NEWS ABOUT GM ISSUES • September 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.

Farm workers, on whom a great part of the African economy depends, are victims of injustice in marketing their products. They are often paid a very low price for their goods. Paradoxically, in some parts of Africa, the cost is even set by the buyers themselves. Populations already suffering from a disadvantage are thereby further impoverished. The seeding campaign of proponents of Genetically Modified Food, which purports to give assurances for food safety, should not overlook the true problems of agriculture in Africa: the lack of cultivatable land, water, energy, access to credit, agricultural training, local markets, road infrastructures, etc. This campaign runs the risk of ruining small landholders, abolishing traditional methods of seeding and making farmers dependent on the production companies of OGM. Furthermore, the problem of climate change, whose effects are being felt in arid areas, is compromising the modest gains of African economies. Will the synod fathers be able to remain unresponsive to these questions weighing so heavily on the shoulders of their countrymen?

Source(s): these links will take you to other sites, in a new window.

•

Vatican, food experts say biotechnology will improve African farming (CNS)
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0904317.htm

•

Vatican newspaper denounces pressure to influence Church on genetically-modified organisms (CWN, May 1)
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=2789

Vatican, food experts say biotechnology will improve African farming

Sarah Delaney
Catholic News Service [USA], 30 September 2009:
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0904317.htm

ROME -- African farmers should be able to use new biotechnology, including genetically modified organisms, to help lift their continent out of poverty, Vatican officials and agricultural experts said.

Focusing on agricultural development is the key to improving the lives of Africans and their economy, and all tools must be considered to further that goal, according to speakers at a symposium Sept. 24 in Rome on the topic "For a Green Revolution in Africa."

The participants agreed that one of those tools could be genetically modified products, the use of which is widespread in the United States but controversial in Africa.

Archbishop Giampaolo Crepaldi, former secretary of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, said that underdevelopment and hunger in Africa are due in large part to "outdated and inadequate agricultural methods."

Therefore, he said, new technologies "that can stimulate and sustain African farmers" must be made available, including "seeds that have been improved by techniques that intervene in their genetic makeup."

Father Gonzalo Miranda, professor of bioethics at the Pontifical Regina Apostolorum University, which sponsored the symposium, said in support of new biotechnology that, "if the data shows that biotechnology can offer great advantages in the development of Africa, it is a moral obligation to permit these countries to do their own experimentation."

The symposium was held just before the Synod of Bishops for Africa, which was set to begin at the Vatican Oct. 4. The question of genetically modified foods has been a controversial one in the pre-synod discussions.

The synod's working paper, released by the Vatican in March, called for a commitment to development in Africa but warned against the belief that genetically modifed products were the answer to the continent's hunger problem.

It said that using modified crops risks "ruining small landholders, abolishing traditional methods of seeding and making farmers dependent on the production companies" selling their seeds.

But speakers at the Rome symposium spoke in favor of the responsible use of new biotechnology methods and emphasized that genetically modified products made up only a part of those new techniques.

Eric Kueneman, deputy director of the Plant Production and Protection Division of the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, said that "biotechnology is not an evil empire" but is an element of a group of tools that also includes traditional farming methods.

With regard to genetically modified foods, he said the FAO allows each country to decide and provides guidance to countries that want to use them.

"It's not that they are good or bad; their use needs to be evaluated in (a) local context and on a case-by-case basis," he said.

Sylvester Oikeh, a Nigerian who manages an improved corn project for the African Agricultural Technology Foundation, a nonprofit organization that assists farmers, said Europeans tend not to embrace genetically modified products because they have a surplus of food.

But that is not the case in Africa, he said.

"More than 200 million starving people urgently need appropriate technology for survival," Oikeh said. "There is no choice."

Farmers from South Africa and Burkina Faso were on hand to testify to the improvements in their farming and their lives when they introduced genetically modified crops on their land.

Peru will ban trans-genetic seeds until 2014, Minister Brack says

Isabel Guerra
LivinginPeru.com, 30 September 2009:
http://www.livinginperu.com/news-10240-environmentnature-peru-will-ban-transgenic-seeds-until-2014-minister-brack-says

Peru's Environment Minister Antonio Brack told the press that the Executive will publish soon the Regulations on Agricultural Biosafety, which explicitly bans the entry of seeds genetically modified (trans-genetic) into Peru until 2014.

The mentioned text was completed in 2005, after a process that lasted nearly three years, with the participation of institutions and sectors involved in these issues, and was submitted to public consult on the website of the Ministry of Agriculture (Minag) in December 2008.

Only a few comments have been received so far, mostly from the Ministry of Environment (Minam), National Institute of Agrarian Innovation (INIA) and Platform for a Peru Free of Trans-genetics.

Minister Brack said that the delay in authorizing trans-genetics in Peru is due to the need of taking minimal time to technically prepare the institutions for monitoring these products, and to implement a laboratory system that allows their monitoring and control.

Source:

Perú prohibiría hasta el 2014 el ingreso de semillas transgénicas.
Gestión, 30 de septiembre del 2009:
http://gestion.pe/noticia/348706/peru-prohibiria-ingreso-semillas-transgenicas-hasta-2014

Gene mutation and food

Kavitha Kuruganti
The Asian Age [India], September 30 2009:
http://203.197.197.71/presentation/leftnavigation/opinion/op-ed/gene-mutation-and-food.aspx

Dr M.S. Swaminathan, considered the Father of the Green Revolution in India, finally stated his views on genetically-modified (GM) crops in an opinion piece published on August 26, 2009, in this newspaper. GM crops are produced by inserting foreign genes, mostly non-plant genes (bacterial, viral and animal genes) for obtaining hitherto non-existent, new characteristics in a crop. For instance, the Bt class of GM crops like Bt cotton and Bt brinjal, have been engineered at the genetic level by the insertion of a bacterial gene so that the plant produces its own poison against chosen pests that feed on the crop.

Dr Swaminathan, who headed a task force on agri-biotechnology which gave its report in 2004 to the ministry of agriculture, began his report by reiterating what many of us believe: That "if agriculture goes wrong, nothing else will have a chance to go right". The report emphasises that the bottomline with regard to any policy on agri-biotechnology is "the safety of the environment, the well-being of farming families, the ecological and economic sustainability of farming systems, the health and nutrition security of consumers, safeguarding of home and external trade and the bio-security of our nation".

After presenting such a comprehensive requirement around any policy-making on GM crops in that report, it was surprising to see this recent article hype up the so-called benefits of GM crops and play down valid concerns.

Let me begin with some fundamental issues that Dr Swaminathan did not touch upon:

Genetic modification by insertion of new genes is now known to cause mutations all along the genome of an organism and at the site of insertion.

We have not yet understood the full complexity of the genomic regulation in an organism and, therefore, the changes brought about by genetic modification are unknown and also unpredictable. This is where the primary concern about this technology stems from - scientific evidence exists to show that the changes made are unsafe from an environmental and human health perspective. A fundamental flaw in Dr Swaminathan's article was to make it appear that what is inherently unsafe can be made safe through regulation!

At another level, Dr Swaminathan talks about various GM crops and their benefits - it is interesting to note that except for the insect-resistance trait that he expands upon, none of the other crops actually exist! In reality, two kinds of GM crops exist - those that produce a pesticide from within the plant, like Bt cotton and Bt brinjal (sought to be introduced in India for the first time in the world, developed mostly by American agencies), and those that assimilate application of more pesticides and confer herbicide-tolerance characteristic to a crop. In fact, herbicide tolerance is the trait in nearly 81 per cent of the GM crop cultivation in the world today. Dr Swaminathan's report talks about how this should be of low priority given the large number of agricultural labourers in various regions of the country. Today, several field trials of GM crops in India are centered around this trait - does it make sense to destroy existing opportunities of employment in agriculture and then create more and more budgets for National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) kind of programmes?

Coming to crops like Bt cotton and Bt brinjal, where pesticide is now inside the plant, the central question is why such solutions are needed when safer ways of pest management are known and practiced. Within the National Agricultural Research System (NARS), from where recommendations to be carried to farmers about various desirable practices emerge, there are numerous examples of successful non-chemical pest management practices. In addition, hundreds of farmers practicing organic/ecological farming have their own successful experiences and innovations to share about non-chemical pest management. The problem is that people like Dr Swaminathan compare one evil with the other rather than look for real solutions - the evil of pesticides was initiated by the Green Revolution started by Dr Swaminathan and others and has caused great suffering to farmers in terms of increasing the cost of cultivation and debts. This has been linked to the environmental health disaster unfolding in Punjab where hundreds are falling prey to the ill-effects of pesticides which have contaminated our resources etc.

What is ironical is that today, the people who brought in pesticides are the ones saying that pesticides are bad - we agree wholeheartedly - however, they don't close down their chemical businesses while talking about how farmers should opt for GM crops to get out of the pesticides trap!

Fears with regard to environmental and health impacts are not unfounded even though Dr Swaminathan brushed these aside. It has been established through various studies that GM foods could cause allergies, affect the immunity system, damage organs like kidneys and liver, stunt an organism's growth and development and impair reproductive health. The answer to pesticides is, therefore, not to come up with another technology, irreversible this time, with several potential negative impacts.

If we really want to pride ourselves in our scientific prowess, it is important to understand that breeding technologies have moved on from hazardous technologies like GM. Methods like marker-assisted selection (MAS) are being deployed for faster and accurate breeding. Dr Swaminathan's concerns about patents are, indeed, valid and, therefore, public sector should snatch back spaces that have been hijacked by profit-seeking corporations. Better yet, farmers should be allowed to direct such research based on their localised needs.

Coming to the regulatory regime in India, Dr Swaminathan seems to have given a clean chit to it even though scores of instances show serious flaws in our regulation. He says that once a regulatory approval is accorded, we should assume that a GM crop has been subjected to stringent scrutiny and is safe for commercial release. He ignores the fact that in the case of Bt cotton, this country saw large-scale illegal Bt cotton proliferation much before the approval was accorded. After such a widespread unapproved cultivation, the regulators had no choice but to approve! He ignores the fact that several problems pointing to Bt cotton's so-called safety have emerged from the ground which have either been ignored, discounted or rubbished. Better regulation does not make an inherently unsafe technology into a safer one.

What Dr Swaminathan should really talk about is a liability regime when things go wrong. He should also answer in a convincing fashion why GM crops should be opted for when other safer and better alternatives exist, given that the bottomline for biotech, according to him, includes things like well-being of farming families, sustainability, health and nutrition security, trade security and bio-security of the country.

Kavitha Kuruganti is a trustee of Kheti Virasat Mission, Punjab.

GM researcher's flight of fancy?

GM Watch, 30 September 2009:
http://gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/11543-re-illegal-gm-flax-creating-havoc-in-canada

Re: Illegal GM flax creating havoc in Canada
[See "CDC Triffid Flax Scare Threatens Access To No. 1 EU Market" under 17 September below].

COMMENT from Prof. Joe Cummins: The situation is certainly a sad one. I am concerned with the quote "McHughen said the EU can't say for sure it has found CDC Triffid because there are other GM flax genotypes (none grown commercially) and the EU doesn't have information on them, he said."

I have been unable to locate any field test releases of GM flax other than Trifid in Canada or the USA. McHughen's cryptic comment seems to imply that unreported field tests of GM flax were done in Canada, ie that the Canadian Agriculture Ministry has allowed open field trials of GM flaxes that it did not report. That would be an abuse of the regulations which require that GM field tests be reported to the public. Secret field trials of GM crops would be dynamite in Canada. Of course, he may have meant the GM flax trialed in Poland but there is no way that could get all the way to Canada in order to pollute our flax imports.

Regarding the carry over of Triffid in the field plantings reported, it is also worth mentioning that flax seeds are frequently saved by farmers and the GM flax genes will achieve equilibrium over time in the population that they pollute. Those genes may even be selected in growing the flax in rotation with wheat that has been treated with sulphonylurea herbicides, as Triffid flax is resistant to sulphonylurea derivatives. The consequences of carry over due to planting GM flax years ago makes McHughen's promotion of the use of flax for producing biopharmacueticals or plastic monomers in the open field completely out of the question.

[Joe Cummins is Professor Emeritus of Genetics at the University of Western Ontario].

---

Comment by GM-free Ireland:

The illegal GM "Triffid" flax has now shown up in 16 countries.

The UK became the 16th country to report contamination of its food chain on Monday, when the UK Food Standards Agency reported the illegal GMO in cereals and bakery products on the European Food Safety Authority's Rapid Alert System web site (reference 2009:1256): https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/rasff-window/portal/index.cfm?event=notificationsList

It is unclear whether the contamination occurred in Britain and/or Northern Ireland.

The Food Safety Authority of Ireland has still not issued any public warning to enable consumers to take precautionary measures, nor has it released any test results, despite being asked to do so by GM-free Ireland on 18 September and by the Irish Doctors Environmental Association on 21 September (see our letters to FSAI below).

The products at risk of contamination include flax seeds, animal feed, sprouts, flour, baking mixtures, bread and bakery products, cereals, linseed oil, food supplements, soap, cosmetics, dyes, paints, fibers, paper, ornamental plants, health foods and medicines

As of today, the following countries have reported the illegal GMO in their food chains:

Austria
Belgium
Canada
Germany
Hungary
Italy
Luxembourg
Mauritius
Netherlands
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom
United States

This is just the latest in a long list of contamination incidents which disprove the agri-biotech industry's claim that GM crops can safely "co-exist" with conventional crops: http://www.gmcontaminationregister.org

To add insult to injury, the Canadian Flax Council is using the GM Triffid scandal to attack the EU's zero tolerance food safety policy for unapproved GMOs (see their GMO flax update under 28 September below).

The virtues of the next best thing to organic food
• In tough economic times, cash-strapped shoppers can't always afford organic food.

Rose Prince
The Telegraph [UK]:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/6243562/The-virtues-of-the-next-best-thing-to-organic-food.html

I was driving along a lane in Cornwall this summer when I switched on the radio and caught the news headlines. A new study claimed that organic food was no more nutritious than conventional. That, I thought, was a blow the organic sector did not need.

Organic sales are not what they were pre-recession, simply because shoppers are tightening their belts. A full blown debate about their need to exist will be the last straw for many smaller organic producers.

The results of the study were not surprising. Alan Dangour, a leading nutritionist, knocked holes in all the science that had claimed organic nutritional superiority. The non-organic sector was ecstatic, the pro-GM lobby rapturous.

Every one of them was missing a point, including the Food Standards Agency (FSA), which spent £120,000 of taxpayers' money on the study. The fact is that organic shoppers do not care if it is better for you or not.

Here's the proof. A survey was taken in three counties in the north of England - Cumbria, Northumberland and Yorkshire - asking organic shoppers: "Why buy organic?" The results, from 715 responses, showed health was considered the least important factor, well behind pesticides, environment, [animal] welfare, quality, wildlife and additives.

The conventional sector does not like organic because, in its boom years, it undermined them. It is a mystery why the FSA has such a problem with organic food producers, especially given the above statistics (wasn't the agency set up to serve consumers?). But it is possible that the Soil Association, which set the strict criteria for organic certification, should have used the good times to embrace what I call "good conventional" and certify a kind of silver standard "virtual organic" brand.

Abel & Cole, an excellent organic delivery company that began as a vegetable box scheme and now sends fresh meat, deli and store cupboard goods all over Britain, has started offering "free-range" meat alongside organic.

"We have been selling organic meat for 10 years and are totally committed, but we wanted to supply the next best thing while shoppers are worrying about price," says Anna Chapman of A&C. (The company's free-range meat is 30 per cent cheaper than its organic.)

Hereford farmer David Powell, who rears the A&C beef naturally on grass and home-grown haylage (which is therefore GM free) is a "virtual organic" farmer. "Eight years ago I considered converting to organic," he says. "But the Soil Association had an issue with the non-organic straw I used for bedding, which the cattle sometimes eat." Powell's 15 acres of apple orchards are certified organic by the Soil Association.

Powell's herd of 230 pure Herefords descends from a few animals acquired by his great, great grandfather. His is a 'closed' herd, which means he never buys in animals and so it is largely disease-free and immune to parasites. "My oldest cow is 21 and a half," he adds.

But Powell does worm his cattle when they shelter in barns in winter and would treat a sick animal quickly with veterinary medicine, rather than seeing it suffer. Organic standards only allow treatment, with Soil Association permission, typically once 10 per cent of the herd has fallen ill.

"His is a widely held view among conventional farmers," Chapman says. I ask her if the organic sector should have shown more respect to farmers such as David Powell.

"When we know there are farmers like David and we are in a recession, it would be patronising not to provide something for people finding organic meat too expensive." She is careful not to introduce the idea of lowering organic standards, and also points out that you can eat organic food cheaply by using less expensive cuts of meat and upping the quantity of pulses you consume.

There is a subtle line being crossed, but Abel & Cole has made the right call. Powell's is not second best to organic but virtually the same. By selling it, an organic business will keep shoppers on their side. When times are less hard, they will be back, shopping for organic food for all the usual reasons.

Shopping basket

Abel & Cole (08452 62 63 64; www.abelandcole.co.uk)

Organic delivery company selling everything from baby food to wine. Fresh ingredients are a speciality and, aside from organic vegetable boxes, you'll find organic meat and "free-range" poultry, beef, pork and lamb from suppliers who meet all but the organic criteria.

If you have a problem with veterinary medicine or animal feed this is not for you, but these farmers meet exemplary standards. A&C's suppliers' animals are rarely sick and no GM feed is used.

On offer is David Powell's Hereford slow-reared, grass-fed beef; beef and lamb from Gloucestershire farmer Philip Mann; and soya-free "rainforest friendly" conventional free-range chickens from Devon. I cannot speak more highly of the meat, although I have not tasted the free-range pork. Prices are competitive: 2 pork chops £2.99; 2 sirloin steaks £5.99; 1.5kg (3lb) chicken £7.98; 4 lamb loin chops £3.49.

29 September 2009

Nanotech at risk of repeating 'GM food fiasco'

EurActiv, 29 September 2009:
http://www.euractiv.com/en/science/nanotech-risk-repeating-gm-food-fiasco/article-185862

Decision-making on nanotechnology must become more democratic or Europe risks repeating "mistakes" made in managing genetically modified foods, according to a new report on science policy.

Experts warn that current methods of involving the public are "marked by mixed motives and confused practices," and call for a radical shake-up of how Europe engages the public.

Scientists and politicians often cite the public debate on genetically-modified foods as a case study of how communication failures can hold up technological progress. Many of the interest groups with concerns about GM foods remain deeply sceptical of nanotechnology.

The 'Deepen' report (http://www.dur.ac.uk/geography/research/researchprojects/?mode=project&id=241), which brings together findings from a three-year European research project involving ethicists, philosophers and the social and political sciences, says regulators and industry need to be more open with the public when crafting governance plans for new technologies.

Codes of conduct on nanotechnology are also important, according to the report, although the public is consistently wary of self-regulation by industry.

Research has found that, just as with genetically-modified foods, most non-scientists accept that a degree of risk is inevitable when introducing new technologies.

However, it warns the public is "concerned about the motivations driving technology," and are suspicious that the risks will be spread across society while the benefits will not be distributed equally.

Phil Macnaghten of Durham University in the UK said the public raises genuine concerns which must be addressed.

"Technologies are being driven forward with insufficient reflection on why they are being developed and on what this is likely to mean for future society," he said.

Involving public in policymaking

He said the public is keen to be involved in deliberating on the far-reaching questions science is addressing and that policymakers must find new ways to ensure public views are used to inform science policy.

The European Commission held a public hearing (http://ec.europa.eu/health/nanohearing_en.htm) earlier this month and received dozens of position papers (http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_scenihr/docs/nano_submissions.pdf) from organised stakeholders such as industry lobbies and environmental NGOs.

