination is "the $300-million question," he said, adding: "I really can't hazard to say how it's there, but there's a huge amount of questions that need to be answered in regard to that."

The genetic contamination also undermines the image of a product widely extolled for its health benefits as a rich source of artery-friendly omega-3 fatty acids and often grown organically to further its cachet. In organic farming, using genetically modified organisms is a big no-no.

Canadian authorities say the flax, which has genes added from a weed enabling it to withstand growing in herbicide-contaminated soil, is safe to eat. While it's illegal for plant breeders to sell the modified flax, farmers can grow it, provided they divulge that their crop has been genetically modified and accept a lower grade for it. "There are no safety concerns ... because [Triffids] did pass stringent food and feed safety tests as part of the government of Canada's approval process," said Remi Gosselin, spokesman for the Canadian Grain Commission.

After reports about genetic modification began circulating in Europe, the commission - the Winnipeg-based federal regulator of the grain-handling industry - tested three flax shipments and found contamination in each. The amounts were minute - about one genetically modified seed out of every 10,000 - but enough to prompt action in Europe.

The commission is trying to track shipments of flax across the prairies to see if it can identify the farmer or farmers who trifled with Triffids. Flax farmers and the council lobbied successfully to have Triffid removed from the market in 2001. Now there is anger on the prairies that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency unnecessarily put farm incomes at risk by approving the flax in the first place. Farmers had virtually no commercial need for its herbicide-tolerant trait, which is considered obsolete because of changes in herbicide formulations.

The CFIA declined an interview request.

Arnold Taylor, an organic flax grower in Kenaston, Sask., says he fears the contamination will be found to be widespread, harming his livelihood.

"Our organic market is probably sabotaged because of this," Mr. Taylor said. "Most of the consumers don't want [genetically engineered food] and there is really no need for it. We can farm very well without them."

South Africa: GMOs - Strategic Priority in Whose Interest?

Kristin Palitza
Inter Press Service News Agency, 27 October 2009:
http://www.ipsnews.net/africa/nota.asp?idnews=49021

CAPE TOWN - The South African government is in the process of drafting regulations to police genetically modified organisms (GMO) as part of the national Consumer Protection Act, but environmental experts are worried the GMO section of the new Act, which was signed into law last April, will not be put into practice.

"Even if we are having good laws, we are not sure who will implement and monitor them," cautioned Charmaine Treherne, director of the South African Freeze Alliance on Genetic Engineering (SAFeAGE).

She spoke to IPS during a panel discussion between parliamentarians and anti-GMO lobbyists on the implications of GM crops on sustainable livelihoods and food sovereignty at the Centre for the Book in Cape Town.

"For example, the law stipulates that GMO crops need to be inspected, but we have only one inspector for the whole of South Africa," Treherne lamented. "So if we want the necessary monitoring, the onus is on NGOs (non-governmental organisations) to act as watchdogs."

This is almost impossible to do on a national scale, she said, because it costs about $200 to test the safety of a single crop. "It's too expensive for us NGOs to do government's job," complained Treherne.

The safety and nutritional value of a GMO crop are assessed by comparing the crop's DNA with the DNA with a currently consumed, plant-derived crop that is generally accepted as safe.The South African government is a big proponent of GMO crops. It commercially released genetically modified maize, cotton and soy several years ago and has started experimental trials on sorghum, potatoes and a range of other seeds and plants, including vines.

The South African government is a big proponent of GMO crops. It commercially released genetically modified maize, cotton and soy several years ago and has started experimental trials on sorghum, potatoes and a range of other seeds and plants, including vines.

"South Africa is forging ahead with GMO. It's seen as a key strategic priority, but it's questionable in whose interest this really is," confirmed Michelle Pressend, research, policy and advocacy coordinator of environmental NGO Biowatch, suggesting that government concern for economic gain was larger than its concern for the health of its citizens and equal access to food. "We are only in the beginning stages in terms of legislating GMO. There is little transparency. We are in danger of multi-national concerns driving our food policy," she added.

Lance Greyling, chief whip of opposition party Independent Democrats and a Member of Parliament (MP), is also worried the regulatory environment favours GMO companies. "The GMO Amendment Act is progressive legislation, but the presently drafted regulations might bring this down. It is of great concern to me that the control of food production by GM companies entrenches skewed power relations that breed inequalities in South Africa."

"If we want a more sustainable world, we need to change the way we produce food," Greyling added. "If we were serious about GMO, the onus should be placed on companies to prove products are safe, not on us to prove that they are unsafe."

Environmental institutions, such as Biowatch and SAFeAGE, demand more research on the impact of GMO food on human health. They also lobby against multi-national companies applying for patents for seeds, call for detailed labelling of products that contain GMO and a threshold for GMO contamination of food.

Moreover, NGOs ask for more public consultation by government. "We need better mechanisms for public participation. We need to get to a point where our government takes notice of what we say, instead of holding public hearings to tick of the box (but ignoring our input)," said Treherne.

Wide-reaching public education campaigns to inform South Africans about the potential dangers of GMO are necessary to be able to pressurise government to be more transparent and consult all levels society on a wider scale.

Former chair of the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC), Jody Kollapen, says institutions such as the SAHRC, should play an important role in broadening public debate on issues of people's access to food and promised to recommend to the commission to place GMO on its agenda.

"There has hardly been public debate on GM crops in South Africa because decisions about GMO don't take place in a neutral power setting. The control of genetic resources gravitates to the hands of a few. It's a chilling prospect," said Kollapen, referring to companies, like American biotechnology giant Monsanto, which are systematically trying to patent seeds to control food production on an international scale.

Stone Sizani, MP of South Africa's ruling party African National Congress (ANC) and chair of rural development of the Land Reform Portfolio Committee, promised to advocate in parliament to ensure the issue of GMO crops "is taken further".

He encouraged NGOs to lobby portfolio committees within government to protect South African citizens from GMO food, claiming this was a problem mainly inherited from previous governments and driven by federal commercial agribusiness organisation AgriSA. "AgriSA is one of the main propagators of GMO in South Africa in the name of progress and technology," said Sizani.

He said organisations, such as AgriSA, are pushing for commercial farming of monocultures as well as export-driven farming, despite the fact that small-scale farming would benefit many more South Africans and address issues of poverty and food security. "We need to look at agriculture from the point of view of rural development," he recommended.

"GMO should be excluded from agricultural activity," concluded Sizani, agreeing with the other panellists that the country's lawmakers have the interests of GMO giants at heart instead of the interests of their citizens.

He also called for more transparency, pointing to the fact that South Africa is currently testing genetically modified potatoes in six secret locations. In multiple countries, GMO trials are being conducted in secret locations because GMO producers say they are worried the plants may be vandalised by anti-GMO activists.

However, not having access to information about the details of such trials "is not in the interest of the people," said Sizani, complaining: "Here we are, secretly testing GM potatoes that the Americans have said 'no' to."

Scientist Jeopardizes Career by Publishing Paper Criticizing GMOs

By Ken Roseboro, ed.
The Organic and Non-GMO Report [USA], November 2009
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_19468.cfm

To Subscribe to the Non-GMO Report call 1-800-854-0586 or visit http://www.non-gmoreport.com

Agro-ecologist Don Lotter published a paper titled "The Genetic Engineering of Food and the Failure of Science" in the 2009 edition of the peer-reviewed International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food.

The paper makes a damning case against genetically modified foods, saying the technology is based on obsolete science, that biotechnology companies such as Monsanto have too much influence on government regulators and "public" universities, and that university scientists are ignoring the health and environmental risks of GM crops. Lotter calls the introduction of GM foods the "largest diet experiment in history."

Lotter has a Ph.D. in agro-ecology from the University of California, Davis, and a master of professional studies in international agricultural and rural development from Cornell University. He has taught environmental science, soil science, plant science, entomology, and vegetable crop production for Santa Monica College, Imperial Valley College, and UC-Davis.

Lotter does not have a tenured position and is currently working on an agricultural project in Tanzania. He half-jokingly describes his paper as "career destroying" because he says it will be difficult to find a position at a US university due to the general recognition at most US universities that GM foods are safe and will help "feed the world."

If you thought publishing the paper would jeopardize your prospects for finding a position, why did you write the paper?

DL: I'm proud of the paper. This topic should be taught at universities. There is an enormous gap in public knowledge about this issue.

The science of genetic engineering is based on the one gene-one protein doctrine. Please describe this and why you think it is flawed.

DL: When they discovered the technology there was a simplified view that genes were in charge of the production of proteins. It is the entire basis for going forward with genetic engineering technology.

Then the Human Genome Project showed that humans have fewer genes than simple organisms, but we also have one to two million proteins. This discovery put an end to the one gene-one protein doctrine.

But by then there had been a massive investment in transgenics. The industry moved ahead with all their PR of "feeding the world" without any scientific basis for their technology. The doctrine has crumbled away, yet the industry has gone on.

In your paper you say that the process of genetically engineering foods is also deeply flawed. Can you give some examples of why that is the case?

DL: The promoter gene used in genetically engineered crops, the cauliflower mosaic virus, is a powerful promoter of inter-species gene exchange. Scientists thought it would be denatured in our digestive system, but it's not. It has been shown to promote the transfer of transgenes from GM foods to the bacteria within our digestive system, which are responsible for 80% of our immune system function; they are enormously important. This is a huge flaw, but not even the biggest in crop transgenics.

The process of splicing genes into plant genomes, transgenics, causes serious genetic damage-mutations, multiple copies of the transgenic DNA, gene silencing. The ramifications of this damage, incredibly, have never been elucidated or even explored for that matter.

Do you think the increase in food allergies we are seeing may be due to GM foods?

DL: Yes, there is evidence pointing to it. The industry is powerful enough to stop any labeling legislation. Without labeling they can't track these problems. We know that after the introduction of GM soy in Britain, there was an increase of soy allergies there.

In your paper, you write that the lack of oversight of GM foods has been a major failure of US science leadership. What makes you believe this?

DL: In the early 1980s, the biotech companies were successful in getting to oversee the regulation of GM foods. The scientific community should have stepped in, and said this is a radical technology, but it didn't.

There has also been a restructuring of the relationship between industry and universities. The Bayh-Dole Act (which gives universities intellectual property control of their inventions) made universities more dependent on industry.

Universities saw transgenics as a big money source, and scientists who objected were harassed or pushed out.

Do you think any US university would fund studies on GM food safety?

DL: No, they are not doing that. Anyone who tries to conduct research looking at GM food safety is given trouble.

Universities should have a mandate to find problems with GM foods.

We need federal money to look at non-proprietary solutions, such as organic farming systems, to the world's problems, and we should see whether proprietary approaches (i.e. GM foods) cause problems.

Unfortunately, non-proprietary solutions don't get funding.

We can show that organic farming systems promote drought resistance; the Rodale Institute did this research. But if a GM crop had been found to resist drought, there would have been major news headlines saying that it will save the world.

Is the safety of GM food considered a given at US universities?

DL: Absolutely. The debate is not there. US scientists have abdicated their responsibility on this issue. They know problems exist but they don't want to talk about them. Most scientists say we need GM foods to feed the world.

Some social scientists are saying there are problems (with GM foods).

I think undergraduate groups will bring the debate over GM foods to universities.

What type of agricultural approaches do you think will solve the world's food production challenges?

DL: The IAASTD (International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development) report said that we can produce food using agro-ecological methods and successful green revolution methods. The report didn't include transgenics.

The report was signed by 60 countries, but the US didn't sign it.

How One Bio-engineering Seed Producer is Dominating Markets

Deutsche Welle [Germany], 27 October 2009:
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4817274,00.html

In the United States, the battle over genetically modified crops is over. Much of America's corn, soybean and cotton production is genetically modified. Farmers across the country's corn belt in the midwest benefit from good harvests. But, they are also making themselves increasingly dependent on the seed producers. One name is sticking out: Monsanto.

The agriculture corporation Monsanto is dominating the market, it controls 87 percent of the market. The contracts that Monsanto forces its customers to accept in the US serve as a warning for countries in which Monsanto is now building up a market share.

Watch the related news clip: http://www.dw-world.de/popups/popup_single_mediaplayer/0,,4828202_start_55_end_460_type_video_struct_11487_contentId_4817274,00.html

Genetically modified crops succumb to bug infection

Irish Sun, 27 October 2009 (IANS):
http://story.irishsun.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/2411cd3571b4f088/id/558819/cs/1/

As the debate over the safety of genetically modified food continues to rage, biologists have found that GM squash plants - resistant to three major viral diseases - became more vulnerable to a fatal bacterial infection.

'Cultivated squash is susceptible to a variety of viral diseases and that is a major problem for farmers,' said Andrew Stephenson, Penn State University (PSU) biology professor, who led the study. 'Infected plants grow more slowly and their fruit becomes misshapen.'

In the mid-1990s, the US Department of Agriculture approved genetically modified squash, which are resistant to three of the most important viral diseases in cultivated squash. However, while disease-resistant crops have been a boon to commercial farmers, ecologists worry there might be certain hidden costs associated with the modified crops.

'There is concern in the ecological community that, when the transgenes that confer resistance to these viral diseases escape into wild populations, they will (change) those plants,' said Stephenson. 'That could impact the biodiversity of plant communities where wild squash are native.'

Stephenson and colleagues James A. Winsor, professor of biology, Matthew J. Ferrari, research associate and Miruna A. Sasu, doctoral student, all at PSU, crossed the genetically modified squash with wild squash native to the southwestern US.

Unlike a lab experiment, the researchers tried to mimic a real world setting during their three-year study.

The researchers then looked at the effects of the virus-resistant transgenes on prevalence of the three viral diseases, herbivory by cucumber beetles, as well as the occurrence of bacterial wilt disease that is spread by the cucumber beetles.

'When the cucumber beetles start to feed on infected plants they pick up the bacteria through their digestive system,' explained Sasu.

'This feeding creates open wounds on the leaves and when the bugs' feces falls on these open wounds, the bacteria find their way into the plumbing of the plant.'

'Since cucumber beetles prefer to feed on healthy plants rather than viral infected plants, the beetles become increasingly concentrated on the healthy -- mostly transgenic -- plants.'

'Wild and transgenic plants had the same amount of damage from beetles before viral diseases were prevalent in our fields,' said Stephenson.

'Once the virus infected the wild plants, the transgenic plants had significantly greater damage from the beetles,' he added, according to a PSU release.

These findings appeared in the Tuesday edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

26 October 2009

Coalition agreement
Plant biotechnology to receive more support

GMO Safety [Germany], 26 October 2009:
http://www.gmo-safety.eu/en/news/724.docu.html

[Photo caption: Annette Schavan (CDU) is still Research Minister. In terms of research policy, the future government coalition intends to "develop further the accountable innovation potential of biotechnology and gene technology". The coalition sees "big opportunities for Germany as a research and industry location" in the fields of biotechnology and gene technology.]

The coalition agreement presented by the new German government on Saturday advocates responsible use of plant biotechnology in Germany. Key aspects of the agreement between the CDU, CSU and FDP are an endorsement of the cultivation of genetically modified Amflora starch potatoes, flexible, regionally determined minimum distances between fields with genetically modified crops and fields with conventional crops, and positive 'GM-free' labelling at European level. As far as the German cultivation ban on MON810 maize is concerned, the coalition intends to await the outcome of the ongoing court case.

On the one hand, the agreement emphasises the fact that the coalition would like to achieve a stronger scientific orientation and more efficient EU approval procedures for GMOs in future. However, its intentions regarding the existing cultivation ban on MON810 maize remain unclear. Although leading scientific organisations and the Commission for Biological Safety in Germany consider the ban to be unjustified from a scientific point of view, all that the coalition partners managed to agree on initially in this case was to await the outcome of the ongoing court proceedings.

The agreement does not state a position on the issue of field trials with GM plants. A large number of biosafety research projects are conducted in the field in order to assess potential effects of GM plants under realistic conditions. However, in September, the Bavarian environment minister, Markus SÖder (CSU), spoke out against field trials with genetically modified plants, claiming that the risks to the environment and population were simply too great.

The coalition partners want to change the Genetic Engineering Act to allow the federal states to set their own minimum separation distances between fields with genetically modified plants and fields with organic or conventional crops. The idea is to draw up a nationwide framework, although this is not defined in any more detail, so it is not yet clear whether such minimum distances will have to be based on scientific criteria in future.

The reaction of groups and associations to the agreements has been mixed. Germany's organic food industry association (BÖLW) has severely criticised the agreements on plant biotechnology contained in the coalition agreement, saying it was "unbelievable" that a specific product produced by one company was mentioned in the agreement (the genetically modified Amflora potato). Greenpeace sees the agreement as evidence that the interests of corporations "clearly come before protection of the environment and people".

By contrast, the German Raiffeisen Association, an umbrella organisation that represents the interests of cooperatives in the German food and agriculture sector, welcomed the fact that the agreements promote the potential of plant biotechnology as an industry of the future. It claimed that this would make an important contribution to freedom of choice. What was needed now was to implement a legal framework in Germany and Europe that would prevent distortion of competition and would, in particular, make it feasible to work with European Community Law's zero tolerance for GMOs not authorised in the EU.

More from GMO Safety

"Little respect for scientific facts": French researchers criticise MON810 ban
http://www.gmo-safety.eu/en/news/707.docu.html

DFG and DLG: Memorandum on crop biotechnology. Nobel Laureate Nüsslein-Volhard: "The ban on cultivating Bt maize sends an alarming signal."
http://www.gmo-safety.eu/en/news/688.docu.html

---

Note:

The Internet portal gmo-safety.eu focusses on projects supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). The site is run on behalf of the BMBF by an independent editorial team consisting of Genius GmbH - Wissenschaft & Kommunikation (Darmstadt), TransGen (Aachen) and the TÜV Nord Group.

Mice reveal benefits of grass-raised Irish beef, forum hears

Seán Mac Connell
Irish Times, 26 October 2009:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/1026/1224257457439.html

MICE ARE coming to the rescue of the beef industry which has been hit hard by falling consumption across Europe because of the recession, young farmers meeting in Cork heard this weekend.

Joe Burke, a beef specialist with An Bord Bia, said mice were used in a major scientific survey on the health properties of grass-raised Irish beef compared with beef produced from continental feedlot systems.

The work, which he said was carried out by Teagasc laboratories in Ashtown, saw beef from the two systems fed to mice over a period of time and then the mice were slaughtered and their livers and other organs examined.

"The study showed the mice fed on Irish grass-raised beef were considerably healthier than the others fed on feedlot beef because of the higher levels of omega 3 and fatty acids," said Mr Burke.

He said the findings were so significant the Irish Food Board is to mount a marketing campaign within weeks using the data to indicate the health-giving properties of Irish grass-fed beef.

He told the farmers attending the Macra na Feirme annual conference in the Westlodge Hotel in Bantry, that beef sales had fallen by as much as 8 per cent in the UK in the last four weeks.

He added there was also a 10 per cent decrease in beef consumption in France since the beginning of August, and across Europe, consumers were substituting cheaper cuts of meat, buying burgers rather than steak.

But, he said, things looked better in the long term as there would be a shortfall of one million tonnes of beef by 2015.

He told the farmers if a carbon tax was to be introduced by the EU, Ireland, with its grass-based system, was likely to face lower rates than non-grass-based systems.

He also revealed Irish beef in Britain is likely to be sold in one store under the label, "Beef From The British Isles".

He said the board had reluctantly agreed to this because live Irish cattle exported to Britain and slaughtered there could not be sold as British beef as its "Red Tractor" quality assurance mark guaranteed the beef was raised and slaughtered in Britain.

He said there had been a huge increase in the number of cattle being exported live from Ireland this year and, to date, 280,000 animals had been shipped out of the country.

---

Comment from GM-free Ireland:

Here are the source documents:

•

Beef CLA may protect against diabetes and heart disease
Relay Research Update 2, Teagasc, Ireland:
http://www.gmfreeireland.org/feed/grass-fed-beef/Health-Advantages-of-Beef-CLA.pdf

•

A Conjugated Linoleic Acid-Enriched Beef Diet Attenuates Lipopolysaccharide-Induced Inflammation in Mice in Part through PPARg-Mediated Suppression of Toll-Like Receptor 41-3
Clare M. Reynolds, Eve Draper, Brian Keogh, Arman Rahman, Aidan P. Moloney, Kingston H. G. Mills, Christine E. Loscher, and Helen M. Roche
The Journal of Nutrition.
First published ahead of print October 21, 2009 as doi: 10.3945/jn.109.113035
http://www.gmfreeireland.org/feed/grass-fed-beef/Reynolds-et-al-2009.pdf

The "Materials and Methods" section of page 2 of the study states the following, with no mention of whether or not the low-CLA beef rations included GM feed:

"Generation of beef-derived feeds. Charolais-cross steers were fed a high-concentrate/straw ration to generate the low-CLA beef diet. For the high-CLA beef diet, Charolais-cross heifers were offered grazed perennial ryegrass supplemented with sunflower oil and fish oil. After 150 d, psoas muscle, longissimus muscle, and subcutaneous adipose tissue were collected and pooled within ration type to yield a 35% fat beef product. This was then freeze-dried and incorporated into the mouse feed."

A Genetically Modified Proposal
• An Irish farmer's plea for access to technology in agriculture.

Jim McCarthy
Forbes [USA], 26 October 2009:
http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/26/genetically-modified-crops-ireland-opinions-contributors-jim-mccarthy.html

Sometimes when I think about the past, I fear for the future.

The Chinese were once the world's greatest seafarers. A few people even think they reached the west coast of North America before Columbus sailed the ocean blue. But then the emperor banned foreign travel and their seafaring skills were never heard of again.

The Islamic people once led the world in math and science. Did you know that the word "algebra" comes from Arabic? But then their culture embraced fundamentalism.

Today in Europe, our own civilization threatens to turn back the clock on progress. While much of the rest of the planet adopts agricultural biotechnology--an absolutely essential tool if we're to achieve security for our 21st century food supply--the foolish antics of green party activists around the world lead us toward a future of poverty and hunger.

Before that happens, you'll be hearing from me. This is one of the most important battles of our time. We cannot stay silent.

I farm on three continents. In my native Ireland, I work 1,100 acres, growing wheat for pigs and poultry. In Argentina, I'm managing director of a 31,000-acre operation that harvests corn, soybeans and wheat. In the U.S., in southwest Missouri, I'm an investor in a dairy farm.

I am a global farmer. I've observed best practices in very different environments. Unfortunately, I've also witnessed worst practices. A bullheaded refusal to take advantage of biotechnology is probably the very worst practice around.

GM crops are now a form of conventional agriculture for farmers in North and South America. But in Ireland, the situation is so bad that it's illegal to research and conduct genetic modification experiments in crops. They've outlawed scientific inquiry!

Ireland tries to take pride in building what it calls a "knowledge-based economy." When it comes to biotech crops, however, Ireland is in a headlong retreat from knowledge. Argentina is the exact opposite. Farmers in that country--including me, when I'm working there--are allowed to grow genetically modified crops. This gives us a big boost in yield and soil protection.

Ironically, Ireland has the better business reputation. Each year, the World Bank calculates the ease of doing business in the countries of the world, using quantitative measurements on start-ups, regulations, taxes and so forth.

This year, Ireland ranks No. 7. Argentina is No. 118, which is a little better than Bangladesh and a little worse than Bosnia. (The U.S., by the way, is No. 4.)

Yet I much prefer the business of farming in Argentina. It's a dream place for agriculture. I'm not just referring to the climate. I'm thinking about how hard farming has become in Ireland, or just about anywhere else in Europe. The Argentine government doesn't tell me what I can and cannot grow based upon deliberate ignorance. It lets me make my own decisions.

If I was a younger man, I'd be tempted to move permanently to Argentina. But Ireland is home. I'm not going anywhere. It nevertheless saddens me to see a vocal minority of Green party activists throttle the future of farming.

There are about as many people in Ireland as there are in Oregon--just shy of 4 million. The world adds roughly this number of people to its total population every three weeks or so. The demand for food has never been higher--and if current trends continue, it will continue to set new records every year for the rest of my life.

It will take Irish farmland--and existing farmland everywhere--to meet this need. Europe must do its part to produce more and use its influence, especially in Africa, to encourage biotechnology. The policy of refusing to take GM crops seriously sets us up for an awful tragedy.

Maybe there's some good news ahead: This week, the Royal Society, the U.K.'s National Academy of Science, has released a report that calls for the acceptance of genetic modification on the farm.

Let's hope for a better future, so our present doesn't become a past we come to regret.

Jim McCarthy, a first generation farmer based in Kildare, Ireland, farms in three continents--Europe, South America and North America--growing wheat, soybeans, corn, canola, peas, oats and dairy. Mr. McCarthy is the 2009 Kleckner Trade and Technology Advancement Award recipient and a member of the Truth About Trade & Technology Global Farmer Network: http://www.truthabouttrade.org/

---

Comment from GM-free Ireland:

About GM farming in Argentina:

In South America, GM soy production for EU livestock has caused the destruction of 21 million hectares of forest in Brazil, 14m in Argentina, and 2m in Paraguay. It has also caused violent land grabs, displaced indigenous peoples, dramaticaly increased the use of Monsanto's toxic Roundup weedkiller, caused major health problems, and created vast unsustainable GM monocultures - all to produce cheap animal feed for farmers in Ireland and other European countries. For more info see:

•

The soy republic of Argentina
Marie Trigona
Toward Freedom, 3 September 2009:
http://towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/1664/1/

•

Bio-hegemony: the political economy of agricultural biotechnology in Argentina
By P. Newell and J. Martin
Cambridge University, 2009:
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?type=1&fid=4454884&jid=&volumeId=&issueId=01&aid=4454876&bodyId=&membershipNumber=&societyETOCSession=

•

Glyphosate: public health vs profit in Argentina
By Negin P. Martin, Ph. D.
Environmental Health News, 4 June 2009:
http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/blog/glyphosate-public-health-vs-profit-in-argentina

•

Health-Argentina: Scientists Reveal Effects of Glyphosate
By Marcela Valente.
Inter Press Service (IPS), 15 April 2009:
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=46516

•

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

•

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

•

The social and economic impacts of GMOs
Greenpeace briefing paper, April 2008:
http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/eu-unit/press-centre/policy-papers-briefings/social-and-economic-impacts-of-GMOs.pdf

Videos:

•

Killing fields: the true cost of Europe's cheap meat
http://viacampesina.org/main_en/
The full price of cheap meat is being paid across Latin America as vast, mostly genetically modified, soya plantations and their attendant chemicals lead to poisonings and violence.

•

Unreported World: Paraguay - Painful Harvest
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3778190655853164866#

•

Protests around the Round Table on Responsible Soy
In Spanish with English subtitles
http://www.grain.org/videos/?id=174

•

GRAIN interviews Silvia Ribeiro (ETC Group, Mexico), November 2008
Silvia discuses the impact of GM contamination of maize in Mexico
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H9WZGKQeYg

About the Truth about Trade and Technology organisation:

This is a well-known U.S. GM lobby group. According to Truth about Trade's website, 'In the 21st century, trade and technology are inextricably linked... concerns about technology, both feigned and authentic, are increasingly used to justify protectionism. These fears are not based upon scientific fact, but upon a mixture of unfortunate misunderstandings owing to ignorance and deceptive propaganda spread by entrenched special interests.'

In a speech to the annual meeting of CropLife America, which is led by the major GM and agrochemical corporations, Dean Kleckner warned that progress in promoting biotechnology was painfully slow, 'Whenever we seem to make some progress--such as a figure of Tony Blair's significance coming down firmly on the side of science--we also have to endure the agonizing experience of watching millions of Africans starve because their political leaders can't make reasonable and humane decisions.' The context of this remark was the refusal of some African leaders to accept GM grain as food aid. However, despite the implications of Kleckner's statement, there is no evidence that anyone has starved (let alone millions!) because of such concern over GM-contamination of food aid, although there has been considerable criticism of the US's exploitation of the food aid issue for trade purposes.

Other similarly emotive but equally unsupported claims have been made on the Truth about Trade website, eg 'Did you know that thousands of children starve every day? ...it isn't because of a worldwide shortage of food. It is because of a worldwide shortage of trade and technology.' Kleckner has also been quoted as saying, 'We ought to ask those who demagoge (sic) the issue of biotechnology, how many vitamin A deficient blind children will you allow to achieve your objective? How many iron deficient women must die in childbirth for your direct-mail fund raising efforts? How many more lives will you sacrifice for your "cause"?'

He has also said, 'We have researched the protesters and where they get their money. What we find is that there aren't a lot of people involved but they're loud, well-organized and well-funded... Truth About Trade will continue to dig and ferret out information on these and other anti-agriculture groups. We intend to shine a very bright light on these groups and hold them accountable for their actions.'

For more info see http://www.spinprofiles.org/index.php/Truth_about_Trade_and_Technology

About Jim McCarthy:

Jim McCarthy writes for the hardline pro-GM Irish Farmers Journal, which takes advertising revenue from Monsanto.

For more info see:

•

Irish buy 22,000 acres in Argentina
Irish Farmers Journal, 7 October 2006:
http://www.farmersjournal.ie/2006/1007/news/currentedition/newsfeature.shtml

•

Demand drives markets, but EU farmers are to be further controlled
Irish Farmers Journal, 15 December 2009:
http://www.farmersjournal.ie/2007/1215/farmmanagement/crops/feature.shtml

Agriculture nomination steams greens

Marian Burros
Politico [USA], 26 October 2009:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28722.html

[Image caption: Siddiqui is responsible for regulatory and international trade issues at CropLife, a trade association representing producers and distributors of 'crop protection products.']