However, Macnaghten said the aim of engaging the public in shaping science policy is not simply about getting society to accept new technologies. He expressed scepticism about stakeholder dialogue exercises, which he warned often lead to a "cosy consensus".

He said NGOs tend to work within existing frameworks, focusing on risks and benefits, but it is important to involve citizens who are not organised into lobby groups.

The report, launched in Brussels yesterday (29 September) urges policymakers "to develop a healthy scepticism about the rhetoric of the win-win situation characteristic of much discourse on nanotechnology".

Thinking of technology solely as a source of progress without negative consequences will hinder the responsible development of nanotech, it concludes.

Positions:

João Nunes of Coimbra University, Portugal, conducted focus groups with non-scientists and found "tension between hope and concerns arising from uncertainty". He said public engagement on science is not simply conversing about a new technology, it should lead to public input into decision-making.

Arie Rip of Twente University, Holland, proposed "slow innovation" as a more sustainable approach to developing new technologies in a socially acceptable way. He said society has to learn about new science slowly rather than being confronted with new revolutionary innovations.

Rip also warned of the growing trend of industry "hiding" nanotechnology for fear of upsetting wary consumers (EurActiv 18/06/09 http://www.euractiv.com/en/science/nanotech-claims-dropped-fear-consumer-recoil/article-183183). "This is a defensive strategy. Companies deliberately playing down their nanotech R&D - or describing it merely as 'chemistry research' lack civil courage," he said.

Alfred Nordmann of Darmstadt University criticised the German approach to handling public concerns on nanotechnology. He said the nanotech sector is treated with kid gloves to ensure it develops into a strong new industry.

Next steps:

•

Dec. 2009: Publication of FramingNano report on nanotechnology governance.

Links

European Union

•

European Commission: Ethical, legal and social aspects (ELSA) and governance of nanotechnology
ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/nanotechnology/docs/elsa_governance_nano.pdf

•

European Commission: Communication on regulation of nanomaterials
http://ec.europa.eu/nanotechnology/pdf/comm_2008_0366_en.pdf (17 Jun. 2008)

•

European Commission: Public hearing on risk assessment of nanotechnologie (10 Sept. 2009)
http://ec.europa.eu/health/nanohearing_en.htm

•

European Commission: Submissions to scientific hearing on nanotechnology
http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_scenihr/docs/nano_submissions.pdf

Think tanks & Academia

•

Deepening Ethical Engagement and Participation in Emerging Nanotechnologies (DEEPEN)
http://www.dur.ac.uk/geography/research/researchprojects/?mode=project&id=241

Business & Industry

•

Nanotechnology Industries Association
http://www.nanotechia.org/

•

CEFIC - European Chemistry Industry Council
http://www.cefic.be/

NGOs

•

European Environmental Bureau
http://www.eeb.org/

•

European Consumers' Organisation (BEUC)
http://www.beuc.org/Content/Default.asp

Background:

Nanomaterials are now used in a wide range of products, including cosmetics, medical devices and textiles.

However, a gulf is opening between the promise that innovations in nanotechnology can help address a broad range of problems while generating new industries, and growing consumer concerns over the health and environmental impact of nanomaterials.

In March, the European Parliament voted to back tougher rules on the use of nanotechnology in cosmetics (EurActiv 28/04/09 http://www.euractiv.com/en/science/meps-back-tougher-rules-nanotechnology/article-181695). The European Commission's health directorate held a public hearing earlier this month as part of its efforts to engage stakeholders and address concerns.

More on this topic:

LinksDossier: Nanotechnology and consumer confidence
http://www.euractiv.com/en/science/nanotechnology-consumer-confidence/article-161268

News: Lobbyists 'fuelling confusion' on nanotech, EU warns
http://www.euractiv.com/en/science/lobbyists-fuelling-confusion-nanotech-eu-warns/article-183198

News: Nanotech claims 'dropped' for fear of consumer recoil
http://www.euractiv.com/en/science/nanotech-claims-dropped-fear-consumer-recoil/article-183183

Other related news:

•

MEPs back tougher rules for nanotechnology
http://www.euractiv.com/en/science/meps-back-tougher-rules-nanotechnology/article-181695

•

'No data, no market' for nanotechnologies, MEPs say
http://www.euractiv.com/en/science/data-market-nanotechnologies-meps/article-180893

•

MEPs back new rules on nanomaterials in cosmetics
http://www.euractiv.com/en/science/meps-back-new-rules-nanomaterials-cosmetics/article-180605

•

EU food safety watchdog puzzled by nanotech risks
http://www.euractiv.com/en/science/eu-food-safety-watchdog-puzzled-nanotech-risks/article-180025

•

Industry, NGOs at odds over nanotech regulation
http://www.euractiv.com/en/science/industry-ngos-odds-nanotech-regulation/article-179936

Spain's sweetcorn activists seek 'agricultural asylum'

Agence France Presse (via Yahoo! News), 29 September 2009:
http://news.yahoo.com/...

MADRID (AFP) - Environmentalists dressed as giant ears of corn on Tuesday asked for "agricultural asylum" in the French embassy in Madrid in a protest over genetically modified crops.

The environmental organisation Friends of the Earth organised the symbolic act to protest Spain's "large-scale" production of genetically modified corn, which is banned in France.

Around 20 protesters from several European countries and dressed as corn cobs demonstrated outside the French embassy in central Madrid.

They handed over a petition to one of the diplomats, saying they would "rather flee to France than be genetically modified."

"We want to condemn the fact that Spain is the only country in Europe to grow genetically modified corn, without any measures to protect against contamination" of the crop with non-GM corn, a spokeswoman for Friends of the Earth said.

Several European countries, including France and Germany, have invoked an EU safeguard procedure to bar a strain of genetically modified corn produced by US agricultural giant Monsanto, after a watchdog said it had doubts about the product.

GM crops are a fiercely contested issue in Europe, pitting agribusiness corporations against a powerful green lobby.

Global food security plans too narrow - analyst

Roberta Rampton Reuters, 29 September 2009:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20090929/tts-uk-food-climate-ca02f96.html

The Obama administration and leaders of other wealthy nations have promised to spend more money and coordinate efforts to reduce the chronic hunger that plagues more than 1 billion people in the world.

But the initiatives fail to recognise the need to stabilise climate and population, said Brown, who has been writing about how to fix the planet for more than 30 years.

"If we don't address these two issues seriously, there's not a chance that we're going to be able to increase food security and eradicate hunger in the world," said Brown, noting he was struck by "the narrowness of the approach" to food security.

Brown was speaking to reporters as he launched a new edition of his prescription for saving the planet called "Plan B 4.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization."

Brown warns of dire consequences from food shortages as climate change hurts crops at a time when rising population and incomes increase demand for grain and meat.

The world must make dramatic changes in energy, transport, population, food and environmental policy, he argues in his book. (http://r.reuters.com/xat98d)

Grain prices soared to record levels last year, causing riots and hoarding in some countries, and sparking a move for import-dependent rich countries to secure farmland in mainly poorer regions to ease food security.

The United Nations' World Food Programme estimates more than a billion people are chronically hungry, and Brown believes that could soar past 1.2 billion by 2015.

Water shortages for irrigating crops caused by drained aquifers and melting glaciers could threaten wheat and rice harvests in China and India, which would pressure food prices higher around the world, Brown said.

"If these climate stresses keep building, if food security continues to deteriorate, we're in trouble as a civilization," he said.

The United Nations has said the world needs to produce 70 percent more food by 2050.

Yield gains from new genetically modified crops probably will be much smaller than the dramatic increases in wheat and rice that helped reduce famine 40 years ago, Brown said.

"I don't see another Green Revolution in the cards," he said, adding leaders need to "get the brakes on population" to improve food security around the world.

(Editing by Marguerita Choy)

Swine flu found in Irish pigs

RTE News, 29 September 2009:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0929/swineflu.html

Swine flu has been confirmed in pigs here for the first time.

The Department of Agriculture has confirmed the first pig herd to have tested positive for the Influenza A(H1N1).

However, the department said should consumers be not concerned about eating pork or pork products.

The department said the disease in pigs is mild, has low impact on production and has no significance as regards food safety.

It is believed that the most likely source of transmission to the pig herd was from an infected person.

The department says this is not an unexpected event given the widespread occurrence of the pandemic virus in humans and the possibility for occasional transmission from humans to pigs.

In recent months the virus has been detected in pigs in Canada, Australia, Argentina and more recently in Northern Ireland.

The department has recommended that increased biosecurity measures on pig farms be implemented, and that the Code of Practice for Pandemic Influenza A(H1N1) in pigs, which has already been drawn up by the Department in consultation with the pig producing stakeholders, be adhered to.

Swine flu vaccines cleared for distribution

The European Commission has cleared two new vaccines to fight the swine flu pandemic for distribution in Europe.

'Today the European Commission granted variations to two existing authorisations for vaccines for influenza pandemic A(H1N1),' the European Union's executive body said in a statement.

The decision on the two vaccines, Pandemrix and Focetria, was pushed through last week by the European Medicines Agency amid mounting concern about the new winter influenza.

The commission said the vaccines will be authorised for use in all 27 EU member nations as well as Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway.

Most Danes are in favour of using genetically modified plants for production of pharmaceuticals

Risø DTU National Laboratory for Sustainable Energy [Denmark], 29 September 2009:
http://www.risoe.dtu.dk/News_archives/News/2009/0928_pharming.aspx?sc_lang=en

An international survey shows that most Danes support using GM plants for production of pharmaceuticals. In this respect Danes are in line with citizens from the U.S., Israel, Spain, Poland and the Czech Republic.

On the other hand citizens from Austria, Germany and Japan do not approve of the technology.

Approximately 60% of the Danes in the survey believe that it is okay to use genetically modified plants to produce pharmaceuticals, despite the fact that a majority at the same time thinks that the technique is against nature and that the products are representing multinational interests.

Confidence in the Danish authorities

The Danes have great confidence in the authorities, when it comes to regulating and controlling the cultivation of GM plants planned to be used for pharmaceuticals. That is what 67% of the respondents believe, while only 31% think it is acceptable for plants to be grown in open fields even under very strict rules for separation, i.e. several kilometers away from other plants of the same species.

When it comes to using genetically modified animals to produce medicines, there is less approval in all countries. The least critical are the Spaniards, the Israelis, the Czechs and the Danes; only 38% of the Danes believe that this technology should be supported.

Risø scientist is co-author

The comprehensive survey has been pulished 'on-line' in the journal EMBO reports. First author is the Spanish sociologist Raphael Pardo. Rikke Bagger J¯rgensen from the Biosystems Division at Ris¯ DTU is one of the seven co-authors.

Shortcut to new pharmeceuticals

The technology, using genetically modified plants and animals as production platforms for medicine, is interesting, because the pharmaceuticals can be produced faster, more flexibly and profitably. Examples of this form of medicine production is ATryn (antithrombin alfa), produced by genetically modfied goats. Atryn is used to treat blood clots.

22,500 participated in the survey

The survey included 22,500 citizens. 1,500 from each of 15 industrial countries, 12 European countries, Israel, Japan and the USA. They were asked about their opinion of genetically modified plants and animals producing pharmaceutical proteins. The survey shows a very nuanced picture of people's attitudes towards genetically modified organisms for pharmaceutical purposes.

For more information contact:

Senior Scientist Rikke Bagger Jørgensen, phone 46 77 41 24, mobile 22 49 90 25, rijq@risoe.dtu.dk

---

The report

The role of means and goals in technology acceptance

A differentiated landscape of public perceptions of pharming.

Rafael Pardo, Margret Engelhard, Kristin Hagen, Rikke Bagger J¯rgensen, Eckard Rehbinder, Angelika Schnieke, Mariana Szmulewicz, Felix Thiele.

EMBO reports (18 September 2009) doi:10.1038/embor.2009.208 Science and Society.

The report is available online here http://www.nature.com/embor/index.html. You have to pay to download the report.

Pharming

The term "pharming", which is a contraction of the words farming and pharmaceuticals, is often used about the technology that uses genetically modified organisms to produce pharmaceuticals.

Rapeseed to lead Europe's vegetable oil quest

AllAboutFeed.net [the Netherlands], 29 September 2009:
http://www.allaboutfeed.net/news/rapeseed-to-lead-europes-vegetable-oil-quest-3654.html

The EU's zero-tolerance policy on imports of not registered GM soybeans works in favour of rapeseed and other vegetable oil crops. However, demand is difficult to match a Rabobank report said.

It is expected that Europe's rapeseed consumption will jump by one-half by 2015. Use of all major oilseeds will rise, with growth totalling 29% to 30.8m tonnes, to feed increasing consumption of vegetable oils and processed foods, and European Union production of biodiesel expected to grow by 8% a year.

Rapeseed is forecasted to lead the way, with consumption soaring to 12.5m tonnes from 8.3m tonnes in 2008, with sunflower use rising to 4.2m tonnes from 3.4m tonnes, the Rabobank report said.

GM obstacle

Soybean meal imports will grow relatively slowly, partly due to the zero-tolerance policy on using genetically modified crops.

Furthermore China is sourcing more and more soybeans from Brazil. This growing trade tie is set to overtake America as the world's top exporter.

As a result this will further "limit the sourcing options, as Brazil is the only country to still produce large volumes of non-GM crops", Rabobank said.

The report comes as Chinese sovereign wealth CIC is finalising details for an agriculture-based investment in Singapore-based Noble Group, a major player in South American soybeans.

Competitors knock on EU door

However, the EU's growing reliance on rapeseed will present only limited opportunities for the region's own growers.

Regulations capping crop use for biofuels, currently responsible for about two-thirds of Europe's use of the crop, will limit farmers' rapeseed plantings.

This will give opportunities to other rapeseed growing countries. "Canadian and Ukrainian exporters will capture the market growth of rapeseed and sunflower oil," Rabobank said.

Top European harvest

Europe's rapeseed harvest may set a record. Brussels based grain lobby group Coceral has increased its output estimate by 12%.

Production this year will come in at nearly 20.6m tonnes, a rise of 1.6m tonnes on last year's record harvest, Coceral said.

The figure beats the 20.3m-tonne forecast by Oil World and the 20.0 tonne estimates of the US Department of Agriculture.

The improvement reflected in particular better crops in France, Germany and Poland, the European Union's three biggest growers.

In the UK the forecast of the current rapeseed crop was set at 1.77m tonnes, which is 200,000 tonnes below previous estimate of UK's Farmers Union.

---

Comment by GM-free Ireland:

GM rapeseed is not authorised for cultivation in the EU, but Monsanto's patented GM GT73 oilseed rape may be legally imported for processing into food, feed and biofuel. Importation of such live GMO rape seeds represents the single largest GM contamination pathway for Europe, since a few spilled seeds have the potential to contaminate all of Europe's Brassica crops including broccoli, brussel sprouts, cabbage, cauliflower, collards, kale, kohlrabi, mustard, oilseed rape and turnip - making it impossible to grow conventional varieties of these crops ever again. Contaminated farmers would have to pay patent royalties and face contamination lawsuits.

28 September 2009

GMO Flax Update

Flax Council of Canada, 28 September 2009:
http://www.flaxcouncil.ca/files/web/GMO%20Flax%20Update%20No%201%20REVISED%2028%20September%202009.pdf

The Flax Council of Canada will be issuing regular GMO Flax Updates to keep producers and industry informed on the actions being taken to resolve the current GMO flax issue. The notices are posted on the Flax Council of Canada's web page: www.flaxcouncil.ca. Further information can be obtained by contacting Barry Hall, President, Flax Council of Canada at flax@flaxcouncil.ca

Issue:

•

GMO material has been discovered in Canadian flax shipments to Europe

•

Europe has not authorized any GMO flax events

•

Europe has a zero tolerance policy for events not authorized in Europe

•

Most Canadian flax in Europe is currently quarantined

•

European laboratories claim the GMO material is FP967, commonly known as Triffid

•

Triffid cannot be confirmed until an event specific test for Triffid has been developed and proven

Problem:

•

Zero tolerance of unauthorized events in countries of import creates unnecessary and dramatic increases in consumer costs, reductions in producer prices and prevention of consumer access to critical supplies. This results when safe technologies are met with zero tolerances due to a lack of official authorizations

•

Once an event is authorized in country of export it is only a matter of time before trace levels of the event will appear in international shipments through commingling within international shipping systems

•

This unintentional commingling may occur with the seed, on the farm, or within the global handling and transportation systems as the grain is produced and moved between buyers and sellers

•

Therefore the presence of GMO material will occur in all transboundary shipments of all commodities (both GMOs and Non-GMOs) shipped from countries with GMOs in commercial production

•

European zero tolerance policies have also placed US soybean shipments in quarantine because of trace levels of unauthorized GMO events discovered from corn dust in the shipments

•

No bulk handling system, no identity preserved system, no channeling system can manage these events to zero tolerance

•

Today's tests can detect the presence of GM material in one in 10,000 seeds

Canadian GMO Flax Background

•

In the late 1990's a flax variety, known as FP967 and later named Triffid was developed by a public research institution, the Crop Development Centre in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan

•

Triffid underwent full food, feed and environmental risk assessment analysis and was approved and authorized by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)

•

Triffid underwent full food, feed and environmental risk assessment analysis and was approved and authorized in the United States

•

Triffid certified seed was never sold to produce flax for food, feed or for processing

•

The Flax Council of Canada, in one of the most sophisticated and extensive risk management plans ever adopted, acquired all of the certified seed produced and had it destroyed or crushed domestically

•

The Flax Council's actions were taken to protect the European market by ensuring that no GMO flax was being produced in Canada

•

Triffid was de-registered by CFIA in 2001

•

The recent discovery of GMO markers is the first occasion where GMO material has been found in Canadian flax shipments

Highlights of Flax Council Actions to Address European GMO Flax Issue

•

The CFIA has confirmed that Triffid flax is safe for food, feed and processing

•

The Flax Council considers the GMO flax issue to be a very serious issue and has placed the resumption of flax trade to Europe as its highest priority

•

Europe represents about 70% of Canada's flax exports

•

The Flax Council has created a Flax Risk Management Team and a number of Working Groups that are working closely with the Canadian Government

•

The Plant Biotechnology Institute (PBI) in Saskatoon is developing a Triffid specific test, which when developed, will be sent to Flax Council selected laboratories around the world

•

The CFIA is testing certified flax seed stock. To date no positive GMO results have been found

•

The Canadian Grain Commission is undertaking a geographic study of existing flax stocks held in commercial positions throughout Canada

•

All Canadian companies are participating in the study and are sending appropriate samples from their facilities

•

The Commission study will determine the nature and location of the GMO material

•

The Commission is also expanding its traditional harvest survey of this year's flax crop to determine whether or not there is any GMO material in this year's crop, and if so, where it is located

Canadian Government/European Commission Talks

•

Canadian Government officials met with representatives from DG SANCO (Department of Health) of the European Commission on Thursday 23rd September

•

The European Commission confirmed that there were no GM linseeds authorized in the EU and hence there was a zero tolerance for its presence

•

The Canadian officials confirmed that both the Canadian Government and Canadian industry were taking this matter very seriously

•

Canadian officials also confirmed that FP967, commonly known as Triffid is still authorized for food and feed purposes (as well an environmental release) although it cannot be sold as seed for planting

•

The two governments agreed to co-operate on testing and detection methods and CFIA will forward reference material

•

The EC will be discussing the flax issue at the 19th October meeting of the (GM Food and Feed and Environmental Risk section) of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health with the Member States

•

It was agreed that Canada should propose a protocol for assuring that Canadian linseed shipments to the EU complied with EU requirements prior to the Oct 19 meeting

•

The EC referred to the Rice Protocol and the sampling and testing provisions contained therein (A Protocol developed between the European Commission and the United States to facilitate US rice exports to the European Union)

•

Canada indicated that it would examine the Rice Protocol more closely and looked forward to further discussions once more information on the potential scope of the issue became available

•

The EC requested additional information on various aspects of the matter

Flax Council Next Steps

•

Issue GMO Flax Updates and post them on its web page on a regular basis to keep industry abreast of recent developments

•

Encourage Canadian Government to recommend to DG Sanco that a common protocol for the determination of Triffid be developed jointly by Canada's Plant Biotechnology Institute (PBI) and the European Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC)

•

Work with the Canadian Government to develop a Flax Protocol to resume flax trade with the European Union

•

Work with CFIA and Canadian Grain Commission to determine the nature and scope of the GM material

•

Implement appropriate risk management policies when the scope and nature of the GM material is known

Summary

•

The GMO flax issue is a serious problem that is causing significant financial hardship to both Canadian producers and industry and European industry and consumers

•

The European Union must create a technical solution as an initial step to resolve its zero threshold issue.