When the Obama administration announced that it was nominating a former pesticide lobbyist to be the chief agricultural negotiator in the Office of the United States Trade Representative, it sparked more than the usual Internet chatter.

"Obama's Chief Agricultural Negotiator Nominee Is a Pesticide Pusher;" screamed one website. 'Obama's Ag Policy Is Giving Me Whiplash," lamented another. "Obama Backtreads," scolded a third.

The nomination of Islam Siddiqui, vice president for science and regulatory affairs at CropLife America, struck an off-key note among environmentalists - and not just because they think pesticides and chemicals are unsafe for humans and detrimental to the environment. Perhaps more important was the sense of betrayal. After all, it was Michelle Obama herself who had demanded a pesticide-free garden for the first family at the White House, suggesting - environmentalists thought - that the Obama administration was sympathetic to their cause.

"We are seriously disheartened by this appointment," said Katherine Ozer, executive director of the National Family Farm Coalition, which represents family farmers. "While we have been encouraged by the first lady and USDA's promotion of sustainable agriculture and local food, Siddiqui's role will undermine those goals both here and abroad by promoting our current broken, chemical-intensive, industrial-agriculture model."

The Pesticide Action Network, which documents what it says are the hazardous impacts of pesticides on crop production, farm animals and humans, said Siddiqui's nomination last month called into question "just how committed the Obama administration is to promoting sustainable agriculture and reducing hunger in the developing world."

Siddiqui is responsible for regulatory and international trade issues at CropLife, a trade association representing producers and distributors of "crop protection products" - aka pesticides. He was a registered lobbyist for CropLife from 2001 to 2003, contributed the maximum to Obama's presidential campaign ($2,300), and held a major fundraiser for him in his McLean, Va., home.

Siddiqui would not comment on his nomination, which goes before the Senate next month, telling POLITICO that he did not want to jeopardize it.

White House spokesman Benjamin LaBolt said Siddiqui was nominated "because of his many years in public service as a scientist and policymaker working on agriculture and trade issues." He noted, "During his time at USDA, Dr. Siddiqui led the first phase of development for national organic natural food standards in the United States."

Still, the environmental movement was taken aback by his appointment, seeing it as uncharacteristic from a White House that typically was in sync with its agenda. Beyond the White House garden, there is a new emphasis on sustainable agriculture at the Department of Agriculture, green activists say, and they hail the appointment of Kathleen Merrigan as deputy agriculture secretary. As a staffer on the Senate Agriculture Committee, Merrigan helped write the nation's organic standards.

And environmentalists now are fired up to derail Siddiqui's nomination. The National Family Farm Coalition and others have been highlighting what they think are disturbing statements he made as a lobbyist for CropLife, while he was Department of Agriculture undersecretary for marketing and regulatory programs, and as a senior agricultural trade adviser in the Clinton administration.

In 1999, for instance, he derided the European Union's ban on hormone-treated beef. According to Reuters, when the French agriculture minister expressed concern that the hormones could cause cancer in 20 to 30 years, Siddiqui reportedly said of the minister, "He wanted assurances that 30 years from now, nothing would happen. No one in the scientific community can give you that kind of decision."

That same year, Reuters reported that Siddiqui, then-special assistant for trade to the U.S. agriculture secretary, "expressed concern about possible [genetically modified organism] labeling requirements by Japan when he met senior officials of the Agriculture Ministry in Tokyo. 'We do not believe that obligatory GMO labeling is necessary, because it would suggest a health risk where there is none. Mandatory labeling could mislead consumers about the safety of these products.'"

While Siddiqui was at CropLife, the company took part closed-door negotiations with the Environmental Protection Agency and the Office of Management and Budget to find ways to permit pesticide testing in children. The firm also was instrumental in securing an exemption for American farmers from the 2006 worldwide ban of the highly controversial chemical methyl bromide, a pesticide that depletes the ozone layer.

German coalition cautiously favorable on GMOs

Reuters, 26 October 2009:
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE59P2IK20091026

HAMBURG (Reuters) - Germany's incoming government drew mixed responses on Monday to its cautiously-favorable policy toward genetically-modified organisms (GMOs).

The incoming coalition between the conservative and pro-business liberal parties which won Germany's parliamentary elections in September announced its core policies over the weekend which included a statement in overall favor of GMO crops if they are found to be safe.

Germany's ban on commercial production of GMO maize of type MON 810 imposed in April this year would remain in force and the new government would await the outcome of legal action against the ban by its producer, U.S. biotech giant Monsanto, the policy agreement from the new government said.

But the new government would support both commercial and research cultivation of the GMO potato Amflora developed by Germany's BASF. The previous government approved research trials only on Amflora earlier this year.

"Biotechnology presents an important future sector for research, business and agriculture which is already established worldwide," the agreement said. "So we want to use the potential of biotechnology which can be used responsibly."

Individual German state governments would be given more power to introduce their own rules compelling minimum gaps between GMO and non-GMO crops.

The GMO agreement was attacked by environmental group Greenpeace, which said the new coalition wanted to push forward cultivation of GMO maize and other crops in Germany.

"The majority of the population has for decades rejected genetic technology in agriculture," said Greenpeace spokesman Stefan Krug.

The policy was welcomed by the giant association of German farming cooperatives DRV. "I am pleased that the coalition has declared itself behind the 'responsible' use of biotechnology," said DRV president Manfred Nuessel.

"This will make a useful contribution to the freedom of choice and use of this technology."

The coalition also said it would introduce new rules and measuring procedures to make the European Union's zero-tolerance policy on imports of non-approved GMOs more workable in practice.

German and other EU importers say they cannot currently buy U.S. soybeans because they are tainted with tiny residues of GMO maize not approved in the EU. [ID:nLM636606]

(Reporting by Michael Hogan; Editing by Nigel Hunt)

Environmental risks of transgenic fish

University World News, 26 October 2009:
http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20091023103325853

Environmental groups have often criticised the farming of genetically engineered fish because of the environmental risks, human health impacts and welfare of breeding certain forms of unnaturally fast-growing fish. But scientists at Sweden's University of Gothenburg are now working to determine whether these risks are outweighed by the benefits of a new strand of 'super-transgenic' fish.

Its researchers are currently focusing on one central question regarding transgenic fish: what effect will these genetically modified organisms have on the environment if they escape?

They are being funded by the EU's Marie Curie research spending programme, with their 'ecological risk-assessment of transgenic salmon (ERATS)' project costing EUR202,600 (US$300,000). It aims to determine the effects transgenic fish would have on wildlife, the environment, and even human beings, if they were to escape into the wild.

While these specimens have had their genes altered to increase growth rates and make them more resistant to disease, the researchers fear that should they escape and breed with natural fish, the resulting fry could have genetic health problems.

"Until further notice, transgenic fish should be bred in closed systems on land," says Dr Fredrik Sundström, the lead researcher for ERATS and a faculty member from the department of zoology at the University of Gothenburg. "Based on our current level of knowledge, we are still uncertain as to the effects of transgenic fish should they enter nature."

According to Dr Sundström, there has yet to be a definitive answer determined from the research. "Of course any escaped fish will have some sort of impact but the question is to what extent and when does it become relevant," he said in an interview with University World News.

"For one thing, would it have any larger impact than the corresponding wild-type fish? There are still many questions to answer before I can say yes or no."

Janet Cotter, a senior scientist for Greenpeace International, considers the research and assessment project a progressive step but doubts that researchers will be making any breaking discoveries. "We would prefer to see a precautionary principle employed but you can't determine all of these risks," Cotter said.

She acknowledged the EU's approach was interesting but there had already been previous research that determined genetically modified fish had a serious effect on the environment. "There is a high potential for eco-system disruption," she said.

Development: New types of plant and animal patents pose threats

Riaz K. Tayob
South-North Development Monitor (SUNS), Issue #6800, 26 October 2009:
http://www.sunsonline.org/PRIV/article.php?num_suns=6800&art=1

Geneva, 23 Oct -- A global civil society coalition sent a public warning to the UN General Assembly that a new class of patents covering plants and animals endangers both innovation and food security, echoing the sentiments of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food.

The "Global alert against Monstantosizing' our food" was released on 21 October by the "No Patents on Seeds" coalition, coinciding with the presentation of similar concerns by the UN Special Rapporteur, Olivier de Schutter, on the Right to Food, at the Third Committee (dealing with Social, Humanitarian and Cultural issues) in New York.

The alert was initiated by the organisations Berne Declaration, Swissaid, Misereor No Patents on Life (Switzerland), Greenpeace and The Development Fund (Norway), supported by farmer organisations from Europe, South America and Asia. They include Coldiretti in Italy, COAG in Spain, dairy farmers from Germany, Federacion Agraria Argentina and Bharat Krishak Samaj, an Indian farmer organisation.

Directed at governments, parliaments and patent offices, the alert warns about a new class of patents covering plants and animals derived from conventional breeding. "These patents even claim harvests and derived food products such as milk, butter and bread," the report revealed.

By speaking of "Monsantosizing", the signatories to the alert warned that the whole chain from seed to food production might be controlled by a few big international corporations like Monsanto, DuPont and Syngenta, leading to a process of oligopolies and increasing concentration.

"A radical change in both patent legislation and the practice of patent offices is needed to eliminate patents on plants and farm animals," said Francois Meienberg of the Berne Declaration.

"Corporations should not be allowed to continue to misappropriate and monopolise seeds, plants and farm animals via patent law. If they are, these patents will become a major threat to global food security, food sovereignty and innovation."

"The big companies are about to control seed, harvest, trade and even food production," warned Luis Contigiani at Federacion Agraria Argentina.

"We can see how Monsanto tries to license fees on soy production, imposing embargoes on European importers of Argentinean soy and derivatives based on patents that are not valid in our country. This is an example of the consequences when genetic resources are subjected to the logic of monopolisation by patent rights."

The alert quotes from the background report by the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food (A/64/170), de Schutter, which also raises concerns that seed patents might increase food crises. Citing de Schutter, "The oligopolistic structure of the input providers' market may result in poor farmers being deprived of access to seeds, productive resources essential for their livelihoods, and it could raise the price of food, thus making food less affordable for the poorest."

At a press conference in New York prior to appearing before the Third Committee to present his report, de Schutter raised concerns about increased monopolization of seeds through patents, declining biodiversity, speculation in commodity markets, and the ongoing fallout from the global food crisis. A challenge was the impact of intellectual property rights on seed systems and the policies States should adopt to provide access for farmers to the seeds they needed.

It was important to move away from the idea that the right to food was about people being fed to the idea that the right to food was about the ability to produce, he said.

He emphasised that commercial seed varieties could be extremely useful as they improved yields and nutritional values, and were disease-resistant, and at the same time, they could increase farmers' dependency on those seeds and threaten their income. "The top-ten agricultural companies, all based in the North, controlled 67% of the global proprietary seed market," he pointed out.

The vast majority of patents were retained by northern-based companies such as Monsanto and their oligarchic structure was worrisome, as it increased farmers' dependency, de Schutter said.

Those companies, moreover, had no choice but to expand. Legislation to address the issue was taken at the national, rather than global level. Antitrust legislation should be strengthened, also at the regional and international levels.

The commercial seed system might also be a threat to agro-biodiversity. He noted that today, there were barely 150 cultivated crops. Genetic erosion was a source of vulnerability and agro-biodiversity could be a source of resilience against the impacts of climate change.

While the UN has no position on the debate about organic versus genetic-based farming, a United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) report indicated that agro-ecological approaches could significantly improve yields in a sustainable matter, de Schutter said. His concern about intellectual property rights-based agriculture was that no investments were made in other means of food production.

Intellectual property rights had been strengthened significantly over the years, contributing to the risk of farmers' dependency. He therefore advocated that Governments should choose intellectual property (regimes) suited to development needs instead of giving in to incentives.

He also urged adoption of compliance legislation going beyond the minimum requirements of the WTO's Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement. Intellectual property rights might also be an obstacle to further research, even though it was defended as a way for innovation, he said. Research must use pre-existing genetic resources, which were more and more difficult to obtain.

He said that research in breeding rewarded by intellectual property rights was mostly addressing the needs of rich farmers in developed countries. It neglected tropical crops on which many people were dependent. Since most seed companies were situated in the North, intellectual property rights resulted in resource transfers from the South to the North and from food producers to the owners of the patents.

He recommended that States do more to implement the farmers' rights under Article 9 of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, which would provide for protection of traditional resources and for farmers' participation in decision-making processes on legislation on intellectual property. Further, he said that States should provide funds necessary to support the flourishing of farmers' seed systems.

States should also re-examine their seed regulations in order to make them more hospitable to traditional farmers' rights. They should also develop local seed exchanges. Research should involve farmers at all stages.

De Schutter said that the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) had indeed called for a 70% increase in food production by 2050 in order to meet increasing demands. The debate was open on how and by whom that increase should be achieved. The promises of scientific developments in that regard had been unfulfilled.

The huge potential in training farmers in agro-ecological techniques such as water-harvesting, agro-forestry, inter-cropping and the use of nitrogen-fixing plants had not been used. Although those techniques were labour intensive, they had the potential for hugely increasing productivity.

It was in principle a good thing that after thirty years, the private sector was again investing in agriculture as a potential source of profit, he continued. There was, however, no real debate about the ownership of agricultural policies and the risk that national policies would not be taken into account when the direction of research and investments was guided by private interests.

Governments should not develop policies dictated by the private sector, de Schutter said.

Financial speculation in the commodity market was a major problem that had not been addressed, he further added. Although he had submitted proposals on this to the Human Rights Council, nothing had been done. States should further re-establish food reserves they had abandoned during the nineties, which could be done at the national and regional levels.

To a question at the press conference, de Schutter said that some progress had been made on regulating the transnational buying of farms, and that the World Bank and the FAO were addressing the issue. A number of Governments now believed it was necessary to develop an international framework on this.

The deeds often unfairly favoured investors and the rights of local and indigenous people were often not protected. Later this year, there would be a West Africa regional meeting where Governments would try to share good practices in that area. West Africa could become a laboratory on the issue, he said.

Asked about funding for implementation of his recommendations at the press conference, he said significant amounts had been pledged over the past months. The recent Group of Eight (G-8) meeting in Pittsburgh had pledged to invest $20 billion over three years to support agriculture in developing countries.

The money pledged by the G-8 would be used in a way that strengthened and increased the incomes of small farmers in developing countries, whose needs were not necessarily the same as those of the large producers with access to global markets. Their productivity could be significantly improved with not very significant investments, he said. The question was however, to do what, and for whom.

[A New York Times editorial dated 22 October stated that "following a decade of unchecked consolidation, it is time for the (US) Justice Department to take a hard look at potentially anti-competitive behaviour" starting with Monsanto which is currently in a dispute with DuPont over genetically engineered soybean genes that are patented by Monsanto.

The patent disputes among giant agribusiness corporations are increasing, and while these expose the increasing problems with intellectual property rights systems that disproportionately favour private interests, the deep implications for small farmers, especially from developing countries, and for agro-biodiversity and innovation still do not receive sufficient attention.]

25 October 2009

Carbon nanotubes: Great for agriculture, but for humans?

Chris Jablonski
ZD Net / Emerging Tech blog, 25 October 2009:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/emergingtech/?p=1872

In what can eventually kick up a firestorm similar to the genetically modified food controversy, the emerging field of "nano-agriculture" is making headlines. It involves the use of nano-particles - wisps 1/50,000th the width of a human hair - in agriculture and could have beneficial affects for crops, say scientists.

University of Arkansas researchers report that tomato seeds exposed to carbon nanotubes (CNTs) germinated faster and grew into larger, heavier seedlings than other seeds. That growth-enhancing effect could be a boon for biomass production for plant-based biofuels and other agricultural products, they suggest.

Considerable scientific research is underway to use nanoparticles - wisps 1/50,000th the width of a human hair - in agriculture. The goals of "nano-agriculture" include improving the productivity of plants for food, fuel, and other uses.

The scientists report the first evidence that CNTs penetrate the thick outer coating of seeds, and support water uptake inside seeds, a process which can affect seed germination and growth of tomato seedlings. The nanotube-exposed seeds sprouted up to two times faster than control seeds and the seedlings weighed more than twice as much as the untreated plants.

"This observed positive effect of CNTs on the seed germination could have significant economic importance for agriculture, horticulture, and the energy sector, such as for production of biofuels," they add.

The study, conducted by Mariya Khodakovskaya, Alexandru Biris, and other colleagues at the Department of Applied Science, is scheduled for the October issue of ACS Nano.

The research begs the question of the impact CNT-treated crops would have on humans and animals that consume them. It was outside the scope of the Arkansas study, and little is known whether these materials cause health problems.

But a recent joint study from North Carolina State University, The Hamner Institutes for Health Sciences, and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences shows evidence that they do, at least when inhaled.

Using lab mice, researchers found that inhaling nanotubes can affect the outer lining of the lung, though the effects of long-term exposure remain unclear. They determined that when multi-walled carbon nanotubes are inhaled they reach the pleura, which is the tissue that lines the outside of the lungs and is affected by exposure to certain types of asbestos fibers which cause the cancer mesothelioma.

The inhaled nanotubes "clearly reach the target tissue for mesothelioma and cause a unique pathologic reaction on the surface of the pleura, and caused fibrosis," says Dr. James Bonner, associate professor of environmental and molecular toxicology at NC State and senior author of the study.

The study used a single exposure to the nanotubes and revealed that the immune response and fibrosis disappeared within three months of exposure.

"It remains unclear whether the pleura could recover from chronic, or repeated, exposures," Bonner says. "More work needs to be done in that area and it is completely unknown at this point whether inhaled carbon nanotubes will prove to be carcinogenic in the lungs or in the pleural lining."

While they are at it, hopefully other nanotech researchers are on the task of figuring out the health implications of CNTs coming through the digestive system.

Finding the tipping point

Kiran Yadav
The Financial Express [India], 25 October 2009:
http://www.financialexpress.com/news/finding-the-tipping-point/532816/

Jeffrey M Smith has ample evidence on why genetically modified crops may lead to health catastrophes. Smith, the author of Seeds of Deception, and Genetic Roulette shares with Kiran Yadav in an email interview "that the greatest problem with GMO is they self-propagate in the environment. The genes released in this generation may outlast the effects of global warming and nuclear waste."

Is the move towards Bt brinjal [auberine] the right one?

It must be stopped. It could be catastrophic. If Bt brinjal produces allergic or toxic symptoms in the population, it could be years or decades before authorities are able to track the cause. The brinjal is not labelled, so some may get reactions to some meals with brinjal, and not to others. Isolating the cause is difficult. By the time it is discovered, the brinjal will have contaminated many other varieties through cross pollination. Since you won't know which brinjal is GM and which is not, the only recourse may be to abandon Bt brinjal altogether.

How justified are the apprehensions regarding the adverse health effects of GM foods?

To prove something is safe requires lots of studies. Even then, you may miss something. With drug approvals, for example, after doing test tube studies and then long-term animal feeding studies, there are four phases of human trials, including monitoring the health of those who use the drug after approval. Even with these precautions, drugs are often withdrawn because the evaluators missed dangerous side-effects. In the case of GM foods, there are no human clinical trials or post market surveillance. The very few animal safety studies are generally short-term, superficial, and often designed by the foods' maker to avoid discovering problems.

But is there really a reason for concern?

Biotech companies and regulators claim that Bt-toxin has a history of safe use. They therefore allow genetic engineers to insert Bt genes into plant DNA so the plants themselves do the killing. They, however, fail to point out that the Bt-toxin produced in GM plants is thousands of times more concentrated than natural Bt spray; is designed to be more toxic; has properties of an allergen; and unlike the spray, cannot be washed off the plant or biodegrade in the sun. But even the less toxic natural Bt spray is harmful. When dispersed by plane to kill gypsy moths in Washington State and Vancouver, about 500 people reported allergy or flu-like symptoms. Tragically, those exact same symptoms are now being reported by farm workers handling Bt cotton in India. In fact, wherever I travelled in cotton growing regions around India earlier this year, I met people who suffered from itching or rashes from Bt cotton fields.

In addition, when sheep grazed on Bt cotton plants after harvest, thousands died. Post mortems showed severe irritation and black patches in their intestines and livers. Investigators said preliminary evidence "strongly suggests that the sheep mortality was due to a toxin. . . . most probably Bt-toxin." In a small follow-up feeding study, 100% of sheep fed Bt cotton died within 30 days, while those grazing on natural cotton plants in the adjoining field had no symptoms.

Late last year, I received a distressing email from someone in Haryana who reported both massive itching among farm workers and sickness and death among buffalo. These buffalo were not eating cotton plants, but rather oilseed cake from Bt cottonseed. The villagers said that most of the buffalo actually refused to eat the Bt variety. (Reports from all over the US show that when given a choice, many animal species refuse GM feed. These include cows, pigs, geese, elk, deer, raccoons, squirrels, chickens, mice and rats. In Haryana, investigators said that most of the buffalo that ate the Bt cottonseed, had reproductive problems. They also had skin problems, lower quality and quantity of milk, and many deaths among both calves and adults. I helped arrange funding for a team of investigators to travel to Haryana last year to videotape interviews with the villagers and to collect data. They confirm the stories I heard by email.

Are there any feeding studies on humans?

Yes. There has only been one published human feeding study, conducted at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne in the UK, and it revealed what many find to be the most disturbing discovery. The genes inserted into GM crops transfer into the DNA of bacteria living inside our intestines and continue to function. This means that long after we stop eating GMOs, we may still have potentially harmful GM proteins produced continuously inside of us. Although scientists only tested this on soy, if Bt genes from maize snacks also transferred, they could transform our intestinal bacteria into living pesticide factories, possibly for the rest of our lives.

While there is a lot of debate about the safety of GM crops, we tend to ignore the safety of the regular (non GM) food that we consume. Isn't that a matter of concern?

Foods grown through natural reproduction methods have the advantage of millennia of trial and error and human interaction. Of course there are a few cases where the naturally bred foods can have unexpected toxins, for example, but with genetically engineered foods, the capacity for side effects is staggering. At the US Food and Drug Administration, when the government was creating its policy on GMOs in the early 1990s, the scientists were very concerned. We now know from secret documents that were made public from a lawsuit that the overwhelming consensus within the agency was that GMOs were inherently dangerous, in that that could create hard-to-detect allergens, poisons, new diseases, and nutritional problems. The "technical experts" at the FDA agreed that GMOs carried unique risks, not shared with naturally produced foods.

Tragically, the White House had ordered the FDA to promote biotechnology, so they recruited Michael Taylor, Monsanto's former attorney, to be in charge of policy creation. That policy falsely claimed that the agency was not aware of any information showing that GMOs were significantly different. On the basis of that lie, they ignored their scientists' demands for long-term safety studies. Instead, the policy passed then and existing now says that companies like Monsanto - which have a long history of concealing the toxicity of their products - are in charge of determining if their GM foods are safe. The FDA does not require a single study, and doesn't even have to be informed by the companies that want to put GMOs on the market. After overseeing this Monsanto-friendly policy at the FDA, Michael Taylor worked on GMO issues at the US Department of Agriculture, and then became Monsanto's Vice President. The past summer, the Obama administration put him back into the FDA as the nation's Food Safety Czar.

Do you see any hope in this entire struggle?

I have great hope. If a sufficient number of shoppers in the US avoid GMO foods, consumer pushback will force our major food companies to stop using them, even if the government is still pushing for them. EU reached a consumer driven tipping point against GMOs in April 1999; within a single week, virtually all major manufacturers publicly committed to stop using GM ingredients in their European brands. Sadly, the same companies that carefully avoid adding GMO ingredients to products marketed to concerned consumers in EU are eager to sell GMO foods to unknowing consumers in the US and India. How many shoppers would have to reject brands that contain GMOs to reach this tipping point? Even 5% of shoppers, or 15 million Americans, would likely be more than enough...

Trouble on the plate

Vandana Shiva
The Financial Express [India], 25 October 2009:
http://www.financialexpress.com/news/trouble-on-the-plate/532814/

The Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) of the Ministry of Environment in India, the statutory body for biosafety regulation, approved the commercialisation of Bt brinjal [auberine] on October 14, 2009, in spite of its threat to independent science, public health, farmers' survival, the environment, and democracy. Members of the 'expert' panel that 'approved' the Bt brinjal for biosafety are themselves involved in research on Bt brinjal. This creates a major crisis for the integrity of science. Such conflict of interest has no place in any regulatory system, least of all in biosafety regulation which is intended to avoid harm to public health and the environment from genetically engineered organisms.

Genetically engineered (GE) Bt crops such as Bt cotton and Bt brinjal have a gene for producing Bt toxins from a soil bacteria bacillus thuringensis. Unscientific biosafety assessments rest on the false assumption of "substantial equivalence" which treats GE organisms as equal to the naturally occurring organism. This assumption is false because while the naturally occurring Bt in the soil organism is an endotoxin and needs to be processed in the gut of the caterpillar family, the transgene (or GE) Bt engineered into plants is a ready-made, active toxin. It is therefore toxic not just to the bollworm and other caterpillar pests, but to non-target species, including mammals and micro-organisms. Reports on animal deaths from Andhra Pradesh as a result of feeding on Bt cotton need to be studied in depth because what is killing animals is also a threat to humans.

Navdanya Research Foundation for Science, Technology, and Ecology undertook a survey to compare soils on which Bt cotton had been grown with those without Bt cotton soils. Beneficial soil organisms, such as bacteria that decompose biomass and enzymes that fix nitrogen had decreased by 20%. No such study has been done by Monsanto Mahyco, the company introducing Bt brinjal and cotton. While the Bt brinjal used a hybrid of two toxins, Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac, the tests done by the company used only Cry1Ac proteins. This is totally unscientific. Further the toxicity tests were restricted to only 90 days, which do not show long-term impacts, such as the risks of cancers and tumors. Bt brinjal contains 16-17 mg/kg of Bt insecticide. It is a recipe for feeding Indian citizens poison. Bt brinjal also has an antibiotic resistance marker which induces resistance to the antibiotic kanamycin. This could be a public disaster since it could increase antibiotic resistance.

Bt brinjal is based on the same toxin as the one used in Bt cotton. The only difference is that we eat brinjal, but not cotton (though Bt cotton seed has been blended with edible oils without traceability and labeling). We have seven years experience of commercial application and four years of field tests with Bt cotton. The socio-economic and ecological impact is there to see.

India used to have 1,500 cotton varieties. Now you can go to Vidharbha and find only Bt cotton (Bollgard) sold under names of different companies licensed by Monsanto. India is a centre of diversity of brinjal with thousands of varieties. Just as the Bt cotton displaced indigenous cotton varieties, Bt brinjal will displace indigenous brinjal varieties, leading to a severe loss of biodiversity. Since biodiversity is natures and farmers' capital, the replacement of local seeds with genetically engineered seeds patented by Monsanto-Mahyco will have serious socio-economic impact on farmers. Two lakh farmers have committed suicide in India in the last decade. Most of these suicides are concentrated in the Bt cotton areas. Vidharbha with the highest suicides (4,000 per year) also has the largest area under Bt cotton.

If small vegetable farmers become trapped in debt due to Bt brinjal just as cotton farmers became trapped in debt due to Bt cotton, the epidemic of farmer suicides will increase. How many millions of farmers does Monsanto-Mahyco want to push to suicide to harvest super profits?

Just on the ground of farmer suicides and indebtedness, GE crops should be banned in India. India is a land of small farmers. The only reason corporations are genetically engineered crops is because they can take patents and claim intellectual property rights to collect royalties from farmers. But the super profits of the companies are based on robbing the farmers of their incomes and their lives.

The 'expert' group has argued that Bt brinjal is "safe" because it provides an alternative to pesticides. This is a false argument for two reasons. Firstly, a toxic sprayed a few times from outside the plant is a lesser hazard than a toxic produced in the plant, all the time by every cell. Further, when pesticides are found to be hazardous they can be banned. However, a toxic GE plant released into the environment can never be recalled.

Secondly, the expert group totally ignores the real alternative to pesticides-organic farming. Navdanya produces organic vegetables, including diverse varieties of brinjal, without pesticides and toxins, and our farmers have no pest problems. Indian farmers and consumers need more organic farming-not toxic pesticides, nor toxic Bt brinjal.

The environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, has assured the country that Bt brinjal will not be commercialised in a rush on the basis of the GEAC approval. In January and February he is inviting inputs from all interested parties, both those for and those against GE crops. We welcome this democratic input. I would also call on the minister to make the basic assessment as an assessment between organic farming and GE. This assessment should include socio-economic aspects as well as ecological and public health dimensions. The introduction of Bt brinjal, the first GE food in the Indian diet, will open the floodgates to other GE foods that are under experimentation-okhra, cabbage, cauliflower, mustard, chick pea, potato, rice, amaranth, and many more. Our food decisions cannot be left to biased and compromised 'experts.' Food democracy demands that every citizen gets involved. It also demands that regulatory agencies are independent of commercial interests, and put the public interest above corporate interests and profits.

The writer is Director and founder of, Navdanya, a network of seed keepers and organic producers spread across 16 states in India. http://www.navdanya.org.

24 October 2009

Response to the FAO: How to Feed the World in 2050
• If the FAO is to Seriously Engage in this Effort it Must Get Rid of the Distraction of GM Crops

Aruna Rodrigues, 24 October 2009:
http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/10/response-to-the-fao-how-to-feed-the-world-in-2050/

In 1943 Sir Albert Howard, (Formerly Director of the Institute of Plant Industry Indore, and Agricultural Adviser to States in Central India and Rajputana), considered to be the grandfather of the modern organic farming movement, published 'An Agricultural Testament', which was based on his years of patient observations of traditional faming in India. "Instead of breaking up the subject into fragments, and studying agriculture in piecemeal fashion by the analytical method of science, appropriate only to the discovery of new facts, we must adopt a synthetic approach and look at the wheel of life as one great subject and not as if it were a patchwork of unrelated things."