•

Canadian flax remains safe for food, feed and processing

•

This is a regulatory issue, not a safety issue

•

Once the nature and scope of the GM material is known the Flax Council will work with the Government of Canada to develop a risk management plan to meet European requirements

---

Comment from Anthony Jackson [UK]

I see the Canadians are blaming the EU for the problem due to zero tolerance.

Surely this is exactly why zero tolerance should remain... Would Canada except unauthorised GM material from say, North Korea? Even China? The EU has the right to maintain its own authorisation procedures, and keep out products that are not (yet?) deemed as safe...

If this is extrapolated, it would mean that the once the USA has given the nod for a GM trial (inc. pharma?) the EU would have to accept it in whatever (low) level our North American partners accept as reasonable to keep their exports flowing...

The duty is on these countries, either to segregate properly or to not trial/grow GM crops until they are authorised in their export markets.

Labour conference: Debate on GM food vital, says Rooker

Caroline Stocks
Farmers Weekly interactive [UK], 28 September 2009:
http://www.fwi.co.uk/Articles/2009/09/28/118095/labour-conference-debate-on-gm-food-vital-says-rooker.html

Consumers will not welcome genetically-modified food into their diets until GM technology is proven to benefit them, according to the chairman of the Foods Standards Agency.

Speaking at a fringe event at the Labour Party conference in Brighton on Monday (28 September), Jeff Rooker said people were willing to accept GMs in terms of medicines, but food was different.

"Until manufacturers can produce products that have clear consumer benefits, then there will always be a problem explaining GMs to the public," he said.

"That's because so far all the benefits are for the producer, rather than the consumer.

"If claims that crops can be grown in drought areas then there's an obvious benefit there, but in the last ten years where are the new products?"

Lord Rooker said many of the UK's GM researchers had gone to work in laboratories abroad because of public and industry unwillingness to discuss the potential of furthering GM research.

The FSA had embarked on a year-long project to encourage people to have an open debate about GM food, he added.

Tom MacMillan, Food Ethics Council executive director, said it was important the project looked at the wider implications of GM technology, rather than just asking for peoples' opinions.

"We need to look at GMs in terms of food security. If we increase food productivity for some people you can exacerbate the problems in other countries, he said.

"We need a complete debate and food production and food security."

DEFRA secretary Hilary Benn agreed it was vital to have a debate about the viability of GM production.

Speaking at an NFU fringe event later in the day, Mr Benn said people needed to know whether GM produce was safe and whether its production had an impact on the environment.

"To know that we have to have trials," he said. "I have approved the one trial that has come to me [from the University of Leeds] and it has just restarted after it was trashed by protestors the first time around.

"Only once we've had those trials can we have a mature debate about GMs."

---

Comment by GM-free Ireland

Note Lord Rooker's paternalistic stance of "explaining" GMOs to the public, and the old debating rick of ascribing false arguments to one's opponents, when their real arguments are irrefutable. The vast majority of Europeans oppose GM food and farming because of their demonstrable health, environmental, agronomic, economic, social and food security dangers - not because "they don't offer benefits for consumers."

---

Comment by GM Watch:

Incidentally, here's a quote from Lord Rooker, now head of the Foods Standards Agency, that he'd probably prefer to forget. It's from when he was the minister of state for food safety:

"I accept the argument that genetic modification is not simply speeding up the natural process. It cannot be when genes are mixed from different species. There is some comfort in the regulatory process for medicine which, I admit, is not in place for food and agriculture....." http://www.netlink.de/gen/Zeitung/1998/981126a.htm

He said that in 1998 and there have been no significant improvements in the regulatory process since.

GERMANY: Crisis Shackles New Govt

Julio Godoy
IPS, 28 September 2009:
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=48620

[Extract]

The new government is likely to introduce unpopular changes in energy and environmental policy. Both the CDU and the FDP announced during the campaign a revision of the phasing out of nuclear power, that had been decided by the SPD government in 2002, and to authorise genetically modified agriculture.

27 September 2009

European demand to lift Indian soymeal exports, price

Reuters (via The Economic Times [India], 27 September 2009:
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/markets/commodities/European-demand-to-lift-Indian-soymeal-exports-price/articleshow/5062144.cms

MUMBAI: Indian soymeal exports may surge in the coming months, pushing up local prices by 10 percent, as Europe buys more varieties that are not genetically modified (GM), top industry officials and analysts said on Sunday. "It is a possibility that India will export non-GM soymeal to the European Union this year.

I can't say how much can be exported," leading analyst Thomas Mielke told an industry conference. Demand for Indian soymeal might push up prices by 10 percent to over $400 a tonne, cost and freight by December, said Davish Jain, head of the Central Organisation for Oils Industry and Trade.

Stocks of soymeal made of non-GM beans in South American countries such as Brazil and Argentina are low, prompting European buyers to turn to India, Mielke said. India, Asia's leading supplier of soymeal, was expected to export 4.5-4.6 million tonnes in the year from October, up from 3.7 million tonnes sold in the previous year, Dinesh Shahra, managing director, Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd, said on Saturday.

India's 2009/10 soybean crop, which traders estimate at about 9 million tonnes, has started arriving in domestic markets and supplies are likely to peak by the end of October. Indian exporters, who have so far sealed deals for up to 700,000 tonnes of the new season soymeal for October-December delivery, are expected to contract another 1 million tonnes after the crushing season begins in October.

"Most of the markets India caters to are uncovered and there we have potential to sell another 1 million for delivery in the January-March period," said Rajnikant Rai, a vice president at Indian conglomerate ITC Ltd. India mainly exports to Asian countries such as Vietnam, Japan and Indonesia. Meals, processed from oilseeds, are primarily used for cattle and poultry feed.

26 September 2009

Biodiversity Report from Americas Program of CIP - September 2009

Carmelo Ruiz Marrero
Americas Program Center for International Policy, 26 September 2009:
http://americas.irc-online.org/am/6456

Translated from: Informe de biodiversidad de CIP Programa de las Américas - septiembre 2009
Translated by: Monica Wooters

---

1. Argentina: Carbon Credits for Genetically Modified Soy

Soy monoculture, which has been bly criticized due to its negative impacts on rural communities, biodiversity, and human health, will obtain new legitimacy through the Kyoto Protocol, warns the Rural Reflection Group (GRR, Grupo de Reflexión Rural) of Argentina.

The Protocol, an international agreement to combat climate change that went into effect in 2005, includes a Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) through which industrialized countries may acquire permits (carbon credits) that allow them to emit greenhouse gases in exchange for financing endeavors in the global South that supposedly capture or reduce emissions. These endeavors may include agro-industrial monocultures, including soy plantations in South America, according to the GRR in a report published in August.

The GRR reports that at least since 2005 the Argentine government has begun meeting with major soy producers to promote soy monoculture as a qualified activity in the carbon credit trade. As a result the soy industry in the country will be able to profit greatly from the growing "carbon market" and obtain legitimacy as an ally in the fight against global climate change. It is expected that the Argentine delegation to the next climate change summit, to be held this December in Denmark, will lobby hard in favor of the inclusion of monocultures, especially soy, in the CDM.

"Through carbon credits and the recently approved clean development mechanisms, direct seeding chemical agriculture could begin a 'genetically modified green revolution' in Africa and other parts of the world where agribusiness has yet to become hegemonic," the GRR states. "As a result, and against all logic within the climate change discourse, the United Nations is facilitating an unprecedented advancement in the global food and agriculture market while legitimizing overwhelming concentrations of food-based agricultural chains that allow for huge corporate conglomerates."

Source:

Grupo de Reflexión Rural. "Bonos de carbono: Para la siembra directa y sojización"
http://www.alainet.org/active/32363&lang=es

For more information (in Spanish):

http://bioseguridad.blogspot.com/search/label/Argentina

---

2. Chile: In Defense of Seeds

Several Chilean and international organizations including the National Association of Rural and Indigenous Women (ANAMURI, Asociación Nacional de Mujeres Rurales e IndÌgenas), the Association of Organic Agriculturalists of Chiloé (Asociación de Agricultores Orgánicos de Chiloé), CET-SUR, and GRAIN, are launching an opposition campaign against the proposed law for the Plant Breeders' Rights that the Chilean legislature is currently considering.

The organizations circulating an international petition against the proposed law are denouncing the favoritism for genetically modified agriculture implied in the initiative and the proposed seed patents that are an affront to local farmers' millennial practice of local agriculturalists of seed saving and sharing.

The petition states that, "The initiative seriously debilitates our food sovereignty, foments the loss of seed varieties, and the dependence on foreign companies that hold the rights of plant breeders and control the marketing, importing, and exporting of seeds, plant cuttings, and fruits."

"We are defending ... the ancestral rights of campesinos to their native seeds and harvests. We are against the deregulation of genetically modified products and in support of organic agriculture ... and its healthy products. We reject the privatization of knowledge and our patrimony for the benefit of transnational corporations."

Source:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/noprivaticenlassemillas

For more information (in Spanish):

http://bioseguridad.blogspot.com/search/label/Chile

---

3. Paraguay: "Responsible" Soy Will Not Give Up

The Round Table on Responsible Soy (RTRS) has been repeatedly denounced by the Soy Kills (La Soja Mata) campaign and numerous rural and civil society organizations as a crude attempt at "green washing" the image of soy monocultures in South America. But the "responsible" soy will not give up. Since May, the Round Table has been formulating criteria for the certification of soy as a "responsible" crop for use as a biofuel in Europe.

The Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) took the initiative to investigate just how "responsible" soy really is. The report that came out of CEO's research exposed the activities of Grupo DAP in Paraguay. The company holds some 30,000 hectares of cultivated land, including soy and corn, in the department of San Pedro. Grupo DAP claims to be a leader in social responsibility and sustainability and in addition, one of the company's managers is the vice president of the RTRS.

According to CEO, "This article shows how this new labeling scheme supports further soy expansion, wider use of pesticides by small farmers provoking further conflicts within communities, and the displacement of cattle ranching into the Chaco."

Source:

http://archive.corporateeurope.org/docs/soygreenwash.pdf

For more information (in Spanish):

http://bioseguridad.blogspot.com/search/label/Soja%20Responsable

---

4. The Struggle Against Tree Plantations Heats Up

Member organizations of the Latin America Network against Tree Plantations (RECOMA, Red Latinoamericana contra los Monocultivos de ¡rboles) met in August in Villa Serrana, Uruguay to analyze the runaway expansion of tree plantations that are used for logging as well as carbon cellulose and biofuel (agro-diesel and ethanol derived from wood) production.

The meeting was attended by activists from Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, and Uruguay, who exchanged information and shared their experiences in different plantation cases including eucalyptus, pine, African palm, teak, and melina trees.

"This process is becoming more consolidated and is expanding further hand in hand with false solutions to climate change such as agrofuel and the wrongly called "carbon sinks" that are simply new sources of business for transnational companies," states the RECOMA declaration that resulted from the meeting on August 1. "Communities, movements, and social organizations resisting this uncontrolled advance of monoculture plantations are undergoing persecution, harassment, criminalization, and plundering of their means of living."

The RECOMA members and other organizations with similar objectives from around the world took part in the International Day Against Tree Monocultures held on September 21. Activities were planned all around the world in opposition to the plantations. In support of the planned activities, well-known activists and researchers from Costa Rica, Uruguay, Germany, and Indonesia, among other countries, have written a declaration calling for an end to tree plantation expansion that was distributed on September 21 by national and international organizations.

"Throughout the world, millions of hectares of productive land are rapidly being converted into green deserts presented under the guise of 'forests.' Local communities are displaced to give way to endless rows of identical trees - eucalyptus, pine, oil palm, rubber, jatropha, and other species - that displace most other forms of life from the area. Farmland, which is crucial for the food sovereignty of local communities, is converted to monoculture tree plantations producing raw materials for export. Water resources become depleted and polluted by the plantations while soils become degraded. Human rights violations are rife, ranging from the loss of livelihoods and displacement to repression and even cases of torture and death. While communities suffer as a whole, plantations result in differentiated gender impacts, where women are the most affected."

The document concludes on an optimistic note, "However, corporate plans are facing increased opposition. In country after country, people are standing up to oppose the expansion of tree plantations and a worldwide movement has been growing over the years, bringing together the numerous local struggles and helping to raise the voices of those who suffer from plantations."

Sources:

Declaration by the Latin American Network against Monoculture Tree Plantations
http://www.wrm.org.uy/plantations/RECOMA/Declaration.html

World Rainforest Movement "International Declaration: Stop the expansion of monoculture tree plantations!"
http://www.wrm.org.uy/plantations/21_set/2009/declaration.htm

For more information (in Spanish):

http://bioseguridad.blogspot.com/search/label/Arboles

25 September 2009

Africa is heading for an ecological disaster
• The green and gene revolutions are threatening the richness of traditional agriculture

Mariam Mayet
The Cape Times [South Africa], September 25 2009:
http://www.capetime s.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=5177780

First introduced commercially in South Africa in 1998, genetically modified (GM) seeds are used extensively in our agriculture. In just over 10 years, 56 percent of South Africa's white maize and 72 percent of its yellow maize have been converted to genetic modification.

A staggering 96 percent of the area planted to cotton is comprised of GM varieties and 88 percent of soyabeans are GM. Genetic modification is an imported technology, and licensed for use in South Africa. A small handful of multinational agro-chemical/ seed corporations - Monsanto, Syngenta and Pioneer Hi-Bred - control the GM seed market. Monsanto has bagged the lion's share of the patents on GM traits and secured access to the South African market through an extensive and well-oiled agribusiness dealer network.

Profits are secured through the extraction of exorbitant technology fees from farmers. Farmers using Monsanto's GM seed sign away the right to save or exchange seed. They also absolve Monsanto from liability for contamination. Monsanto has ruthlessly taken legal action against farmers for patent infringement.

Last year alone, the South African government acting through the Department of Agriculture granted 425 permits for imports of GM seed into South Africa, field trials and commercial releases. It is unashamed in its support of GM technology and sees it as a key growth area for the economy.

It is thus not concerned that farmers who use GM seed are locked into an industrial agricultural system dependent on ready-made packages of industrial inputs - a process that de-skills farmers. It also cannot see that these corporations are now moving away from the single trait GM technology on the market since 1998, to the production of seeds with "stacked" traits.

A single GM maize variety can contain up to eight transgenes - genes expressing for herbicide tolerance and insect resistance. Farmers are having to continuously upgrade and adapt to an externally driven agenda over which the government has no control.

Drought tolerance in GM maize is also being touted in The Time of Global Warming. Monsanto is feverishly conducting field trials in South Africa of four varieties of abiotic stress maize and is set to provide patented germ-plasm and transgenes to the highest bidder. At the same time, millions of dollars from the Bill and Melinda Gates and Howard G Buffet foundations are pouring into Africa for GM drought-tolerance research and development. GM drought tolerance is being offered to African countries as a panacea in the alleviation of poverty and hunger, and in combating climate change. This will usher in massive field trials across Africa, finally pushing open hitherto closed doors to GM-based agriculture.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation through the Warren Buffet Foundation, the Yara Foundation and the Soros Foundation has committed over $300 million (R2.2 billion) to the New Green Revolution push in Africa. This is an agriculture system underpinned by the single-minded objective of increasing crop yields.

The term was coined by the US Agency for International Development (Usaid) in 1968, to describe breakthroughs in the development of seeds responding well to inorganic fertilisers and agro-chemicals.

The model was introduced in South-East Asia and India, heralding a historic shift in global farming away from local production for local consumption to large-scale production of mono-crops for the global market.

Cut from a similar cloth, the African Green Revolution discourse defines rural poverty in terms of insufficient productivity, which a technological "fix" comprised of high-yielding varieties, GM seeds and agro-chemicals will resuscitate.

A tendency of the Green Revolution is to myopically view food shortages as a shortcoming of food supply rather than a more complex phenomenon requiring a holistic understanding of why people go hungry. Nevertheless, this ideology has received the endorsement of the African Union, and is propagated through the New Partnership for Africa's Development. Heads of state in Africa have also thrown their weight firmly behind it.

The philanthropic money pouring into Africa is used to lay the groundwork for the industrialisation of African agriculture and creation of markets for agribusiness. In turn, this is paving the way for the emergence of a new rural private sector, agro-processors and exporters who contract small farmers to produce crops for them.

Added to the mix are the ongoing attempts by Usaid to undermine the sovereignty of African governments by unduly influencing biosafety laws. It is only a matter of time before national biosafety spaces will acquiesce to the expanding needs of Monsanto, Syngenta and their ilk.

With the exception of South Africa, small-scale African agriculture predominates in Africa. African farmers practise smallholder diversified farming systems, which provide most of the food consumed, as well as a substantial share of cash crops. At least 17 distinct farming systems exist in Africa.

Crop diversity is at the centre of such systems and farmers typically cultivate 10 or more crops in diverse mixtures. Many small-scale farmers practise intercropping - they grow a variety of crops, often intermingled in the same field - as a way of safeguarding their production from shocks such as drought and as a means of maintaining the fertility and productivity of the soil.

Small-scale farmers understand, from their vast experience, that these intercropping approaches allow them to spread risk in the event of crop failure, contribute to a more varied and balanced diet, maximise land use and so forth. Other widely used practices include seed saving, where a portion of the harvested crop is set aside for the next year's planting. Over years, these seeds have gradually adapted to the specific microclimate, and unique varieties have organically developed to withstand the environmental and pest pressures exerted on them.

Saved seed is a critically important resource that the poorest depend on to carry them from one year to the next.

The imposition of a technology and technological quick-fix solutions to what are inherently social, political, historical and economic crises within African agriculture will drastically transform African rural economies, social relationships, agrarian policies and, generally, the rural development trajectory in Africa. Agricultural production in Africa will increasingly be dominated by transnational seed, GM, agro-chemical and agribusiness. This will accelerate the destruction of traditional agricultural systems and facilitate the shift towards an externally oriented, input-based agricultural system.

Africa is heading for an ecological disaster. This includes genetic contamination by GM crops, loss of agricultural genetic diversity and the degradation and pollution of soils and water. It is anticipated that the health of Africans will deteriorate as they begin to consume more chemically infused and risky GM and Green Revolution food.

The Green and Gene revolutions are threats to the richness of African traditional agriculture. It stands in sharp contrast to the many successful African alternatives in organic agriculture, sustainable agriculture, agro-forestry, pastoralism, integrated pest management, farmer-led plant breeding, sustainable watershed management and many other agro-ecological approaches.

The widespread food riots that occurred last year were precipitated by a growing dissatisfaction and frustration among many of the world's poor about the "collateral" damage they incurred by the globalising forces of capital. A brutally frank appraisal is urgently required to dismantle the "structural meltdown" brought about by policies such as the Green Revolution, which transformed food that is sacred into a global commodity for speculation and bargaining.