Almost 70 years later, with the advent and adoption of GM crops succeeding the mislabelled 'Green Revolution', these words have returned to haunt us. "Today, as a consequence of technologies introduced by the green revolution, India loses six billion tons of topsoil every year. Ten million hectares of India's irrigated land is now waterlogged and saline. Pesticide poisoning has caused epidemics of cancers. Water tables are falling by twenty feet every year. The soil fertility and water resources that had been carefully managed for generations in the Punjab were wasted in a few short years of industrial abuses. If India's masses have avoided starvation, they have endured chronic and debilitating hunger and poverty".1 India exports food, but 200 million of mainly rural, women and children go to bed hungry (Global Hunger Index). The ongoing commercialisation of agriculture in India continues, with the US extracting many pounds of flesh through trade agreements like the Indo-US Knowledge Initiative in Agriculture and US AID and USDA investments in agricultural universities to bring Indian agriculture under the full sway of genetically modified crops controlled by Monsanto the 90% market leader. Monsanto is also on the Board of this 'Initiative' representing US interests, along with other agri giants.

Global hunger already at an unprecedented level is growing. Those who are the most hungry are the farmers who produce our food. The causes are mainly man-made attributable squarely to the free trade policies championed by the WTO, and manoeuvred through the chicanery of these processes to the detriment of the developing nations and backed by the IMF and the World Bank. The FAO contributes to this through its ambivalent stance, refusing to provide the kind of clarity that would encourage real solutions to the crises. Developing Countries have been forced to open up their markets to western agri-business giants and face a price war on cotton for example in India, because of huge US subsidies provided to American farmers exporting mainly GM cotton to India. We have the astonishing spectacle of poor Indian farmers not being able to compete with US farmers and they are committing suicide. It is called 'competitive advantage', which essentially means the Indian government is not able to protect our markets under the WTO policies, doesn't feel obliged to provide the right level of support prices and/or just can't compete with the magnitude of US government handouts to their farmers. Indian farmers are also GM cotton farmers facing higher input costs and of course, without the competitive advantage of their American counterparts. They also seem to have lost or have been deprived of the "more sophisticated agricultural wisdom that has served Indian farmers for centuries."1 (emphasis mine)

Corporations now own 98 per cent of patents in agriculture, own seed monopolies, and are extending their control of genetic stock (plant and livestock).2 Unless this trend is reversed, whole communities and countries will lose control over the production of their food and national food security. Fortunately, strongly echoing Sir Albert Howard, we have a new 'avatar' of him in the collective effort of 400 scientists, to champion our cause of how to produce enough to food to feed the world over the next 50 years.

The IAASTD

The UN International Assessment of Agricultural Science & Technology for Development sees no role for GM crops or Modern Biotechnology, in a road map for agriculture for the next 50 years. Authored by 400 and scientists and signed by 60 countries, including India, it took four years to complete. In its published conclusions in 2008, it states that there is no evidence that GM crops increase yield. Some biotech companies were so disgruntled by the report's lack of support that they pulled out of the entire process. The IAASTD makes it clear that the road map for agriculture for the next 50 years must be through localised solutions, combining scientific research with traditional knowledge in partnership with farmers and consumers. The report calls for a systematic redirection of investment, funding, research and policy focus toward these alternative technologies and the needs of small-farmers. Therefore, the IAASTD has clearly shown the international response to the WAY FORWARD which is sustainable agriculture that is biodiversity-based.

In his widely referenced report, 'Organic Agriculture is the Future', Doug Gurian Sherman of the Union of Concerned Scientists shows that organic farming systems round the world are often as productive as current industrial agriculture not only in developed countries, but more so in the developing world; that green and animal manures employed in organic agriculture can produce "enough fixed nitrogen to support high crop yields."

"These highly productive methods are needed to produce enough food without converting uncultivated land-such as forests that are important for biodiversity and slowing climate change-into crop fields. They build deep, rich soils that hold water, sequester carbon, and resist erosion. And they don't poison the air, drinking water, and fisheries with excess fertilizers and toxic pesticides. Some have dismissed the promise of these methods. Among these are State Department Science Advisor Nina Federoff, who in recent interviews characterized organic agriculture as some kind of retreat to a quaint past. She and others characterize organic farming and similar systems as inherently unproductive, sometimes suggesting that such methods are capable of supporting only about half the current world's population.

Federoff's view is at odds with the latest science, and represents a status quo kind of thinking. Today's dominant industrial U.S. agriculture relies on huge monocultures of a few major crops like corn and soybeans, and requires large inputs of fossil-fuel based synthetic chemicals to control pests and fertilize the crops. Such an agriculture churns out a lot of commodity crops (most of which are turned into meat and processed foods) while also contributing greatly to air and water pollution. Industrial agriculture is a major contributor of heat-trapping emissions and a major cause of so-called dead zones such as that in the Gulf of Mexico. And industrial agriculture is ultimately its own worst enemy, as it causes massive degradation of the very soil that is vital to farming itself. This kind of agriculture is unsustainable."

The MYTH of High Yields

GM Crops will neither feed India nor the world. After 20 years of research and 13 years of commercialisation, genetic engineering has not demonstrated sustainable benefits to farmers. 99% of GM crops, which have been commercialised, are either engineered (a) to contain the Bt gene, or (b) are herbicide tolerant (HT) GM crops as in Roundup Ready soybean. Neither of these is engineered for intrinsic yield gain. This is the plain science. The US Department's Agriculture's Review of 10 years of GM crop cultivation in the States, which has the longest history of GM crops, has concluded:

"Currently available GM crops do not increase the yield potential... In fact, yield may even decrease if the varieties used to carry the herbicide tolerant or insect-resistant genes are not the highest yielding cultivars... Perhaps the biggest issue raised by these results is how to explain the rapid adoption of GE crops when farm financial impacts appear to be mixed or even negative."

'Failure to Yield' released by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) considers the technology's potential to increase food production over the next few decades.

"The intrinsic yields of corn and soybeans did rise during the twentieth century, but not as a result of GE traits. Rather, they were due to successes in traditional breeding... Cutting through the rhetoric, overall pesticide use (herbicides, insecticides and fungicides) has not been reduced through GE... recent U.S. data suggest that herbicide use in GE crops is now significantly higher than it was prior to their introduction. Weeds that have developed resistance to the herbicide used with GE crops now infest several million acres, forcing greater herbicide use. Insect-resistant GE crops have reduced overall insecticide use somewhat, but on balance GE crops have not reduced our dependence on pesticides... It makes little sense to support genetic engineering at the expense of technologies that have proven to substantially increase yields, especially in developing countries... these include modern, conventional plant breeding methods, sustainable and organic farming and other sophisticated farming practices that do not require farmers to pay significant upfront costs..." (emphasis mine)

Agriculture that is Biodiversity-based: The Irrelevance of GE Crops

These reports bring us full circle to the evidence provided by Howard 70 years ago, as well as to the agricultural science and wisdom of Indian farming practices, which find their counterpoint in the wisdom of farmers in all traditional cultures and which scientists like Gurian-Sherman and of the IAASTD describe as "sophisticated."

Our health and nutrition are tied in with seed quality, variety and abundance. In over 10,000 years of agriculture, farmers have selected seed, exchanged seed, preserved biodiversity and delivered safe crops. It is noteworthy and a tribute to their acumen that over the past many centuries, not a single plant has been added to the list of major domesticated crops. On the other hand, with GM crops we cannot make an "outcome prediction of the type that can be made when crossing two strains such as wheat that have been safely eaten for two thousand years."3 In the span of 12 short years of GM crops, we are faced with major problems of safety and testing and billions of dollars are being spent in damage control and clean-up operations. GM is also drawing a disproportionate quantum of investment in research despite its weak performance to date. Instead, these billions of dollars of public money should be invested in now proven, modern alternative agricultural technologies.

* The urgent question that must be asked is how much more of our scarce research dollars will be diverted to this controversial and unproven technology?

The health and ecological risks of GM crops are well documented in the scientific literature. Now, the research on their contribution to CC (Climate Change) is gathering momentum. The new report published by GRAIN4 on the 7th Oct '09, shows that agriculture has a pivotal role in sequestering carbon, and that it is small farmers that hold the key to 'cooling the world'. The evidence highlights the fact that the global industrial food system is the most important "single factor behind global warming, responsible for almost half of the world's greenhouse gas emissions" and that its role in the climate crisis has been seriously underestimated. Soils contain enormous amounts of organic matter and therefore, carbon. Calculations in the report show that the organic matter that has been lost over the past decades can be gradually rebuilt, if policy is oriented to agriculture in the hands of small farmers and their ability through alternative farming practices to restoring soil fertility. "In 50 years the soils could capture about 450 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, which is more than two thirds of the current excess in the atmosphere", a huge contribution to resolving CC. "The evidence is irrefutable. If we can change the way we farm and the way we produce and distribute food, then we have a powerful solution for combating the climate crisis. There are no technical hurdles to achieving these results, it is only a matter of political will."5

On the other hand, with GM crops we face a dangerous pincer attack that we must demolish if we are to survive and thrive: (a) on the one hand, the massive disinformation that GM crops will feed the world including India through mythical high yields and without harm, is reminiscent of the 30 years of disinformation that surrounded Climate Change. The IPCC Report (with Pachauri as Chairman) though almost too late, was nevertheless required to change those perceptions and get consensus across borders on urgent climate mitigation solutions. Fortunately for the world, the International solutions for agriculture proposed by the IAASTD Report and the evidence for the potential contribution of agriculture in the carbon sequestering solutions of organic farming and the role of small farmers, are TIMELY. We must heed these; and (b) on the other hand, a comprehensive deregulation of the kind that led to the melt down of global financial markets. The clear evidence is that the US has similarly shown the way to a dangerous and unscientific deregulation of GM crops first in the US and that role-model is being pushed in India and other developing countries.

The FAO must take note of the sanity of these road maps for urgent change, and the great irrelevance of GM crops, which are seriously and it must be said, dangerously hindering that vital focus and redirection of resources that are required in agriculture. If the FAO will lead this process for change, then it must encourage and broker that change without ambivalence, and support national and sovereign governments in India and the developing world in these solutions, no matter what pressures a 'misguided' US policy may impose on all parties.

On the 'hope' that the IAASTD generates:

While here I stand, not only with the sense
Of present pleasure, but with pleasing thoughts
That in this moment there is life and food
For future years.

– William Wordsworth, Tintern Abbey

Lawyer: 'Bellwether' Lawsuit Over Tainted Rice Set

Rob Moritz
NWA Online / Morning News [USA]:
http://www.nwaonline.net/articles/2009/10/24/news/102509lrricelawsuit.txt

LITTLE ROCK - Rice farmers in Arkansas and a number of other states have claimed since 2006 that their crops were contaminated by a genetically modified strain of rice produced by Bayer Cropscience.

Hundreds of lawsuits have been filed across the country, including one in federal court in Little Rock involving nearly 1,500 rice farmers from Arkansas and 11 other states.

Because the lawsuits claim basically the same thing, most have been transferred to federal court in St. Louis for multi-district litigation and next month the first case, filed by about 1,000 Missouri farmers, goes to trial.

Don McKenna, an Alabama lawyer who represents the nearly 1,500 farmers in the Little Rock case, said last week the future of all the lawsuits hinges on what happens next month in a St. Louis federal courtroom.

"The judge is calling this a bellwether case," McKenna said. "The judge said, 'Let's take the temperature on what a jury is going to do with these things and depending on the verdict you could always have settlement negotiations or you could try a few more.'"

The trial, before U.S. District Judge Catherine Perry, begins Nov. 2.

"I'm sure all the rice farmers are watching it," said Jerry Hoskyn of Stuttgart, past chairman of the Arkansas Rice Research and Promotion Board. "There's no doubt that it hurt our market and we're still struggling trying to get through it."

Greg Yielding, executive director of the Arkansas Rice Growers Association, estimated the economic loss to the rice industry nationally at more than $1 billion, half of that in Arkansas.

The crux of the lawsuit, and the others filed in recent years, is that Bayer Cropscience, a German conglomerate, found traces of a genetically engineered strain of rice in a shipment of Riceland Foods Inc. long-grain rice in 2006, but farmers were not informed of the discovery for several months.

After the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced in August 2006 that trace amounts of the genetically modified rice had been discovered, Japan suspended imports of U.S. long grain rice, which caused prices to plummet. The European Union also began only accepting U.S. long grain rice that had been specially inspected to be free of genetically modified material.

"For three days the markets dropped," Yielding said. "It was a huge loss."

McKenna said Arkansas produces more long-grain rice than any other state and that more than 20 percent of the long-grain rice produced in the U.S. had been exported to Europe.

Since the scare, Europe has stopped importing U.S. long-grain rice and now gets all of its rice from Thailand.

"Thailand has filled that market and the U.S. has lost it," McKenna said.

"We lost the European Union business and we still have not regained that business," added Yielding.

"This did affect the farmers and it affected the seed dealers eventually," he said. "People that grow rice for seed had to take that rice and sell it just for regular rice at a depressed price. There wasn't anything wrong with the rice, it was just a market thing, the Europeans didn't want it. That's what caused us to lose the market and it's also what caused (the price of rice) to get so cheap."

McKenna also is attorney for 14 farmers who have filed a similar lawsuit against Bayer Cropscience in Lonoke County Circuit Court

. The trial is set for March 15. Greg Coffey, spokesman for Bayer Cropscience in Research Triangle Park, N.C., did not immediately return a call seeking comment Friday.

GM crops no panacea for food security: US scientist

By Shahid Husain
The News International [Pakistan], October 24 2009:
http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=204745

KARACHI: Senior US scientist Dr Michael Hansen has said genetically modified crops are not the panacea for food security. Rather, the answer to food security lies with small-scale, ecologically rational, sustainable agriculture that focuses on local food systems.

"If you look carefully at global data, the most engineered crop is soybean. Ninety per cent of US acreage, 98 per cent of Argentina acreage and 60 per cent of Brazil are engineered," he said.

"Scientific data show that on an average Roundup soybean has 10 per cent lower yield than non-engineered soybean. So if you want to feed more people, genetically-engineered soybean will not be the answer," he said.

In an exclusive interview with The News recently, Dr Hansen, who is associated with the Consumers Union (USA), a non-profit publisher of consumer reports, said: "There is a global agreement under the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTDI) and it basically answers the question what kind of agriculture will be most useful in feeding the poor of the world. This four-year assessment, involving 400 scientists, concluded that 'business as usual is not acceptable.' They say the answer is not high technology such as genetic engineering or nano technology; rather the answer lies with small scale, ecologically rational agriculture that focuses on local food systems, reforms of trade laws and enabling policy environment and paying attention to gender issues."

Asked to comment on giant US multinational Monsanto's claim that Bt cotton requires less water and is pest free, he said: "It's wrong! In 2002, Bt cotton smuggled from Australia was planted in Sindh. A detailed survey of 138 farmers in four districts reporting growing Bt cotton on 4,249 hectares showed that local cotton variety non-engineered NIAB-78 received six irrigations while Bt cotton received 11 to 12 irrigations which resulted in increased cost of 1,750 rupees per acre. That clearly shows that Bt cotton uses more water.

"Similarly, in 2002, farmers were surveyed in five districts in Punjab. There the cost in terms of rupee per acre for water was Rs2,600 for Bt cotton and Rs2,100 for non-Bt cotton. Bt cotton used 25 per cent more water in Punjab than non-Bt cotton and almost 100 per cent more water in Sindh."

Asked to what extent the apprehension was true that with the introduction of Bt cotton and other genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) seed business in Pakistan is likely to be monopolised, he said: "The answer is yes."

Citing a report of the US Department of Agriculture and the Pakistan Annual Cotton Report released in May 2009, he said Monsanto has gained approval for a plan to introduce advanced genetically-modified crop technology and hybrid technology in Pakistan.

"Approval was granted by the Economic Coordination Committee of the Cabinet. In exchange, Monsanto would bring advanced genetically-modified hybrid seed technology to Pakistan.

The government has promised a law called the Plant Breeders Rights and Seeds Act and they will vigorously enforce that law. Such a law will effectively give Monsanto monopoly control over the seed industry in Pakistan since Monsanto is the largest seed company in this country."

Asked to what extent the claim that GMOs are drought-resistant is true, he said: "While it is true that transnational chemical corporations such as BASF and Monsanto are taking out patents on 'climate ready genes' such as genes from drought tolerance, heat tolerance and flood tolerance, Monsanto's field test of drought tolerant corn and drought tolerant maize shows that under drought conditions, the drought-tolerant maize has higher yields. However, under normal conditions, maize has less yield than conventional seeds.

Then there are also other problems with tolerant crops: work with drought-tolerant wheat shows the same results. Increased yields under drought but lower yields when there is normal rainfall."

He said in the meantime, in the last 10 years the International Centre for Improvement of Maize and Wheat (CIMMYT) has released 50 variations of either hybrid or open pollinated maize varieties. So that means that genetically-engineered hybrid has not produced any useful drought-tolerant wheat varieties while conventional breeding has produced them.

"It makes more sense to go with the conventional technology such as traditional plant breeding that has already shown results in this area while genetically-modified technology has produced no useful results," he said.

23 October 2009

American Antitrust Institute Says Competition in the Transgenic Seed Industry is Impaired by Monsanto

American Antitrust Institute, 23 October 2009:
http://www.antitrustinstitute.org/Archives/seed.ashx

In a White Paper published today, the American Antitrust Institute analyzes the dismal state of competition in the transgenic seed industry. The analysis concludes that agricultural biotechnology giant Monsanto possesses the market power to frustrate competition in soybeans, cotton, and corn, potentially slowing innovation and adversely affecting prices, quality, and choices for farmers and ultimate consumers of vitally important commodities. Download the White Paper here: http://www.antitrustinstitute.org/archives/files/AAI_Platforms%20and%20Transgenic%20Seed_102320091053.pdf

"Transgenic Seed Platforms: Competition Between a Rock and a Hard Place," concludes that antitrust enforcement and/or federal legislative relief is needed. The paper follows recent reports that the U.S. Department of Justice is investigating the transgenic seed industry. AAI Director and Vice President Diana Moss, the author, concludes that an antitrust investigation should focus on complex seed "platforms" comprised of innovation, genetic traits, and seed markets. Control of patented agricultural biotechnology and distribution channels for transgenic seed are critical access issues that adversely affect competition.

The White Paper notes that patent law and antitrust law are at loggerheads in the transgenic seed industry and that restoring competition will necessitate a resolution to the tension. Antitrust intervention will also require careful and creative thinking about remedies in an industry that is so dominated by a single firm--Monsanto. Moss explained that because the transgenic seed industry is global in scope, antitrust authorities in foreign jurisdictions, especially the European Union, will likely watch developments in the U.S. with care.

Moss recently discussed competitive problems in the transgenic seed industry at the Organization for Competitive Markets conference in St. Louis. Download the presentation here: http://www.antitrustinstitute.org/archives/files/OCM_Moss_August%2009_081120090802.pdf

AAI Says Monsanto Hurts Competition In Seed Industry

Law 360, 23 October 2009:
http://competition.law360.com/registrations/user_registration?article_id=130093&concurrency_check=false

[Subscription required for full article]

New York -- Antitrust investigators and federal legislators should turn their sights on the market dominance of seed giant Monsanto Co., the American Antitrust Institute said in a report released Friday.

Monsanto, which has risen to dominate the agricultural industry through its sales of genetically modified seed, is involved in some three-quarters of agricultural biotechnology litigation, a "disproportionate share" of legal...

For-Profit Seeds Hurting Farmers, Biodiversity

Haider Rizvi
Inter-Press Service, 23 October 2009:
http://www.australia.to/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=15441:development-for-profit-seeds-hurting-farmers-biodiversity&catid=116:breaking-news&Itemid=298

UNITED NATIONS - Large biotechnology firms are not only depriving poor farmers of inputs essential for their livelihoods, but are also pushing up food prices, according to a new U.N. report.

"Excessive protection of intellectual property rights in agriculture is an obstacle rather than an incentive for innovation," says Olivier De Schutter, the U.N. special rapporteur on the right to food, who authored the report released Tuesday.

In "Seed Policies and the Right to Food", presented to the General Assembly body tasked with discussing human rights issues, De Schutter pointed out that the world's proprietary seed trade is dominated by a mere 10 companies.

There are currently two ways for farmers to access seeds - storing them from one year to the next and exchanging them locally, or depending on commercial systems that market "improved seeds" certified by regulatory authorities.

The traditional seed system, according to the report, is rapidly deteriorating due to neglect of agricultural policies. The commercial system, on the other hand, is flourishing as a result of globalisation and the strengthening of intellectual property laws by institutions like the World Trade Organisation.

"This trend must be reversed," said De Schutter, adding, "We need both systems for a successful approach to food security and climate change. Indeed, each of these systems has specific function to fulfill, and each corresponds to different needs."

The 22-page report suggests that improved certified varieties of seeds can produce high yields and may present certain desirable traits. However, it also recommends that farmers' local seed systems be encouraged.

"The vast majority of farmers still depend on these systems," said De Schutter. "When you combine the experience of small farmers š who know their fields and their needs š with the best of what science can offer, tremendous progress can be made."

The report warns that overuse of commercial seeds could lead to further loss of biodiversity. Citing numerous studies, it says the world has already lost about 75 percent of plant genetic diversity due to the weakening of traditional seed systems.

In addition to their adverse impact on agro-biodiversity, the problem with genetically modified seeds is that they are very expensive. Research shows that in poor countries, many small farmers become hostage to debt.

De Schutter said small farmers need greater legal protections from governments, adding that otherwise the current situation would lead to "a serious threat" to food security.

"The intellectual property regime is not working for poor farmers in the developing world," he said.

Calling for an end to the global trade imbalance, he noted that rich countries of the North still play a dominant role in shaping policies while many developing countries remain marginalised despite their hefty contribution to agricultural production.

"Ninety-seven percent of patents are owned by the companies of the North," he said.

"We see vertical concentration, which is a very serious threat," De Schutter told IPS. "Countries should re-examine their seed regulations. They should set up local seed banks."

The top 10 seed companies account for 67 percent of the global propriety seed market. The world's largest seed company, Monsanto, alone accounts for 23 percent. Monsanto, Syngenta and DuPont combined control 47 percent.

De Schutter's report was welcomed by independent researchers who have been calling for bringing the intellectual property rights regime of the World Trade Organisation in line with the U.N. treaty on biodiversity.

That 1992 treaty ensures the conservation of biodiversity and "the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources".

"There is a lot involved in it," said Eric Holt-Gimenez, executive director of Food First, a U.S.-based policy think tank. "Monsanto and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation are promoting biotechnology. It increases production for a while. But it doesn't solve the problem."

Last month, Holt-Gimenez and colleagues released a study entitled, "Challenging industrial agriculture and the Green Revolution," in which they arrived at, more or less, at the same conclusions as those in the latest U.N. report.

The study suggests that hunger is linked more to the distribution of food rather than farmers' capacity to produce, an argument that De Schutter also shared with the U.N. press corps and delegates at the General Assembly's third committee.

The Gates Foundation has embarked on an effort to transform African agriculture. It helped establish the so-called Alliance for Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) in 2006, and since then has spent more than one billion dollars on grants.

In Holt-Gimenez's view, however, this strategy isn't going to work because it is modeled on the 1960s model of agricultural development which doesn't take into account local concerns and choices for crop production.

"In a number of grants, for instance, one corporation appears repeatedly - Monsanto," he wrote in the study, noting that "both corporations [Gates's Microsoft and Monsanto] have made millions through technology and aggressive defense of proprietary intellectual property."

The Food First study noted that Robert Horsch, a former senior vice president at Monsanto, is now interim director of Gates's agricultural development programme.

Protected by the intellectual property rights regime, Monsanto and other biotech companies spend billions of dollars on research and development, yet very little of that research ends up benefiting poor farmers in developing countries, critics say.

"There is too much emphasis on developing plants, genes and seeds, and too little on harvesting technologies, water technologies, agro-forestry, and agro-ecological techniques that can raise yields without involving the use of high technologies," de Schutter told delegates.

"Farmers can make a good living" under the right conditions, he said, adding that "this issue should be placed high" on the agenda of the food security meeting due next month.

Eight-stack corn added to biotech endorsement

Illinois Farm Bureau [USA], 23 October 2009:
http://www.ilfb.org/viewdocument.asp?did=17599

The federal crop insurance biotechnology endorsement (BE) has grown from a recognition of GMO yield improvements to a crucial element in biotech corn marketing, according to a University of Illinois risk management specialist.

For 2010, USDA's Risk Management Agency (RMA) is expanding the pilot premium discount endorsement to growers who plant corn hybrids including Monsanto/Dow AgroSciences' new eight-trait SmartStax technology. SmartStax includes GMO traits for weed and above- and below-ground insect pests.

BE, launched in 2008, covers non-irrigated corn acres planted to qualified multiple-trait "stacked" varieties. Producers must plant a minimum 75 percent qualifying stacked hybrids on each insured unit.

For additional information on this story and other breaking news, go to FarmWeekNow.com.

---

Comment from GM-free Ireland:

This hidden subsidy for GM crops is anti-competitive, trade-distorting, and surely in breach of WTO rules!

Ethical food purchases set to rise

Caroline Scott-Thomas Food Navigator, 23 October 2009:
http://www.foodnavigator.com/Financial-Industry/Ethical-food-purchases-set-to-rise/?c=4UZvOL3vyw3lp3mNgzPfxg%3D%3D&utm_source=newsletter_daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Newsletter%2BDaily

UK consumers are likely to become more interested in purchasing ethically produced foods as the country emerges from recession, according to research from IGD.

Although consumers have become more price sensitive in the tough economic environment, the recession has not suppressed consumers' appetite for ethically produced products, such as Fairtrade, free-range, and locally sourced foods. Looking forward to 2012, the latest survey from market research organization IGD showed that consumers intend to increase spending on locally and regionally sourced foods in particular, with 37 per cent saying they expect to be spending more on local foods in three years' time.

Thirty-four per cent said they intend to increase spending on foods that boast high animal welfare standards, like free range or Freedom Food, and 31 per cent said they would spend more on Fairtrade products.

Although consumers are interested in purchasing more food on the basis of ethical values, more than half (54 percent) said they would be more careful with their money in the future, irrespective of economic recovery.

However chief executive of IGD Joanne Denney-Finch said that being more careful is not about trading down.

"Almost half expect to enjoy a better quality of food by 2012, with only seven percent expecting it to be worse," she said. "...It's a challenge for the food industry but also a big opportunity."

The survey consisted of 1,091 face-to-face interviews that took place in August 2009.

In an earlier survey from IGD, conducted in April and May this year, 52 per cent of respondents said they feel pay and conditions of people producing grocery goods in poorer countries is an important consideration when shopping.

According to the Fairtrade Foundation, the UK fair trade market was worth £712.6m in 2008 and it expects more growth even in the difficult climate of 2009.

22 October 2009

Trade with Canada:
European Consumers Warned that Trade Deal with Canada could be used to Weaken GMO Regulations

Press release from
Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN)
Friends of the Earth Europe
Council of Canadians
22 October 2009:
http://www.cban.ca/Press/Press-Releases/Trade-with-Canada

Ottawa - An alliance of Canadian groups is warning European consumers that an economic partnership agreement with Canada could threaten Europe's regulations of genetically modified (GM) foods and crops. The Canadian groups, under the umbrella of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, are highlighting dangers if the European Union gives in to the biotech industry by recognizing Canada's substantially weaker GM regulations.

"Canada-EU trade negotiations have started at the very time that European companies are pulling products off the shelves because of illegal GM flax contamination from Canada," said Lucy Sharratt, Coordinator of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network.

On Monday, week-long negotiations began in Ottawa towards an EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA). Negotiations will continue over the next 12 months with the goal of a deal by 2011.

"European consumers should know that Canadian regulations of GM foods and crops are not to be trusted. There are irreconcilable differences between Canadian and EU regulation of GMOs," said Sharratt. "This summer alone, Canada has managed to contaminate Europe's food with an illegal GM flax as well as authorize Monsanto's new eight-trait GM corn called 'SmartStax' in a way that does not meet European regulations or even UN food safety guidelines."

"Canada approves GM crops and foods regardless of export market realities. Rather than preventing GM contamination, Canada is using GM contamination to try to force open European regulations," said Sharratt. "The Canadian government's acceptance of GM contamination means that Canadian farmers are loosing money and export markets." Other major GM producing countries such as Argentina and Brazil check export market requirements as part of their GMO authorization process.

"Recent statements show that the EU's Agriculture chief, Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel, is on a personal crusade to weaken EU GM rules for no good reason," said Helen Holder from Friends of the Earth Europe, "She and her other colleagues at the Commission should instead be supporting European farmers and food producers to access uncontaminated products. Europe has a responsibility here to insist that the Canadian government strengthen its strategy against illegal contamination."

24 EU countries have reported contamination from a Canadian GM flax that is not approved for eating or growing in Europe and that has actually been illegal to sell as seed in Canada since 2001. Opposition to GM food and crops remains high in the EU. Six member countries have banned the only GM crop approved for growing in Europe and just this month Ireland declared itself a "GM-Free Zone". Canada will almost certainly pressure the EC to force Member States to weaken Europe's GMO laws.

Canadian companies, including subsidiaries of US multinationals such as Monsanto, would like Europe and Canada to mutually recognize each other's national standards and regulations rather than each jurisdiction harmonizing upwards to stricter rules. This position was outlined by the Canada Europe Roundtable for Business in March 2009.

"The Canada-EU trade negotiations are designed to pick up where the WTO has stalled, in removing EU state-level policies that protect health and safety but interfere with trade flows, including food and agriculture," said Stuart Trew, trade campaigner with the Council of Canadians, Canada's largest grassroots advocacy organization. "Canadians are fighting for stronger regulations and we don't want to be locked into a bilateral agreement that dictates our regulations either. These negotiations are all about facilitating business and this is not the proper forum for addressing food safety policy."

For more information: Lucy Sharratt, Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, 613 241 2267 ext. 6 or cell 613 263 9511;

Helen Holder, Friends of the Earth Europe, + 32 4 74 857 638;

Stuart Trew, Council of Canadians, 416 979 0451.

Lucy Sharratt, Coordinator
Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN)
Collaborative Campaigning for Food Sovereignty and Environmental Justice
431 Gilmour Street, Second Floor
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K2P 0R5
Phone: 613 241 2267 ext.6
Fax: 613 241 2506
coordinator@cban.ca
http://www.cban.ca

Join the Global Rejection of GE Wheat! http://www.cban.ca/GEwheat

Donate today to support the campaign http://www.cban.ca/donate

21 October 2009

GM food can cause cancer

Down to Earth [India], 21 October 2009:
http://downtoearth.org.in/full6.asp?foldername=20091031&filename=inv&sec_id=14&sid=1

French scientist Gilles-Eric Seralini unmasked the dangers of genetically modified brinjal, almost approved for commercial production in India. He shared with Savvy Soumya Misra his findings on Bt brinjal [aubergine] and Roundup Ready soybean

On the data submitted on Bt brinjal by Mahyco for approval from the Indian government

The data submitted to the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (geac) of the [India] Union environment ministry is not valid; it has not been signed by the scientist who conducted the tests. What is more scandalous is that the studies on the effects of Bt brinjal were conducted for just three months.

If the product is to be consumed by humans, the tests should have been for a period of at least two years-the lifespan of a rodent.

Worse, [Monsanto subsidiary] Mahyco tried to cover up the side-effects by jumbling data on various types of brinjal in a way that it was hard to compare Bt brinjal with normal brinjal. I am sorry to say people in the geac did not carefully assess the data. It is also not clear how the geac overlooked the fact that Bt brinjal has a protein that induces resistance to antibiotics. Mahyco has not studied hormonal impacts of Bt brinjal-Bt toxin found in it could lead to reproductive health problems.

On his findings on Roundup Ready soybean that tolerates herbicides

Our study found that even minute doses of Roundup (a natural herbicide) disrupt sex hormones like androgen and estrogen. The inert ingredients in Roundup Ready (RR) soybean like polyethoxylated tallowamine kill human cells and disrupt the synthesis and action of human sex hormones. The research was published in this year's July edition of the journal Toxicology. Some pregnant women who consumed RR soybean developed disorders. This combined with certain studies on animals in labs (conducted by others) made us conclude that Roundup is an endocrine disruptor.

On claims that GM plants reduce the need for pesticides

This is a false projection. Bt plants, in fact, are designed to produce toxins to repel pests. Bt brinjal produces a very high quantity of 16-17mg toxin per kg. They affect animals. Unfortunately, tests to ascertain their effect on humans have not been conducted. RR soybean that makes up 63 per cent of GM plants in the world contains high amounts of Roundup. The US food and drug administration (usfda) has allowed up to 400 ppm Roundup residues in animal feed. It is much more than what we recommended. There was a paper published in June in Scientific American saying usfda would review the approval accorded to RR soybean because of our study.

On other tests that were needed

Apart from increasing the period of trial, tests should be conducted to ascertain the effect of such food on hormones. For studies on health impact, the quantity of GM crop in the diet given to rodents should be specified. The tests should be conducted on a higher number of animals.

On the health impact of herbicide-tolerant crops like RR soybean

Toxins in GM plants can cause cancer, hormonal and reproductive problems and disorders of the nervous system. These chronic diseases are exploding all over the world and to our knowledge bacteria or viruses are not causing them. They may be due to chemicals contained in food. So, we definitely do not need food full of synthetic chemicals.

On the effect on bees and butterflies

GM food will affect pollinators. The genetic pollution that artificial foods will usher will multiply many times over with passing time. The whole ecosystem will get polluted as all GM plants either contain or produce toxins.

On GM feed reaching humans through cattle and swine

Animals fed on GM food may have immunological defects and other problems that can affect humans who consume their meat. These animals should be labelled; Europe is preparing to label animals fed on GM crops. Labelling is important to trace the origin of animal products so that they can be recalled, if necessary.

On Monsanto, the biotech giant that licensed Mahyco to develop Bt brinjal, criticizing your study on its blog

The Monsanto blog said my choice of cells for the study was not biological but political. This argument is void. The blog said we used high concentration of Roundup residue. This is incorrect. We tested different Roundup formulations on fresh placenta, embryonic cells, umbilical cord cells and hepatic cell lines. Even when the formulations were diluted almost 100,000 times, the cells were destroyed. The actual concentration in GM food and feed is much higher than what we tested. Consuming it can even lead to defects in newborns.

Risk Reloaded:
• Risk analysis of genetically engineered plants within the European Union

Download: http://bit.ly/49mSxC

A report by Testbiotech e.V.
Institute for Independent Impact Assessment in Biotechnology www.testbiotech.org
October 2009
Christoph Then, Christof Potthof
Editing: Andrea Reiche

---

Comment by Brian John of GM Free Cymru (Wales, UK):

This is a hugely important report by Christoph Then and Christof Potthof. Very well-informed and thoroughly researched and referenced. It gives EFSA a real going-over, for its assumptions of GM safety, its inadequate terms of reference, its defective science, its acceptance of poor or fraudulent submissions and experimental reports from GM applicants, and its strong bias towards the GM industry -- as a result of all of which it places the people of Europe at risk. This should be required reading for all MEPs and the members of supposedly independent advisory and regulatory bodies like ACRE and ACNFP -- and for NGOs and consumer groups it gives a lucid and somewhat chilling insight into EFSA's corrupt working methods.

Finally, in response to those who claim that genetic modification is a high-tech and sophisticated business conducted by scientists who actually know what they are doing, one can do worse than quote this, from Monsanto: "Nonetheless, the frequency of success of enhancing the transgenic plant is low due to a number of factors including the low predictability of the effects of a specific gene on the plant's growth, development and environmental response, the low frequency of maize transformation, the lack of highly predictable control of the gene once introduced into the genome, and other undesirable effects of the transformation event and tissue culture process."

Please read the Report.

Press conference by Special Rapporteur on right to food

Relief Web (source United Nations Department of Public Information), 21 October 2009:
http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900SID/MUMA-7X33KR?OpenDocument

Speaking to reporters at Headquarters today, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to food warned that increasing dependency on commercial seed varieties monopolized by a few very powerful multi-national companies could severely impact small farmers in developing countries.

Olivier de Schutter raised his concerns about increased monopolization of seeds through patents, as well as about declining bio-diversity, speculation in commodity markets, and the ongoing fallout from the global food crisis during a press conference on his report to the General Assembly (A/64/170), which he would introduce to the Third Committee (Social Humanitarian Cultural) later in the day.

He said that as a result of the global food crisis, Governments had invested massively in agriculture and had sought to provide farmers with the means to produce food. A challenge was the impact of intellectual property rights on seed systems and the policies States should adopt to provide access for farmers to the seeds they needed.

In many developing countries, two seed systems existed: a commercial seed system of improved varieties that could be catalogued and certified by Governments; and the traditional seed systems emerging from farmers exchanging seeds on informal markets. Commercial seed systems were threatening the balance between the two, as traditional seeds could not be catalogued and certified.

Emphasizing that commercial seed varieties could be extremely useful as they improved yields and nutritional values, and were disease resistant, he said that, at the same time, they could increase farmers' dependency on those seeds and threaten their income. The top-ten agricultural companies -- all based in the North -- controlled 67 per cent of the global proprietary seed market.

The commercial seed system might also be a threat to agro-biodiversity, Mr. de Schutter warned, noting that today, there were barely 150 cultivated crops. Genetic erosion was a source of vulnerability and agro-biodiversity could be a source of resilience against the impacts of climate change.

Intellectual property rights had been strengthened significantly over the years, contributing to the risk of farmers' dependency. He therefore advocated that Governments should choose intellectual property suited to development needs instead of giving in to incentives. He also urged adopting compliance legislation going beyond the minimum requirements of the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) agreement. Intellectual property rights might also be an obstacle to further research, even though it was defended as a way for innovation. Research must use pre-existing genetic resources, which were more and more difficult to obtain.

Moreover, he said research in breeding rewarded by intellectual property rights was mostly addressing the needs of rich farmers in developed countries. It neglected tropical crops on which many people were dependent. Because most seed companies were situated in the North, intellectual property rights resulted in resource transfers from the South to the North and from food producers to the owners of the patents.

He recommended that States do more to implement the farmers' rights under Article 9 of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, which would provide for protection of traditional resources and for farmers' participation in decision-making processes on legislation on intellectual property. He further recommended that States provide funds necessary to support the flourishing of farmers' seed systems. States should also re-examine their seed regulations in order to make them more hospitable to traditional farmers' rights. They should also develop local seed exchanges. Research should involve farmers at all stages.

Answering a correspondent's question, he said the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) had indeed called for a 70 per cent increase in food production by 2050 in order to meet increasing demands. The debate was open on how and by whom that increase should be achieved. The promises of scientific developments in that regard had been unfulfilled. The huge potential in training farmers in agro-ecological techniques such as water-harvesting, agro-forestry, inter-cropping and the use of nitrogen-fixing plants had not been used. Although those techniques were labour intensive, they had the potential for hugely increasing productivity.

The vast majority of patents were retained by northern-based companies such as Monsanto, he answered to another question, and their oligarchic structure was worrisome, as it increased farmers' dependency. Those companies, moreover, had no choice but to expand. Legislation to address the issue was taken at the national, rather than global level. Antitrust legislation should be strengthened, also at the regional and international levels. Progress had been made, however, in research done in the South-by- South-based institutions, which usually was cheaper.

Although the United Nations had no position on the debate about organic versus genetic-based farming, a United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) report indicated that agro-ecology could significantly improve yields in a sustainable matter, he said. His concern about intellectual property rights-based agriculture was that no investments were made in other means of food production.

It was in principle a good thing that after thirty years, the private sector was again investing in agriculture as a potential source of profit, he continued. There was, however, no real debate about the ownership of agricultural policies and the risk that national policies would not be taken into account when the direction of research and investments was guided by private interests. Governments should not develop policies dictated by the private sector.

Financial speculation in the commodity market was a major problem that had not been addressed, he said in response to a question. Although he had submitted proposals to the Human Rights Council in that regard, nothing had been done. States should re-establish food reserves they had abandoned during the nineties, which could be done at the national and regional levels.

Asked about funding for implementation of his recommendations, he said significant amounts had been pledged over the past months. The recent Group of Eight (G-8) meeting in Pittsburgh had pledged to invest $20 billion over three years to support agriculture in developing countries. The question was however, to do what, and for whom. It was important to move away from the idea that the right to food was about people being fed to the idea that the right to food was about the ability to produce.

He urged that the money pledged by the G-8 would be used in a way that strengthened and increased the incomes of small farmers in developing countries, whose needs were not necessarily the same as those of the large producers with access to global markets. There productivity could be significantly improved with not very significant investments.

Turning to another question, Mr. de Schutter said that some progress had been made on regulating the transnational buying of farms, and that the World Bank and the FAO were addressing the issue. A number of Governments now believed it was necessary to develop an international framework on that issue. The deeds often unfairly favoured investors and the rights of local and indigenous people were often not protected. Later this year, there would be a regional meeting where Governments of the region would try to share good practices in that area. West Africa could become a laboratory on the issue, he added.

For information media • not an official record

Finnish Chefs Urge Ban on GM-Foods

Yle.fi, 21 October 2009:
http://yle.fi/uutiset/news/2009/10/finnish_chefs_urge_ban_on_gm-foods_1099803.html?origin=rss

A group of Finnish chefs, including television celebrities, have signed a petition urging the government to ban the import and sale of genetically-manipulated foods. They feel that allowing GM-foods into the natural food chain destroys the safe and natural production of food.

Chefs Hans Välimäki, Kai Kallio, and Jaakko Nuutila delivered the petition to Finance Minister Jyrki Katainen on Wednesday.

This autumn, the government is set to debate a bill which would allow the import and production of GM foods and crops in Finland.

"It's also important to guarantee that consumers can identify genetically modified foods and animal products that have used genetically modified feed," says the petition.

Bill Gates reveals support for GMO ag

Tom Philpott
GRIST, 21 Oct 2009:
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-10-21-bill-gates-reveals-support-for-gmo-ag/

As it has come to dominate the agenda for reshaping African agriculture over the years, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has been very careful not to associate itself too closely with patent-protected biotechnology as a panacea for African farmers.

True, the foundation named 25-year Monsanto veteran Rob Horsch to the position of "senior program officer, focusing on improving crop yields in sub-Saharan Africa."

Yet its flagship program for African ag, the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), explicitly distances itself from GMOs. "AGRA does not fund the development of GMOs," the organization's Web site states.

But AGRA - co-funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, proud sponsor of the original Green Revolution - is just part of what Gates does around African ag. What precisely is the foundation getting up to over there? Is it pushing GMOs on African smallholder farms?

[I have a call into the foundation to ask directly about the role GMOs play in its efforts. I'll report on the response.]

It has been surprisingly hard to say. Until now.

In a speech at the World Food Prize gathering last week (see video below), Bill Gates himself chided the critics of GMOs - and shed some sunshine on the foundation leadership's philosophy on ag development. At one point, he declared, "some of our grants [in Africa] do include transgenic approaches, because we believe they have the potential to address farmers' challenges more efficiently than conventional techniques."

Gates' speech seems like a significant event to me - the World Food Prize website describes it as his "first major address on agriculture." One of the major knocks on the foundation's Africa efforts is the lack of democratic accountability and transparency. Since the foundation's careful message management makes it hard to figure out precisely what it's getting up to, I'm glad to see its leading light airing his views freely.

Gates opened with a standard-issue awestruck paean to Norman Borluag, recently deceased architect of the original Green Revolution. Gates delivered a rather unnuanced assessment of Borlaug's legacy. Gates declared: "He [Borlaug] proved that farming has the power to lift up the lives of the poor."

Really? To be sure, Borlaug's "dwarf" hybrid seed varieties, when coupled with the heavy fertilizer and pesticide doses they need to thrive, dramatically increased yields in the places where the Green Revolution took root - the main success story being India.

But higher yields drive down crop prices - and increased use of imported inputs requires the taking on of debt. Rather than boosting the fortunes of most farmers in its purview, the Green Revolution drove hundreds of thousands into ruin. The survivors consolidated land holdings. The big got bigger and the poor tended to leave the land - too many of them ending up as excess labor in urban slum zones.

Maybe Gates didn't mean that Borlaug's efforts improved the lives of farmers, but rather the lives of non-farming urban dwellers. As he later says in the speech, also in the context of Borluag's legacy, "better farming can end hunger and poverty and lift whole countries out of poverty."

To be sure, many people were predicting famine for India in the 1960s, and the availability of cheap grain engendered by the Green Revolution no doubt forestalled widespread starvation. But it's demonstrably wrong to claim that the Green Revolution ended hunger and poverty in India.

Indeed, hunger rates remain appalling in India - site of the Green Revolution's greatest putative success. From a 2008 report by the International Food Policy Research Institute:

"According to the 2008 Global Hunger Index, India ranks 66 out of 88 nations (developing countries and countries in transition). Despite years of robust economic growth, India scored worse than nearly 25 Sub-Saharan African countries and all of South Asia, except Bangladesh." [Emphasis added.]

The bit about India faring worse than "nearly 25 Sub-Saharan African countries" is particularly noteworthy, given that the Gates Foundation is explicitly spearheading a "new Green Revolution for Africa." Of course, the original Green Revolution in India lies in shambles - the water table has been tapped near dry by massive irrigation projects in the zones where the Borlaug program took hold, and the remaining farmers there are struggling mightily with crushing debt loads and heightened pesticide-related cancer rates.

To be fair, Gates did point to "excesses" of the first Green Revolution, naming "too much irrigation and fertilizer" as examples. He vowed to avoid those mistakes in Africa. He insisted, more than once, that ecological sustainability was critical to the foundation's project. Yet he repeatedly emphasized that increasing gross production - the Borlaug project of squeezing as much yield out of a piece of land as possible - was the key.

And that led him to the most fiery moment of his speech (if this dour man's demeanor can ever be described as "fiery"): the part where he denounced unnamed "environmentalists" who are somehow blocking GMO seeds from entering Africa.

"This global effort to help small farmers is endangered by an ideological wedge that threatens to split the movement in two," Gates declared. He decried what he called a "false choice" between a "technological" approach geared to boosting productivity and an "environmental" one geared to sustainability. "We can have both," he said.

He went on: "Some people insist on an ideal vision of the environment which is divorced from people and their circumstances. They have tried to restrict the spread of biotechnology into sub-Saharan Africa without regard to how much hunger and poverty might be reduced by it, or what the farmers themselves might want."

The Gates Foundation, by contrast, isn't so demure. In an apparent reference to this project with GMO seed giant Monsanto, Gates allowed that "one of our [unnamed] private-sector partners" is working on a genetically modified drought-tolerant corn variety for African farmers. The seeds will be available to farmers royalty-free - meaning that farmers will pay market price for the seeds themselves, but not pay the hefty biotech premium Monsanto normally slaps on top. It's unclear whether seed-saving will be allowed under the arrangement.

According to the above-linked press release, the magic seeds are expected to come online in 2018. Gates emphasized repeatedly that as climate change proceeds apace, greater and greater swaths of Africa will face persistent drought conditions. In pushing for drought-tolerant seeds, Gates is swinging for the fences - looking for a single big solution to feed Africa's drought-stricken areas.

For me, this deal raises questions that cut to the heart of the Bill Gates approach to African ag.

First of all, it can't be noted often enough that a) GM agriculture's much-hyped ability to boost yields, taken as a given by Gates, has thus far proven purely spectral; b) there's serious evidence, despite a paucity of cash for critical research and heavy-handed control of research by seed companies, that GMOs cause health problems; and c) GMOs have so far proven quite proficient at generating unintended ecological consequences, such as the rise of "superweeds."

There's no room for any of that in Gates' discourse.

Further, I absolutely agree with Bill Gates that there's no zero-sum tradeoff between productivity and sustainability. But I urge him to tear his gaze away from the biotech lab and train it toward the field, where the best research on organic ag is being done. Indeed, one of the great benefits of organic farming is its long-term focus on soil health - and healthy soils can increase productivity over time without massive ecological externalities.

Here's a summary of a 2005 paper published in Bioscience comparing yields of organic and conventional corn. The 22-year study compared yields of corn and soy for the following systems: 1) conventional chemical-based agriculture; 2) organic ag using manure for soil fertility; and 3) organic ag using "green manure" (nitrogen-fixing cover crops) for fertility. From the summary, here's the key nugget of the study:

"First and foremost, we found that corn and soybean yields were the same across the three systems," said [researcher David] Pimentel, who noted that although organic corn yields were about one-third lower during the first four years of the study, over time the organic systems produced higher yields, especially under drought conditions. The reason was that wind and water erosion degraded the soil on the conventional farm while the soil on the organic farms steadily improved in organic matter, moisture, microbial activity and other soil quality indicators. [Emphasis added.]

Note well the "especially under drought conditions" bit. Here is a technology for "drought-tolerant" corn that's ready right now - no need to wait until 2018. It doesn't rely on the benevolence of Monsanto to waive a technology fee; and there are no questions about seed-saving. It asks no one to accept a drop in long-term productivity as the price paid for sustainability. And not only does it help farmers adapt to climate change with its drought-tolerant qualities, but it helps mitigate climate change by sequestering carbon. From the summary:

The fact that organic agriculture systems also absorb and retain significant amounts of carbon in the soil has implications for global warming, Pimentel said, pointing out that soil carbon in the organic systems increased by 15 to 28 percent, the equivalent of taking about 3,500 pounds of carbon dioxide per hectare out of the air.

Moreover, in a 2008 paper (PDF), the U.N.'s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) endorsed organic ag as a way to boost food security and improve farmer livelihoods in Africa. Concluded the FAO:

Organic agriculture can increase agricultural productivity and can raise incomes with low-cost, locally available and appropriate technologies, without causing environmental damage. Furthermore, evidence shows that organic agriculture can build up natural resources, strengthen communities and improve human capacity, thus improving food security by addressing many different causal factors simultaneously ... Organic and near-organic agricultural methods and technologies are ideally suited for many poor, marginalized smallholder farmers in Africa, as they require minimal or no external inputs, use locally and naturally available materials to produce high-quality products, and encourage a whole systemic approach to farming that is more diverse and resistant to stress. [Emphasis added.]

Gates cash could go a long way in dispersing the skills and (relatively low-cost) equipment needed for effective organic farming in Africa. Why not, for example, fund a dramatic expansion of the Soil, Food, and Healthy Communities project that's proving so successful in Malawi?

So where's the Gates cash, and the fiery speech from the foundation's leader defending organic ag from its critics? Now, it's true that the Gates Foundation does fund research into alternative, low-input agriculture. Just this past spring, the foundation awarded $1.3 million to World Watch to study such techniques for improving ag productivity in Africa.

But let's look at funding levels. The above-mentioned Monsanto GMO corn project got $42 million from Gates - and an additional $5 million from the Howard Buffet Foundation, run by the son of investor/insurance magnate Warren Buffet. The Worldwatch grant is loose change in comparison. (When I get a Gates official on the phone, I'll ask about other organic-style programs they're funding.)

Given the pro-high-technology thrust of Gates' speech, this imbalance is hardly surprising. As I took in the video of Gates' speech and heard him go on about the "needs of small farmers" and the critical role of biotech in serving those needs, I couldn't help but think of him as a kind of unelected agriculture commissioner for the African continent. And I wondered how many African farms will survive the embrace of the great software magnate.

GM-free Europe: how we could still ban GMOs
• Re-nationalising decisions on growing GM crops would allow EU countries to declare themselves GM-free, but could bring new dangers

Tom Levitt
The Ecologist [UK], 21 October 2009:
http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/340410/gmfree_europe_how_we_could_still_ban_gmos.html

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) are back on the agenda.

In a report published today The Royal Society, the UK's premier science body, has called for publicly funded research into GM crop technologies.

It says the investment would allow northern Europe to become one of the 'major bread baskets of the world'.

The Government's chief scientist John Beddington has also quickly come out in support of growing GM crops in the UK. In addition, the Food Standards Agency (FSA) is due to start a 'dialogue project to explore the subject of GM with consumers'.

Whether or not this is a coordinated push on the part of Government to gain public acceptance of GM technology, there is already plenty of private sector and international pressure.

The only legislative restriction left is the European Union, which at present controls the approval process for any new GMOs.

The Dutch proposal

But under proposals being put forward by the Netherlands, the objections of other member states to approving new varieties of GM may soon be bypassed.

Once a particular GM crop has received EU health and safety approval, the Dutch want the final decision on whether to allow the crop to be cultivated to be left to individual member states: effectively, a re-nationalisation of GM policy.

Member states can already block GM by invoking a so-called 'safeguard clause'. Under this rule they can ban the use and sale of a GMO if they have justifiable reasons to consider that it poses a risk to human health or the environment.

Austria, France, Greece, Hungary, Germany and Luxembourg have all used the clause in recent years.

GM-free Europe

On the face of it the Dutch proposals go further by allowing individual countries to ban crops for social and economic reasons and not just health ones. It would allow a country to declare itself GM-free and bring an end to the current EU regulatory pressure to accept transgenic crops.

Many regions in Italy and Germany are already declaring themselves GM-free. Only last week Ireland said it would ban all GM crop cultivation and the Welsh Assembly has had a long-standing policy against GM.

Announcing new proposals on GM earlier this year, Rural Affairs Minister Elin Jones said, 'the Welsh Assembly Government's long-standing position is to adopt the most restrictive policy on GM crops that is compatible with European Union and UK legislation.

'It is not legally possible to declare Wales GM-free, but we will continue our restrictive approach,' she said.

A fake solution

Although a number of member states, including Austria, Greece and Poland support the Dutch proposals, anti-GM campaigners believe it could actually be a dangerous move.

Greenpeace agriculture policy director Marco Contiero says the only reason the Dutch - one of the EU's strongest supporters of GM - put forward the proposals was to break the political deadlock in Europe.

'It's a fake solution. It means all the political debate member states currently show at council level in Europe is going to finish. The Commission will be much more politically free to ignore it and leave it up to individual member states.

'Formally it's not meant to make it easier for GM in Europe but it will,' he said.

Other campaign groups including GM-free Ireland fear it would fragment the opposition to GMOs in Europe and allow countries like the Netherlands and Spain to plant more.

WTO action

It could also expose individual member states to legal action by the World Trade Organisation (WTO) as countries such as the USA and Canada will be likely to challenge any bans.

'WTO has condemned the EU for not taking decisions on GMOs in the past but it has never challenged the system used to make those decisions. If we now change the system and allow member states to make decisions then these kind of bans could be challenged under WTO rules,' said Contiero.

Although newly re-elected European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso included them on his recent manifesto, the Dutch proposals are not known to have widespread support in Europe.

GM-free zones

Plaid Cmyru MEP Gill Evans said the preferred option of many MEPs was to strengthen the existing legislation on GM-free zones.

'The excuse everyone gives against declaring themselves GM-free is that it is not allowed at EU level. But that's not true. Under existing EU rules we can make a case for restrictions in certain areas for reasons of nature conservation or biodiversity.

'The UK Government could propose Wales to be GM-free today,' said Evans.

Useful links

Statement in support of Dutch proposal
http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/09/st11/st11226-re01.en09.pdf

Regulations on GM in UK
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/gm/regulation/process/index.htm

GM crops approved in EU
http://ec.europa.eu/food/dyna/gm_register/index_en.cfm

•

Call for publicly funded research into GM crops
http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_round_up/341010/call_for_publicly_funded_research_into_gm_crops.html

•

10 reasons why GM won't feed the world
http://www.theecologist.org/investigations/food_and_farming/269351/10_reasons_why_gm_wont_feed_the_world.html

Global alert against 'Monsantosizing' our food
• UN General Assembly to discuss patents on seeds and right to food

No Patents on Seeds, 21 October 2009:
http://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org

Today a global alert is being filed by farmers and development and environmental organisations warning about a new class of patents covering plants and animals and endangering innovation and food security. It is being presented on just the same day as the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Olivier de Schutter, is presenting his new report in front of the UN General Assembly, warning that seed patents might increase food crises. New rules to restrict patents on seeds and animals therefore have to be enacted urgently.

The global appeal is being filed by the international coalition "no patents on seeds", organised and supported by farmers and development and environmental organisations. The alert is directed at governments, parliaments and patent offices like the European Patent Office, and warns about a new class of patents covering plants and animals derived from conventional breeding. These patents even claim harvests and derived food products such as milk, butter and bread. By speaking of 'Monsantosizing' the signatories are warning that the whole chain from seed to food production might be controlled by a few big international companies like Monsanto, DuPont and Syngenta, leading to a process of oligopolies and increasing concentration.

"A radical change in both patent legislation and the practice of patent offices is needed to eliminate patents on plants and farm animals," says FranÁois Meienberg of the Berne Declaration. "Corporations should not be allowed to continue to misappropriate and monopolise seeds, plants and farm animals via patent law. If they are, these patents will become a major threat to global food security, food sovereignty and innovation."

The alert was initiated by the organisations Berne Declaration, Swissaid, Misereor No Patents on Life , Greenpeace and The Development Fund (Norway), and is supported by farmer organisations from Europe, South America and Asia. They include Coldiretti in Italy, COAG in Spain, dairy farmers from Germany, Federacion Agraria Argentina and Bharat Krishak Samaj, an Indian farmer organisation. "The big companies are about to control seed, harvest, trade and even food production," warns Luis Contigiani at Federación Agraria Argentina. "We can see how Monsanto tries to license fees on soy production , imposing embargoes on European importers of Argentinian soy and derivatives based on patents that are not valid in our country. This is an example of the consequences when genetic resources are subjected to the logic of monopolisation by patent rights."

In a vein very similar to the global alert, the background report by the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food (A/64/170), Olivier de Schutter, raises concerns that seed patents might increase food crises. As it explains: "The oligopolistic structure of the input providers' market may result in poor farmers being deprived of access to seeds, a productive resources essential for their livelihoods, and it could raise the price of food, thus making food less affordable for the poorest."

The No Patents on Seeds coalition and its supporting farmers' organisations welcome the UN report. "We will keep on fighting against patents on seeds and animals," says Miguel López Sierra, General Secretary of COAG , one of the biggest European farmers' organisations. "We are urging the European Union and the European Patent Office to stop granting these patents, which steal the common goods of farmers and traditional breeders. The concerns as raised by farmers, NGOs and the report of the United Nations no longer can be ignored."

Download of the global alert:
www.no-patents-on-seeds.org, http://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=93&Itemid=56&lang=en

Download of the UN Report "Seed policies and the right to food"
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N09/424/73/PDF/N0942473.pdf?OpenElement

or:
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/food/annual.htm Further contacts: FranÁois Meienberg, Berne Declaration, +41 44 277 70 04; food@evb.ch, Christoph Then, expert for Greenpeace, +49 15154638040

The Royal Society is wrong: GM technology will never deliver food security

Press Notice from GM Free Cymru (Wales, UK], 21 October 2009:
http://www.gmfreecymru.org

GM Free Cymru has issued a strong condemnation of the Royal Society for arguing that GM crops are needed to prevent a catastrophic food crisis by 2050 (1). The eight authors of the Report say that where GM has been proved effective at either increasing yields or else proving to be resistant to diseases, it should be used in the UK; and that GM crops and foods must be used to avoid "catastrophic food crises" by the year 2050.