This seems highly unlikely to happen. A significant report published last year by the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development is largely ignored by global policy makers.

Commissioned by the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation and the World Bank, and compiled by over 400 experts over a period of four years of rigorous peer-reviewed research, the report makes some ground-breaking recommendations.

It suggests that food security, food sovereignty and sound environmental practices for current and future generations are inextricably linked to the adoption and enhancement of ecological agricultural systems, based on local knowledge.

Far from promoting GM technology, it highlights the many scientific uncertainties and socio-economic impacts with the technology. Although many countries have signed on to the report, South Africa has predictably refused to do so. The government turned its nose up at the final meeting of the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development held in Joburg last year, when it failed to send even a single official to represent it.

South Africa is a poor steward of Africa's biodiversity. It has granted close to 1 600 GM permits since 2003, yet its regulatory, biosafety and administrative capacities lag far behind. This situation is severely compounded by its failure to meet national and international obligations demanding transparency in decision-making, public participation and access by the public to adequate information.

Frustrated by the government's intransigence to meet these obligations, and as a last resort, the African Centre for Biodiversity lodged a complaint last month with the Compliance Committee established under the auspices of the UN's Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, for its breach of international law.

Our government's honeymoon with big business is stale. It must throw its weight behind agricultural systems that support local production for local consumption, based on ecologically sound environmental practices and local knowledge.

Mayet is the director and founder of the African Centre for Biosafety, a non-profit organisation dedicated to protecting Africa's biodiversity, traditional knowledge, food production systems, culture and diversity, from the threats posed by genetic engineering and biopiracy.

24 September 2009

Changes Likely For Flax Industry
• If CDC Triffid, a GM flax, is present farmers will be affected too

Allan Dawson
Manitoba Cooperator [Canada], 24 September 2009.

"It's going to be a wake-up call for somebody." - Dale Adolphe

Canada's flax industry will have to change how it does business to restore European Union (EU) confidence if genetically modified (GM) flax is verified in Canadian exports.

Farmers might have to declare the variety of flax they deliver, or grow only certified seed, while exporters might have to test cargoes for GM flax before shipping, if that's what buyers want, industry officials said last week.

No matter the outcome, it demonstrates how sensitive markets are and the harm that can come from growing unregistered crops.

EU tests indicate two Canadian flax shipments are contaminated with CDC Triffid - a Canadian GM flax deregistered in 2001 and unapproved in the EU. Canadian authorities were expecting to have the results of their own tests this week. A reliable source says Canadian officials suspect there is GM flax in the samples. CDC Triffid is a likely suspect because sizable quantities of pedigreed seed were produced in the late 1990s before being recalled in 1998.

"It's going to be a wake-up call for somebody (if CDC Triffid is confirmed), whether it's the grain-handling industry to make sure there is no Triffid there (in the future), or maybe a wake-up call on the quality management system of the developer," Dale Adolphe executive director of the Canadian Seed Growers Association (CSGA) said in an interview.

Adolphe's fingers are crossed that Canada's pedigreed flax seed is not contaminated. There are safeguards to ensure varietal purity, but mistakes happen. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) oversees Canada's pedigreed seed system looking for phenotypic traits; it's not looking for what's not supposed to be there like a GM trait, he said.

"We'll have to renew our good name with the EU and take steps (if CDC Triffid is confirmed in Canadian flax)," said Anastasia Kubinec, Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives' oilseed specialist.

"There may be more onus put on producers, seed companies and probably the whole flax industry in general for more tracking, declarations and really playing by the rules by not growing deregistered varieties and not using unregistered chemicals."

The Western Grain Elevator Association, which represents Canada's major grain companies, has not discussed a declaration system for flax, association executive director Wade Sobkowich said. The threat of penalty for misdeclaring a variety is a deterrent, but the system is less effective if farmers don't know the variety they are growing. And testing for the presence of GM in a farmer's flax seed is likely to be costly.

"The declaration itself and the retention of a sample is only good for traceability purposes once a problem has happened," Sobkowich said.

One farmer cleaning out a bin could be the source of CDC Triffid seed, said Michael Scheffel, CFIA's national seed section manager.

Even though efforts were made to gather and process all the seed, it's possible that one or more seed growers sold CDC Triffid seed and one or more farmers continues to grow it.

That would raise questions about how comprehensive the seed recall was. It was voluntary and at the time CDC Triffid was legal to grow and sell, Adolphe said.

The CSGA has a record of which farmers produced CDC Triffid seed. Now it's trying to reconcile the amount of seed produced with the volume crushed at Altona and Harrowby.

"Everybody is relying on 10-year memory or files they can or can't find," Adolphe said. "Trying to trace back one or two years ago is one thing but going back 10 years is another."

Old records probably won't explain what's going on now, he added.

Farmers can pursue flax sales to North American buyers, Kubinec said. However, presumably those prices will be depressed too. In the meantime, she said farmers should keep samples of the flax they're harvesting for testing in the future if necessary.

It's not illegal to grow unregistered varieties. The catch is when delivered they automatically receive the lowest grade. However, it is illegal to sell an unregistered variety for seed.

Spain hosts 42% of European GM experiments

Green Planet, 24 September 2009:
http://en.greenplanet.net/food/gmo/954-spain-hosts-42-of-european-gm-experiments-.html

42% of European outdoor experiments and tests on GM products are conducted in Spain. Specifically, 82% of these investigations, which environmental organizations say do not follow any set of procedures or safety assessments, are carried out by big corporations such as Monsanto, Bayer and Pioneer.

Trials on GMOs must be approved by the Central Government, after receiving a report from the National Biosafety Committee. The environmental organization Friends of the Earth complains that in this committee only 7 members are scientists (out of 46 members), Ecoalimenta.com reports.

David Sanchez, in charge for Agriculture and Food at Friends of the Earth, says that "many times it has been proved that limiting pollen spread from GM plants is impossible, and it can contaminate food crops even a mile away. The risk for public health is obvious."

According to Greenpeace, besides hosting nearly half of GM experiments in Europe, Spain is the only country that grows GM crops for commercial purpose, with over 80,000 hectares of GM corn grown in 2008, and a radically different approach than other European countries such as France, Germany, Austria, Greece and Poland, which ban the cultivation of Genetically Modified Organisms.

Move to allow traces of unapproved GMOs

Stephen Cadogan, Irish Examiner, 24 September 2009:
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/kfaukfgbmhkf/rss2/

CHEAPER animal feed, particularly for pig and poultry farmers, will be one of Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel's objectives before she steps down later this year.

That will be one of the aims of a proposal she is expected to make, to reduce the maximum level for genetically modified (GM) residues in imported animal feed ingredients.

Feeds have been dearer in the EU because an estimated 200,000 tonnes of US soybeans have been blocked at EU ports this year. They contained trace amounts of two GM maizes not yet been approved by member states - although they have been declared safe by EFSA, the European Food Safety Authority.

Livestock feed shortages are imminent, due to member states' attitudes to GM crops, according to the European Commission. Mrs Boel recently told agriculture ministers that "breaking the log-jam of GM crop approvals" would throw a lifeline to dairy, beef and pig farmers who face high feed prices.

Her stance was supported by Belgium, Britain, Denmark, Portugal, Romania, Spain, the Netherlands and the Czech Republic, officials said. Austria, a GM opponent which usually blocks approvals, and Poland, expressed scepticism. Ministers from France and Germany did not speak in the debate. (Ireland usually abstains in votes on approving new genetically modified crops.)

The EU imports nearly two-thirds of the 33.5 million tonnes of the soybean meal used each year by its food and livestock industry.

A commission official said continued resistance to genetically modified organisms (GMOs) could see European farmers lose market share to imported meat from GM-fed livestock.

"The worst case scenario is that eventually it becomes so expensive to import protein that our own guys go out of business and we end up importing meat from countries fed on the same GMOs not approved for use here."

"If we don't solve the problem of zero tolerance shortly, then we will have to stop the imports altogether," said Klaus-Dieter Schumacher, president of COCERAL, the group that represents Europe's cereal and foodstuff makers.

Ms Boel said: "The fundamental question here is not about liking or disliking GMOs, it's about maintaining a competitive large-scale meat production in the EU, or preferring to import our meat from third countries that do not have the same reluctance about GMOs."

She has been backed by Commission President Barroso who said it should be possible to combine EU authorisation based on science with freedom for member states to decide if they wish to grow GM crops.

At the moment, if a GM variety is unapproved, no trade of it is allowed enter the EU.

The rejected shipments of soybeans had minute amounts of non-approved maize, presumably from a previous load that the ship carried.

Ms Boel is expected to overcome this feed trade problem by proposing a higher threshold for adventitious contamination, raising it from the current zero level to a minute level of perhaps 0.1%.

---

Comment from GM-free Ireland

This is the same old agri-biotech industry propaganda that has been disseminated for years by the animal feed cartel and the global commodity traders who control a virtual monopoly on animal feeds imports to Ireland.

The issue is framed as a choice between short supplies of approved GM and abundant supplies of non-approved GM feedstuffs. The message is: if you don't agree to let us contaminate your food chain with unapproved GM feedstuffs (mostly from the USA) against the wishes of the majority of your EU governments and consumers, we will cut off your supplies, starve your livestock, and put your farmers out of business!

No mention of the scientific peer-reviewed evidence of the serious long-term health risks of GMOs to livestock and humans. No mention of the devastating environmental and social impacts of monoculture GM crop production in the countries from which we source our GM feedstuffs. No mention that Ireland can grow traditional non-GM feed crops like barley, oats, and lupins. No mention of the fact that certified GM-free soya and maize feedstuffs are available, affordable, and widely used by our farm and food competitors across Europe. No mention that 53 EU Regions have Qualilty Agriculture strategies which avoid the use of GM feedstuffs. No mention that Austria, Germany and Italy have government-backed GM-free labelling for meat, poultry, eggs, fish, and dairy produce, and that France will follow suit later this year. No mention that the EU market for GM-free labelled animal produce is growing rapidly, with dozens of participating retailers and hundreds of food brands including the EU's biggest retailer Carrefour Group / Auchamp and the EU's biggest dairy co-op, Friesland Campina. No mention that Ireland already has a massive untapped competitive advantage to lead this market, since our cattle and sheep consume less GM feed than livestock in many competing countries, thanks to their grass based diet.

Worst of all, the article fails to mention that a ban on GM crops and a voluntary phase out of GM feed would enable Irish farmers and food producers to leverage our famous green image and our geographical isolation from transboundary wind-borne GM pollen drift to secure a truly unique selling point – the most credible safe GM-free food brand in Europe.

The article's author, Irish Examiner farming supplement editor Stephen Cadogan, is well known for his pro-GM industry hype. In his article of 21 June 2007, "GM-free cost up to €40m", he made a statement that must have come straight from Monsanto's PR department:

"Making Ireland an airtight island in a sea of genetic modification would require an army of inspectors poring over every grain of the cereals and cereal preparations we import annually ... Where would the non-GM grain for our livestock come from? Ireland might need to buy up the annual global production each year. This would be financial suicide for our farming industry."

What's wrong with this statement?

•

A ban on GM crops in Ireland would put us in the same league as Scotland, Wales, Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, Poland, and Switzerland - not an island in a sea of genetic modification!

•

GM-free maize and soya feed is affordable and widely used by competing farmers in other European countries. 99% of EU maize is GM-free and GM-free soy is available from Brazil, India, China and the USA. This year's Non-GM soy production from Brazil alone was 26 million tonnes (45% of its total soy harvest for 2009).

•

Moreover, GM-free maize and soya are rigorously certified throughout all stages of production from seed to ship, and are guaranteed GM-free at a contamination threshold below 0.01% at port of delivery. Sourcing GM-free feed would not require "an army of inspectors poring over every grain".

Here we see the application of the "Big Lie" technique of Nazi propaganda, based on the principle that a lie, if audacious enough and repeated enough times, will be believed by the masses.

Shame on the Irish Examiner!

For accurate information on the EU zero tolerance food safety policy see:

•

EU animal feed imports and GMO policy
European Farmers Coordination, Friends of the Earth Europe and Greenpeace, May 2008:
http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/animal_feed/Briefing_animal_feed_GMOs_May_2008.pdf

•

Zero tolerance - acting to prevent widespread GMO contamination
Friends of the Earth Europe:
http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/zero_tolerance.html

•

Defra/FSA Ignore Food Security as they try to please the GM lobby
GM Freeze press release, 13 August 2009:
http://www.gmfreeze.org/page.asp?id=398&iType=

For information on the volumes of certified Non-GMO soya feed from Brazil:

•

A decade of Cert ID's Non-GMO certification success story
provides basis for European GMO-free claims

Cert ID press release, 2 September 2009:
http://www.cert-id.eu/DisplayNews.php?ActiveNewsID=50

The Brazilian branch of Cert ID, pioneer and global market leader in specialty certifications like Non-GMO™ and ProTerra® certification for social responsibility and environmental sustainability has just published its tenth annual statistics overview of soy product certification volumes under its Non-GMO Standard.

From a combined certification volume of 420,000 metric tons of soybeans in 2000 the annual tonnage has risen to 9.36 (9.0) million tons of soybeans audited and available for certified crushing or shipment to export markets in the 2008-2009 harvest. That amounts to 16.3 (14.9) percent of the total Brazilian soybean crop of 57.3 (60.5) million tons.[1]

All of this tonnage is certified against the Cert ID Non-GMO Standard, which stands for less than the detection limit of 0.1 percent GMO content and fully documented traceability ("Hard IP" in trading talk), allowing animal products such as poultry, dairy, pork etc. to carry the new GMO-free claims available now in some EU Member States ("Gentechnik-frei hergestellt" in Austria and "Ohne Gentechnik" in Germany). Additional European countries are currently preparing comparable legislation.

Legislators and market forces are thus recognizing the clear rejection of GMOs by European consumers in vegetable and animal food products. For more than ten years now, between 65 and 85 percent of consumers in most EU countries would rather purchase GMO-free food.

The availability of Cert ID Certified Non-GMO soy meal in the marketplace makes it possible for poultry, dairy, and meat producers to make GMO-free claims for their products.

Commodity importers as well as producers of animal nutrition face no mandatory labeling problems resulting from EU Regulation (EC) No. 1830/2003 and have an additional selling point to animal producers who want to make a "GMO-free" claim.

Since 2006, practically all of the soy products certified by Cert ID are also covered by the ProTerra Standard for certification of social responsibility and environmental sustainability. ProTerra fully integrates the Basel Criteria for Responsible Soy Production and carries endorsements from Greenpeace and the WWF.

Augusto Freire, CEO of Cert ID do Brasil points out, that "from the 2007 season onwards, practically all of our Brazilian certification clients were able to meet the ProTerra Standard as well and thus could offer both angles to their European clientele: Non-GMO and sustainability." Richard Werran, Managing Director of Cert ID Europe, adds that this combination "is exactly what European retailers want for their supermarket customers." A majority of EU consumers continue to prefer not to purchase GM foods. The first poultry fed on Cert ID certified soy meal and subsequently claimed as "Ohne Gentechnik" found its way to consumer dinner tables several months ago.

The report is available at http://is.gd/3DSZ8

Further information from:

Augusto Freire
Managing Director
Cert ID do Brasil
Tel. +55 51 9117 8541
info@cert-id.com.br

Richard Werran
Managing Director
Cert ID Europe
Tel. +44 1827 874 849
info@cert-id.eu

Sandy Kepler
CEO
FoodChain Global Advisors
Tel. +1 641 469 6181
info@foodchainadvisors.com

Food Safety Authority of Ireland fails to act on illegal GM flax contamination

GM-free Ireland Network
24 September 2009

The illegal "Triffid" GM flax (linseed) from Canada has now been found in 10 European countries: Germany, Belgium, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Romania, Portugal, Hungary, Austria, and Switzerland.

But the Food Safety Authority of Ireland has failed to issue any public information - three weeks after the contamination was first made public by the German Government! No test results, no product recalls, not even a warning on the FSAI web site to enable consumers to avoid products that may be contaminated.

GM-free Ireland sent the following letter to FSAI on 18 September:

Eamonn Ryan
Chair
Food Safety Authority of Ireland
Abbey Court, Lower Abbey Street, Dublin 1

Friday 18 September 2009

Re. Contamination of the food chain with illegal GM flax FP967 (CDC Triffid) from Canada

Dear Mr Ryan,

What are you doing to prevent the contamination of Ireland's agricultural seeds, animal feed and food chain, from Canada's illegal GM flax FP967 (CDC Triffid) which has been detected in Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Switzerland? (See RASFF Notifications 2009.1171 and 2009.1208).

The products at risk of contamination from this untested and illegal Genetically Modified Living Organism include flax seeds, animal feed, sprouts, flour, baking mixtures, bread and bakery products, cereals, linseed oil, food supplements, soap, cosmetics, dyes, paints, fibers, paper, ornamental plants, health foods and medicines.

Any related contamination of our food chain and landscape would besmirch what's left of our reputation as Ireland - the food island in the aftermath of the dioxin meat scandal. Contamination of our seed supply and subsequent cultivation of GM flax on this island would also effectively terminate our GM-free crop status and damage our agri-food sector's untapped potential to secure the safest GM-free food brand in Europe.

We are thus dismayed by your failure to issue a Notification, two weeks after traders first signalled a problem and ten days after EFSA first published RASFF Notification 2009.1171 on its web site on 8 September.

We urge you to comply with your obligations under EU law by taking the following steps without further delay:

1.

Alert stakeholders with a Notification on your web site and targeted communications (and please don't claim "this is not a food safety issue", as this GMO has never been risk-assessed by EFSA!).

2.

Use due diligence to-ordinate your strategy regarding at-risk seeds with the Dept. of the Environment, regarding at-risk feed and food with the Depts. of Health and Agriculture, and regarding transboundary movement of all at-risk products with the N.I. Assembly and the UK Food Standards Agency.

3.

Exercise Ireland's right under Articles 10.6 and 11 of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to halt the importation of GMLO (Genetically Modified Living Organism) flax seeds - and suspend imports of the other at-risk products - pending accredited laboratory testing and certification of their legality.

4.

Conduct an investigation to find out if previously imported flax seeds (a) have come from Canada, (b) have been trans-shipped from Canada via other countries and/or (c) come from seed varieties which originate in Canada; and - it they are so - recall them immediately to prevent their cultivation.

5.

Test these at-risk products to determine if they contain and/or are derived from GM flax.

6.

Recall all products that (a) test positive or (b) don't test positive but are derived from GM flax.

7.

Because Canada (a) failed to prevent the cultivation of the illegal GMO in its jurisdiction, (b) failed to detect and prevent its exportation, (c) is currently weakening its regulatory process, (d) is lobbying the EU to scrap our food safety zero tolerance policy for contamination with unapproved GMOs, and (e) continues to promote its GMOs in the EU, please implement the Consumer Pays Principle in EU law by notifying the Government of Canada that Ireland holds it accountable to assume full liability and compensate stakeholders and the Exchequer for any related economic losses or reputation damage.

Please also let us know:

(a)

the countries of origin and tonnage of all flax products that have been (i) imported since the GM flax was first released in Canada in 1998, (ii) cultivated since then, and (iii) that remain on the market;

(b)

what actions you take and the results of your tests.

Yours sincerely,
Michael O'Callaghan
Co-ordinator, GM-free Ireland Network

Here is the response received from FSAI - six days later:

24th September 2009

Re: GM flax FP967

Dear Mr O'Callaghan,

Thank you for the correspondence of Friday September 18th to the Chairman of the FSAI Board, Mr Eamonn Ryan, regarding GM flax FP967. The FSAI is aware of the limited presence of this unauthorised GM flax event in a number of EU Member States and is monitoring the situation closely.