Commenting on this Report, GM Free Cymru said that it was part of a coordinated attempt by the Government and the GM industry to force GM crops and foods on a British public which has said, over and again, that it wants nothing to do with them. Speaking on behalf of the organization, Dr Brian John said: "This is a cynical and opportunistic campaign, involving the Food Standards Agency, the UK Government, Prof John Beddington and the organizations promoting GM, using the threat of climate change and food shortages to make claims for GM that are clearly fanciful. For more than twenty years the GM industry has made wild promises of "wonder crops" that will increase yields, prove resistant to droughts and saline growing conditions, and bring benefits to small farmers. And what has it delivered, after the wastage of many million pounds of taxpayers's money? Nothing. Not a single food product that is safer, more nutritious, tastier, cheaper, or easier to process than conventional or non-GM counterparts. The great GM enterprise has headed up a blind alley, and that is where it is stuck."

GM Free Cymru also pointed out (2) that there are no yield increases with any crop, anywhere in the world, that are associated with an introduced GM trait. The only traits introduced thus far have been directed at herbicide resistance and toxicity for certain target (and non-target) insects. Where there have been apparent yield increases, they have been a direct result of selective non-GM breeding and the use of the most productive varietal lines. The organization says that the suggestion that GM lines are "high yielding" is a confidence trick perpetrated by the GM industry -- one which should never fool any serious scientist.

Dr John also highlighted the Royal Society's appalling record in using corrupt and fraudulent science in the course of its long-standing pro- GM campaign (3). he said: "The Royal Society pretends that it is an august scientific organization with a reputation for objectivity and sound science. Some of the science it supports may be just that, but in the GM field the Society has been involved in the vilification of scientists whose experiments have shown up the deficiences and the dangers of GM, and it has displayed a massive bias in favour of the GM industry. Quite frankly, any Report conducted or commissioned by the Society deserves to be closely scrutinized and taken with a hefty pinch of salt. GM will do nothing whatsoever to enhance global food security; it will simply impoverish the developing countries, reduce biological diversity, negatively affect man's capacity for adaptation to change, and increase the risks of food-related catastrophes in the future. "

ENDS

Contact

Dr Brian John
Tel + 44 (0)1239 820470

Notes:

(1) In the report entitled 'Reaping the benefits: towards sustainable intensification of global agriculture' the authors, led by Chairman Sir David Baulcombe, of the University of Cambridge, outline the steps which governments need to adopt to ensure that in coming decades farmers in the developed and the developing world are fully equipped to feed their growing communities.

Professor Baulcombe is reported as saying: "If we are to take full advantage of the benefits which science can offer to food production, then we must act now, by identifying valuable science technologies, investing in research, and by laying the regulatory framework to bring these technologies to market." In contrast, the IAASTD report, produced by 400 international scientists and supported by 60 governments, including the UK, backed organic agriculture and similar 'agro-ecological' approaches as part of a 'radical change' in the way the world produces food.

(2) A lecture given by Prof Ann Clark which shows that there are NO yield increases associated with the GM traits introduced into GM crops -- yield increases, where they occur, are down to conventionally bred characteristics which are deliberately incorporated into the same "GM packages." The non-GM isolines (which would boost yield anyway) are then deliberately not released onto the market -- which is something Monsanto and the other GM corporations can decide on quite cynically because they control the seed trade. This point is deliberately ignored and misrepresented by the biotech industry. The spokesmen still pretend that they insert "yield enhancing" genes, which they patently do not.

(3) In 2001 the Royal Society made this fraudulent citation: "the only way to clarify Dr Pusztai's claims would be to refine his experimental design and carry out further studies to test clearly defined hypotheses focused on the specific effects reported by him. Such studies, on the results of feeding GM sweet peppers and GM tomatoes to rats, and GM soya to mice and rats, have now been completed and no adverse effects have been found (Gasson & Burke, 2001)". That was a deliberate and carefully constructed deceit. Gasson and Burke did not refine or repeat the Pusztai experiments. Dr Pusztai has repeatedly pointed out that neither the Gasson-Burke paper, nor the papers they cite, may be used to support the contention of "no adverse effects".

The Royal Society was also heavily criticized in 2003 for attempting to "rig" the GM science debate at that time, and for seeking to misrepresent the findings of the Government's FSE programme of GM field trials. The Society made no proper arrangements for public involvement in its GM discussion process, and actively discouraged the participation of "outsiders" in meetings. It was also accused of orchestrating a press campaign to "flag up" a series of very dubious conclusions about the supposed environmental benefits of a GM crop management system developed at Brooms Barn Research Station, in spite of the demonstrable inadequacies of the brief scientific paper on which these conclusions were based. It also attempted to "sabotage" the publication of the Report on the Health Impacts of GM Crops published by the Scottish Parliament's Health Committee, by issuing its own press release on the Brooms Barn study on the same day.

Royal Society Agriculture Report - The grand challenge is to re-invigorate Non-GM research in the UK

GM Freeze [UK] press statement, 21 October 2009:
http://www.gmfreeze.org

Commenting on the Royal Society Report 'Reaping the Benefits', published today, Pete Riley Campaign Director of GM Freeze said: "The Royal Society Panel has identified many problems and challenges that need to be addressed if food is to be produced in a sustainable way in the future. The big question for the government and scientific community is how to restore the correct balance in agricultural research funding to give non-GM solutions a fair crack of the whip and ensure that these are taken up by farmers around the world.

"If balance is restored we still have time to catch up on the lost opportunities of the last three decades when GM crops have been the main focus but delivered very little whilst other approaches have been starved of cash".

ENDS

Contact

Pete Riley
Campaign Director
GM Freeze
+ 44 (0)7903 341065
Web site www.gmfreeze.org

Royal Society report - Friends of the Earth reaction

Friends of the Earth UK press release, 21 October 2009:
www.foe.co.uk

Commenting on a new Royal Society report on science and food, published today, Friends of the Earth's GM campaigner Kirtana Chandrasekaran said: "Science has a key role to play in reducing hunger and poverty, but the report's focus on GM crops ignores mounting evidence that this technology is failing.

"GM crops are an extension of big-business factory farming that is already wiping out wildlife, destroying communities and making climate change worse."

The UK Government has already invested millions of pounds in GM technology, with little benefit to farmers, consumers and the planet - meanwhile research into green farming methods have been starved of funds."

Any attempt to combat the global food crisis must also address its root causes, such as industrial livestock production and a narrow focus on increasing yields - an analysis which is missing from the Royal Society report.

"A massive increase in investment is needed in agricultural science - but this should focus on supporting traditional farming methods and providing safe, planet-friendly food."

A more detailed assessment of the Royal Society report can be obtained from Friends of the Earth campaigners.

Notes to Editor:

1. The most comprehensive and rigorous global study ever done on agricultural science and technology, published last year, gave clear recommendations about the kind of science which could contribute to reducing hunger and poverty. It advocated diverse agro-ecological farming which is already being practiced by small scale producers and warned that public policy goals had to radically shift to promoting these methods rather than risky and unproven genetic modification of crops. The International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) report was conducted by over 400 scientists from more than 80 countries and sponsored by 5 UN agencies and the World Bank. 60 Governments including the UK signed up to its findings. http://www.agassessment.org

2. Friends of the Earth believes the environment is for everyone. We want a healthy planet and a good quality of life for all those who live on it. We inspire people to act together for a thriving environment. For further information visit www.foe.co.uk

GeneWatch UK warns that new report misses the point on agricultural biotechnology

GeneWatch UK Press Release, 21 October 2009:
http://www.genewatch.org

Responding to today's Royal Society report on global agriculture (1), GeneWatch UK warned that future research priorities in food and agriculture should not be set by a narrow clique of scientists who have failed to deliver on past promises.

GeneWatch welcomed the recognition in the report that key areas of research, such as soil science and farmland management, have been neglected, and that using genetic modification (GM) is a high risk strategy to seek to improve complex traits in plants, such as nitrogen-fixation and photosynthesis.

"The bottom line is that governments have made the wrong R&D investments, focusing research on unrealised biotech solutions, rather than on the needs of poorer farmers", said GeneWatch UK researcher Becky Price. "New investments must be wisely spent and not throw good money after bad".

The use of transgenics is often described as a powerful tool. However to date, the only widely used traits developed by genetic modification are herbicide tolerance and Bt insect resistance. This is not because of consumer rejection, but because more advanced traits such as nitrogen fixation, drought tolerance and increased yields are technically difficult to achieve.

"Policy makers should not be over reliant on unproven technologies", said Becky Price. "It is easy for researchers to make exaggerated promises about what they will deliver and for research strategies not tied to commercial or scientific interests to be wrongly sidelined".

No GM crops with increased yields exist and the market for GM is for soya and maize for animal feed and biofuels (2). Reports of the benefits of Bt Cotton to aide poorer farmers have often over simplified the situation and been misleading (3).

Independent assessment and research on GM crops is often hampered by scientists having restricted access to seeds or by biotech companies preventing publication of damaging research (4). The promised next-generation GM crops are likely to bring new dangers and challenges. For example, it is unclear whether crops with altered nutrient content will bring health benefits and it may be that they cause harm. Further, increasing single nutrients in staple crops can never replace a more broadly balanced diet containing a range of foods (5).

GeneWatch UK also warned that placing too much emphasis on technological solutions to feeding the world could lead to continued failure to tackle the social and economic causes of many of our current problems. For example, there are about 1 billion malnourished and starving people in the world today, while about 1 billion more are overweight - this is mainly a problem of inequality and poverty, not food production.

The decision to focus investment on agricultural R&D almost exclusively on GM crops has led to a lack of investment in other areas. Decisions have been driven by the fact that GM seeds can be patented, creating commercial monopolies, rather than by the best research priorities to meet human needs. In 2008, the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) warned that:

In developing countries especially, instruments such as patents may drive up costs, restrict experimentation by the individual farmer or public researcher while also potentially undermining local practices that enhance food security and economic sustainability.

The IAASTD concluded that the main challenge is to increase the productivity of agriculture in a sustainable manner, which must address the needs of small-scale farms in diverse ecosystems, including increasing access to land and economic resources and empowering farmers to innovatively manage soils, water, biological resources, pests, disease vectors, genetic diversity, and conserve natural resources.

For further information contact:

Becky Price + 44 (0)7949 396328
Helen Wallace: Office: + 44 (0)1298 24300, Mobile: + 44 (0)7903 311584

Notes to editors:

1) Reaping the benefits: towards sustainable intensification of global agriculture Royal Society, 20th October 2009. GeneWatch UK's submission is available on: http://www.genewatch.org/uploads/f03c6d66a9b354535738483c1c3d49e4/RoySoc_GW_fin.doc

2) The US company Monsanto is still the largest producer of GM seeds. It argues that production of grain for animal feed must increase by 50 million tonnes a year by 2017/18 to meet the expected increased demand for meat, and by 60 million tonnes a year to meet biofuels production targets (Edgerton MD (2009) Increasing crop productivity to meet global needs for food and fuel. Plant Physiology, 149, 7-13). The company is lobbying for continued and increased US Government subsidy for biofuel production. This is part of the problem not part of the solution.

3) Glover, D. (2009) Undying Promise: Agricultural Biotechnology's Pro-poor Narrative, Ten Years on. STEPS centre http://www.steps-centre.org

4) Waltz, E. (2009) Under wraps. Nature Biotechnology 27 (10) 880-882

5) For example, antioxidants (including the beta-carotene engineered into GM 'Golden Rice') may be beneficial to some people but harmful to others, and some may increase risk of cancer. See example: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19125631.500-the-antioxidant-myth-a-medical-fairy-tale.html.

The experimental GM 'purple tomato', claimed to reduce cancer risk, is engineered to contain increased levels of anthocyanins, a poorly tested antioxidant.

6) IAASTD (International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development) was launched as an intergovernmental process, involving hundreds of experts from around the world, under the co-sponsorship of the FAO, GEF, UNDP, UNEP, UNESCO, the World Bank and WHO. Full report at: http://www.agassessment.org

Royal Society report on science and agriculture: GM not the only answer

Food Ethics Council [UK], 21 October 2009:
http://www.foodethicscouncil.org

The Food Ethics Council gives a cautious welcome to the Royal Society's report 'Reaping the benefits: science and the sustainable intensification of agriculture'.

As well as providing a useful snapshot of the science, it recognises that technology - including GM - is no magic bullet in the fight against hunger.

We are encouraged by the Royal Society's understanding that social and economic policies must also be in place to ensure food security.

However, the report assumes that feeding people is about growing food, not how it's distributed and consumed. It fails to face up to the fact that a billion people already people go hungry, while many more are buying - and throwing away - more food than they need.

[Tristram Stuart, author of Waste estimates that avoidable waste of cereal-based foods in the UK and USA would be enough to lift 224 million people out of hunger.]

Dr. Tom MacMillan, executive director of the Food Ethics Council, says:

"The Royal Society recognises that consumers and farmers should have a say in the way governments rise to this challenge. But they get ahead of themselves by demanding GBP2 billion more for science.

"That's exactly the kind of decision that should be up for wider debate. The money might be better spent tackling the social and economic problems that affect whether growing more food makes a jot of difference to food security.

"Instead of asking 'how can science and technology help secure global food supplies', we need to ask 'what can be done - by scientists but also by others - to help the world's hungry?'

"The fact is that our scientific institutions, regulatory bodies, innovation policies and intellectual property regimes are in no fit state to speak for marginal farmers and the world's hungry people."

The Food Ethics Council recommends that before we can find effective solutions to solving global problems of food insecurity, we urgently need institutional changes.

As a signatory to the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) the UK government should already be on the case.

IAASTD found that the incentives for science to address the issues that matter are weak; and that many OECD members don't consider social and environmental needs when trying to meet agricultural production goals. It calls for institutional, economic and legal frameworks that combine productivity with the protection and conservation of natural resources.

So we urge the Royal Society to take IAASTD's recommendations to heart in its debates about GM and other technologies, by putting sustainability and social justice at the heart of the way it does research into agriculture.

To interview Tom MacMillan or to find out more about the Food Ethics Council, please contact: Liz Barling on 01273 766 657/07867 525 951 or liz@foodethicscouncil.org

Notes to Editors

The Food Ethics Council works towards a food system that is fair and healthy for people and the environment.

Our independent advice to business, government and civil society helps find a way through controversial issues and supports better choices in food and farming.

Our magazine GM foods: the wrong debate? takes stock of what we can learn from all the wrangling that has already happened over GM foods. Contributors look at how the science, risk management, public trust and even democracy have changed. We call for a different debate over GM - not do we need it, but what do we need?

The Royal Society report Reaping the Benefits: Science and the sustainable intensification of global agriculture will be available from the Royal Society from 0001 Wednesday 21st October 2009.

The Food Ethics Council
39 - 41 Surrey Street
Brighton BN1 9UQ
United Kingdom
t: + 44 (0)1273 766 654 f: + 44 (0)1273 766 653
info@foodethicscouncil.org

GM crops: Anger as leading scientists call for push on Frankenfoods

Sean Poulter
Daily Mail [UK], 21 October 2009:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1221840/GM-crops-Anger-leading-scientists-push-Frankenfoods.html#ixzz0UZR6xIdx

The Royal Society has controversially called for a renewed drive to cultivate genetically modified crops - despite criticism that the GM lobby is allied to big business.

A study published by the society - which is Britain's national academy of science - claims engineered crops could provide new sources of healthy food for the future.

It comes amid a major effort by the biotechnology industry, the Government and the Food Standards Agency to overturn public opposition to so-called Frankenstein Foods.

But opponents criticised the prestigious scientific body for backing an unproven technology.

They said the researchers were biased in favour of GM, and warned about the disproportionate influence of the Royal Society on political policymakers.

The majority of consumers remain deeply suspicious about the effects on human health and the environment.

GM advocates, such as U.S. firm Monsanto, have been claiming for more than 20 years it would deliver super-plants capable of feeding the world.

However, critics from the organic farming movement argue it has failed to deliver.

They say pest-resistant crops of maize, being grown on an industrial scale in countries like the U.S.A, are giving agro-chemical giants a virtual monopoly over a large sector of food production.

At the same time, there has been an absence of independent research into the consequences of growing these crops on the environment and health.

Last year a UN study involving academics from 60 nations concluded GM food was not the answer to Third World famine.

But the research from the Royal Society suggests it offers significant benefits, which could allay public fears over its safety.

These include the creation of crops that are resistant to drought or a harsh soil. The study said scientists are ten years away from producing an 'everlasting' wheat that can be harvested every few months.

Currently crops have to be ploughed and resown after each harvest.

Soya can be modified to be rich in omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids, which are associated with improved brain development among school children.

'Fruit and vegetables have also been developed with high levels of cancer protecting compounds, such as flavonoids in the purple tomato,' the report said.

Professor Sir David Baulcombe, who led the study, said: 'We need to take action now to stave off food shortages.

'In the UK we have the potential to come up with viable scientific solutions for feeding a growing population and we have a responsibility to realise this potential.'

The GM-Freeze campaign said the experts behind the study were biased.

Its director, Pete Riley, said: 'Some of the authors of this work were rabidly pro-GM, so it is no surprise they have come up with these conclusions.

'There is a real danger that British science will continue to be dominated by GM technology in the future despite the fact this approach has delivered very little. The balance needs to be shifted to look at other solutions to increase food production.'

The campaigning group Genewatch UK warned: 'Future research priorities in food and agriculture should not be set by a narrow clique of scientists who have failed to deliver on past promises.'

Spokesman Becky Price said: 'Policy makers should not be over reliant on unproven technologies.'

Royal Society accepts GM is not the only answer

Geoffrey Lean
The Telegraph [UK], 21 October 2009:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6389319/Geoffrey-Lean-Royal-Society-accepts-GM-is-not-the-only-answer.html

For now, at least, the hype is muted. Yesterday's Royal Society report takes care not to repeat the claims, put forward by some proponents of the technology that genetic modification can itself end world hunger. Indeed it condemns such simplistic stances, noting that past debates "have failed to acknowledge that there is no technological panacea".

That is welcome for, as Prof James Specht of the University of Nebraska has pointed out, the "hype-to-reality ratio" has at times reached "infinity". Instead the Royal Society, which has long supported GM crops and foods, backs a mixture of traditional farming techniques and new technology, merely asking that none "should be ruled out". Such an approach, if maintained, should open the door to a much more constructive debate, forcing even the most radical environmentalists to spell arguments out rather than pull crops up.

Some, like the Prince of Wales, oppose genetic modification on principle, as an interference in God's business. The rest of us need to weigh up costs and benefits. So far these tip the scales against the technology. GM crops, and how they are grown, do seem to do more environmental damage. Their possible effects on health remain open: too few good studies have been done to settle the matter either way. And so far the benefits have mainly accrued to the biotechnology companies that have developed and marketed them.

Nor have they so far shown much sign of feeding the world. Contrary to widespread belief, they do not generally increase crop yields, and may actually cut them. And because the world's poorest farmers - who make up most of the world's underfed - cannot afford to buy them, they tend to get driven to the wall, so that hunger is increased not reduced. But GM may help in future - especially as climate change takes hold - by producing varieties that can survive droughts or floods.

Environmentalists will retort that other non-GM techniques will do the job better. But that is precisely the kind of debate we should now be having.

World must use GM crops, says UK science academy

Gerard Wynn
Reuters (via ABC News, USA), 21 October 2009:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=8875805

LONDON - The world needs genetically modified crops both to increase food yields and minimize the environmental impact of farming, Britain's top science academy said on Wednesday.

The Royal Society said in a report the world faced a "grand challenge" to feed another 2.3 billion people by 2050 and at the same time limit the environmental impact of the farm sector.

The world will have to increase food output by 70 percent and invest $83 billion annually in developing countries by mid-century, the U.N.'s Food and Agricultural Organization said earlier this month.

"The problem is such an acute one, doing that sustainably without eroding soil, overusing fertilizers is an enormous challenge," said the chair of the Royal Society report, Cambridge University's David Baulcombe.

"There isn't a lot more land to use," he told Reuters. "And from the point of expense and using fossil fuels, we want to use less fertilizer."

"The food supply problem is likely to come to a head 10, 20, 30 years from now," he said, adding this didn't leave much time given the research lead time to develop new crops.

The answer would be a range of approaches from hi-tech genetically modified crops to low-tech management approaches such as sowing grass around maize to divert pests, as well as preserving the diversity of natural, wild crop varieties.

Farming indirectly, including deforestation, accounts for a third of greenhouse gases, say scientists, underlining the problem of increasing production simply by clearing more land or using more fertilizers, the biggest source of a powerful greenhouse gas nitrous oxide.

Research

Britain had to invest an extra 50 ($82.13 million) to 100 million pounds annually in research to boost innovation in a sector which had lost allure following food over-supply in Europe, the report said.

A combination of changing diets, growing population, demand for farmland for biofuels and high energy prices have stoked food prices and renewed interest in agriculture.

Wednesday's report invoked the successes of the Green Revolution of the 1960s, but aimed for a more sustainable approach. That revolution had more than doubled food output over 30 years but had also degraded soils in some cases.The world must develop over the next 16 years through genetic modification and conventional breeding varieties of crops resistant to disease, drought, salinity, heat and toxic heavy metals, the report said.

Progress in DNA-sequencing had made more plant genes available for engineering, improving the predictability of results in a "second generation" GM approach. "We're looking at a different base than 10 years ago," said Baulcombe.

A combination of the food crisis and the global economic downturn has pushed more than 1 billion people into hunger in 2009, U.N. agencies said last week, confirming a grim forecast released earlier this year.

The Pressure group Greenpeace said GM crops were a costly distraction from tackling hunger through fighting poverty and helping smallholders in developing countries sell their product.

"Poverty and hunger are the same thing," said Marco Contiero, Greenpeace's European GM policy director, who pointed out that the world already produced enough to feed itself, if that were shared fairly and there was less waste.

(Editing by James Jukwey)

•

Short-term (less than 8 years): New approaches to crop management including modified irrigation regimes, seed treatments to protect against pests and diseases and agroecological approaches which manage the interactions between plants, animals, microorganisms and the physical environment within agricultural systems. For example, the push-pull' system for pest management in maize crops. The maize field is surrounded by a border of Napier grass which is more attractive to moths than the maize for laying their eggs. In addition, rows of maize are intercropped with rows of the forage legume silverleaf which repels stemborer moths away from maize.

•

Medium-term (9-16 years): Breeding and GM of new varieties of crops that are resistant to disease, drought, salinity, heat and toxic heavy metals. In Australia, new varieties of wheat with high water use efficiency have shown yield increases of 10 15%.

•

Longer-term (more than 16 years) : The development of nitrogen fixing cereals which will need less fertiliser, perennial crops which won't need constant replanting and C4 rice which would boost the efficiency of photosynthesis and dramatically increase yield.

Professor Baulcombe added:

"There is no panacea for ensuring global food security. Science-based approaches introduced alongside social science and economic innovations are essential if we're to have a decent chance of feeding the world's population in 40 years time. Technologies that work on a farm in the UK may have little impact for harvests in Africa. Research is going to need to take into account a diverse range of crops, localities, cultures and numerous other circumstances. "

The Royal Society highlights the need to maintain the UK's capacity to innovate. According to the report many Universities have closed down or reduced their teaching and research in agriculture and crop science causing a shortage of expertise in important topics. The report calls for Universities to work with funding bodies to the reverse the decline in relevant subjects and recommends that they look globally to address the skills gap, offering targeted subsidies to scientists in developing countries to visit the UK and work with UK researchers.

Scientific efforts need to run alongside intellectual property reforms so that innovation addresses the needs of poor people in developing countries, including subsistence farmers. Strong links should be set up between UK science and developing countries, funded by DFID, BBSRC and others. Scientists must work with farmers in developing countries to make sure that benefits are captured and accessible to poor people.

Professor Baulcombe concluded:

"Since the advent of the Green Revolution in the early 1960s, gross world food production has grown from 1.84 billion tonnes in 1961 to 4.38 billion tonnes in 2007, that's an increase of 138%. It's unmistakable that scientific development holds the key to ensuring future food security. The Green Revolution was built on decades of substantial global investment in agricultural research and if we are to overcome the challenge that now lies before us, we will need an even greater agricultural revolution."

The full report is available here http://royalsociety.org/document.asp?tip=0&id=8825

[1] Reaping the Benefits: Science and the sustainable intensification of global agriculture (The Royal Society, 2009)

[2] United Nations, 2008

---

Comment by GM Watch:

See the Spin Profile for the Royal Society: http://www.spinprofiles.org/index.php/Royal_Society

Profile of Royal Society report co-author Prof. Jonathan Jones, who calls GM critics 'green mujihadeen', full of green bile! http://www.spinprofiles.org/index.php/Jonathan_Jones

Profile of Prof Baulcombe who chaired Royal Society report: http://bit.ly/AUfJ3

20 October 2009

EC advocacy of corrupt GM science

GM Free Cymru [Wales, UK], 20 October 2009:
http://www.gmfreecymru.org/open_letters/Open_letter20Oct2009.html

OPEN LETTER from GM Free Cymru
To: Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel
Re: Your advocacy of corrupt GM science

Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development
European Commission
200, Rue de la Loi B-1049 Brussels (Belgium)
Mariann.Fischer-Boel@ec.europa.eu

20th October 2009

Dear Commissioner

Re: Your advocacy of corrupt GM science

We have been reading your speech dated 15th October 2009, in which you seek to justify the Commission's policy of promoting GM crops and foods, and allowing the import of unauthorised GM soya in the face of the opposition of the majority of EU nation states and against the wishes of the majority of the people of Europe (1). Forgive us for saying so, but your attitude does not seem to show much respect for the democratic process, and it seems to be based on the very questionable assumption that you (as Commissioner) know more about the science of GM and about the commercial realities of the world than those whom you are supposed to represent. Your speech seems to have been aimed at the industrial / intensive farming sector, the WTO, the US free trade lobby, and the GM industry -- and seems to neglect entirely the interests of everybody else. And although you pretend that your strong feelings arise out of your respect for science, what we see when we read your words is a rather feeble sort of pragmatism and a Commission policy which has everything to do with politics and appeasement and nothing to do with science.

There are many points in your speech which are highly questionable, and which must be challenged. We will concentrate on just a few of them.

1. You suggest that we should all feel sorry for a dairy and intensive livestock rearing sector that has chosen to depend very largely upon imports of "cheap" (so long as environmental and socio- economic costs are excluded) soya from US, Brazil and Argentina. Why should we feel sorry for them? There are ample supplies of GM-free soya available on the world market, at perfectly reasonable prices, if importers choose to take advantage of them (2). You know, and we all know, that the US soy industry has been involved for years in the "contaminate by stealth" strategy, systematically allowing cross- contamination and slapdash handling procedures and making it virtually impossible to source genuinely GM-free soya from the US. That is why they have lost so much of the European market. The same is true of Argentina, and it is also happening in Paraguay. You pretend, in your speech, that if contaminated soy-based animal feed is passed as "clean" in the USA and is then blocked because of GM contamination in Europe, that is somehow Europe's fault. You actually say that "........the authorisation procedure had hit political resistance." You are implying that the good science is on the USA side of the Atlantic, and that "politics" is getting in the way in Europe. That is quite extraordinary, coming from a European Commissioner. You know full well that the EU system for vetting and approving GM is quite tight in Europe, with the full approval of national governments and the people of Europe. You also know that EFSA's opinions on GM safety are widely mistrusted, not just by environmental and consumer groups, but by many national governments as well (3). That is why EFSA has been urged, by almost everybody (including the Commission), to get its act together, and to make its decisions more transparent and scientifically more trustworthy. You appear here to be questioning the EU's own authorization and monitoring procedures as laid down in the Directives and Regulations -- and that is a very serious matter. On that basis, we ask you to consider whether your own position as Commission is still tenable.

2. You suggest that because GM contamination is occurring in US shipments of animal feed, and because we in Europe will have to depend more and more on US rather than Argentinian shipments in the future, we should simply go with the flow and re-designate contamination levels so as to suit the Americans and the animal feed exporters. That is, if we may say so, the most feeble sort of pragmatism, and is exactly what the GM corporations and the intensive farming lobby want. We never thought that we would witness a European Commissioner saying in effect "never mind the rules or the risks to public health and animal welfare -- let's just do what the seed traders and patent owners want." Let's be clear here -- if US feed shipments are contaminated with GM, the fault lies entirely with the American exporters and the appallingly lax American authorisation and monitoring procedures (4). This is THEIR problem, and their problem to put right. It is disingenuous and disloyal to pretend that somehow this is all Europe's fault.

3. Not for the first time, you flag up the term "asynchronous GM approvals" and refer to it as a "technical term" while implying again that somehow Europe is at fault for lagging behind "the rest of the world" in giving GM approvals. We are sorry to be blunt, but that is all a load of nonsense. The term was invented by the GM industry as a marketing stunt. it is almost as ludicrous as the terms " substantial equivalence" and "adventitious contamination". To talk about "asynchronous approvals" as if it is a problem is like complaining that my birthday is not on the same date as yours. Things are not synchronised in this world, and we would be living in an automated and authoritarian hell if they were. We all have to live with rules and regulations and laws that differ from country to country -- and it is disingenuous and absurd to pretend that others have got it right and we have got it wrong. In any case, we are NOT being left behind by the rest of the world. The great majority of the world is far behind the EU in the matter of GM authorisations -- not far ahead.

4. Another term you use in your speech is this: "..... a technical threshold for measurement." We cannot understand why you could not bring yourself to use the words that the rest of us would have used in the circumstances, but what you are talking about is increasing the permissible level of contamination in animal feed and maybe other food products to a higher level than 0.9%. The term "technical threshold" is nonsensical -- it is no more technical to allow contamination at 1.3% (or whatever) than it is to allow it at 0.9%. It is just lazier. Again, you fall back upon the feeble argument that because other countries use inadequate testing and GM identification procedures (in the case of the United States, quite deliberately), we in Europe should somehow fall in line and allow whatever contamination levels THEY might find acceptable. (There is nothing "technical" about the 0.9% contamination level either. That figure was dreamt up at the behest of the Commission by a group of scientists for political and pragmatic purposes -- it has no scientific justification.)

5. Most serioulsy of all, you seem to be intent upon an extraordinary and reprehensible misrepresentation of the science surrounding GM safety and environmental issues. Your apparent faith in the infallibility of EFSA judgements on GM health and safety issues is touching, especially since we are all aware that the Commission itself has been highly critical of the manner in which that body assesses evidence and tends to place the interests of GM applicants far above the interests of European consumers. We find many of your statements deeply worrying, and especially this passage: "Month after month, GMOs receive a clean bill of health from EFSA, but then get stuck because Member States cannot reach any qualified majority, in favour or against, when it comes to the vote on a proposal for authorisation. So first the relevant committee decides nothing; then the Council decides nothing; and finally, the Commission grants authorisation, as laid down in the rules. This process swallows huge amounts of time. That would be quite legitimate - necessary, in fact - if new scientific information was being put on the table. But in the vast majority of cases, this is not what's happening." This is a grotesque misrepresentation of reality. You seem to think that EFSA does science, and that the nation states play politics. EFSA does bad science, based upon high-pressure advocacy from GM applicants, a lack of transparency, and an unwillingness either to commission independent health and safety research or to look seriously at independent research results that throw up "inconvenient" findings. EFSA has connived in "research blocking" which effectively means that the science in GM dossiers (manipulated and often fraudulent) is incapable of being replicated or peer reviewed (5). The system itself is scientifically unethical and therefore corrupt. The nation states are fully aware of this, and expressed their frustrations in the Environment Council meeting of December 20 08 (6). For you to claim that the Commission and EFSA work on the basis of "science" while the nation states play politics and allow emotion or prejudice to colour their judgements is, quite frankly, bizarre.

We will appreciate a considered response to the points we raise in this letter. In the meantime, we trust that you will stop your campaign which is designed to dismantle the EU regulatory system for GM crops and foods just to appease a few multinational corporations and feed exporters.

Yours sincerely
Dr Brian John
GM-Free Cymru

(1) Giving Science A Voice At The European Commission
http://thegovmonitor.com/world_news/europe/giving-science-a-voice-at-the-european-commission-10603.html
Policy Dialogue at "European Policy Centre" Brussels, 15 October 2009

(2) http://www.gmfreeireland.org/press/GMFI45.pdf

http://www.gmfreeireland.org/feed/documents/SoySummit2/GMFI-SoySummit2008.pdf

(3) http://www.gmfreecymru.org/open_letters/Open_letter10Dec2007.htm
"EFSA is not fit for purpose"

http://www.gmfreecymru.org/open_letters/Open_letter12Nov2007.htm
Science Ethics Code and the blocking of GM research

(4) http://www.gmfreecymru.org/pivotal_papers/academic_capitalism.html
The Genetic Engineering of Food and the Failure of Science - Part 2: Academic Capitalism and the Loss of Scientific Integrity by Don Lotter Int. Jrnl. of Soc. of Agr. & Food, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 50-68

http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/11569-courts-force-us-reckoning-on-gm-crops

(5) http://www.criigen.org/

HUMANS ARE GUINEA PIGS FOR THE "SECOND GENERATION" OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED (GM) CROPS
http://www.gmfreecymru.org/news/Press_Notice05Dec2008.htm

EU MINISTERS AGREE TO MUCH TIGHTER GM CONTROLS ** More devolution of decision-making ** Curtailment of EFSA powers 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 By The Editors. August 2009 Scientific American Magazine http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research

NATURE BIOTECHNOLOGY, VOLUME 27, NUMBER 10, October 2009
http://www.emilywaltz.com/Biotech_crop_research_restrictions_Oct_2009.pdf

(6) http://www.gmfreecymru.org/pivotal_papers/petition.htm
Petition To The European Parliament: EFSA Violates EU Consumers' Rights

GM technology past its sell by date

Soil Association [UK], 20 October 2009:
http://www.soilassociation.org

The Soil Association strongly disagrees with the call from the Royal Society report 'Reaping the benefits: towards sustainable intensification of global agriculture' that GM crops are needed to prevent a catastrophic food crisis by 2050.

Emma Hockridge, Soil Association policy coordinator, said:

"GM is past its sell by date. For over two decades huge claims have been made about the potential for GM, which have not come to fruition. Why is an organisation like the Royal Society banging the drum for a failing technology when exciting new developments such as Marker Assisted Selection, included in the report recommendations, are producing almost all of the successful innovations in crop breeding."

"Scientific evidence proves that low input systems, such as organic, can provide sustainable solutions to food security. The IAASTD report, produced by 400 international scientists and supported by 60 governments, including the UK, backed organic agriculture and similar 'agro-ecological' approaches as part of a 'radical change' in the way the world produces food.

"This report is trying to overturn the findings of IAASTD, which is strange, given the fact that the UK Government have actually signed up to it.

"In the US there have been two federal court cases which have banned new GM crops because they remove the right of farmers to grow non-GM crops. The stark reality is that if we have GM crops grown in this country it will eventually destroy the livelihoods of organic farmers."

For more information please contact press@soilassociation.org or call
Clio Turton, press office coordinator: 0117 914 2448
Jack Hunter, press and e-communications officer: 0117 314 5170

Government rejects 'super spuds'

Tamar Kahn
Business Day [South Africa], 20 October 2009:
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=84424

CAPE TOWN - The government has rejected the Agriculture Research Council's (ARC's) application to provide genetically modified potatoes to local farmers, saying it was concerned about its safety and economic effect.

The development has been welcomed by lobbyists campaigning against genetically modified crops and local food retailers worried about consumer resistance to "super-spuds".

"This is probably the most significant victory of my career. For a pro-genetically modified government to refuse a commercial application on safety grounds is quite ground breaking," said the African Centre for Biosafety's director Mariam Mayet.

The centre spearheaded a campaign against the ARC's application for commercial release of its SpuntaG2 potato, which has been engineered to kill the tuber moth, a common pest that damages crops in the field and in storage.

The potato contains a gene from a common soil bacteria called Bacillus thurengensis, which interferes with the moths' digestive system, and effectively gives the crop a built-in pesticide.

The ARC had previously told Business Day that the crop would help to reduce pesticide use and cut input costs and would benefit the environment.

Potatoes SA, fast food outlet McDonald's, and food retailers Pick n Pay and Fruit and Veg City have also expressed objections to the ARC's application, saying they were concerned about consumer choice.

"Scientific evidence has not proven one way or the other at this point whether genetically modified foods are safe for human consumption. If the stock had been approved, we would at least have requested that they be adequately labelled in order to keep consumers fully informed," Pick n Pay spokeswoman Tamra Veley said.

McDonald's, which obtained its potatoes from McCain's, would not use genetically modified potatoes in any of its products, said its spokesman, Maredi Mogodi.

Labelling genetically modified potatoes as such would be a problem because SA does not have a system for separating genetically modified crops from those that are not.

The executive council on genetically modified organisms rejected the ARC's application for a permit for commercial release of the SpuntaG2 on health, environmental and economic grounds.

According to minutes of the meeting during which the decision was made, published on the Department of Agriculture, Forests and Fisheries' website, the council was particularly concerned about the potential effect of the potatoes on the formal trade, as SA did not have segregation facilities.

It also said commercial farmers were unlikely to see a reduction in input costs, as the tuber moth was not a major factor and they would still need to spray their crop against other pests.

And small-scale farmers were more concerned about the lack of water and fertiliser than they were about the tuber moth, it said.

The council also raised concerns about the ARC's toxicity tests on animals, and the lack of data on the alteration of the potato's allergen content by the insertion of the Bacillus thurengensis gene .

ARC researcher Gurling Bothma said the decision was "disappointing". The ARC had lodged an appeal last month, and expected a decision by the end of the year .

Government scientist and Royal Society in double push to promote GM

Valerie Elliott, Consumer Editor
The Times [UK], 20 October 2009:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6881655.ece

A double push for Britain to grow more genetically modified (GM) crops is to be made today.

John Beddington, the Government's chief scientific adviser, is to renew his call for GM crops to ensure global food security.

His support for the controversial technology coincides with a study from the Royal Society, Britain's most prestigious scientific institution, out tomorrow, which will also endorse the need for Britain to conduct more GM crop trials.

Scientists are determined to change public attitudes to GM crops, which have been condemned by critics as "Frankenstein food".

Ministers, scientists, farmers and food companies think that the time is right to soften public opinion and to try to win them round to the benefits of GM production.

A new 12-month public consultation exercise on GM food to be undertaken by the Food Standards Agency.

Ministers have asked the watchdog to find out if the public mood has changed towards GM produce.

The move is also in response to concerns by food manufacturers and supermarkets which fear that the growing use of GM technology in overseas food production will make it "impossible" shortly to maintain a non-GM food supply.

A similar exercise took place six years ago which found that most people would not choose to eat or buy GM foods.

The scene has changed dramatically since then with the burgeoning economies in China and India increasing demand for protein.

The impact of climate change with more extreme temperatures leading to increased risk of drought and flooding as well as competition for land use, water scarcity and fuel costs are also likely to cause instability in food production and supply worldwide.

Professor Beddington, addressing a global food summit organised by Cabi, a leading international scientific research body, in London, will highlight GM production as one of the ways the world can guarantee secure food supplies.

GM is not "the silver bullet" but should be used as part of range of solutions to meet the estimated 50 per cent increase in demand for food expected by 2030, he will say.

"A range of solutions will be needed if a world population set to pass 8 billion by 2030 is to be fed equitably and sustainably. Improved protection of crops from pests and diseases in the field and during storage will be critical to reducing crop losses and has a major contribution to make," he will say.

The 100-page Royal Society report assesses the varous biological approaches that have been proposed to improve crop yield.

Sir David Baulcombe, of the University of Cambridge, who chaired the study, is to outline the steps that governments need to adopt to ensure that in coming decades farmers in the developed and the developing world are fully equipped to feed their growing communities.

Professor Baulcombe said: "If we are to take full advantage of the benefits which science can offer to food production, then we must act now, by identifying valuable science technologies, investing in research, and by laying the regulatory framework to bring these technologies to market."

A spokesman for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said: "We have always said that GM might be part of the answer to issues of food security. We are not closed to the technology. But we need the scientific evidence from GM trials to show that growing GM crops will pose no harm to human health or the environment."

At present there is only one British trial under way at Leeds University where scientists are monitoring a GM potato variety which is resistant to blight, a common pest which can decimate crops.

Chief scientist says it would be 'unwise' not to develop GM crops in Britain
• Genetically modified (GM) food is an essential tool to help tackle the "perfect storm" of climate change and rising population, the Government's chief scientist has warned.

By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
The Telegraph [UK], 20 October 2009:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6376786/Chief-scientist-says-it-would-be-unwise-not-to-develop-GM-crops-in-Britain.html

Professor John Beddington said the world will have to produce 50 per cent more food by 2030 in order to feed the growing population.

He said the only way to do this is to grow more crops on less land by using the latest scientific innovation, including crops genetically modified to be drought or disease resistant.

"This is such a problem that you cannot say we will not use GM technology - that would be really unwise," he said.

His comments come as a new Royal Society report also recommends GM crops to tackle the impending food crisis.

The report entitled 'Reaping the Benefits: Towards a Sustainable Intensification of Global Agriculture' is expected to suggest that GM crops could even be grown in Britain.

GM has recently come back onto the political agenda. The first trial in a year was recently re-started in Leeds, with the Government's support, and a recent report on food security from the Deparment for the Enviroment, Food and Rural Affairs backed further research into the technology.

But environmentalists insist the science is not proven and foods made from GM crops or "Frankenstein Foods" may be bad for human health.

Speaking at a global food summit, organised by the not-for-profit environmental research centre CABI, Professor Beddington said science will be the only way to feed the world in the future.

He said that by 2030 the world will have to produce 50 per cent more food and energy, together with 30 per cent more available fresh water, whilst adapting the floods and drought caused by climate change.

Prof Beddington said Britain could lead the way in developing the new technology - although he said it would be difficullt to grow GM crops in Britain because of activists ripping up the plants.

"Ten years ago, when GM was first started, people were understandably worried about about health and environmental impacts. But I think current regulations mean those risks are now mitigated," he said.

Dr Julian Little, Chairman of the Agricultural Biotechnology Council, said 13 million farmers are already growing GM on 125 million hectares around the world.

"If we are serious about producing more food off less land, we do not have much choice but to use new biotechnology, including GM," he said.

But Clare Oxborrow, Senior Food Campaigner with Friends of the Earth, said the Government was in danger of being blinded by "the white heat of technology" and putting human and environmental health at risk.

"We do have a 'perfect storm' with the impending food crisis, climate change and the recent economic crisis," she said. "It might seem like the perfect opportunity for the bio-tech industry to promote its products but the drivers of this crisis are so complex and need to be tackled at a fundamental level - just the thought that GM can solve this or play an important part is pie in the sky."

Fischer Boel slams Irish stance on GM
Agriculture Commissioner blasts 'ludicrous' position of EU states

Declan O'Brien
Irish Independent, 20 October 2009:
http://www.independent.ie/farming/fischer-boel-slams-irish-stance-on-gm-1918260.html

The anti-GM stance taken by Ireland and other EU states has been lambasted by the EU Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel.

The commissioner warned that delays in approving new GM crop varieties were restricting access to vital protein sources, such as soya, and would cost farmers millions of euro in higher feed charges this winter.

Ms Fischer Boel called for decisions on GM crops to be based on scientific evaluation rather than political considerations. She described as "ludicrous" a situation where member states openly frustrated the authorisation process for new GM crops by abstaining in key votes, but later seek export refunds for animal products because of increased feed costs.

Ireland has abstained in a number of votes on new GM crops since the present Government took office in 2007.

While Ireland was not singled out for criticism by the commissioner, a source close to Ms Fischer Boel accused countries that abstained of "chickening out" of the debate.

Ms Fischer Boel insisted that the EU approach in assessing the risks posed by GM crops was based on science and she challenged detractors of the existing approval process to study it.

"If any GMO is shown to have adverse affects on human health, animal health or the environment, we will not authorise it. Look at the rules; it's there in black and white," she said.

The commissioner claimed that authorisations for new GM crops were usually delayed because of political considerations rather than genuine scientific reservations.

She pointed out that clearance for GM varieties is based on independent scientific advice from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).

However, the Commissioner said EFSA recommendations were being ignored by politicians from some member states.

"Month after month, GMOs receive a clean bill of health from EFSA but then get stuck because member states cannot get a qualified majority, in favour or against, when it comes to the proposal on authorisation."

Ms Fischer Boel said the delays in clearing crops for use would be "legitimate" if new scientific information was being put on the table.

However, she said this was not the case.

The crops are invariably passed for use by the commission but the current difficulties have disrupted trade.

The commissioner pointed out that since July this year, 12 shipments of US soya had been held up in European ports because minute traces of an unapproved GM maize variety had been found in them.

She said US feed exporters were now reluctant to ship soya to Europe and she warned that the EU livestock sector faced "disaster" should the trade be blocked.

Europe imports 32m tons of soya each year.

Availability this winter is coming under pressure due to drought in Argentina and increased demand from China.

Farmers need a clearer plan for GM crops

Declan O'Brien
Irish Independent (Farming), 20 October 2009:
http://www.independent.ie/

Last Thursday Commissioner Fischer Boel gave a very frank and open assessment of the mess which has developed around the EU approval process for GM crops.

Her broadside on the politicians and officials who have sat on the fence on this particular issue will cause some unease for our own Department of Agriculture and for Agriculture Commissioner Brendan Smith.

Ireland has abstained on a number of critical GM votes since the government took office in 2007. However the current Programme for Government appears to set a proactively anti-GM course.

The new package agreed by Fianna Fail and the Green Party has as a core objective the establishment of "GM-free" status for Ireland.

In addition, the Government is committed to introducing a voluntary GM-free logo similar to a scheme introduced in Germany.

The implications of both these policies for farmers need to be addressed.

Can Ireland realistically compete on international beef markets without access to varieties of GM soya or other competitively priced GM protein sources?

If the answer is yes, then what is the alternative protein source (available for the same price as approved GM soya varieties) or where are the markets that will pay a premium for GM-free beef?

If the answer is no, then why delay the approval process for these crops by abstaining in key votes?

In terms of the GM-free logo, it has been suggested that the responsibility for ensuring that food with this label is GM-free would fall on the farmer. Sounds familiar, does it not? The farmer carries the can while the retailer milks the margin.

GM food is a divisive issue. Support and opposition appear to be informed as much by emotion as by science. Maybe the Green Party is right to set out its stall against this technology. However, if they are going to pull the whole sector into the battle then the least farmers deserve is that the additional costs are quantified and the concrete rather than aspirational benefits are identified.

---

Comment by GM-free Ireland:

Note the dumbing down and negative framing of the GM-free issue, typical of the Irish media: "here is a problem rather than an opportunity, and there's nothing you can do to make a difference".

The journalist begins by misinformation. The current EU controversy is not about GM crops, it is about the food safety of GM animal feed imports contaminated by GM varieties that have not been approved in the EU because of their health, agronomic, and environmental dangers.

He then turns the farmer off by asking the wrong question - "what is the alternative protein source available for the same price as approved GM soya varieties" - instead of looking at the big picture. Hundreds of thousands of farm enterprises across Europe are recouping the small costs of higher quality GM-free feedstuffs from the higher premia which consumers are paying for the thousands of GM-free animal produce items already on sale across the EU and the USA. The question the journalist should have asked is: what is the economic potential of the most credible safe GM-free food brand in Europe?

Note also that the article limits the range of the economic opportunity to beef - completely ignoring the global market for GM-free pork, lamb, poultry, eggs, fish and dairy produce.

The journalist concludes by discouraging any glimmer of entrepreneurial spirit. He casts the farmer as helpless victim who will unfairly have to carry "the responsibility for ensuring that food with this label is GM-free."

The subliminal message to farmers is "better stay in your hole than even begin to imagine a way to get out." This is just where Monsanto and the GM animal feed cartel want Irish farmers to stay, as loyal customers for GM feedstuffs that are increasingly rejected by farmers, retailers, food brands and consumers in the EU and the USA.

We deserve better journalism that this!

19 October 2009

Under wraps:
• Are the crop industry's strong-arm tactics and close-fisted attitude to sharing seeds holding back independent research and undermining public acceptance of transgenic crops? Emily Waltz investigates.

Emily Waltz
Nature Biotechnology, Volume 27, Number 10, October 2009:
http://www.emilywaltz.com/Biotech_crop_research_restrictions_Oct_2009.pdf

The increasingly fractious relationship between public sector researchers and the biotech seed industry has come into the spotlight in recent months. In July, several leading seed companies met with a group of entomologists, who earlier in the year had lodged a public complaint with the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over restricted access to materials. In a letter to the EPA, the 26 public sector scientists complained that crop developers are curbing their rights to study commercial biotech crops. "No truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions involving these crops [because of company-imposed restrictions]," they wrote.

In turn, the seed companies have expressed surprise at the outcry, claiming the issue is being overblown. And even though the July meeting, organized by the American Seed Trade Association in Alexandria, Virginia, did result in the writing of a set of principles for carrying out this research, the seed companies are under no compunction to follow them. "From the researchers' perspective, the key for this meeting was opening up communication to discuss the problem," says Ken Ostlie, an entomologist at the University of Minnesota in St. Paul, who signed the complaint. "It will be interesting to see how companies implement the principles they agreed upon."

What is clear is that the seed industry is perceived as highly secretive and reluctant to share its products with scientists. This is fueling the view that companies have something to hide.

Who's in control?

It's no secret that the seed industry has the power to shape the information available on biotech crops, referred to variously as genetically engineered or genetically modified (GM) crops. Commercial entities developed nearly all of the crops on the US market, and their ownership of the proprietary technology allows them to decide who studies the crops and how. "Industry is completely driving the bus," says Christian Krupke, an entomologist at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana.

Company control starts with a simple grower's contract. Anyone wishing to buy transgenic seeds has to sign what's called a technology stewardship agreement that says, among many things, that the buyer cannot conduct research on the seed, nor give it to someone else for research. This means scientists can't simply buy seeds for their studies, and farmers can't slip them some on the side. Instead, scientists must get permission from the seed companies or risk a lawsuit. "You need permission from industry and you have to specify what you want to do with the plants," says Bruce Tabashnik, an entomologist at the University of Arizona in Tucson.

Seed companies can refuse a research request for any reason, and they get fairly inventive. In 2002, Paul Gepts, a plant geneticist at the University of California, Davis, wanted to check for the presence of transgenic maize in Mexican households after reports that DNA from GM maize had transferred to local varieties.

He requested seed samples from three companies, explaining that he wanted to compare them to the seeds from the Mexican households to see if they contained the same genetic material. "I thought naively that that would be a courtesy and I could get a small sample. But they didn't really want to do it," Gepts says. According to emails reviewed by Nature Biotechnology, Monsanto, based in St. Louis, told Gepts to get a powder sample from Europe, which didn't work well for the experiment, Gepts says. Gan-Yuan Zhong, a researcher at the time at Johnston, Iowa-based Pioneer Hi-Bred, told Gepts that the company didn't have the "appropriate material" to share. And Syngenta, in Basel, suggested Gepts collaborate with the Mexican government, which was investigating the issue.

How often these kinds of rejections are happening is unclear. Some may be isolated instances; others result from company policies. For example, Syngenta recently implemented a rule prohibiting any study that compares its commercial crops to other companies' crops, according to Paul Minehart, a spokesperson for Syngenta. One scientist affected by the change, Minnesota's Ostlie, wanted to compare how three companies' insect-resistant corn varieties fared against local species of rootworms. All three products had been commercialized, and Syngenta, Monsanto and Pioneer gave Ostlie permission to do the study for the 2007 growing season. But for the 2008 season, Syngenta backed out. "In late 2007, we changed our policies on research," says Minehart. "We decided not to get involved in any comparison studies," he says. Many Syngenta products contain components licensed from other companies, and Syngenta has agreements with those companies that they won't compare their products, Minehart says.

The idea of having to get permission from companies to do studies is a deterrent in itself. "There are three strategies that people take," says Elson Shields, an entomologist at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. "Some are just not doing the research. Some are changing their experimental protocols so that they are acceptable to industry - which may or may not be a good thing," he says. "And some are just going out and buying the seeds and doing the research in violation of the technology agreements."

Requesting permission from the companies can be daunting. The requester usually has to describe in detail the design of the experiment- information scientists may not want to divulge. Some researchers object to revealing their hypotheses because it provides companies with a head start in preparing a rebuttal. Once the company and the scientist agree on the design, they must negotiate the terms of the research agreement. Negotiations tend to break down when companies want to limit or control publication of the study. "When you are funded by state and federal dollars, you have an obligation that the research you conduct is public and published," says Beverly Durgan, dean of extension services at the University of Minnesota. "So signing research secrecy agreements is something we really can't do," she says. The US Department of Agriculture's (USDA) research arm, Agricultural Research Service (ARS), has a similar policy. "We can sometimes agree to some limitations on publishing like having the company review the results X days before publication," says Kalpana Reddy, in the office of tech transfer at ARS. "But we won't agree to any sort of blanket approval, which would limit our right to publish."

Negotiations in 2008 between Monsanto and two universities-North Dakota State University and the University of Minnesota- broke down when Monsanto insisted on approving publication of any data on its newly commercialized transgenic sugar beets, according to Durgan. The university had proposed "the general type of research our faculty would conduct with any new crop variety," she says. "Monsanto wanted the right to approve all publications, and we said that was not possible," she says. As a result, no sugar beet research was conducted by Minnesota or North Dakota State University in the 2008 growing season. A Monsanto spokesperson claims that "it became necessary to manage research agreements more carefully" when separately, Monsanto's sugar beet became an object of litigation. Monsanto and the two universities came to a compromise for the 2009 growing season.

Studying crops hasn't always been this difficult. "Before biotech came around, when new varieties came out, local groups would get together and have a local trial," says Alan McHughen, a plant biotechnologist at the University of California, Riverside. Crop clubs, composed of local farmers and university scientists, would do agronomic studies to see which varieties perform best and how they interact with the local environment. "If it was okay in the past, I don't see why companies would object to it now," says McHughen.

Most major seed companies seem to have made an effort to enable scientists to do such agronomic research. Pioneer, Monsanto, Syngenta and Indianapolis-based Dow AgroSciences say they have negotiated multiyear agreements with major universities that give those scientists the freedom to conduct and publish most agronomic research without having to get permission from the company for every study (Box 1). But the limits of these agreements are often unclear. A group at Penn State generated a list to "put in front of companies to find out what kind of research falls under these agreements," says Dennis Calvin, an entomologist at the university. The new principles drafted by the seed trade association this summer may help clarify, and possibly expand, these limits. The group aims to finalize the draft by the end of the year.

Keeping tabs

Industry spokespeople say they were surprised by the scientists' complaint to the EPA. "It's clear that academics have an issue that needs some attention," says Eric Sachs, director of global scientific affairs at Monsanto, who attended the July meeting. "But some scientists we've talked to think this issue has been blown way out of proportion," he says. "The language in that letter seemed to suggest that some products on the market may very well be unsafe because they haven't been adequately tested. That's going too far in my mind," he says.

The companies say they have to keep tabs on public sector research because they want to make sure the studies are done with good stewardship practices and in accordance with regulations. If there is an adverse event with a precommercial product, seed makers could be liable, even if the event occurred under the watch of a public sector scientist. Any adverse events with commercial products have to be reported to regulatory authorities as well.

Industry spokespeople also say they want to be mindful of the integrity of US grain exports so that products that haven't received approval in some countries aren't sent there. Companies also want to protect their intellectual property (IP) and their investment in the product. They are particularly averse to allowing the public sector to breed crops or to characterize the genetic composition of the plant. After all, a biotech crop can cost up to $100 million to develop, according to industry estimates. "Where would you stand if this were your product?" asks Carol Mallory-Smith, a weed scientist at Oregon State University in Corvallis.

And, companies want the studies done right. "If you do some poorly organized research proposal, a company might not be inclined to give you the seeds because they're afraid it won't cast a favorable light on their product," says Rick Goodman, a food scientist at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and a former Monsanto researcher. "The consequences can be huge," he says. Biotech crops are intensely scrutinized, and any negative study that comes out tends to be widely disseminated by vocal anti-GM groups. Companies have spent countless hours defending themselves from such groups. "Critics are looking for any little problem with the technology," adds Tabashnik.

Industry spokespeople say they want strong relationships with academics because they depend on their expertise. In fact, seed companies frequently pay academics to study precommercial products, similar to consulting arrangements or discovery work carried out in academia for big pharma. Monsanto, for example, will pay anywhere from a couple thousand dollars to do a single-field study to a couple hundred thousand dollars to do more complex laboratory work or an animal feeding study. "If industry wasn't sponsoring this research there would be much fewer data than there is now," says Blair Siegfried, an entomologist at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

Shoddy studies?

A potential check on industry's control over the data is the role that regulatory agencies play on product approval. But some scientists worry that these agencies aren't asking for the right safety tests. "Companies put in mountains of data but there's no devil's advocate - no other side," says Krupke at Purdue.

In the US, under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938, the FDA is responsible for ensuring that food is safe to eat, although by statute, it regulates only food additives. By that definition, most crops are exempt from FDA approval, although companies tasked with ensuring their products are safe often voluntarily submit a considerable amount of information. Certain types of commercialized crops also fall under the jurisdiction of the USDA and the EPA: the USDA is concerned with minimizing gene flow, the EPA regulates crops containing pesticides, such as those with insect-resistance traits. Transgenic and conventional crops with other traits - herbicide tolerance or nutritional enhancement - could enter the marketplace with almost no review of the potential health impacts1. The EPA also regulates unintended effects on nontarget insects, although a review of published studies identified problems that limit their usefulness2,3. The fact that much of the data submitted to regulatory agencies remains confidential business information that is not shared with the research community means that for many crops (transgenic or otherwise), little information on human or environmental toxicity is known. Certainly, there is a paucity of such studies in the literature. Spanish researcher Jose Domingo, at Rovira i Virgili University in Reus, conducted a literature review of toxicity studies conducted on commercialized GM crops. So few research papers turned up in his search that he asked, "Where is the scientific evidence showing that GM plants/food are toxicologically safe?"4.

In some instances, university scientists have raised concerns about data submitted to regulatory agencies, but had no recourse. In 2001, for example, Pioneer was developing a transgenic corn variety that contained a binary toxin, Cry34Ab1/Cry35Ab1, to fend off rootworms. The company asked some university laboratories to test for unintended effects on a lady beetle. The laboratories found that nearly 100% of lady beetles that had been fed the crop died after the eighth day in the life cycle. When the researchers presented their results to Pioneer, the company forbade them from publicizing the data. "The company came back and said 'you are under no circumstances able to publicize this data in any way'," says a scientist associated with the project, who asked to remain anonymous. Because the product had not yet been commercialized, the research agreement gave Pioneer the right to prevent publication of their results.