Regards,

Vanessa Cooling
Information Assistant
FSAI Advice Line

Here is a related letter to FSAI from the Irish Doctors Environmental Association:

21 September 2009

Dear Mr. Ryan,

I would be very grateful if you could let me know the situation re the presence of unauthorised genetically modified (FP967 suspected) linseed from Canada, in Irish retail outlets, as detailed on the RASFF website. In particular, I would appreciate if you could let me know if you will be testing cereals, health foods, bakery products and other foods that may contain this compound currently on sale in Irish shops for the presence of this ingredient. I would also be grateful if you could itemize the food stuffs that may contain this ingredient on your website, in order that consumers might be informed of the situation. Finally, I would also appreciate if you could let me know what the procedures are in events such as this, to highlight this matter to the health sector and to the public in general. This matter is of serious concern to our association as FP967 has not been assessed for safety by the EFSA.

Kind regards

Dr Elizabeth Cullen
Honorary Secretary
Irish Doctors Environmental Association

Beachy joining Obama administration

Kelsey Volkmann
St. Louis Business Journal:
http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2009/09/21/daily53.html

President Barack Obama has appointed Dr. Roger Beachy, founding president of the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center in St. Louis, to serve as the first director of a new federal agriculture agency.

Beachy will join the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), a U.S. Department of Agriculture agency, on Oct. 5. The new agency will award competitive grants to fund research and technological innovations aimed at making agriculture more productive, environmentally sustainable and economically viable.

NIFA will replace the USDA's Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service and significantly expand its research grants program. CSREES awards between $160 million to $200 million a year, but Beachy said he and others are pushing to expand the grants program under NIFA to $700 million over the next three to four years.

Beachy said he wants to use the grants to attract the nation's "brightest and best scientists," including those at Danforth and Washington University, to help tackle the world's problems using plant science.

"Most of us realize that plants are the source of oxygen, clean up the environment, and are food, feed, fiber and fuel," he said. "They are truly renewable. As we move toward a greener future, plants will play an incredibly important role."

NIFA was developed as a result of a task force chaired by Danforth Chairman William Danforth, who recommended that Congress authorize the creation of NIFA as a way to strengthen agriculture research and to attract more scientists to the field.

"I hate to see (Beachy) less active in St. Louis even for a little while," Danforth said in a statement. "On the other hand, I believe strongly in the NIFA. No one in the world would be a better founding director. Our board saw the situation the same way."

On assuming his new role as NIFA director, Beachy will become vice chairman of the Danforth center's board of trustees, a move that was originally scheduled to occur in July 2010.

Beachy said he plans to rent a place in Washington, D.C., but also keep his home in Clayton.

Since Jan. 1, 1999, when Beachy became the Danforth center's founding president, he has helped recruit more than two dozen principal investigators and 170 plant scientists, including 95 Ph.D.s; attract more than $75 million in research grants; establish the Enterprise Rent-A-Car Institute for Renewable Fuels through a $25 million gift from the Taylor Family; create a research park; and oversee an endowment of nearly $100 million.

P. Roy Vagelos, former president, chief executive and chairman of pharmaceutical giant Merck, is leading the search committee to find Beachy's successor. Until a new president is on board, Philip Needleman, a member of the center's board of trustees, will serve as interim president.

Needleman spent 25 years at Washington University School of Medicine, where he was professor and chairman of the department of pharmacology. In 1989, he became senior vice president of Monsanto. In 1993, he became president of Searle Research and Development. He was also senior executive vice president and chief scientist of Pharmacia from 2000 to 2003.

---

Spin Profile of Roger Beachy

http://www.spinprofiles.org/index.php/Roger_Beachy
[The original text features hyperlinks not included here]

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

Beachy is also Professor in the Department of Biology at Washington University in St. Louis.

Activities

In September 2009 US President Barack Obama announced that he had appointed Beachy as the first director of a new federal agriculture agency, the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), a US Department of Agriculture agency. Beachy was to take up his post on October 5, 2009. According to a report in the St. Louis Business Journal: The new agency will award competitive grants to fund research and technological innovations aimed at making agriculture more productive, environmentally sustainable and economically viable.[1]

The report adds:

On assuming his new role as NIFA director, Beachy will become vice chairman of the Danforth center's board of trustees, a move that was originally scheduled to occur in July 2010.[2]

History

Beachy's work at Washington University, in collaboration with Monsanto, led to the development of the world's first genetically modified food crop, a variety of tomato that was modified for virus disease-resistance.

In 2003, in letters to the journals Science and Nature, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) complained that Beachy had published an editorial in Science and co-signed a letter in Nature Biotechnology without either journal disclosing that "Beachy's research on agricultural biotechnology has been funded by Monsanto and other biotech companies, even though the subjects of his submissions - the safety of genetically engineered crops and intellectual-property policies - are directly relevant to those companies."[3]

One of the co-signatories of Beachy's letter in Nature Biotechnology was Prof Chris Lamb. Beachy was co-chair with Lamb of the scientific advisory board of the Akkadix Corporation, a global agricultural biotechnology company co-founded by Lamb. Beachy is also on the Board of Directors of the industry-supported Nidus Center for Scientific Enterprise, and on the scientific advisory board of Spacehab, Inc.. He is also a consultant to the United Soybean Board. Among numerous honours and awards, Beachy was the 1991 recipient of the Bank of Delaware's Commonwealth Award for Science and Industry and in 1999 he was named R&D Magazine's Scientist of the Year.

Notes

1. Kelsey Volkmann, Beachy joining Obama administration, St. Louis Business Journal, September 24 2009, accessed 24 Sept 2009

2. Kelsey Volkmann, Beachy joining Obama administration, St. Louis Business Journal, September 24 2009, accessed 24 Sept 2009

3. Journal Editors Urged to Disclose Conflicts of Interest: Nature and Science Failing To Disclose Authors' Financial Ties, press release, CSPI, 21 Aug 2003, accessed 24 Sept 2009

When every mouthful is a health risk

Latha Jishnu
Business Standard [India], 24 September 2009:
http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/when-every-mouthful-ishealth-risk/371023/

New Delhi -- Jeffrey M Smith, a former consultant to industry, is the director of the Institute for Responsible Technology. The institute works with well-known scientists to educate the public about the dangers of genetically modified organisms (GMO) and is in the forefront of the campaign for healthier eating in America. For over a decade he has been writing extensively about the inherent risks of GM foods and his first book, Seeds of Deception, which became a bestseller, made Smith one of the best-known faces of the global anti-GMO movement.

The powerful agriculture biotech industry is dismissive of Smith's assertions. It portrays Smith as a scaremonger whose claims about the health risks are short on scientific credibility. But this is exactly the point that Smith makes in his even more damning second book, Genetic Roulette: that there is very little science to prove that GM foods are harmless, as the industry claims. On the other, he lists 65 known health risks from GM foods, all of them drawn from well-documented scientific studies and emerging evidence from across the world. He also draws on reports published by leading geneticists, molecular biologists, protein chemists, epidemiologists and every kind of scientist who has worked in this field to present an ominous picture of the true state of affairs. It makes for very scary reading.

Smith's basic contention is that there has been deception from the very start. The US government and its regulatory agencies, in particular, the Food and Drug Administration, colluded with the biotech industry to manufacture the claim that the "food derived by these new methods (genetic engineering)" is no different from other foods. Based on this premise - a throwaway sentence in the FDA's 1992 policy on GM foods - the agency said no safety tests were required. The premise itself was not just flawed; it was manufactured to suit the interests of the industry by gagging scientists.

Internal documents of the FDA made public in the wake of a lawsuit several years later show that the FDA had coolly ignored the caution advised by its own scientists to the "different risks" posed by GM foods and that it had deleted all references to "the unintended negative effects" of genetic engineering. As a result, industry has been allowed to do pretty much as it pleased on safety procedures which, it turns out, is very little indeed. At the beginning of 2007, that is, a decade and a half after GM foods were introduced, just 20 peer-reviewed animal feeding safety studies had been conducted on GM crops and only one human feeding trial. What is shocking is that most of the animal feeding studies showed adverse effects after feeding for just 10-14 days.

Yet, the FDA allows developers, a cartel of five companies who control the bulk of the global seed and pesticides market, to do the safety studies on their own crops, studies that are kept secret under the guise that it is "confidential business information". That's why India hit the headlines when the Supreme Court ordered that test data on the genetically engineered Bt brinjal developed by Mahyco, a partner of the world's largest agbiotech company Monsanto, be made public. It is a rare instance where test data on a GM crop has been released for public scrutiny and where internationally renowned scientists have been able to point out the many flaws in the way the safety tests were conducted.

In his exhaustive compilation of health hazards, Smith puts together 65 health risks of GMOs that are linked to various toxic and allergic reactions and even death in livestock and human beings. It is a well-designed book. While the introduction puts the development of GM crops in perspective, each of the risks gets a two-page spread. Readers who want just the gist can stick to the left hand page which lists the bare-bones details (terrifying in most cases) along with the observation of a noted scientist while the right hand page provides plenty of technical details.

For instance, the second risk is on the effect of GM tomatoes on rats. We learn that 20 rats were fed on GM Flavr Savr tomato for 28 days. Of these, seven developed stomach lesions (bleeding); another seven died within two weeks and were replaced in the study. For more details of how the FDA approved the first GM crop in the US, the right hand page provides the various omissions and commissions of the regulator. It is well worth the reader's time and effort since the author has used an easy-to-comprehend style throughout, although he brings in the top scientific brains to explain some of the concepts.

Read just a paragraph or two from this book and it will keep you sleepless for a long time.

Finding common ground helps standards setting

Linda Brown
Sustainable Industries [USA], 24 September 2009:
http://www.sustainableindustries.com/commentary/60837632.html?viewAll=y

Recently our nation took time out to celebrate the life and mourn the passing of Senator Edward Kennedy. Political allies and adversaries joined together to reflect on the achievements of the man Senator John McCain recently called "the single most effective Senator of our time."

In the wake of his death, we have all been reminded of the importance of statesmanship, civility, respect and willingness to reach across the aisle. These lessons bear reflection, especially for those of us involved as stakeholders in the negotiation of standards in the complex and often contentious area of sustainability.

Devil in the details

What many in the sustainable business community have come to realize over time is that one person's sustainability practice is another person's prescription for disaster.

Often, the issues that separate stakeholders are profound. Take, for instance, the issue of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture. On the one hand, advances in biotechnology offer tremendous promise for crops that could use less water and land, prevent erosion, require fewer chemical pesticide applications, grow faster and provide increased nutritional benefits per serving. Whole sectors of agriculture have embraced GMO technologies, and U.S. trade policies endorse them.

On the other hand, GMOs have roused enormous opposition. Genetic pollution, when bioengineered pollen drifts onto neighboring farms, has spawned both lawsuits and legislation aimed at protecting farmers. An increasing number of studies point to harmful impacts on species such as the Monarch butterfly, as well as a range of potential human health risks.

No matter where one stands on such difficult issues, it is hard to envision common ground. And yet, common ground must be found. Indeed, the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards committee (SCS-001) currently working on a national standard for sustainable agriculture is grappling with about a dozen of these issues - the "elephants in the room."

The 80/20 Rule

To approach such a problem, it is worth stepping back to consider the 80/20 Rule. Simply put, even on controversial issues, it is fair to assume that reasonable people probably see eye-to-eye on about 80 percent of the underlying facts, even when disagreeing on key points. We are all consumers, employees, parents and citizens, facing the hopes, fears and challenges of 21st century life; as such, we share much more in common than we often realize. As stakeholders in a standards-setting process, we can take advantage of this inherent commonality to seek consensus quickly on the 80 percent, and in this way demonstrate good will and a readiness to listen, while charting a path forward.

Conversely, it is easy to exploit the divisive aspects of any argument to scuttle agreement. Whether we're talking about creating standards for sustainability or solving our nation's healthcare crisis, our greatest challenge lies in agreeing to maintain mutual respect and civility as we struggle to separate fact from fiction, keep an open mind and avoid being manipulated by disingenuous arguments. It is important to remember that the politics of division tend to operate in favor of the status quo.

The current healthcare debate provides a case in point. In his September address to Congress, President Obama observed, "We've seen many in this chamber work tirelessly for the better part of this year to offer thoughtful ideas about how to achieve reform ... And there is agreement in this chamber on about 80 percent of what needs to be done, putting us closer to the goal of reform than we have ever been. But what we've also seen in these last months is the same partisan spectacle that only hardens the disdain many Americans have towards their own government. Instead of honest debate, we've seen scare tactics. Some have dug into unyielding ideological camps that offer no hope of compromise. Too many have used this as an opportunity to score short-term political points, even if it robs the country of our opportunity to solve a long-term challenge."

Similarly, any standards process in which all stakeholders are invited to voice their views runs the risk of devolving into polarized camps, with heated rhetoric, personal demonization and distortions. But Senator Kennedy proved there is a different way.

During his eulogy, Ted Kennedy Jr. recalled his father's core belief "in developing personal relationships and honoring differences," and one of his father's most frequent admonitions: "Always be ready to compromise, but never compromise on your principles."

President Obama reiterated these themes, ". . . that's how Ted Kennedy became the greatest legislator of our time. He did it by hewing to principle, but also by seeking compromise and common cause - not through deal-making and horse-trading alone, but through friendship, and kindness, and humor."

And Republican Senator Orin Hatch reflected: "Ted Kennedy, with all of his ideological verbosity and idealism, was a rare person who at times could put aside differences and look for common solutions."

Though seeking common ground takes time, sweat and sometimes tears, it offers the best chance for long term success as we strive together to define and apply the principles and practices of sustainability in standards, policies and business decisions.

Linda Brown is executive vice president of Scientific Certification Systems. She can be reached at LBrown@scscertified.com.

GrainCorp ready for big lift in GM canola

Gregor Heard
The Land [Australia], 24 September 2009 :
http://theland.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/grains-and-cropping/general/graincorp-ready-for-big-lift-in-gm-canola/1631719.aspx

GRAINCORP is preparing its sites for the second season of GM canola deliveries - with segregations for 'canola' and 'non-GM canola' available.

And non-GM producers looking to market their product specifically as GM-free will be pleased to know that moves towards a fee for testing to prove canola was GM-free have been abandoned.

"We have managed to negotiate with crushers and get an outcome that is good for growers, with no fees incurred for testing on the canola's GM status," said GrainCorp's corporate affairs manager David Ginns.

The set-up for GM deliveries will be different to last year, when a handful of GM sites were put in across NSW and Victoria.

This year, there will be two canola segregations, CS01, for all canola varieties, including GM, and CS01A, which is for non-GM canola.

Mr Ginns said there would be a number of strategic CS01 sites across the two states where GM canola is permitted, targetting the areas where the crop is being produced on the largest scale.

"We have a good idea, through working with Monsanto and its seed distribution partners, as to where the crop will be grown and how much there will be."

Mr Ginns said it was estimated there would be a substantial increase in the amount of GM canola produced in Australia this year, a combination of markedly increased acreages and a better season.

"Last year we took around 7000 tonnes altogether, whereas this year we could conservatively expect to get around ten times that much."

However, he said that given that the GM production areas were relatively closely concentrated, there would still be a large number of non-GM sites across the GrainCorp network.

"We will be looking to give growers choice," he said.

---

Comment from Louise Sales:

Although this article plays it down, this is a huge win for non-GM farmers, who will no longer have to pay to get their crops tested. GM canola [oilseed rape] will be segregated and our understanding is that there will be only a few receival sites for it in each state. However under the current system non-GM farmers will still have no legal recourse if their crops are contaminated - which we believe will be inevitable.

23 September 2009

Industry and greens battle over pseudoscience in EU capital

Leigh Phillips
EU Observer, 23 September 2009:
http://euobserver.com/9/28704

BRUSSELS - An industry-bankrolled PR company has attacked what it calls pseudoscience in EU legislation, as a years-long war between the defenders of enlightenment and the partisans of obscurantism comes to Brussels.

Grayling, the world's third largest public relations company, on Monday (21 September) launched 'ScienceMatters,' a campaign to promote "science-based policy-making." The group wants to take on bad science and what it describes as scaremongering about technology.

According to the ScienceMatters website, the group aims to ensure that "EU policy-making ... be based on sound scientific evidence. Its members believe that the growing trend of ignoring or mis-communicating on science does little to promote the interests of the consumer, the environment, and science itself."

Jessica Adkins, the campaign director and a lobbyist with Grayling, told EUobserver: "On a range of issues, from genetically modified organisms to nanotechnology to chemicals to pesticides to cosmetics, the issue is that science isn't really being taken into account by decision makers."

Her colleague, Guillaume Artois, a spokesperson for the campaign and a communications manager with Albermerle, a US chemical firm and one of the major backers of ScienceMatters, said that environmental risk assessment has become politicised in Brussels.

"We are puzzled by the way science is being treated by the European institutions," he said. "In the chemical field, for example, there are established procedures based on a risk assessment, but when it comes to allowing a product on the market that has passed this assessment, it is somehow disregarded to profit some political concern."

"Once a risk assessment is done, that should be upheld, whatever the conclusions are."

'Astroturf'

Lobby transparency campaigners and environmental groups however are worried that far from encouraging science-led legislation, the new group is in reality what they call 'astroturf' - a fake grassroots campaign that on the surface looks like a group of concerned citizens but actually is only out to promote the interests of the companies that have hired the PR firm.

At first glance, the group appears to be the Brussels extension of recent efforts by scientists to tackle the avalanche of information in the public discourse that is based on spurious or outright false claims.

In recent years, a number of researchers, particularly young ones, frustrated that astrology is viewed by some as a science, homeopathy as medicine, that the teaching of evolution is being squeezed out of biology curricula in some jurisdictions and that climate-change deniers are taken seriously by conservative politicians, have abandoned the shackles of political neutrality within the public debate and become openly partisan when it comes to their subject areas.

From evolutionary biologist, militant atheist and alternative medicine sceptic Richard Dawkins to physician and the Guardian newspaper's 'Bad Science' columnist, Ben Goldacre, the boffins are fighting back.

Newspapers, internet bulletin boards and the blogosphere have been crammed with exposures of homeopathy as quackery, discussions of the fall-out in the UK from unwarranted scares over infant vaccinations, and laments about the general poverty of science reporting. A stream of best-selling books such as How Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered the World by Francis Wheen and a host polemical documentaries have firmly established the "defence of reason" as a dominant meme in the second half of the decade.

But civil society groups in Brussels worry that ScienceMatters has piggybacked onto this discourse and taken what they say is otherwise a worthy endeavour - improving the scientific literacy of the public and policy-makers - but warped it to serve the interests of industries that want to limit the costs of legislation that aims to reduce pollution and harm to human health.

Chemical firm backers

The campaign is funded by major chemicals companies Albemarle, Chemtura, and ICL-IP. It is also supported - but receives no money - from the British Plastics Federation, the European Crop Protection Association - the pesticide lobby, and EuropaBio - the biotech trade association headed by Andrea Rappagliosi who is simultaneously the head of the Brussels office of pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline, all of whom have participated in roundtable discussions with what the campaign describes as EU stakeholders.

Foundation Nanonet, a Poland-based organisation that aims to "popularise" nanotechnology, is also a member of the new group.

At the same time, the group is very up front about its backers, noting on its website that Albemarle, Chemtura, ICL-IP and Foundation Nanonet are members.

The group also open about the fact that ScienceMatters' previous incarnation was 'ReachForLife', which began its existence a year ago as an organisation focussed on EU chemicals policy and its Regulation on Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (Reach) legislation in particular.

At the time of its launch, Axel Singhofen, an advisor on health and environment policy to the Greens in the European Parliament, accused ReachForLife of wanting to overturn a ban on decabromodiphenyl ether (deca-BDE), a flame retardant, and to prevent any such bans from occurring in the future.

Mr Singhofen told this website that ReachForLife was originally created as "a last-ditch attempt to reverse the ban on their flagship products."

"It's a joke that these cowboys are coming to the defence of science. Their adverts in Brussels media last year were full of misinformation, saying that EU assessments had found deca-BDE to present 'no risk', that they were 'proven to be safe', and had a 'clean track record'"

But he pointed out that the European Commission's Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and Environment (CSTEE) and its Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks both had recommended risk reduction for the product, and that risk assessment raised concerns about persistence of the chemical and bio-accumulation - which occurs when an organism absorbs a toxic substance at a rate greater than that at which the substance is lost.

"They say they're battling anti-science, but when you look at what they say is in the science, you see that they are completely misrepresenting it," he added. "It's the worst spin that exists."

Indeed, at the time, even the European Chemical Industry Council, the sector's trade association, publicly distanced itself from the ReachForLife campaign.

Erik Wesselius, of the Alliance for Lobbying Transparency and Ethics Regulation (ALTER-EU), which argues for more openness in influence exerted by corporate lobbyists on the political agenda in Europe, told this website: "It's a devious way for the industry to lobby the EU institutions, but this sort of astroturfing has a long tradition. Industry PR has been using this tactic for about ten years now. What they do is try to cast doubt on opponents by discrediting the science their opponents use."

"They say they have the real science while their opponents base theirs on pseudoscience and scaremongering," he continued. "But of course it's they who define what the real science is."

He said that ReachForLife/ScienceMatters have set up a series of roundtables for stakeholders, but that these are always with industry representatives and sometimes an MEP and a journalist, "but certainly not with all stakeholders, say, from civil society or genuine grassroots groups. They're not invited."

Mr Wesselius also noted that Grayling is one of the companies that have not signed up to the European Commission's registry of lobbyists and that ReachForLife had been longlisted as a candidate for last year's EU Worst Lobby Awards, the annual spoof awards show that Alter-EU organises to raise awareness of lobbying influence in Brussels.

ScienceMatters will spend §100,000 over the next twelve months on the campaign, atop a "similar figure" spent on ReachForLife. However, Ms Adkins denies that the group will do any lobbying, telling this website that the money will only be spent on holding roundtable discussions, the production of a report on the role of science in EU decision-making and media relations.

'Greens have narrow perspective on science'

Frank Swain, the British science writer and creator of the popular SciencePunk blog, said the campaign should be taken at its word.

"I don't think they're being disingenuous - it's right there on the website that these chemical companies back them. It's a bit unfair to call them astroturf."

"At the same, of course people are absolutely right to be concerned that any group might actually be in the service of industry interests," he told EUobserver, adding that there are "endless examples" of enterprise, particularly pharmaceutical companies, unduly influencing or suppressing the publication of scientific research

"But that's why it is vital that our elected representatives be scientifically literate and depend on people that are competent in a knowledge of science."

He added that environmentalists tend to have a pick-and-mix attitude when it comes to science.

"The Green parties and green groups sometimes have very narrow, very shallow perspective on science. In terms of climate change, the environmental movement are very strong, but elsewhere, they can be very lackadaisical, embracing science when it supports their case, and ignoring it when it doesn't."

He said that on the question of nuclear power, medical testing on animals and genetically modified foods, environmentalists disregard what scientists have to say.

"It's natural to have concerns with the business practices of Monsanto, with concerns about the food supply chain, about food security and agribusiness, but it is important not to conflate that with an ideological opposition to GMOs.

"Don't put 'Frankenfood' banners on a wall. Identify your concerns and support those with good evidence."

Hazard vs. risk

Green MEP Carl Schlyter, who himself worked as a chemical engineer before he went to Strasbourg, took umbrage at the accusation that environmentalists were at any time anti-science.

"It is not surprising that these companies would try something like this," he said. "For them, they only time science is talked about is when they want to stop those who have concerns about protection of the environment or people."

He said that behind the discussion of a defence of science, the campaign was in fact a reformulation of the debate about hazard versus risk that the two sides have been engaged in for years.

Hazard is the potential to cause harm while risk on the other hand is the likelihood of harm. Some products can be highly hazardous, but if used correctly, present low or no risk. Alternately, other products can present very little hazard, but if used incorrectly carry a great deal of risk.

Chemical companies and the producers of many industrial products have historically wanted to restrict regulation to risk alone, while environmentalists say the intrinsic hazard of a substance needs to be taken into account as well.

"Sometimes the immediate short-term danger of a product is very difficult to prove, even though over the longer term, it can cause imbalances in an ecosystem that could lead to a reduction in the productive capacity of the ecosystem."

"The companies have an economic agenda that is served by limiting what can be called scientific," he said.

"They must maximise their profits in the short term, thus anything that produces a delay - and legislative concerns over not-easily-identifiable dangers do this - must be discredited and the way they are now doing this is to label us as unscientific."

He said that the companies have a more constricted definition of science as it applies to their products than he would adhere too.

"They think that to be scientific is to say that only when something is absolutely proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be bad should the product be pulled from the market," he said. "You could say that the really extreme Green opposite of that would be that only when something is absolutely proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be good should a product be allowed onto the market."

"The rest of us exist in the uncertain space in between. There is still science in that space and it is also the space in which we fight."

Correction: A previous version of this article erroneously suggested that the International Fragrance Association supported the ReachForLife/ScienceMatters campaign.

The Day of the Triffid in Transgene Contamination

By Prof. Joe Cummins
Institute of Science in Society [UK], 23 September 2009:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/theDayOfTheTriffids.php

Transgenic flax grown for several years in Canada has nevertheless contaminated probably the country's entire flax seed stock; that's why flax should never be used to produce transgenic industrial and pharmaceutical chemicals – Prof. Joe Cummins

A fully referenced version of this article is posted on ISIS members' website. Membership details here. It can also be downloaded here

Transgene contamination of flax seed

Flax seed is used widely in the food industry, including bread, and as source of omega 3 fatty acids. On 10 September 2009, the European Union (EU) Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) reported finding an unapproved genetically modified (GM) flax/linseed variety in cereal and bakery products in Germany. The GM flax variety, FP967 (CDC Triffid), is not authorized for food or feed in the EU; it has tolerance to soil residues of sulfonylurea-based herbicides, and was developed by the Crop Development Centre at the University of Saskatchewan in Canada. Canada supplies approximately 70 percent of the total flax/linseed in the EU annually. Because GM flax FP967 is not authorized in the European Union, there is zero tolerance for the variety. That means any raw material or flax/linseed derivative analyzed to be positive for FP967 is illegal and not marketable in the EU. The test for the genetic modification of Triffid flax was developed by Genetic ID Laboratories in USA and Europe [1].

The 'Triffid' is a highly venomous fictional plant species, the titular antagonist from John Wyndham's 1951 novel The Day of the Triffids. The University of Saskatchewan appears to have used that great novel as a model for its GM creation.

Triffid yanked off seed market in 2001

The discovery of Triffid gene contamination in Canadian flax exports is surprising because Triffid flax seed has not been openly produced in Canada since 2001. Triffid was deregulated over a decade ago in Canada for environmental release for feed in 1996 and for food in 1998. USA authorized the release of Triffid for food and feed in 1998, and for commercial growth in the environment in 1999 [2]. Triffid has been grown in the open fields in both Canada and US. But by early 2001, under pressure from Canadian flax growers anxious to protect their markets, Triffid was deregistered and removed from the market in Canada. By then, around 200 000 bushels of Triffid flax seed had been grown on farms across the prairies [3].

Why is Triffid in flax exports?

Triffid has probably contaminated most North American flax exports including 'organic' flax because the crop is significantly insect pollinated. Why has the GM contamination escaped careful scrutiny in Europe during those years of flax export? One explanation may be partly technical. The herbicides tolerated by Triffid flax are sulphonylurea derivatives and the genes transforming flax are not the usual genes used to produce herbicide tolerant crops. The promoter and terminator genes are native from the plant source of resistant genes Arabidopsis. What I am saying is that is that Triffid is a University of Saskatchewan product and does not employ the usual large company genes and that may be a reason they were not detected earlier.

Sulphonylurea herbicide resistance was selected for development because that herbicide family is used to control weeds of winter wheat which tolerates the herbicide but the herbicides persist in the soil preventing crop rotation with broad leafed crops such as flax [4, 5]. Prior to the approval of Trffid by Canada in 1995, the creators of Triffid, Professors McHuhen and Holm, chastised the government regulators for asking scientifically irrelevant questions [6]. The current problem with Triffid suggests that the government regulators may have been badgered into arriving at a faulty conclusion.

Transgenic flax for industrial chemicals and pharmaceuticals

During the past decade, there has been a lot of pressure to produce pharmaceutical products and industrial plastics precursors in flax so as to avoid polluting 'major' food and feed crops. This is being promoted by the usual GM brigade. Such mindless pollution of flax fails to recognize the crop's natural dietary and medicinal properties. The main objection to the use of transgenic flax to produce industrial chemicals and pharmaceuticals is that even though flax is mainly self pollinated it is also significantly insect pollinated (to the order of five percent or more of the pollination [7-9]). Gene flow from flax occurs to wild and weedy relatives that include several species native to North America as well as feral agronomic flax [10].

The detection of transgenic flax Triffid in Canadian imports for food and feed in Europe is disturbing because the production of Triffid flax was officially discontinued in 2001. The implication is that the entire Canadian flax crop may have been contaminated by exposure to the genetically modified crop during the five years in which 200,000 bushels of Triffid flax were produced and marketed in North America. The current problems with Triffid flax demonstrates most emphatically that flax is not suitable for producing transgenic industrial and pharmaceutical chemicals.

Obama's Chief Agricultural Negotiator Nominee a Pesticide Pusher

Paula Crossfield
Huffington Post [USA], 23 September 2009:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paula-crossfield/obamas-chief-agricultural_b_297243.html

The industrial agriculture complex has been doing back flips for the last few weeks, first because of the ascendancy of Blanche Lincoln (ConservaDem-AR) to the high throne of the Senate Agriculture Committee, where she promises to pinch climate legislation (or at the very least shove it aside until next year) and push a southern Big Ag agenda in the Senate for rice and cotton interests. Now, the White House has announced Islam A. Siddiqui, current Vice President for Science and Regulatory Affairs at CropLife America (you will remember the organization as the one that sent the First Lady a letter admonishing her for not using pesticides on the White House garden) as nominee for Chief Agricultural Negotiator, who works through the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to promote our crops and ag products abroad.

Why does it matter if the Vice President from the trade association representing pesticides and other agricultural chemicals takes over the Office of Agricultural Affairs at the USTR? Well, because that office, according to the USTR website "has overall responsibility for negotiations and policy coordination regarding agriculture." That means he would oversee the office dedicated to:

Free Trade Agreements (FTA) and World Trade Organization (WTO) Development Agenda (Doha) negotiations on agriculture, operation of the WTO Committees on Agriculture and on Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Measures, agricultural regulatory issues (e.g., biotechnology, cloning, BSE, nanotechnology, other bilateral SPS issues, and customs issues affecting agriculture), monitoring and enforcement of existing WTO and FTA commitments for agriculture (including SPS issues), and WTO accession negotiations on agriculture market access, domestic supports and export competition, and SPS matters.

The Chief Agricultural Negotiator is essentially a 'spokesperson' for American agriculture (perhaps the 'bad cop' to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack's 'good cop') who is in charge of selling our agricultural products abroad -- products of a synthetic agriculture that is dependent on too many oil inputs, too much water and a stable climate to persist as the norm into the future. Here is an official job description for the Chief Agricultural Negotiator from the website Progressive Government:

The Chief Agriculture Negotiator for the United States conducts critical trade negotiations and enforces trade agreements that relate to U.S. agricultural products and services. Also works to expand the access for America's farmers and agricultural producers to overseas markets and is responsible for directing all U.S. agriculture trade negotiations anywhere in the world. This includes multilaterally in the World Trade Organization (WTO), regionally in the Free Trade Area of the Americas, and bilaterally with various countries and groups of countries such as Australia, Central America, Chile, Morocco, and the South African Customs Union. The ambassador also resolves agricultural trade disputes and enforces trade agreements, including issues related to new technologies, subsidies, and tariff and non-tariff barriers and meets regularly with domestic agricultural industry groups to assure their interests are represented in trade. He or she also coordinates closely with U.S. government regulatory agencies to assure that rules and policies in international trade are based on sound science.

What might a former employee of CropLife think is sound science? And what might his agenda be for expanding our markets abroad? I'm sure Siddiqui is already a regular at agricultural industry meetings, and will be ready and willing to say just what they'd like to hear. (Before CropLife, Siddiqui also served in the Clinton administration under former Ag Secretary Dan Glickman, the Ag Secretary best known for taking part in the sign-off of GM seeds as 'substantially equivalent' to other seeds, thus an argument for why they should not be labeled.)

Here is a little bit more about CropLife from Sourcewatch:

The image [the pesticide industry] presents is one of a hi-tech, efficient, responsible, and green industry that is already thoroughly regulated to assure the safety of its products. While the industry quietly pursues an anti-regulatory agenda to assure no pesticides would be removed from the market, its trade association claims its aim is to "promote increasingly responsible, science-driven legislation and regulation."

...

In March 2004, CropLife poured funding into a campaign to defeat a Mendocino County ballot initiative - known as Measure H - that would make the country [sic] the first to ban genetically engineered crops. In the lead up the the vote CropLife contributed over $500,000 - more than seven times that of the initiative supporters - to defeat the proposal. Despite the massive campaign against the initiative, the bio-tech industry suffered a humiliating defeat. The measure passed by a margin of 56% to 43%.

In other words, the Obama administration has chosen someone from an organization dedicated at all costs to chemical-based agriculture to represent our trade interests abroad. This in the name of selling more Round-Up and GM seed, as well as siphoning off our excess commodities to China for their growing CAFO industry, all for our own short term economic interests.

---

Paula Crossfield is the Managing Editor of CivilEats.com, which originally published this article.

Big Ag places a foot soldier at the U.S. Trade Office - but loses a GMO court battle

Tom Philpott
Grist [USA], 23 September 2009:
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-09-23-monsanto-suagr-beet-court/

If you run a globe-spanning, U.S.-centered agribusiness firm, you're probably not sure whether to cry in your Krug or toast with it this week.*

The bad news for the GMO/fertilizer/pesticide set: A federal court in San Francisco rebuked the USDA for greenlighting genetically modified sugar beets without rigorous testing of the novel crop's environmental impact. And that could have a major impact on the GMO seed industry, because there's never been a real reckoning among federal agencies about the impact of GMOs.

Want to know who came with the official rationale that GMOs are "substantially equivalent" to conventional crops - and this worthy of a regulatory free ride? It was that noted beautiful minder Dan Quayle, sitting on an Bush I's Council on Competitiveness in the early '90s.

The sugar beet ruling, coming on the heels of a similar one on GMO alfafa, may mark the beginning of the end of that free ride.

Fully 30 percent of the globe's refined sugar comes from beets - and the U.S. is a major producer. In 2005, the USDA ruled that the use of Monsanto's new line of Roundup Ready sugar beets - genetically rigged to withstand application of Monsanto's flagship herbicide - had "no significant impact" on the environment.

Trouble is, the agency did so without issuing a detailed "environmental impact statement," as it's arguably required to under the National Environmental Protection Act - and that's why the Center for Food Safety and other sustainable-food NGOs sued the USDA.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey S. White ruled (PDF here) in favor of the Center for Food Safety argument.

The ruling hinged on the argument that GMO sugar beets can cross-pollinate with and genetically contaminate non-GMO beets - and even with related species like Swiss chard and table beets. (In Willamette County, Ore., epicenter of industrial sugar-beet production, these other beet types are grown commonly, too.)

"In light of the large distances pollen can travel by wind and the context that seed for sugar beets, Swiss chard, and table beets are primarily grown in one valley in Oregon, Plaintiffs have demonstrated that deregulation [of GMO sugar beets] may significantly effect the environment," the Judge White declared.

So now he's ordering a detailed environmental impact statement (EIS) from the USDA on GMO sugar beets. But any rigorous EIS will include not only the cross-contamination problem, but also the growing specter of Roundup-tolerant "superweeds," which are already rampant in many parts of the country where Roundup Ready seeds are commonly used.

The agency might even have to reckon with the recent study that showed that so-called "inert" ingredients in Roundup quite actively damage human cells.

In other words, this ruling - if it stands up under an imminent round of appeals - could be a slippery slope for Monsanto. Investors, for their part, seem a bit concerned - since the ruling was announced Tuesday, the company's shares are down about 2 percent.

Now for the good news for the great masters of the corn field: President Obama has nominated one of their own as the chief agricultural negotiator at the U.S. Trade Office.

To take the post, Islam "Isi" Siddiqui will have to leave his current perch as vice president for agricultural biotechnology and trade at CropLife America, the trade group representing the U.S. agrichemical industry (member list here). Its mission: to hip the public (and the government) to the ""benefits of pesticides and crop-protection chemicals."

This is the crew that chided Michelle Obama for daring to opt not to use "crop protection" (i.e., toxic pesticides) in the White House Garden.

Once the Senate's conservative stalwarts recover from the shock of supporting a man named Islam, they'll surely wave Siddiqui right through.

As the Doha round of global trade talks lurches on, Siddiqui's position will be an important one. Southerm-hemisphere nations like India and Brazil are pushing for lower U.S. crop subsidies, while the U.S. is demanding wide-open markets for U.S. goods - everything from foodstuffs like industrial corn to agrichemicals. Siddiqui can be counted on to push that agenda hard.

Another critical ag-related trade issue is GMOs. Many nations have opted to ban GMOs on the precautionary principle. The few companies who dominate the GMO seed market - Monsanto, Dupont, Syngenta, and BASF, all Croplife America - find that attitude abhorrent. Siddiqui can be expected to play hardball in using trade talks as a blunt instrument to knock those precautions down.

* Since I'm an acolyte of the wine writer Alice Feiring, you should read my casual assumption that agribiz execs quaff Krug, an insipid status-brand Champagne, as a stinging insult.

Biotech Advocate Picked to Oversee USDA Research Grants

Erik Stokstad
Science Insider [USA], 23 September 2009:
http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/09/biotech-advocat.html

Roger Beachy of the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center in St. Louis, Missouri, will be the first director of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA).

Advocates for agricultural research hope that by putting a high-profile scientist in charge, the Administration can boost Congress's interest in supporting competitive research at USDA. The appointment was announced this afternoon at a symposium at the Danforth Center and does not require Senate confirmation.

NIFA is the new home for USDA's external research funding. Created by the 2008 Farm Bill, it begins operation 1 October. NIFA replaces the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, which distributes $200 million in competitive grants and about $280 million in "formula funding" to land-grant universities. The Farm Bill adds another $106 million annually of competitive funding for research into organic farming, biomass, and fruits and vegetables. It also calls for a "distinguished scientist" to be appointed for a 6-year term as director.

Beachy certainly qualifies. A member of the National Academy of Sciences, Beachy has been president of the Danforth Center since its founding in 1998. He did early work on creating transgenic plants that can resist viruses and has long been an advocate for plant biotechnology as a tool to improve agriculture in developing countries. In 1991, he co-founded the International Laboratory for Tropical Agricultural Biotechnology while at the Scripps Research Institute.

"I think he's terrific," says Robert Paarlberg, a professor of political science at Wellesley College in Massachusetts who studies international agricultural policy. "His skills in working with people are unsurpassed. He's a very good communicator."

Beachy's interests in biotechnology and the developing world closely match those of his new boss, USDA's Under Secretary for Research Rajiv Shah. They also fit with President Barack Obama's desire to increase agricultural assistance to developing countries.