Two years later, Pioneer received regulatory approval for an antirootworm corn variety with the same toxin-Cry34Ab1/Cry35Ab1. But the data submitted to the EPA had no sign of potential harm to lady beetles, even though Pioneer had followed common EPA testing protocols. In one study, the company fed purified toxins to the lady beetles only through the seventh day of their life cycle - one day short of what was found to be their most susceptible stage. In a second study, the company followed the lady beetles through the end of their life cycle but used a different mode of feeding, through a homogenized powder consisting of half prey and half pollen, and didn't see any effect, according to Jim Register, a scientist at Pioneer. Register also says that although Pioneer's commercialized product contains the same toxin as the one the universities studied, it is a different construct-key genes were integrated into a different place in the genome.

The anonymous researcher maintains that Pioneer's studies are flawed. The EPA was made aware of the independently produced data, but opted not to act, according to the anonymous source. Pioneer would also not give the scientists permission to redo the study after the crop was commercialized.

Scientists can in theory review the data companies file with regulatory agencies. "Independent scientists mostly want to review the data to see if it's good science or regulatory junk science and also to conduct their own research," says Bill Freese, an analyst at the Center for Food Safety in Washington, DC. But roadblocks exist to this as well. Scientists have to submit Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, which can take months, and allows access only to information that is not confidential business information. In this regard, the USDA has been accused by a National Academy of Sciences committee of allowing companies to make excessive claims of confidential business information5.

Companies have been known to take the confidentiality of data on their GM crops to even greater extremes. Tabashnik says a Dow AgroSciences employee once threatened him with legal action if he published information he received from the EPA. The information concerned an insect-resistant variety of maize known as TC1507, made by Dow and Pioneer. The companies suspended sales of TC1507 in Puerto Rico after discovering in 2006 that an armyworm had developed resistance to it. Tabashnik was able to review the report the companies filed with the EPA by submitting a Freedom of Information Act request. "I encouraged an employee of the company [Dow] to publish the data and mentioned that, alternatively, I could cite the data," says Tabashnik. "He told me that if I cited the information...I would be subject to legal action by the company," he says. "These kinds of statements are chilling."

Many think that companies aren't helping their image with these strong-arm tactics and a close-fisted attitude to materials sharing. The industry has taken a lot of hits over the years, particularly from activist groups ready to pounce on any sliver of anti-GM information. "If there's a sense that a problem is being swept under the carpet, then that only fuels the fear," says Tabashnik. "I think it's better to be open about it," he says. "It's not as if one problem with one variety means the whole technology isn't useful."

Emily Waltz, Nashville

1. Freese, W. & Schubert, D. Biotechnol. Genet. Eng. Rev. 21, 299-324 (2004).

2. Marvier, M. Ecol. Appl. 12, 1119 -1124 (2002).

3. Marvier, M. et al. Science 316, 1475-1477 (2007).

4. Domingo, J. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 47, 721-733 (2007).

5. Committee on Environmental Impact Associated with Commercialization of Transgenic Plants, National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences. Environmental Effects of Transgenic Plants: The Scope and Adequacy of Regulation (The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2002).

EU farm ministers refuse to okay new GM maize strains

AFP, 19 October 2009:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h1qJs-xQOm84UPzS13efZNNVSXyA

LUXEMBOURG - European Union farm ministers refused to give their seal of approval on Monday to plans to allow the import of genetically-modified maize from US growers, diplomats said.

During a meeting of European Union agriculture ministers in Luxembourg dominated by crisis in the dairy sector, nations were unable to agree on proposals to greenlight the latest batch of so-called 'Frankenstein foods.'

Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel sought the go-ahead for two strains of corn produced by Monsanto and another by rivals Pioneer to be cleared for import by European firms.

Several sources told AFP that the decision would ultimately be left up to the commission itself, because if no agreement can be reached by the ministers Brussels will have free rein to choose.

Fischer Boel argued that a shortage of soya for animal feedstuffs and over-reliance on US exporters meant the EU had to get over old fears about new products.

She slammed regulations that meant one large shipment of soya was turned back from EU borders this summer because traces of unauthorised GM maize, that she said were harmless, were found in its containers.

"We have to rely on science and not on emotions," said Fischer Boel. "The commission will take a clear decision and that will be a yes," she vowed.

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

The MON810 case has become a source of transatlantic friction. The United States has warned Europe against using environmental issues as an excuse for protectionism.

Six European countries -- Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary and Luxembourg -- had adopted safeguard clauses to ban its cultivation on their territory.

Transgenic aubergines put on ice
• Indian minister delays approval of GM crop

K.S. Jayaraman
Nature News, 19 October 2009:
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091019/full/4611041a.html

Stiff opposition from activists has persuaded the Indian government to put off commercial release of the country's first genetically modified (GM) food crop, despite clearance from the nation's top biotechnology regulator.

The 14 October ruling by the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) granted permission for Indian farmers to grow a transgenic version of aubergine, or brinjal, that is insect-resistant. But barely 24 hours later, Jairam Ramesh, India's minister of environment and forests, said that permission for its cultivation will be given only after consulting "all stakeholders".

Ramesh says that the ministry will seek public comments until the end of the year and that he "will have a series of consultations with scientists, agriculture experts, farmers' organizations, consumer groups and NGOs" in January and February 2010 before deciding whether to go forward.

The GM brinjal variety was developed by Mahyco Monsanto Biotech, a joint venture between Jalna-based Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Company and US seed giant Monsanto.

The decision to seek further input has angered some crop scientists. "The minister has set a bad precedent by ignoring the recommendation of the GEAC - a statutory body consisting of scientists," says Chavali Kameswara Rao, secretary of the Foundation for Biotechnology Awareness and Education in Bangalore. "The biosafety issue of Bt brinjal has been studied by more than 150 scientists, and nothing new will come from fresh consultations."

But GEAC member Pushpa Bhargava, who was founding director of the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology in Hyderabad, says Ramesh has made the right choice. "The government need not accept every recommendation made by the GEAC," he says. Bhargava was one of the three members of the GEAC, out of a total of 20-odd members, who opposed the introduction of Bt brinjal - citing what they called inadequate safety data provided by Mahyco.

Mahyco says that at least 25 environmental-safety and food-safety studies on animals carried out since 2002 show that Bt brinjal is "absolutely safe" to eat. But Bhargava and activist groups argue that the GEAC did not get the company data independently analysed. The only other study, by French scientist Gilles-Eric Seralini of the Committee for Independent Research and Information on Genetic Engineering, branded Bt brinjal "potentially unsafe for human consumption".

EU exec to approve GM maize if ministers disagree

Reuters, October 19 2009:
http://www.reuters.com/article/governmentFilingsNews/idUSLJ71756020091019

LUXEMBOURG - The European Commission will make a quick decision to authorise three varieties of GM maize so as to relieve pressure on the livestock sector if EU ministers fail to agree, the EU farm chief said on Monday.

EU farm ministers are expected to reach a stalemate over approval of the genetically modified maize from Monsanto and Pioneer Hi-Bred, a unit of Dupont, paving the way for default approval by the 27-country bloc's executive Commission.

"I regret very much that the ministers do not understand the consequence of the decision that they might take today," EU Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel told journalists ahead of a meeting of EU farm ministers.

"I hope the Commission can decide as soon as possible because this is really urgent," Fischer Boel said.

The two maize varieties developed by Monsanto under the names MON88017, MON89034, and the Pioneer maize known as 59122xNK603 have been given the green light by the European food safety watchdog, the European Food Safety Authority.

Genetically modified food is a sensitive issue in many EU countries, such as France, Austria and Poland, with many people hostile to what they call "Frankenstein foods".

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

The European Union does not allow the presence of any other GMO on EU territory, even in tiny amounts, until approval for that specific GM product is granted.

In recent months, shipments of soy with traces of unauthorised GMOs have been blocked from entering the EU in Spain and Germany, raising concerns that Europe could face a shortage of high-protein soybean and soy meal, used as livestock feed.

"I hope that the situation is resolved because it will have an important impact on the price of animal feed," said Padraig Walshe, president of farmers union Copa-Cogeca.

"Europe imports 32 million tonnes of soybean and the zero-tolerance policy that is there is increasing the pressure on the price of feed," he added. (Reporting by Bate Felix; editing by Sue Thomas)

---

Comment by GM Watch:

This will really bring the Commission into further disrepute. Here's EU Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel playing up to the biotech lobby and commodity traders' big lie on the need for GM feed.

As John Fagan of Cert-ID recently told The Guardian: "The big US agricultural commodity traders Cargill, ADM and Bunge have major biotech seed research projects of their own. They have deep alliances with Monsanto and Syngenta. They want US GM soya to be accepted uncritically in Europe and they would prefer every soya bean on the planet to be equal to every other soya bean because that's what profitable commodity trading is about."

Spanish research cites health worry as GM barrier

Jess Halliday
Food Navigator, 19 October 2009:
http://www.foodnavigator.com/Financial-Industry/Spanish-research-cites-health-worry-as-GM-barrier/?c=4UZvOL3vyw3cf1aAanw3eg%3D%3D&utm_source=newsletter_daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Newsletter%2BDaily

Spanish consumers report not knowing much about genetically modified foods, but being very concerned about potential effects on human health, says a new study that suggests more policies are needed to open up the market.

Genetic modification is a topic of hot debate in the EU, as members of the bloc have been split about the role it should have in human food. Advocates argue that biotechnology could help ensure future food security for a growing population; anti-GM campaigners, on the other hand, say that the long term effects on human and environmental health are unknown and unknowable in the short time.

At present, few GM crops can be cultivated commercially in the EU [the precice number is 1 !], in comparison with the US, where take up has been broader. Applications to import GM foodstuffs and animal feed are subject to risk assessment by European Commission's independent risk assessor, the European Food Safety Authority.

The new study was conducted in Alicante, Spain, to gauge awareness and perceptions of GM foods in that market. The authors, from Miguel Hernandez University, note that consumer views can vary wildly between EU member states but that not much investigative work had been carried out in Spain, despite some 80,000 hectares having being planted with GM crops in that country.

The research has been accepted for publication in a forthcoming issue of the Elsevier journal Food Policy. Its aim was to study consumer concern by analysing the motives that make consumers worry about GM in the food supply, and which give rise of the perceived risk.

Africa Martinez-Poveda and colleagues conducted face-to-face interviews with 465 individuals in Alicante between April and June 2004. The interviewees were asked questions on their knowledge of GM products in general, their view son the credibility of information, health aspects, potential beneficiaries, and legal aspects.

The researchers concluded that most of the concerns about GM food relates to perceived risk about human health.

They said there is a need for consumer health policies to accompany introductions of GM foods into agro-food markets, "to allow a decrease in consumer-perceived risk by taking special care of the information provided, concretely relating to health".

The perceived risk could be reduced "through action in the part of various governmental organisms that take and active part in all EU agricultural development". The need for policies is accompanied by a need for complementary strategies and action by businesses wanting to introduce GM food to the market - paying special attention to health, they say.

The researchers note that "risk cannot be totally eliminated". But they add: "This risk can be minimised if good action in information and labelling is achieved."

Who has heard of GM?

Notably, some 86.5 per cent of people knew or had heard of GM products, but their level of knowledge was low: Only 2.2 per cent of them had a high level of knowledge, 4.9 per cent said they had plenty of knowledge, 35.1 per cent had some knowledge and 44.3 per cent thought their knowledge was limited. Some 13.5 per cent said they had heard about GM products, but recognised that they knew nothing about them.

On the other hand, 57.4 per cent said they pay attention to information they receive on GMs, and 4.5 per cent go searching for information.

However, there seemed to be a problem with the perceived credibility of information available. When asked to rank the credibility of sources on a scale of 1 to 5, none was ranked 5 for "very believable". The sources they were resented with were health professionals, scientists, ecological associations, product labels, public administration, food industry and journalists.

Source

Food Policy (Elsevier), published online ahead of print

DOI 10.1016/j/foodpol.2009.08.001

"Consumer-perceived risk model for the introduction of genetically modified food in Spain"

Authors: Martinez-Poveda, A; Brugarolas Molla-Bauza, M; del Campo Gomis, FJ; Martinez-Carrasco Matrinez, L.

Anger at lack of progress on GM
• Grain chief says issue puts livestock sector at risk

Richard Halleron
Farming Life [UK], 19 October 2009:
http://www.farminglife.com/farmingnews/Anger-at-lack-of-progress.5744784.jp

NORTHERN Ireland Grain Trade Association (NIGTA) President Garth Boyd has expressed outrage at the European Commission's decision not to include the issue of zero tolerance levels for non approved Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) at the upcoming meeting of EU farm ministers.

"There is no excuse for this," he told Farming Life.

"Yet again it puts the future prospects of the intensive livestock sector here in Northern Ireland at great risk. NIGTA has been working closely with its sister organisations throughout the UK and Ireland on this matter for a considerable period of time. Local feed companies are already paying over the odds for their protein supplies. However, given the current state of global protein markets, this problem may well be exacerbated further. No local miller will take the risk of importing soya from North America until the zero tolerance issue has been resolved at Ministerial level within the EU in a sensible manner."

He added: "Dr. JosÈ Manuel Barroso has been re-elected as President of the European Commission. In addition, the recent referendum in the Republic of Ireland has, hopefully, paved the way for the full ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. Given these two developments I was hopeful that the GMO tolerance issue would now be actively addressed by Brussels, hence my deep disappointment on hearing that the issue will not be discussed at the next Farm Council meeting."

Structurally, the EU is dependent on the global market for its protein supply and none of the EU member states is self sufficient in proteins. The EU has to source its imports of soybeans and soybean meals in those countries that produce predominantly GM soybeans (and other GM crops like maize) i.e. the USA, Canada, Brazil, Argentina and other South American countries. This dependency on the global market exposes the EU feed and food chain to trade disruption and possible shortages.

This is particularly the case in 2009 as, unlike in previous years, supplies of soybeans from South America will not be available for EU operators due to a considerable production shortage (19 million tonnes less) because of a drought earlier this year. There is no significant alternative supply of soybeans as a source of protein on the global market available. Therefore, between mid September 2009 and the next South American harvest starting in March 2010, the EU industry will have to import about 6 to 7.5 million tonnes of soy beans from North America to cover the needs of the food and feed markets. However, these imports can only take place if a solution is found to avoid the minute (less than 0.1%) presence of a GM event not yet authorized in Europe blocks consignments.

But GM is not the only issue that has been addressed by the Northern Ireland Grain Trade Association over recent months.

"The Dioxin scare earlier this year highlighted the fact the Province's feed and food assurance standards actually work, with full traceability a key component of these provisions," he further explained.

"However, we have not rested on laurels where this matter is concerned. There is always room for improvement and with this objective in mind we have been working closely with colleagues in the Republic of Ireland and Belgium in order to draw up more comprehensive agreements that will give the feed and food industries even greater levels of re-assurance."

On the issue of future feed prices Garth Boyd indicated that a number of factors will come into play over the coming months.

"If the GM issue is not resolved quickly, it will put a big question mark over the future price and availability of soya," he stressed.

"The downside of a weak sterling is that it makes imported grain and other feed inputs significantly more expensive."

Garth Boyd concluded: "We have seen raw material prices rising over the past few weeks by between £12 and £14 per tonne. However, at farm levels it should be a case of steady as you go for the next couple of months. I am not in a position to predict how markets will fare beyond this point."

---

Comment from GM Watch:

Although the article being commented on here [see below] is to do with Northern Ireland, GM-free Ireland's comment is a very important one and worth reading in full because it teases out the close interconnection of trade associations with transnational agri-biotech companies and commodity traders known to have a history of extreme anti-competitive behaviour.

What seems to be going on here - both from the GM lobby and the grain traders - is desperate scare-mongering (All livestock in EU will have to be culled/Britain will starve, etc.), in order to enable pro-GM politicians to ram through liberalisation measures on GM.

---

Comment from GM-free Ireland:

The Northern Ireland Grain Trade Association (NIGTA) has 33 members. These include the obvious feed importers such as Beck & Scott Ltd, Cefetra Ltd, James Holland & Co Ltd, R&H Hall Ltd, and W&R Barnett Ltd.

NIGTA's members also include some of the worlds biggest transnational companies directly involved in agricultural biotechnology such as DSM Nutritional Products AG (which "strongly supports the conclusions of a new OECD report, which says that biotech in agriculture and industry should be supported by 'substantially greater' investments to solve global challenges"), Alltech, Yara International ASA and Twow Nutrition International. Moreover, all full members of NIGTA also belong to lobby groups (including AIC - Agricultural Industries Confederation, GAFTA - the Grain and Feed Trade Association, NABIM - National Association of British and Irish Millers, and FOFSA International - Federation of Oils, Seeds and Fats Association), most of which campaign vigorously against the EU's precautionary policies on GMOs.

Some NIGTA members have financial and organizational ties to transnational agri-biotech companies and commodity traders such as Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) that have been prosecuted for anti-trust violations by the FBI, the U.S. Department of State, and the European Commission. Most of these groups want to force GM crops, animal feed and food into the EU market, against the wishes of the majority of farmers, consumers, retailers and member states.

In 1996, the US Department of Justice Antitrust Division prosecuted ADM (the world's third largest commodity trader) and others for participating in an international cartel organized to suppress competition for lysine, an important livestock and poultry feed additive. The cartel had inflated the price of this important agricultural input by tens of millions of dollars during the course of the conspiracy. ADM pled guilty and was fined $100 million -- at the time the largest criminal antitrust fine in history. Two Japanese and two Korean firms also were prosecuted for their participation in the worldwide lysine cartel and were assessed multi-million dollar fines. In addition, three former ADM executives were convicted for their personal roles in the cartel; two of them were sentenced to serve 36 and 33 months in prison, respectively, and fined $350,000 apiece for their involvement, and the other executive had 20 months added to a prison sentence he was already serving for another offense. Source: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/speeches/200417.htm

According to the European Commission competition website (http://europa.eu/pol/comp/index_en.htm#curia):

"On 9 July 2009 the European Court of First Instance fined Archer Daniels Midland €29.4 million for operating a cartel and participating in anti-competitive activities in relation to citric acid, following criminal investigations by the FBI, and related lawsuits filed against ADM by the U.S. Department of Justice and Commission of the European Communities (http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=en&Submit=Rechercher&docrequire=alldocs&numaff=&datefs=&datefe=&nomusuel=&domaine=CONC&mots=&resmax=100) .

"A related FBI Report contains the detailed description given by a former ADM representative of the cartel arrangements and, in particular, of the information on the meetings between the undertakings in question. That report mentions, inter alia, that meetings attended by representatives of each undertaking participating in the cartel were organised, including 'Masters' meetings attended by the highest level of those representatives, and concerned the direction and arrangements of the cartel, whereas 'Sherpa' meetings were attended by representatives responsible for the practical implementation of those arrangements. Also according to that report, it appeared to the individual questioned that another former ADM representative, called the 'The Wise Old Man', who participated in both types of those meetings, had had the idea of the cartel arrangement known as the 'G-4/5 arrangement' and had had a fairly active role in the implementation of that arrangement."

18 October 2009

Britain will starve without GM crops, says major report
• A new row over genetically modified foods being introduced into our shops has broken out after a Royal Society report recommended GM crops should be grown in Britain.

By Robert Mendick and Patrick Sawer
The Telegraph [UK]:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/6359130/Britain-will-starve-without-GM-crops-says-major-report.html

The study concluded that GM crops are needed to prevent a catastrophic food crisis by 2050.

But the report has sparked a backlash from opponents of GM foods who say they present a threat to the livelihood of small farmers.

They fear the Government will use the 100-page study, due to be published this week, to force the introduction of GM technology back on to the political agenda. Many in the Cabinet and Whitehall appear to be convinced that Britain can no longer resist its introduction into the UK market.

Previous plans to grow GM crops commercially in the UK had to be scrapped following a concerted campaign by environmental protesters and a backlash by consumers who refuse to eat so-called 'Frankenstein foods'.

However, the Royal Society report, which has taken more than a year to compile, is expected to say that Britain should no longer resist their introduction.

A source told The Sunday Telegraph: "The report will say the right GM crops should be used in the future to alleviate food shortages. This study is going to move the debate forward. The Government will have to take notice of this.

"The world is undergoing dramatic change and it won't be long before people are thinking 'where is my next meal coming from?' Where GM has been proved effective at either increasing yields or else resistant to diseases it should be used in the UK. GM crops need to be looked at one by one. They are not the only solution to world hunger but they are part of it."

The report entitled Reaping the Benefits: Towards a Sustainable Intensification of Global Agriculture, was commissioned in July 2008 in response to a UN report which predicted that world food production needs to double by 2050 to sustain a global population expected to reach nine billion.

The remit of the Royal Society working group - made up of eight eminent scientists and chaired by Professor David Baulcombe, Professor of Botany at Cambridge University - was to examine "biological approaches to enhance food-crop production".

The report looks at a series of options to increase crop yields in the UK and around the world by between 50 per cent and 100 per cent, and although GM - the altering of the genetic make-up of a crop to produce better growing results - is only one option it is likely to be the most controversial.

The fear of the effect of GM crops on surrounding harvests led to eco-activists destroying field test sites which was a major factor in forcing producers to withdraw proposals to grow GM in the UK at the beginning of the decade.

Only one GM crop, a type of maize engineered by the American agricultural biotech firm Monsanto, has even been approved for planting in the European Union. It is currently farmed commercially - albeit on a relatively small scale - in Spain. But outside the Europe Union GM crops are grown on as much as 125 million hectares of land, mainly in north and South America and the Indian subcontinent.

However nearly two-thirds of the 2.6m tonnes of soya imported into the UK last year was genetically modified and GM soya oil is widely used in the catering industry.

Environmental campaigners are suspicious that the Royal Society report is part of a renewed attempt to force GM crops on to the British public.

They point to an announcement slipped out last month by the Food Standards Agency (FSA), the Government body in charge of food safety, to hold a new round of public debates on the value of GM. When a similar exercise was carried out in 2003, the public failed to be persuaded of the need for GM.

A Cabinet meeting at the start of the year, which included Gordon Brown, the chief scientist Sir John Beddington and the then chair of the FSA, Dame Deirdre Hutton, is understood to have concluded that Britain's official stance of opposition to GM crops had to be altered.

Cabinet papers leaked at the time showed the government appeared to be ready to go ahead with GM crops despite what it recognised would be considerable public resistance.

It is understood the Royal Society report will present the Government with a perfect opportunity to begin the process of winning the public round to GM foods.

A DEFRA spokesman said: "We have not yet seen the report, but we look forward to its release and will read it with interest. Our top priority is to safeguard human health and the environment and always follow the science. We recognise that GM crops could offer a range of potential benefits over the longer term."

But environmentalists said last night that the Society's terms of reference were flawed and accused scientists of using the public's fears over climate change to try to influence the debate on GM.

Kirtana Chandrasekaran, Friends of the Earth's food campaigner, said: "There is no scientific evidence that GM produces huge yields. The public doesn't want it, small scale farmers don't want it and yet the Government keeps on pushing it. It's completely outrageous."

Many experts and academics regard the argument that GM can solve the world's food crisis as deeply flawed.

Tim Lang, professor of food policy at City University, in London, said: "There is no technical fix to the huge issue of food security. If there were a 'people's GM', I wouldn't be against it. But the problem with GM is the way it has been introduced, primarily as a way of maintaining the sales of pesticide companies."

---

Comment from GM Watch:

The Royal Society's latest report on GM is expected out this coming week and it's already making waves. But then throughout a decade or more of the GM debate the RS's role has consistently been partisan and dishonourable: http://www.spinprofiles.org/index.php/Royal_Society

The biologist and social scientist, Dr Tom Wakeford, has described the RS as "an organisation that actively promotes the interests of multinational biotech corporations, under the guise of independent science." And when part of the UK's offical Public Debate on GM crops was held at the Royal Society, Dr Les Levidow was among a number of scientists who complained about partisan chairing and bias: "Speakers engaged in selective citation or even misrepresentation of scientific findings, with a consistent bias towards ignoring or downplaying evidence of risk."

Dr Levidow complained that far from being an open debate on the science, "the event became an exercise in policing the scientific debate. 'Scientific' credentials or criteria were invoked to ignore inconvenient issues and findings, as if they lay outside science." He concluded, "If there is to be an open debate on scientific unknowns and difficult issues in risk research, then it will need to be organized elsewhere": http://www.spinprofiles.org/index.php/Royal_Society

Activists drape Mexico's Independence Monument in black to protest biotech corn plantings

Asoociated Press, 18 October 2009:
http://news.therecord.com/Wire/News_Wire/Agriculture/article/615445

MEXICO CITY - Environmental activists have draped Mexico City's Independence Monument in black to protest approval of genetically modified corn plantings.

Members of Greenpeace Mexico have drapped black banners from the 35-meter (yard) tall column and placed black arm bands on statues of national heroes on the monument, which is topped by the image of an angel.

Protester Aleira Lara says "today, the angel of Independence is in mourning."

Mexico approved the first two experimental plantings of biotech corn Thursday in controlled areas where officials say no native corn varieties exist.

Protesters said Sunday that modified genes could spread and contaminate genetically valuable native varieties of corn, which originated in Mexico.

17 October 2009

Steven Poole on Who Owns You? The Corporate Gold Rush to Patent Your Genes | The Food Wars

The Guardian [UK], 17 October 2009:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/oct/17/steven-poole-nonfiction-choice

Who Owns You? The Corporate Gold Rush to Patent Your Genes, by David Koepsell
(Wiley-Blackwell, GBP14.99)

Despite the protester-friendly subtitle, this isn't exactly a gosh-wow exposÈ of the gene-patenting business, but a tersely polemical investigation of the philosophical, scientific and legal issues. Should biotech companies be able to patent genetic sequences taken from sick individuals and monopolise the profit from them? Can you be said to "own" your genes, and to what extent are they part of you as a person? Some companies have acquired patents on genes that we all share, prompting Koepsell to observe: "The only thing the inventor has done is to point out, as if on a map, where that gene lies in nature."

The author insists at moments on a slightly quirky general account of "natural law", but one doesn't need to buy that to appreciate his fruitful detours into discussions of copyright history or "open source". He finally returns to the analogy with land, arguing that ought to be our shared "commons", and that the patent-rush constitutes a new enclosure.

The Food Wars, by Walden Bello
(Verso, GBP7.99)

Enclosure of the older kind makes an appearance here, as the author traces roots of the enormous global hike in food prices between 2006 and 2008. Bello, director of NGO Focus on the Global South, combines scholarly documentation with a slow burn of anger as he describes the imposition by the World Bank and the IMF during the 1980s and 90s of the euphemistically named "structural adjustment" programme on countries such as Mexico and the Philippines, slashing investment in agriculture and turning them into net food importers. As well as the "institutionalised stupidity" of this programme, Bello also points the finger at commodity speculators and the silly "agrofuel" bubble for the recent food-price inflation, and hopes for a more "sustainable" future in the global "food sovereignty" movement of smallholders and peasants. As you can tell from my scare quotes, the "food wars" comprise rhetorical as well as political battles.

Humans are guinea pigs for the "second generation" of genetically modified (GM) crops

Committee for Independent Research and Information on Genetic Engineering [France]
Press release, October 2009:
http://www.criigen.org/images/stories/pr-ogm2ndgeneration_1009.pdf

CRIIGEN denounces the scandalous approval of a new GM maize variety in Europe named 59122xNK603. Governments and industry have promised a "second generation" of GM crops in the service of humanity. For example crops tolerant to harsh environmental conditions such as drought, flooding and salinity caused by climate change to help combat world hunger. However, the reality is quite different. Instead these supposedly new second generation crops are simply more sophisticated versions of the old ones producing several insecticides and absorbing several herbicides. The 59122xNK603 maize is a GM crop powerhouse of four pesticides (two insecticides and two herbicides) with cumulative and compounding health and environmental risks as is inherently the case with the new Canadian GM maize SmartStax, which ultimately can contain up to eight different pesticides!

Furthermore, to avoid calls for transparency and availability of results obtained from previous investigations addressing the health consequences of eating GM crops and foods, governments, agricultural biotech seed and pesticide firms have decided to dispense altogether with animal feeding studies ... instead they now prefer to test GM foods directly on the public!

Contact:

CRIIGEN (Committee for Independent Research and Information on Genetic Engineering)

Adresse Administrative :

Pr. G.-E. Séralini
Université de Caen / CRIIGEN
Laboratoire de Biochimie - IBFA
Esplanade de la Paix
14032 Caen Cedex
France
Tél : 02 31 56 56 84
Fax : 02 31 56 53 20
E-mail : criigen@unicaen.fr
www.criigen.org

Siège social :
40, rue de Monceau
75008 Paris
France

Biased coverage of Ireland's new GM-free zone policy in the Irish Farmers Journal

By Michael O'Callaghan
GM-free Ireland Network, 17 October 2009:
http://www.gmfreeireland.org/news

The 17 October issue of the Irish Farmers Journal (http://www.farmersjournal.ie) contains no less than 4 articles full of disinformation about Ireland's new policy to ban the cultivation of GM crops and to introduce a voluntary GM-free label for animal produce from livestock fed on GM-free feedstuffs. The Journal, which takes advertising revenue from Monsanto, is known as the "Pravda of Irish agribusiness". Here are excerpts from the articles, followed by our comments:

Programme for Government Agreed
By Paddy O'Toole, News Desk
Irish Farmers Journal (Comment), 17 October 2009:

[Extract:]

The new Programme for Government contains little that is really new for farmers...

The intention to declare Ireland as a "GMO-free zone", free from the cultivation of all GM plants, will have no practical effect at present, other than to prevent any trial production of such species.