Illegal GM flax in 10 EU countries? - FSA still fail to act in UK

GM Freeze, 23 September 2009:
http://www.gmfreeze.org/page.asp?id=401&iType=

The UK Food Standards Agency claims that there are "no grounds for issuing a Food Alert" [1] in response the EU Rapid Action Alert have been challenged by GM Freeze, who have written again to the FSA demanding answers to several key questions. [2] The GMO in question was deregistered in 2001 by Canadian authorities and never commercialised under pressure from Canadian flax growers concerned about exactly this sort of contamination.

The EU issued the first alert on 8 September, and has issued four further alerts on new incidents since then [3], after flax/linseed grain and seed stock imported from Canada was discovered to be contaminated with a GMO illegal both here and in Canada. [4] EU alerts state that parts of contaminated shipments may now have been distributed to 11 EU countries. [5]

GM Freeze believes that in order to determine the grounds for issuing an alert in the UK, the FSA must give clear answers to the following questions:

1.

Have all UK imports from Canada been monitored for GM presence? If so, what were the results?

2.

What are the origins of grain imports received from other EU states?

3.

Have these imports been monitored for GM?

4.

Are EU grown crops produced using seed from Canada?

5.

Have seed imports into the EU been monitored for GM?

6.

Where is flax grown in the UK and what are the main uses?

7.

Has UK grown flax been monitored for GM presence in the last two years?

Previous GM contamination incidents involving US rice and maize have led to the FSA being severely criticised for their failure to act quickly and issue appropriate Food Alerts. [3]

GM Freeze has previously called on the FSA to carry out risk assessments [3] on potential GM contamination in imports, which would include mapping the pattern of imports and knowing the end products likely to be affected. If they had done this in advance, the FSA would have been in a position to know where to monitor for contamination and to quickly withdraw products from the market.

Defra have not responded to GM Freeze's letter of 14 September which asked for details of monitoring of GM presence in imported seed.

Commenting Eve Mitchell of GM Freeze said: "The FSA is not in a position to say that there are 'no grounds for issuing a food alert' before answering some very basic questions. We urgently need those answers and a full analysis to be published in order to fully understand the risks to both flax imports and the movement of flax products and seeds in the UK and EU.

"If the FSA had prepared in advance and fully understood the market for flax products and seed, it would not have taken nearly three weeks to decide if testing is required, and action could have been taken by now to recall products potentially contaminated with this illegal GMO.

"There seems to be no sign of any action from the FSA, which echoes their past handling of GM contamination incidents. Instead the FSA appear to be waiting for someone else to tell them where the GM flax is before they will act. This is very disappointing as the FSA is supposed to promote and protect consumer safety."

ENDS

Calls to Eve Mitchell, GM Freeze Coordinator 01381 610 740
Pete Riley, GM Freeze Campaigns Director 0845 217 8992 or 07903 341065

Notes

[1] Letter from FSA to GM Freeze dated 18 September 2009.

[2] GM Freeze press release,"Illegal GM contaminates flax - UK fails to respond", 14 September 2009. See http://www.gmfreeze.org/page.asp?id=400&iType=

[3] See https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/rasff-window/portal/index.cfm?event=notificationsList

[4] The UK imported over 900 tons of linseed directly from Canada in 2008, and also imports linseed from other EU states (eg, The Netherlands, Belgium and Eire). The origins of these imports are not clear, as crops imported from outside the EU are often trans-shipped within the EU but recorded as imports from an EU country. The UK's total import of flax/linseed was 10,308 tons in 2008. Flax is grown in the UK on a small area, and seed imports in 2008 came from The Netherlands (14 tons).

[5] Countries named by the EU alerts are Germany, Belgium, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Switzerland, Romania, Portugal, Hungary, Austria, Switzerland (see https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/rasff-window/portal/index.cfm?event=notificationsList search on FP967)

[6] GM contamination - imports of food and feed at risk - measures needed to reduce the risk. http://www.gmfreeze.org/uploads/GM_contamination_final.pdf

Judge overturns approval of Roundup Ready beets

Jeff Barnard CheckBiotech.org, 23 September 2009:
http://greenbio.checkbiotech.org/news/judge_overturns_approval_roundup_ready_beets

GRANTS PASS, Ore. - A federal judge overturned government approval of a variety of sugar beet genetically engineered to resist a popular weed killer produced by agricultural giant Monsanto, according to a ruling released Tuesday.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White in San Francisco found the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service violated environmental law by failing to take a "hard look" at whether "Roundup Ready" sugar beets would eventually share their genes with other crops.

Noting that pollen from genetically altered sugar beets could be blown by the wind long distances to related crops, such as chard and table beets, the judge ordered the agency to produce an environmental impact statement examining the issue.

"The potential elimination of farmers' choice to grow nongenetically engineered crops, or consumers' choice to eat nongenetically engineered food ... has a significant effect on the human environment," White wrote.

The plant inspection agency is reviewing the ruling, said spokeswoman Suzanne Bond.

A lesser level of review, known as an environmental assessment, found no significant impact from introducing a ground bacteria gene tolerant of the herbicide into the sugar beet genome, noting that if pollen spread the genes to wild beets, they were considered a weed, and no cause for concern.

The ruling was a second blow for St. Louis-based Monsanto's Roundup Ready crops. While soy beans, corn, cotton, and canola genetically engineered to withstand the company's popular weed-killer have been in wide commercial production for years, a similar ruling in 2007 forced a ban on planting Roundup Ready alfalfa until a re-examination was done. That environmental impact statement is not yet done.

It was not immediately clear what impact the ruling would have on the U.S. sugar crop, about half of which comes from Roundup Ready sugar beets. The judge did not address the harvest of the current crop. Roundup Ready beet seed saves growers on labor, fuel costs and equipment wear.

But the organic farmers, food safety advocates and conservation groups that brought the lawsuit will ask the judge Oct. 30 for an injunction banning new plantings until the re-examination is done, said Earthjustice attorney Paul Achitoff.

American Sugar Beet Growers Association spokesman Luther Markwart said he did not know how much nongenetically altered seed was available if the judge grants the ban.

"Clearly we are going to vigorously defend our farmers' freedom to plant Roundup Ready sugar beets," Markwart said. "All this has to do with how we make our case."

Most of the seed is produced in Oregon's Willamette Valley, but the crop is grown on 1.1 million acres in 11 states from Michigan to California, Markwart said.

Frank Morton, an organic seed grower in the Willamette Valley town of Philomath and plaintiff in the lawsuit, said steps were taken to keep similar crops apart to prevent cross-pollination, but Roundup Ready seed growers would not divulge which fields were growing genetically altered crops.

He added that he had to pay $300 each time he tested his seeds for genetic contamination, and the first time it is found the crop becomes worthless.

"This industry could be destroying the crop value of organic growers and organic growers would not have the slightest idea they were in danger until their stuff turned up contaminated," he said. "This is why I made a stink about this."

Achitoff said besides genetic contamination, they were concerned Roundup Ready crops were creating new strains of weeds resistant to herbicides.

Monsanto spokesman Garrett Kasper said from company headquarters in St. Louis that the ruling was largely procedural and did not question the safety of Roundup Ready crops.

"The issue of weed resistance, as far as we are concerned, is something that is able to be controlled through the properties of chemicals and working with our technical advisers in the field," he said. "Roundup Ready technology uses less herbicide than conventional, which is why it was so readily adopted by growers."

BetaSeed Inc. in Tangent, which produces sugar beet seed, did not immediately return a call for comment.

Source: The Associated Press

Public will pay for GM contamination

Western Australian Business News, 23 September 2009:
http://www.wabusinessnews.com.au/en-story.php?/1/75430/Today-s-Business-Headlines

From: The West Australian,

Local shires will have to foot the bill to test and eradicate genetically modified canola seed that spills onto roadside verges when it is carried by truck this harvest.

GM canola claim denied

Lyndal Reading
Weekly Times Now [Australia], 23 September 2009:
http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/article/2009/09/23/116371_grain-and-hay.html

MONSANTO has dismissed reports of genetically modified canola contamination along the Riverina Highway near Berrigan.

Monsanto spokeswoman Honi McNaughton said a few plants found outside a paddock "did not equate to "rogue weeds or contamination" but was a normal, agriculture occurrence.

This followed claims by Berrigan farmer Gai Marshall that GM canola weeds were found on the highway near her farm.

She said tests showed the weeds were GM.

She called on the Road Traffic Authority to clean up the weeds and prevent contamination to her canola crops.

She said the seeds must have escaped from a truck as no neighbours grew GM canola

Beekeeper released from prison - German Federal Constitutional Court decision

GM Watch, 23 September 2009:
http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/11527-german-beekeeper-released-from-prison

German beekeeper Michael Grolm was Germany's first 'field liberator' who went to prison for his actions. Together with numerous other activists he organised publicly-announced field liberations (German expression for decontamination of GM crop sites).

Earlier this year, Michael Grolm was sentenced to a fine of 1,000 Euros because he entered a field despite an injunction barring him from doing so. The beekeeper refused to pay the fine and announced his intention to go to prison instead, to demonstrate his resolve against the use of GMOs in agriculture.

But the court decided that he could only be detained for not paying the fine after he had disclosed his means. Since he refused the means testing, he was then sent into forced detention for this offence on August 27th. Under German law, this penalty can last up to six months - according to what's considered proportionate.

In the view of Mr. Grolm's lawyers, almost a month in prison was way past anything commensurate, and so they decided to make a final appeal to the Federal Constitutional Court, which ordered his immediate release on September 22.

In Autumn, he might have to face prison time again. This is because he not only entered the field but also pulled up GM corn plants, and so he has another fine (360 Euros) that's outstanding for this.

Information and a video (all in German):

http://www.gendreck-weg.de/

http://www.cinerebelde.org/erster-feldbefreier-hinter-gittern-p-94.html?language=de

http://de.indymedia.org/2009/09/261635.shtml http://www.taz.de/1/zukunft/umwelt/artikel/1/bioimker-grolm-geht-ins-gefaengnis/

---

NOTE: More important news from the battlefield in Germany c/o GMWatch's wonderful German translators. http://www.gmwatch.org/news-languages For news from GMWatch in German. http://www.gmwatch.org/component/german_articles

Speakers Announced for Soya & Oilseed Summit 2009 in New Orleans

Press release
SoyaTech.com [USA], 23 September 2009:
http://www.soyatech.com/news_story.php?id=15592

SOUTHWEST HARBOR, ME -- Soya & Oilseed Summit, the annual industry-leading conference from Soyatech, LLC, has announced its initial slate of speakers for the 2009 event, which will be held in New Orleans, Louisiana on November 3-5, 2009.

Leading participants from around the globe include:

•

Timothy Andriesen, Managing Director - Agricultural Products, CME Group

•

Alexander D–ring, Executive Director, European Feed Manufacturers' Association (FEFAC)

•

Christopher Lytle, Deputy Executive Director & COO, Port of Long Beach

•

Robert Reeves, Director of Public Affairs, QUALISOY

•

Ricardo Tatesuzi de Sousa, Executive Director, Brazilian Association of Non-Genetically Modified Grain Producers (ABRANGE)

•

Michael Whitehead, Executive Director, Food Research & Advisory, Rabobank International

As previously announced, Blairo Maggi, governor of Mato Grosso state in Brazil and CEO of Grupo Andre Maggi, will deliver a keynote address to the Soya & Oilseed Summit audience during the closing session of the conference. Also, Thomas Mielke, Executive Director of Oil World, will offer a video presentation of the global outlook for oils, fats and meals.

"We appreciate that so many prominent industry leaders have made the commitment to share their expertise at this year's Soya & Oilseed Summit," said conference chair Philippe de LapÈrouse, Managing Director of the Global Food, Agribusiness & Biofuels Practice at HighQuest Partners. "This annual event provides an unparalleled opportunity for industry, government and academic representatives to network with each other and share information on the outlook for the soybean and oilseed industries. Co-locating the Summit this year with the Global Soybean and Grain Transport conference also adds an entirely new dimension to the Summit. Having such diverse input from an unprecedented number of countries will create the richest dialogue yet at the Soya & Oilseed Summit."

Other key participants include:

•

Omar Abou-Sayed, Vice President of Corporate Development, Elevance Renewable Sciences

•

David Elsenbast, Vice President of Procurement, REG Services Group

•

Peter Golbitz, Director of International Business Development, SunOpta Grains & Foods Group

•

Greg Grow, Sales Director, ADM Investor Services

•

Eric Jackson, CEO, Carbonless Promise

•

Susan Knowlton, Research Manager, DuPont Company

•

Neil Sims, President, Kona Blue Water Farms

•

Hunt Stookey, Managing Director, HighQuest Partners

•

Johann Tergesen, President & COO, Burcon NutraScience

•

John Vickerman, President, Vickerman & Associates

Sponsors for Soya & Oilseed Summit 2009 include: Agniel Commodities, Carbonless Promise, CME Group, Dow AgroSciences, DuPont Pioneer, Eurofins, Gavilon, HighQuest Partners, The Missouri Partnership, National Corn Growers' Association, North Star Grain International, Pioneer Hi-Bred, The Russell Marine Group, SGS Group and SunOpta Grains & Foods Group.

Early registrations for the Soya & Oilseed Summit and Global Soybean & Grain Transport represent at least fifteen countries and will include commodity buyers from Southeast Asia, China and Europe.

For more information about this conference (and the co-located Global Soybean & Grain Transport event) or to register, visit www.soyatechevents.com or call 800-424-SOYA.

About Soyatech, LLC

Soyatech (www.soyatech.com) is a global media, marketing and event company that assists food, oilseed, agri-business and agri-transportation sector firms to assess and develop market opportunities through its publications, conferences, webinars, and widely-used internet platform. More about Soyatech-produced conferences can be found here: www.soyatechevents.com. Founded in 1985, the company publishes the annual Soya & Oilseed Bluebook, the industry's leading source of information on oilseed and agribusiness companies and products, an industry-focused email newsletter (in daily and weekly editions), and Soyatech.com, the award-winning business-to-business online resource for the industry. Soyatech's information services are referred to by tens of thousands of the world's leading commodity, food and biofuels companies in over 100 countries every week. Soyatech, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of HighQuest Partners.

For More Information Contact:

Joe Jordan
207.266.6224
joe@soyatech.com

22 September 2009

Zero tolerance for unauthorised GM crops still under discussion

GMO Compass, 22 September 2009:
http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/news/466.docu.html

No more soy shipments are reaching European shores from the USA. After several ships were turned away due to traces of Bt maize MON88017 and MIR604 being found in the cargo, all importers are shying away from the risk of such imports.

Experts are reckoning with food shortages in the feed industry by December at the latest. Given the situation, German federal and state agriculture ministers are calling for rapid authorisation procedures.

MON88017 and MIR604 are not yet authorised in the EU, although they have been classifed as harmless by EFSA. Agricultural imports with even the minutest trace of unauthorised organisms are unmarketable in the EU on the basis of the so-called zero tolerance regulation. Last year the EU commission for feed imports wanted to introduce a "tolerance level" for unauthorised GM crops, but then instead spoke of speeding up the authorisation process for GM crops approved in producing countries.

EU Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel has repeatedly urged for expeditious authorisations, in vain. The required majority of Member States was not reached in a vote on the approval of MON88017 in the Standing Committee of the EU Commission on 22 July. It does not look like a qualified majority will reached by the Council of Agriculture Ministers on 19 October either. In this case, the Commission is expected to grant authorisation of the maize without approval of the Member States.

The animal feed industry has pointed out time and again that its competitive position is endangered and is demanding prompt, practical regulations to be introduced.

In response to the situation, German state agriculture ministers also called for speedy authorisation procedures for GM feed and for a "practical use of the zero tolerance regulation" at their autumn conference on 18 September. They requested the Federal Government to lobby for this in the EU Commission. Only Bavaria was of the opinion of sticking to the principles of zero tolerance. Because of reservations expressed by the populace, Bavaria is striving for a "GM-free Union" of European regions.

See also on GMO-Compass:

Zero tolerance for non-authorised plants under discussion (05 August 2009)
http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/news/457.zero_tolerance_non_authorised_gm_plants_under_discussion.html

GMO Database: Authorization in the EU
http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/gmo/

Biotech wheat gains supporters

Carol Stender
AgriNews [USA], 22 September 2009:
http://www.agrinews.com/biotech/wheat/gains/supporters/story-468.html

FARGO, N.D. -- Biotech wheat development got a boost last week when producers, millers and bakers released an eight-page paper supporting the research.

The paper says biotechnology has the potential to help reverse the loss of wheat acres in the United States and "ensure adequate supplies to feed a hungry world."

There has been a change in opinion on biotech wheat over the last few years, said National Wheat Growers Association secretary-treasurer Erik Younggren.

"The bakers have realized that we have to have a stable, safe supply of wheat," he said. "When we talk about biotech, we are talking drought resistance, gluten-free and nitrogen efficient variety development."

Younggren made the comments following his participation in an agricultural policy roundtable at Big Iron in Fargo, N.D.

The United States is not alone in supporting biotech development, said the Hallock farmer. Australia and Canada have joined American wheat producers in an effort to move forward on the research and variety development.

Announcing support for biotech development is one thing, but, in the United States, the wheat industry is also seeking clearance with other countries that import U.S. wheat so markets will be there to accept the commodity.

It all takes time, Younggren said. Although biotech wheat field trials are underway, He does not expect varieties to be released for another decade.

The industry paper in support of biotech wheat emphasizes there is "no silver bullet to the competitiveness problem." It does conclude that the rapid adoption of biotechnology traits in other crops produced around the world and grower testimonials in support of the traits lends credence to the idea that biotechnology can make significant contributions.

Industry leaders hope the development will lead to greater wheat supplies. The number of wheat acres has been declining for the last three decades, the national announcement said. Yield and net returns per acre for wheat have consistently lagged behind corn and soybeans.

The corn belt has moved further west into traditional wheat growing states such as Kansas and North Dakota, said Younggren. Corn and soybeans have displaced wheat especially has researchers continue to develop hardier shorter-season corn varieties to fit northern climates.

Wheat association leaders have set a goal to increase wheat acres by 20 percent in the next decade. It's hoped biotech varieties will help the industry meet that goal.

Organizations working together on the industry-backed paper on biotechnology includes the National Association of Wheat Growers, U.S. Wheat Associates, the North American Millers' Association, the Independent Bakers Association and the Wheat Foods Council.

---

Comment from GM Watch:

Interesting, isn't it, that GM wheat supporters give the example of UG99 resistance as the reason for going down the GM route, when the UG99 resistant crops so far produced have been the product of the non-GM biotech approach of MAS, not GM! http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Science-Nutrition/Scientists-aim-to-cut-risk-posed-by-Ug99-to-wheat-supplies

But then, even Monsanto admitted to Farmers Weekly a while back that non-GM breeding was the best way forward with wheat: "Biotechnology rather than genetic modification is the key to improving wheat varieties, says Monsanto. Although GM techniques may develop some traits, most will stem from conventional breeding backed by sophisticated biotech tools." (Wheat future is in bio-tech not GM - breeder) http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=10507:lobbyists-pushing-gm-wheat-again-but-non-gm-is-the-future

And Monsanto manager Jeff Cox told Farmers Weekly on another occasion: "We have lots of... [non-GM] tools to accelerate the development of new wheat varieties. It's a numbers game and ultimately non-transformation [ie non-GM] biotech offers the greatest potential." http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=10507:lobbyists-pushing-gm-wheat-again-but-non-gm-is-the-future

And as we've noted before, the growing acreage going to corn and soy, as against wheat, is not due to GM varieties, as keeps being suggested, but has been driven by the damaging subsidised "biofuels" boom, which has driven up prices for corn and soy, and the popularity of these crops for food processing and animal feed.