The GM crop ban, together with the new GM-free label for animal produce (which O'Toole fails to mention), is arguably the biggest and best farm news in the history of the State, because - together with Ireland's geographical isolation and Atlantic winds which protect it from transboundary contamination by GM seed dispersal and wind-borne GM pollen drift - it will enable Irish farmers to secure a totally unique selling point: the most credible safe GM-free food brand in Europe.

Programme for Government: Greens in cloud cuckoo land
By Matt Dempsey, Editor
Irish Farmers Journal (Editorial), 17 October 2009:

[Extract:]

Farmers will have read the new Programme for Government shaped by the Greens with a mixture of amazement and intense irritation.

People should not have a problem with what is now very visibly an urban, intellectually inert party. Each section of society is entitled to its views but the antagonism shown to country dwellers is based on either ignorance or prejudice - it's hard to be sure which.

A few examples:

It is now Government policy to declare Ireland a GM-free zone. We have this policy when the price of Irish feed grains is at the lowest in money terms since 1976, 33 years ago. This is as a direct result of a succession of excellent maize harvests in the US - maize with GM technology is delivering annual yield increases of 4% to 5%. This is making EU, especially Irish, feed wheat and barley progressively less competitive. Non GM fine, but the corollary has to be that the EU market be insulated from imports produced with GM feed - no sign of that.

Dempsey claims that GM is reponsible for "the lowest price of Irish feed grains" since 1976. But another article on page 10 of the same issue of the IFJ ("World grain prices improve", by Andy Doyle), claims that "US corn prices for December have risen by 22% over the past month... partly due to the changing ecomonics of ethanol production" (based on the diversion of the US GM maize crop to feed cars). The same article reports that "soyabean and soy meal prices are also up 14% since the start of the month".

Dempsey then states that the cultivation of GM maize in the USA "is delivering annual yield increases of 4% to 5%". In reality, GM crops currently on the market are NOT designed to - and DO NOT -increase yields. Numerous studies, including by the USDA, confirm that GM crops generally have lower yields, and that those that have higher yields do so because of their hybrid traits, not because they are GM. Yield and environmental resilience are multigenetic traits, and genetic engineering so far has only achieved transfer of single gene traits such as herbicide resistance and herbicide production.

A University of Kansas study by Prof. Barney Gordon, published in the Better Crops journal in April 2008, found that GM crops do NOT have higher yields, undermining repeated claims that GM crops are needed to solve the growing world food crisis. The three-year study carried out in the US grain belt found that GM soya produces about 10 per cent less food than its conventional equivalent (see Exposed: the great GM crops myth - Major new study shows that modified soya produces 10 per cent less food than its conventional equivalent" , UK Independent newspaper, 20 April 2008).

An April 2006 report from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) states that "currently available GM crops do not increase the yield potential of a hybrid variety... In fact, yield may even decrease if the varieties used to carry the herbicide tolerant or insect-resistant genes are not the highest yielding cultivars". (Fernandez-Cornejo, J. and Caswell, 2006)

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization's 2004 report on agricultural biotechnology acknowledges that GM crops can have reduced yields (FAO, 2004). This is not surprising given that first-generation genetic modifications address production conditions (insect and weed control), and are not intended to increase the intrinsic yield capacity of the plant.

A 2003 report published in Science stated that "in the United States and Argentina, average yield effects [of GM crops ] are negligible and in some cases even slightly negative". (Qaim and Zilberman, 2003). This was despite the authors being strong supporters of GM crops.

Yields of both GM and conventional varieties vary - sometimes greatly - depending on growing conditions, such as degree of infestation with insects or weeds, weather, region of production, etc. (European Commission, 2000)

For more on yields see http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/195e597ae6f23abc80256ada0051a50f/3cacfd251aab6d318025742700407f02!OpenDocument

Dempsey ends up by claiming that the new government policy has "no sign" of addressing the issue of cheap meat imports produced with GM feed, but fails to mention the policy's voluntary GM-free label for Irish meat, poultry, eggs, fish and dairy produce made without GM feed, which will address the issue by enabling US and European consumers to chose GM free Irish products over the lower quality GM-fed products from other countries.

As another article in the same issue of the Journal observes ("Bord Bía launches major international food marketing campaign", by Liam O'Neill, Business Editor), "the expected decline in European beef production over the next few years repesented a considerable market opportunity for Ireland to consolidate its position as the leading beef supplier on mainland Europe." Under the sub headline "Irish beef exports set to boom in Europe", the article quotes the chairman of Bord Bía [the Irish Food Board], Dan Browne who points out that "This will, in turn, create a more positive environment to further consolidate the market position of Irish beef in Europe, which now accounts for virtually all of our exports." The article also states "The Irish beef industry has increased the number of retail customers purchasing Irish beef across Europe from 62 in 2007 to over 70 today, giving the industry the broadest listing of retail customers held by any country in Europe. The volumes going into premium outlets has [sic] increased by 16,200 tonnes, despite an overall fall in export availability of 60,000 tonnes. Taking into account lower availability, this represents a significant repositioning into higher value channels..."

Europe's highest value beef channels are, of course, GM-free conventional and organic, which Irish farmers can produce at less cost than most if not all of their EU competitors.

Greens slammed in Portlaoise
By Pat O'Keefe, News Editor.

[Extract]:

[IFA President Padraig Walshe] targeted the Green Party for a strong attack... "It is time that the Government woke up to the fact that recovery will be export driven."

But going GM-free is precisely what the US and EU export markets demand.

We must cut costs to compete

Paddy O'Keefe
Irish Farmers Journal (Comment), 17 October 2009:

[Extract:]

Last week's Green agreement copper fastened the nonsense ban on GM foods. There is not a scintilla of evidence that GM causes any human or animal harm. It is just an article of faith with the Greens. It is a medieval superstition that knows no boundary.

Anyone who succeeds in business knows that in order to compete you either cut costs and/or produce a better product. The first option without the second is a dead-end race to the bottom for Irish farmers, who can't compete against the USA and Brazil for low-quality GM-fed industrially produced animal produce. O'Keefe ignores the second option, which our farmers can definitely win: to produce the highest quality, most credible, safe, GM free meat, fish and dairy produce in the whole of Europe.

O'Keefe's "ban on GM foods" is pure fiction: there is no such thing in Ireland.

But the ban on the cultivation of GM crops will protect both conventional and organic farmers from GM contamination, GM patent royalties, GM contamination lawsuits, mandatory GM labelling, GM testing costs, total loss of market share and economic disaster. And the voluntary GM-free label for animal produce (which O'Keefe fails to mention), will enable farmers to enter and compete in the booming EU and US markets for animal produce from livestock fed a Non-GM diet.

O'Keefe's absolutist "not-a-scintilla-of-evidence" denial of the health dangers of GMOs would be laughable if it did not endanger the safety of Ireland's food chain and our reputation as Ireland – the food island. Numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies show that GM crops and derived feed and food products are inherently unsafe for humans, livestock, wildlife and the surrounding ecosystem. A small selection of these studies can be found at http://www.gmfreeireland.org/health/studies.php. Irish farmers and food producers are strongly recommended to download this paper in particular: "Effects of GMOs and pesticides systematically understimated - CRIIGEN appeal to public authorities Committee of Independent Research and Information on Genetic Engineering, July 2009: http://www.criigen.org/images/stories/pressrelease-ijbs_080709.pdf. Scientific bodies which support these views include Consumers International, the Center for Food Safety (USA), the Union of Concerned Scientists (USA), CRIIGEN - Committee for Independent information and Research on Genetic Engineering (France), EcoNexus (UK), GeneWatch (UK), the Independent Science Panel (UK), the Norwegian Institute of Gene Ecology, the Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety (New Zealand) etc. etc.

16 October 2009

Europe's factory farms devastating communities and environment, reveals new film
• New film shows massive impact of soy production

Friends of the Earth Europe, 16 October 2009:
http://www.foeeurope.org/press/2009/Oct16_Europe%27s_factory_farms_devastating_communities.html

Brussels, October 16 - A new film launched on World Food Day reveals a hidden chain of destruction stretching from factory farms in Europe to the forests of South America where huge soy plantations are devastating communities, destroying wildlife and worsening the effects of climate change.

The ground breaking film - Killing Fields, the battle to feed factory farms - investigates the impacts of growing soy in South America to feed factory farms in Europe, and can be downloaded in 12 different languages from http://www.feedingfactoryfarms.org

Soy, grown mostly to feed chickens, cows and pigs in Europe, now covers nearly 11 million hectares in South America - an area equivalent to all the arable farmland in Germany.

The film shows that to make way for soy plantations, thousands of people are being forced from their land and with it, losing their ability to grow their own food. Indigenous people are being evicted and forests are being cleared.

Many of the soybeans are genetically modified by the multi-national Monsanto and massively increase the use of pesticides - poisoning rural communities, water sources and the natural environment.

If the EU is serious about addressing climate change, the global loss of biodiversity, human rights, and the food crisis it must urgently reduce its dependence on imports of soy.

A comprehensive briefing on the use of soy can be downloaded from http://www.foeeurope.org/soy

The film has been produced by Friends of the Earth Europe, Food and Water Watch and the European Coordination Via Campesina.

***

For more information, please contact:

Adrian Bebb, European agrofuels campaign coordinator for Friends of the Earth Europe, 0049 1609 490 1163

Francesca Gater, communications officer for Friends of the Earth Europe, +32 2893 1010, 0032 485 930515

Friends of the Earth Europe campaigns for sustainable and fair societies and for the protection of the environment, unites more than 30 national organisations with thousands of local groups and is part of the world's largest grassroots environmental network, Friends of the Earth International.

FoE assess Rhodri Morgan's environmental record

Wales Online / Western Mail [UK], 16 October 2009:
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2009/10/16/foe-assess-rhodri-morgan-s-environmental-record-91466-24942667/

[Extract:]

In the wake of Rhodri Morgan's decision to step down as First Minister at the end of the year, the director of Friends of the Earth Cymru, Gordon James below, assesses his environmental record

Rhodri Morgan has led a Government that has tried, but certainly not always succeeded, to operate according to the principles of sustainable development.

Unsurprisingly, economic development and raising Wales' low GDP has been the Welsh Assembly Government's top priority. Nevertheless, there have been a number of welcome green devel- opments under his leadership.

The most notable has been signing up to the One Wales commitment to aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Wales by 3% a year from 2011 within areas of devolved responsibility. Although this still falls short of the cuts required, and is a mere "aim", it did demonstrate a good understanding of the threat posed by climate change and a willingness for Wales to take an initiative ahead of the Westminster government approving emission reduction targets in the Climate Change Act.

This reflected the lead role that WAG has taken in supporting the GM Free Wales policy. Rhodri has continued to back this and, with the help of his Government's able Agriculture Minister Elin Jones, has reinforced it by developing a tough GM co-existence policy that is way ahead of the policy in England. WAG has also eclipsed its neighbour in its support of agri-environmental schemes, such as Tir Cymen and Tir Gofal.

It is too late to shut the door on GM foods • Consumers said no to the GM farming giants a decade ago, but that didn't stop millions of tonnes of their soya entering the food chain

Felicity Lawrence
The Guardian, 16 October 2009:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/16/too-late-to-stop-gm

Ten years ago, when the genetic modification of food was first offered to the British public, it responded with a resounding no, and politicians and the food industry said GM would not be foisted on reluctant consumers. As far as most people are concerned, that is still the situation today; they think their diet remains GM-free. A report from the Royal Society to be published on Wednesday will spark an intense new phase in the GM debate, however, during which the public may be surprised to discover how far GM has already penetrated our food supply.

The report's contents are strictly embargoed but it's a safe bet that its authors, many of whom work in biotechnology research, will argue that we need to put aside any suspicions and embrace GM if there is to be any chance of feeding the world's growing population in the face of climate change and growing scarcity of water and land.

The government has been waiting for the report since a cabinet meeting at the turn of the year. Back then the prime minister, all secretaries of state with responsibilities that touch upon food, the chief scientist Sir John Beddington, and the then chair of the Food Standards Agency Dame Deirdre Hutton, got together to discuss what they saw as an urgent dilemma: they believed that the official line on GM had become untenable, according to a well-placed source.

Of the 2.6m tonnes of soya imported into the UK last year, nearly two-thirds was genetically modified. The vast majority of this came from the Americas and was used as animal feed, although most people remain unaware of it. GM soya oil is also now used in quantity in the catering industry, according to government reports.

"We are living a lie", is how one senior food industry executive put it in discussions with Whitehall officials.

"My wake up and worry moments are about high levels of GM being found in the UK feed chain where it's claimed to be GM-free," a leading retail figure has told the Guardian.

Shipping in GM soya is perfectly legal, so long as the varieties imported are ones that have been authorised by the EU. The variety of GM soya that currently dominates global production, Monsanto's Roundup Ready, has been authorised by the EU. However, some newer varieties have not yet been approved here. Importing even trace levels of unauthorised varieties is illegal, and industry has been pushing hard to have the approval process speeded up. Any GM food sold directly to the consumer also has to be labelled.

With so much imported GM soya in the system, a senior official told us: "It seems increasingly unlikely that food on the shelves in the UK is free of GM. Identity-preserved chains [in which manufacturers and retailers track the source of their soya at every stage back to non-GM plantings] are becoming very, very difficult and there is just so much GM coming in, the probability is that, if you tested food from the supermarket shelf, you would find traces of GM in it. There is great anxiety about it."

In fact a special report on food commissioned by the prime minister from the Cabinet Office strategy unit highlighted GM as an immediate domestic issue back in the summer of 2008. It said: "Consumer confidence in UK regulations, regulators and food supplies might be prejudiced if GM feed was found in systems claiming to be GM-free or if non-authorised varieties were detected in the UK food chain. If non-authorised material is found, there are also significant cost implications associated with recall."

Perhaps fortunately for industry and government, almost no GM testing of food products is currently conducted. To keep ahead of a crisis, the cabinet meeting decided that the independent Royal Society report would represent an opportunity for a respectable shift in government position.

Several departments have been persuaded that GM will be needed to tackle the pressures of population growth and climate change. Many scientists have also argued that GM research could make some contribution to calming the "perfect storm" threatening global food supply that Beddington has warned we face in the coming decades. It was also agreed that the Food Standards Agency should reopen the debate with the public about GM - which it did last month by announcing new research on consumer opinion. Announcements from the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) over the summer also began to frame GM as a new moral imperative in feeding the world.

A Defra spokeswoman said today: "We have not yet seen the report, but we look forward to its release and will read it with interest. Our top priority is to safeguard human health and the environment and always follow the science. We recognise that GM crops could offer a range of potential benefits over the longer term."

Up for a fight

The anti-GM lobby meanwhile have been squaring up for a fight over the Royal Society report ever since the project was conceived. A group of development and environmental charities wrote an open letter last October, accusing the Royal Society of failing to look at the real causes of the global food crisis. They said that the new work would be "of limited value" if it focused on "proprietary technologies" controlled by agribusiness. They also asked why it was needed when a UN-sponsored four-year review, involving more than 400 international scientists and chaired by Defra's own chief scientist, Professor Robert Watson, had already concluded that GM technologies were unlikely to have more than a limited role in tackling global hunger.

According to the Watson-led review, the scientific evidence on the claimed benefits of GM suggests they are variable, with increases in yield in some areas but decreases in others, and both greater and lesser pesticide use in different contexts. But crucially it concluded that global hunger is as much to do with power and control of the food system as with growing enough food.

Tim Lang, professor of food policy at London's City University and government adviser on sustainable development, says: "There is no technical fix to the huge issue of food security. If there were a "people's GM", I wouldn't be against it. But the problem with GM is the way it has been introduced, primarily as a way of maintaining the sales of pesticide companies."

The concentration of corporate power in commercial seed and agrochemical production is unprecedented, as is its crossover with the powerful US-based commodity trading corporations Cargill, ADM and Bunge.

In the space of less than three decades, intellectual property rights have been applied to 82% of the global seed market, according to data collected by campaign group ETC.

Three companies now control nearly half of the total global market in proprietary seeds, worth $22bn (£13.5bn) a year. In 2007, the US-based Monsanto accounted for nearly a quarter of the total global market (23%), followed by another American company, DuPont (15%) and Swiss-headquartered Syngenta (9%).

Just six companies - the above three plus Bayer, BASF and Dow AgroSciences - control three-quarters of the global agrochemical market. Until recently they were often engaged in bitter litigation with each other - DuPont is currently claiming that Monsanto operates an illegal monopoly in the US, an allegation denied by Monsanto and being investigated along with soya seed price hikes by the US department of justice. But the more recent trend has been to form strategic alliances. For example, in 2007 Monsanto and Syngenta dropped litigation over intellectual property rights against each other and agreed cross-licences instead.

For John Fagan, chief scientist at Cert-ID, it is this corporate concentration and the realities of global trade that are at the heart of the UK government's perceived dilemma over GM. Fagan does not believe the dilemma is a real one. His company is the leading US certifier of non-GM soya for import from Brazil to Europe and the idea that GM-free chains of supply are too hard to maintain is "garbage" he says. Brazil has more than enough GM-free soya to keep the UK going and, despite the fears of the food and farming industry and Whitehall departments, will continue to plant non-GM so long as it gets paid to keep different supplies segregated.

"The big US agricultural commodity traders Cargill, ADM and Bunge have major biotech seed research projects of their own," said Fagan. "They have deep alliances with Monsanto and Syngenta. They want US GM soya to be accepted uncritically in Europe and they would prefer every soya bean on the planet to be equal to every other soya bean because that's what profitable commodity trading is about."

There is unease among scientists too that agribusiness restricts the kind of research on GM that might actually spread any potential benefits. An editorial in Scientific American magazine complained recently that it was "impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised".

"Agritech companies have given themselves the power of veto of the work of independent researchers. Under threat of litigation, scientists cannot compare seeds... [or test whether] crops lead to unintended environmental effects... Only studies the seed companies have approved see the light of day," it said.

The Royal Society report looks certain to walk into a perfect storm all of its own.

Argentina farmers fight soy industry monoculture

Marie Trigona
Free Speech Radio News [USA], 16 October 2009:
http://www.fsrn.org/audio/argentina-farmers-fight-soy-industry-monoculture/5605

And now we go to Argentina, a country that has often been described as South America's bread basket because it once produced grain and beef for much of the region. But with the transgenic soy boom the nation has shifted to a mono culture production that has displaced traditional food production and small farmers. FSRN's Marie Trigona reports from Buenos Aires.

Listen to the broadcast (3:21 minutes):
http://www.fsrn.org/audio/argentina-farmers-fight-soy-industry-monoculture/5605

Canadians Join Global Day of Action Against Monsanto:
Challenge approval of new eight-trait GM "SmartStax" corn

Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, 16 October 2009:
http://www.cban.ca/Press/Press-Releases/Canadians-Join-Global-Day-of-Action-Against-Monsanto

Today Canadians opposing Monsanto's genetically modified (GM) crops will join the first "International Day of Action Against Multinational Corporations" that has been initiated by the global farmers' movement called La Via Campesina. Canadians will support this year's focus on Monsanto and GM crops by inundating the Minister of Health with letters and calls asking for the immediate withdrawal of approval for Monsanto's GM "SmartStax" corn, authorized without safety assessment from Health Canada.

Canadians are calling and writing the Minister of Health to ask that she immediately halt the introduction of Monsanto's new eight-trait GM corn called "SmartStax" because it was not assessed for safety by Health Canada. "SmartStax" corn was authorized this summer by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency for planting next year but was not examined by Health Canada for human health safety.

La Via Campesina is calling multinational corporations the "main threat to peasant and indigenous families and humanity" because corporations are privatizing land, biodiversity, water, and seeds. Monsanto is the world's largest seed company and owns almost 90% of all the GM crops sown globally.

"It's extremely significant that La Via Campesina is focusing their World Food Day action on Monsanto and GM crops. It shows us that farmers around the world see GM crops as a major threat to their survival," said Devlin Kuyek, a Montreal-based researcher for the international group GRAIN.

"Monsanto and Dow together own eight patents in 'SmartStax' corn and will charge higher prices and take deeper control over seed," said Benoit Girouard, President of Union Paysanne, a member group of La Via Campesina.

"Health Canada must stop Monsanto's 'SmartStax' corn before farmers start growing a GM crop that was never assessed for human consumption." said Lucy Sharratt, Coordinator of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network. "The Minister of Health is supporting Monsanto ahead of safeguarding the health of Canadians."

"Monsanto is still pushing GM wheat and GM alfalfa regardless of the major environmental risks and despite the fact that consumers and farmers have soundly rejected both," said Arnold Taylor of the Saskatchewan Organic Directorate's Organic Agriculture Protection Fund.

"Contamination by GM crops is causing deep financial harm to Canadian farmers," said Terry Boehm, Vice-President of the National Farmers Union, also a member group of La Via Campesina. "Right now we see that Canadian farmers face the loss of their most important flax market in Europe due to GM contamination."

For more information: Benoit Girouard, Union Paysanne, 450 495 1910; Lucy Sharratt, Coordinator, Canadian Biotechnology Action Network 613 241 2267 ext. 6; Arnold Taylor, Saskatchewan Organic Directorate, cell: 306 241 6126 or 306 252 2783; Terry Boehm, National Farmers Union, 306 255 2880.

Ireland Says Not in this Country: Bans Genetically Modified Crops

TreeHugger.com, 16 October 2009:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/10/ireland-says-not-in-this-country-bans-gm-crops.php

Prince Charles has called it the "biggest environmental disaster of all time," while Monsanto and others maintain it's safe for humans and the environment. Genetically modified foods are a contentious issue, but Ireland is erring on the side of caution, placing a ban on growing any genetically modified crops.

Ireland will ban growing of GM crops, and a voluntary GM-free label can be placed on all animal products--such as meat, poultry, eggs, fish, crustaceans, and dairy--that are raised with GM-free feed, according to a GM-Free Ireland press release. Ireland joins Japan and Egypt as one of the few but growing number of countries that have banned the cultivation of GM crops.

Smart Move for Irish Farmers

The agreement, signed by the government's two coalition partners, declares Ireland a "GM-free Zone."

The move will help Irish farmers who can't compete with subsidized agriculture powerhouses, says GM-Free Ireland Co-ordinator, Michael O'Callaghan:

The WTO's economic globalization agenda has forced most Irish farmers to enter an unwinnable race to the bottom for low quality GM-fed meat and dairy produce, in competition with countries like the USA, Argentina and Brazil which can easily out-compete us with their highly subsidized GM crop monocultures, cheap fossil fuel, extensive use of toxic agrochemicals that are not up to EU standards, and underpaid migrant farm labor.

But the move is smart not just for the benefit of Irish farmers and consumers; it will make Ireland's agriculture even more green, raising the country's environmental status on the world stage, says O'Callaghan:

The Irish Government plan to ban GM crops and to provide a voluntary GM-free label for qualifying animal produce makes obvious business sense for our agri-food and eco-tourism sectors. Everyone knows that US and EU consumers, food brands and retailers want safe GM-free food, and Ireland is ideally positioned to deliver the safest, most credible GM-free food brand in Europe, if not the world.

GM-Free Ireland Means More GM-Free in the U.S.

The U.S. imports large amounts of Irish diary products, including casein for cheese production, so the move will mean more Americans are getting GM-free foods.

Ireland's move will also provide a significant source of GM-free agricultural products for North American food product manufacturers, says Megan Thompson, executive director of the Non-GMO Project, a non-profit group that works to ensure GM-free foods are available to consumers who want them.

Ireland has taken a truly inspiring step to ensuring consumers' right to choose non-GMO products... As more and more companies in the USA and Canada are looking for non-GMO ingredients, this is a very timely move and we look forward to developing sourcing opportunities with GM-free producers in Ireland.

Bleak News for Monsanto

So far, Monsanto has been mum on Ireland's move, but odds are they're going to have a corporate version of a hissy fit--they'll sue.

It wouldn't be the first time Monsanto took on a nation. In April the agro-engineering giant filed suit against Germany for the country's ban on GM corn, but the courts sided with Germany, upholding the ban.

But with a country placing a sweeping ban, Ireland might be in for a bigger fight. It does, after all, set a precedent in Europe.

EU farmers in Brussels: "GMOs are not a solution"

Green Planet, 16 October 2009:
http://en.greenplanet.net/food/gmo/1038-eu-farmers-in-brussels-qgmos-are-not-a-solutionq.html

In the heart of Europe, right at European Commission's headquarters, EU farmers together with Greenpeace will meet with Health Commissioner Androulla Vassiliou to submit a petition with 180 thousand signatures to stop the authorization to Bayer's GM rice LL62.

Farmers from Spain, Sweden and Thailand have reported their experience to show the ruinous effects of GMOs' contamination, while stressing the successful results achieved through natural farming. For this reason they have brought in Brussels organic potatoes and rice, as these are the main crops whose GM variants are waiting for the EC's approval.

"Organic corn could disappear as a result of GMOs. According to my experience with maize, pollen travels faster and further than outlined in studies, and maize is contaminated more often than actually reported. In my case, the closest maize to my fields is about 500 meters far, and it is not GM. However, my crops were contaminated all the same" said Eduardo Campayo GarcÌa, organic farmer in Albacete, Spain.

The Greenpeace report on GM contamination that has been presented to the Commission today, October 16, describes the dangers of GMOs contamination and the effects on the livelihood of European farmers and local communities.

"Farmers are refusing GMOs and are gradually converting to more eco-friendly agriculture. They do not want to be at the mercy of multinational corporations that threaten to take control of our food," says Federica Ferrario, head of Greenpeace GMO campaign.

The association asks the European Commission to protect our food and our farms by blocking the authorization of Bayer's GM rice, BASF's GM potato and Monsanto's MON810 maize.

Peasants Worldwide Rise up Against Monsanto, GMOs

La Via Campesina - International Peasant Movement, 16 October 2009:
http://www.viacampesina.org/main_en/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=797&Itemid=1

La Via Campesina carries out Global Day of Action against Monsanto

MEXICO - Today, International World Food Day, as declared by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, La Via Campesina is mobilizing globally along with allies in an overwhelming expression of outright rejection of Monsanto and Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), in the name of food sovereignty.

In the United States today, protests and teach-ins against Monsanto are taking place in Maine and Wisconsin. In Brazil, Via Campesina members are carrying out actions in the headquarters of Monsanto and Syngenta. In Europe, where nine countries have prohibited GMOs, Via Campesina organized an anti-Monsanto brigade traveling throughout the region. In India, thousands of farmers and allies are carrying out hunger strikes and occupying lands. Actions are being carried out in at least 20 countries and all nine regions where La Via Campesina is present.

Meanwhile, world leaders are preparing to meet at the FAO World Food Summit in Rome in November, where the powers of global governance and agribusiness will utilize the desperation of starving nations to accelerate the expansion of GMO-based agriculture throughout the world. The Obama administration's proposal to dedicate over a billion dollars of emergency funding to developing countries for agriculture, and the U.S. government's Global Food Security Initiative are thinly veiled efforts to this end.

Peasants, landless workers, migrants, indigenous peoples and consumers, identified transnational corporations, especially Monsanto, which, together with Syngenta, Dupont and Bayer control over half of the world's seeds, and are thus the principal enemies of peasant sustainable agriculture and food sovereignty for all peoples. La Via Campesina is in a daily struggle to protect native seeds, patrimony of humanity, from corporations and patents. Today, October 16, the strength of the movement is pushing the public opinion to reject Monsanto's take-over of the food system.

"It's time for all civil society to recognize the gravity of this situation, global capital should not control our food, nor make decisions behind closed doors. The future of our food, the protection of our resources and especially our seeds, are the right of the people," said Dena Hoff, coordinator of Via Campesina North America.

Globalize Hope!! Globalize the Struggle!!

---

The principal objective of La Via Campesina is to develop solidarity and unity among small farmer organizations in order to promote gender parity and social justice in fair economic relations; the preservation of land, water, seeds and other natural resources; food sovereignty; sustainable agricultural production based on small and medium-sized producers.

National Bans on GM Maize Highlight EU Fragmentation

Lindsay Bass
Bridges Trade BioRes Review • Volume 3 • Number 2 • October 2009:
http://ictsd.net/i/news/bioresreview/56889/

Despite the recent re-approval of Monsanto's genetically modified (GM) maize by the EU's food safety agency, broad civil society support for national state bans is making it difficult for the EU to create a uniform policy on GM cultivation across its bloc of 27 countries. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) stands by its assessment that the GM maize (MON810) is as safe as its non-GM counterparts. MON810 is the only genetically modified organism that has been approved for cultivation in the EU.

The EFSA's decision has been widely criticised by international green groups, which accused the agency of flawed assessments that ignore studies highlighting safety concerns. However, some researchers have levied similar charges at anti-GM advocates and politicians. While experts argue over good and bad science, the European Commission (EC) has been unable to build consensus among member state politicians to stop the bans.

Since a 2006 WTO ruling, which stated that the EU's de facto ban on GM products violated world trade law, Brussels has been under pressure to get its member countries to allow farmers to produce MON810. Despite numerous attempts to force states to allow the use of the product, the EC has been repeatedly rebuffed by EU environment ministers (see Bridges Trade BioRes, 20 February 2009, http://ictsd.net/i/news/biores/41093/ and 6 March 2009, http://ictsd.net/i/news/biores/42458/).

EU food safety system unable to lift national bans on approved product

According to EU legislation, a 'safeguard clause' may be invoked by country if there is reason to believe that an approved genetically modified organism (GMO) presents a risk to human health or the environment. But, the risk must be supported by scientific evidence. However, in every case to date, the EFSA has repeatedly concluded that the evidence does not justify ove