And when it comes to the supposed promise of "drought resistance, gluten-free and nitrogen efficient variety development", GM has failed to bring a single crop to market with any of these traits, although non-GM drought resistant crops have already been developed. http://bangmfood.org/feed-the-world/17-feeding-the-world/14-non-gm-breakthroughs

But with former Monsanto Vice President Roger Beachy soon to head up USDA research, it's a safe bet where the funding will be going. In reality, of course, we need research on agriculture that actually works, is not hyper expensive, is socially acceptable, and is not environmentally damaging. Oh, and has a market among consumers... ie not GM!

But reality has little appeal for lobbyists busy inflating the GM bubble.

EFSA holds two-day conference to debate GMO risk assessment

European Food Safety Authority, 22 September 2009:
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_locale-1178620753812_1211902898772.htm

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) held a two-day conference on GMO risk assessment for human and animal health and the environment in Brussels on 14-15 September 2009, bringing together risk assessors from EU Member States, risk managers, and representatives from stakeholders including industry, consumer and environmental groups from the EU and beyond.

Opening the conference, EFSA Executive Director Catherine Geslain-Lanéelle reaffirmed EFSA's role as a provider of independent scientific advice on GMOs. "EFSA is neither pro-GMO nor anti-GMO," she said. She acknowledged that there exists a significant divergence of opinion among various actors in the field of GMOs in the EU and low social acceptability. It was important that the conference clarified EFSA's role in the risk assessment of GMOs. "We are here not only to inform but also to listen and learn. We want to get as wide a range of views and experiences as possible," she said. The Commission's Director-General for Health and Consumers DG Robert Madelin welcomed the conference and said scientists can help regulators make better decisions. He said the EU needed to continue to open up the risk assessment process to integrate public concerns and imbed it in a global context.

Day 1: Assessing the risks for human and animal health and the environment

On the first day, experts from EFSA's GMO Panel and the GMO Unit presented the EU legal framework for GMOs and some of EFSA's updated guidelines on the risk assessment of GM plants, which are developed in the context of mandates from the European Commission and to reflect the latest scientific state of the art. Specific and detailed guidelines ensure greater clarity for applicants regarding data requirements.

Howard Davies from the GMO Panel, presenting EFSA guidance related to food and feed safety, stressed that this was defined in close consultation with Member States and stakeholders. EFSA participated in several consultation meetings and held a public consultation on the guidance before adoption. The updated guidance is currently being discussed by the European Commission (EC) and Member States in view of adoption as an annex to an EC regulation. It has been developed to include more detailed data requirements from applicants, for example, concerning field trials, as highlighted by Claudia Paoletti from the GMO Unit.

The environmental risk assessment (ERA) of GM plants is a complex area where science is evolving and EFSA's guidelines in this field are currently being updated to take into account latest scientific developments. GMO Panel experts Salvatore Arpaia and Jeremy Sweet presented two of the main topics related to the new ERA guidelines: the assessment of effects on non-target organisms and the assessment of long-term environmental impacts. Andreas Heissenberger of Austria's Environment Agency presented Austria's scientific view on environmental risk assessment (ERA). He concluded that while Austria endorses EFSA's case-by-case approach, it believes the ERA is based on insufficient data and he provided a detailed view on how it could be improved. EFSA will consider inputs from the EC, Member States and stakeholders when finalising its updated guidelines.

The aim of the new guidelines is to strengthen and streamline GMO risk assessment processes, contributing to increase their efficiency and transparency. EFSA's risk assessment is only one part of the EU regulatory framework on GMOs, as highlighted by Chantal Bruetschy, Head of the Commission's Unit of Biotechnology, Pesticides and Health, who explained the legal provisions on Post Market Environmental Monitoring, as well as its relation with the risk assessment carried out by EFSA and also with the initial environmental risk assessment carried out by Member States.

Day 2: The impact of GM crop cultivation on the environment

The second day began with presentations from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission (JRC). EFSA works in close liaison with the scientific community and international bodies in the field of GMO risk assessment. Peter Kearns from the OECD illustrated risk assessment from a global perspective and presented the work of the OECD Working Group on Biosafety.

Emilio Rodriguez Cerezo from the JRC focused on the impact of GM crops presenting an analysis of the experiences in the cultivation of Bt maize during the past 10 years in Spain and showed figures from various Spanish regions on reduced use of insecticides and yield increase. Similar experiences of farmers on GM cultivation were shared by Esther Esteban Rodrigo of Spain's Ministry of Environment, Rural and Marine Affairs. Spain has practical experience in GM crop cultivation and is a Member State working closely with EFSA in environmental risk assessment of GMO applications.

Representatives from stakeholder organisations were also invited to the conference to present their views. Helen Holder from Friends of the Earth recognised that there had been improvements in EFSA's risk assessment work, but reported some outstanding concerns of her organisation regarding environmental risk assessment and expressed criticism of some of EFSA's scientific opinions on GMOs. EFSA is holding one of its regular meetings with NGOs on October 2 this year for further dialogue on a number of specific GMO issues.

Presenting the views of EU farmers, Copa-Cogeca's Director of Commodities and Trade, Arnaud Petit, said farmers wanted to keep the option of choosing between GM, conventional or organic farming. The biotechnology industry, represented by Willy De Greef of Europabio, European Association for Bioindustries, asked for the existing experiences of the safe use of GM crops to be better taken into consideration in EU risk assessment and called for a clearer distinction between risk research and risk assessment.

Closing the conference, the Commission's Director-General for the Environment, Karl Falkenberg, said the Commission valued the work that EFSA carries out as the body providing scientific advice to support its decision making.

•

Conference presentations
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_locale-1178620753812_1211902768091.htm

For media enquiries, please contact:

Ian Palombi, Press Officer or
Steve Pagani, Head of Press Office
Tel: +39 0521 036149
Email: Press@efsa.europa.eu

---

Note from GM-free Ireland:

Check out these two presentations in particular:

•

A. Heissenberger:
Perspective of a Member State:
Austria's scientific view on how to perform environmental risk assessment of GM plants
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/DocumentSet/4.EFSA_RA_Brussels_Heissenberger.pdf?ssbinary=true

•

H. Holder:
Potential outstanding concerns for the environment
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/DocumentSet/3.FoEEpresentation_sept_conference.pdf?ssbinary=true

USDA/FAS GAIN report: Amendments in Romanian biotech legislation

CheckBiotech.org, 22 September 2009:
http://greenbio.checkbiotech.org/news/usdafas_gain_report_amendments_romanian_biotech_legislation

The legislation concerning the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms (GMO) was recently amended by the Chamber of the Deputies, the second, but decisional chamber of the Romanian Parliament for this area.

Due to the complexity of the issues, final adoption of the law has taken more than 18 months, from the moment it was introduced for debate. Main amendments refer to the composition of the Biosafety Commission and the decision process in the case of Safeguard Clause. In addition, the type of information that can be made available to public was limited to information strictly non-confidential provided by the notifier in its application.

Full report
http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Amendments%20in%20biotech%20legislation_Bucharest_Romania_17-09-2009.pdf

Source: USDA - FAS (Foreign Agricultural Service)
http://www.fas.usda.gov/

---

Comment by GM-free Ireland:

No wonder the USDA is so keen on this EU member state's legislation: by keeping the source data from the applicant companies risk assessment confidential, there is no possibility of independent scientific peer review!

Judge Rejects Approval of Biotech Sugar Beets

Andrew Pollack
New York Times, 22 September 2009:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/business/23beet.html?_r=1&ref=business

A federal judge has ruled that the government failed to adequately assess the environmental impacts of genetically engineered sugar beets before approving the crop for cultivation in the United States. The decision could lead to a ban on the planting of the beets, which have been widely adopted by farmers.

In a decision issued Monday, Judge Jeffrey S. White of Federal District Court in San Francisco, said that the Agriculture Department should have done an environmental impact statement. 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.

The decision echoes another ruling two years ago by a different judge in the same court involving genetically engineered alfalfa. In that case, the judge later ruled that farmers could no longer plant the genetically modified alfalfa until the Agriculture Department wrote the environmental impact statement. Two years later, there is still no such assessment and the alfalfa, with rare exceptions, is not being grown.

In the new case, Judge White has not yet decided on the remedy. A meeting to begin that phase of the case is scheduled for Oct. 30.

But the plaintiffs in the lawsuit said they would press to ban planting of the biotech beets, arguing that Judge White's decision effectively revoked their approval and made them illegal to grow outside of field trials.

"We expect the same result here as we got in alfalfa," said Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety, a Washington advocacy group that was also involved in the alfalfa lawsuit. "It will halt almost any further planting and sale because it's no longer an approved crop."

The Center for Food Safety was joined in the suit by the Sierra Club, the Organic Seed Alliance and High Mowing Organic Seeds, a small seed company. The defendant, the Department of Agriculture, said it was reviewing the decision.

Some beet farmers and sugar processors declined to comment Tuesday on the decision, saying they needed more time to analyze it. But they said that the genetically engineered sugar beets had proved immensely popular since first being widely grown in 2008.

The beets contain a bacterial gene licensed by Monsanto that renders them impervious to glyphosate, an herbicide that Monsanto sells as Roundup. That allows the herbicide to kill weeds without harming the crop.

"Growers have embraced this technology," said Duane Grant, a farmer in Rupert, Idaho, who said industry surveys suggested that 95 percent of the sugar beets planted this year were genetically modified.

Mr. Grant, who is also the chairman of the Snake River Sugar Company, a grower-owned cooperative, said easier weed control allowed farmers to reduce tillage, which in turn saved fuel and fertilizer and reduced erosion.

Mr. Grant, as well as some other growers, sugar processors and seed companies like Monsanto, had sought to intervene in the case. Judge White said that other than filing a friend-of-the-court brief, they could not participate in the phase of the lawsuit examining whether the Agriculture Department fulfilled its obligations under environmental law.

However, those groups are expected be allowed to take part in the next round of the case, involving the remedies. "We're going to use that opportunity to advocate the need for that technology and vigorously defend our growers' freedom to plant Roundup Ready sugar beets," said Luther Markwart, executive vice president for the American Sugarbeet Growers Association.

Beets supply about half the nation's sugar, with the rest coming from sugar cane. About 10,000 farmers grow about 1.1 million acres of sugar beets, Mr. Markwart said. That makes it a small crop compared to staples like soybeans and corn.

The Agriculture Department did conduct an environmental assessment before approving the genetically engineered beets in 2005 for widespread planting. But the department concluded there would be no significant impact, so a fuller environmental impact statement was not needed.

But Judge White said that the pollen from the genetically engineered crops might spread to non-engineered 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.

In March, Judge White had asked the federal government if the Obama administration would take a different stance in the case than the Bush administration had. The new administration said there would be no change.

David Berg, president of American Crystal Sugar Company, the nation's largest sugar beet processor, said food companies had accepted sugar from the biotech beets. "They've been a big nonevent in terms of customer acceptance," he said.

US court rules against Monsanto's GMO sugarbeets
• Court finds USDA failed to evaluate risk
• Orders environmental impact report
• Critics say GMO sugarbeets promote "superweeds" (Recasts, updates with details from court decision, comments)

By Carey Gillam
Reuters, 22 September 2009:
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idUSN2236459020090922

KANSAS CITY - A federal U.S. court has ruled in favor of critics of Monsanto (MON.N) Co's genetically engineered sugar beets, saying the U.S. government failed to adequately evaluate environmental and economic risks associated with the crop.

The U.S. District Court for the northern district of California ruled that the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) violated federal law by failing to prepare an environmental impact statement before deregulating genetically altered sugar beets.

Monsanto developed the biotech beets to be resistant to Monsanto's glyphosate herbicide Roundup, and promotes the sugarbeets as "Roundup Ready."

The plaintiffs include the Center for Food Safety, Organic Seed Alliance, Sierra Club, and High Mowing Seeds. The groups filed the lawsuit in January 2008.

About 1.1 million U.S. acres were seeded this year to Roundup Ready sugar beets in the fourth year of commercialized production.

Critics say the Roundup Ready beets are dangerous for the environment because they promote the emergence of "superweeds" or weeds that cannot easily be killed because they also develop a tolerance to weedkiller. They also say that organic and convential beet farmers are damaged because the genetically altered sugar beets are wind-pollinated and inevitably cross-pollinate related crops grown nearby.

The court found that USDA gave only "cursory" consideration to some of these concerns, failing to adequately consider the risks. The court has ordered the USDA to conduct a rigorous assessment of the environmental and economic impacts of the crop on farmers and the environment, and will evaluate other remedies in an October meeting of the parties.

In response to the court ruling, Monsanto defended its product.

"The decision was based on procedure and had nothing to do with questioning the safety or efficacy of Roundup Ready sugar beets," said Monsanto spokesman Garrett Kasper.

But one of the attorneys representing the consumer and farmer groups who filed the lawsuit said the ruling spoke to the danger of the biotech crop.

"Monsanto is trying to sweep this under the rug," said Paul Achitoff, a lawyer for the law firm Earthjustice. "The procedure they neglected to follow was to evaluate the impact of the product. The court found they needed to look at the environmental impacts of growing Monsanto's product and they haven't done it." (Reporting by Carey Gillam; Editing by David Gregorio)

Democracy fails to control technology

Alberta Lea Tribune [USA], 22 September 2009:
http://www.albertleatribune.com/news/2009/sep/22/democracy-fails-control-technology/

George Soros reminded us that the business model is inappropriate for some organizations. Recent history shows that model isn't even good for business!

Arthur Schlesinger stated that there are two forces that democracy has been unable to control: capitalism and technology. Businesses are free to unleash any new technology on the public for which they can create a market ignoring the impact on society and the planet.

Ned Ludd and his followers resisted the march of technology by destroying water-powered looms that threatened their cottage-based industries. They failed. The water-powered looms required more wool so the powerful took over the commons to raise sheep, displacing the people to become the paupers, pickpockets and prostitutes of Dickensian England. Some of these people were exported to penal colonies in Australia and elsewhere. Three of the emerging technologies can have equally revolutionary impacts: climate engineering, genetically modified organisms and nano-tech.

We need an Appropriate Technologies Board. The board would determine whether there is a need for the technology, whether less disruptive means of satisfying the need if possible and whether programs can be devised to minimize the impacts. The final decision on whether to commercialize the technology would be made in societies interest, not in the interest of those who would profit from promoting the technology.

This proposal is not a cure-all: Human foresight is limited and human agencies are corruptible. The board would be an attempt to change society from passively picking up the wreckage left by capitalism's exploitation of technology to an active role in attempting to define our future.

John Gibson

Blooming Prairie

Roadblocks on the path to GM superfoods

CheckBiotech.org, 22 September 2009:
http://greenbio.checkbiotech.org/news/roadblocks_path_gm_superfoods

GM foods engineered to contain high levels of nutrients could be a neat solution to micronutrient deficiencies in poor countries, but there are many scientific, social and political hurdles.

The UN estimates that more than half the world's population is nutrient deficient. People may consume enough calories but their food might not contain enough nutrients.

The quest to develop fortified genetically modified (GM) plants has yielded mixed results. 'Golden Rice', rich in beta-carotene, has met with anti-GM, political and technological obstacles and has yet to be widely introduced in developing countries.

Others, such as the BioCassava Plus programme which aims to develop cassava with boosted levels of iron, zinc, protein, vitamins, and resistance to plant viruses, are well underway but face similar barriers.

Other crops highlight the need for nutritional tests. A calcium-rich carrot is no use unless the calcium is effectively absorbed by the people eating it. "None of these improvements are any good until we actually show they're good in the food supply," says Kendal Hirschi, creator of calcium rich carrots.

There are also practical issues - nutrient-rich crops cost more than non-modified versions meaning that those most of in need of them cannot afford them. Hirschi is trying to do a deal with a large food company, the profits of which could fund its distribution in developing countries.

But many scientists remain confident that such obstacles will be overcome. "Biotech will, in time, become the new conventional agriculture. The question is: how long will it be until that happens," says Val Giddings, president of Prometheus Agricultural Biotech.

Link to full article in The Scientist
http://www.the-scientist.com/2009/9/1/30/1/

Source: SciDev.Net

Accredited Construct Specific PCR Test for Recently Detected Unapproved GM Flax/Linseed FP967/CDC Triffid Available Through Genetic ID

PR Newswire, 22 September 2009:
http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/09-22-2009/0005098118&EDATE=

AUGSBURG, Germany -- Subsequent to the announcement of the EU Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed on 8 September 2009, the German surveillance lab in the state of Baden-Wurttemberg has confirmed the detection of GM linseed/flax variety FP967/CDC Triffid, which is unapproved in the EU.

Additionally, there have been additional EU Rapid Alert announcements regarding the presence of FP967/CDC Triffid in food products distributed to Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Belgium, and Switzerland. These discoveries have been widely covered by the media globally during the past several days. This unapproved GM flax was detected in a wide variety of flax/linseed products including cereals, bakery products, nut products and seeds.

Having developed the first detection method for construct present in FP967/CDC Triffid, Genetic ID now offers this specific and accredited test worldwide. German surveillance laboratories also use the Genetic ID method to detect this GMO linseed.

This GMO variety originates from the Crop Development Centre Canada at the University of Saskatchewan. Canada supplies approximately 70% of the total flax utilized in the EU annually.

Since neither a safety assessment by the EU nor an application for approval has been submitted for this GMO, the zero tolerance rule applies. This means any raw material or flax/linseed derivative analyzed to be positive for FP967/CDC Triffid is illegal and not marketable in the EU.

Genetic ID developed this test according to the guidelines of the EU Joint Research Centre, and includes this test in its accreditation scope under DIN EN ISO 17025. The JRC has now made the Genetic ID method available to all members of the European Network of GMO Laboratories (ENGL).

Genetic ID provides the food, animal feed and agricultural industry worldwide a full range of GMO testing services from its laboratories in Germany, Japan, USA and through its Global Laboratory Alliance.

http://www.genetic-id.de

Call the EU GM flax test information hotline: +49-821-747-76-30

New Big Ag Push to Fight World Hunger Misses What Organic Ag Is Already Doing

Timothy LaSalle, CEO, Rodale Institute www.RodaleInstitute.org
Huffington Post [USA], 22 September 2009:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/timothy-lasalle/new-big-ag-push-to-fight_b_295082.html

The compelling humanitarian goals expressed today at the corporately sponsored Global Harvest Initiative symposium were laudable, as were some of the hunger-relief projects cited. Missing, however, was an honest assessment of the limits of dead-end chemical agriculture to play a leading role in actually feeding people.

Also absent from the high-powered forum was a prominent role for what organic agriculture is already doing to meet the most important goals on the food-hunger-nutrition side of the problem.

The event, despite all the good people presenting and all the calls for curbing the environmental harm of chemical ag, amounted to glitzy green packaging for the same unnecessary gift of chemical dependence for the world's farmers. GHI is sponsored by ADM, DuPont, John Deere and Monsanto. (Yes, the same Monsanto which has promised to double its profits by 2012 with continuing introductions of "high impact technology" seeds.)

In his opening remarks, GHI executive director William Lesher placed the focus firmly on the need for more food, highlighting a projected "productivity gap" that will require a doubling of current world food output by 2050. This thinking follows the outlines of a white paper by GHI in April: "Accelerating Productivity Growth: The 21st Century Global Agriculture Challenge: A White Paper on Agricultural Policy." Yet more food alone won't help starving people until the global agricultural system radically shifts its focus to address the barriers of poverty (the inability to buy food) and distribution (getting food people want to where they are).

By framing global food security in terms of "not enough food," the Global Harvest Initiative seems stuck on doing the same old thing harder and faster. It backers still push expensive seeds and continued dependence on climate-damaging inputs. Organic and near-organic techniques offer robust, biodiverse, productive and regenerative systems that can out-produce chemical approaches in drier and wetter seasons.

The symposium's highlighting of groups seeking environmental and social benefits may do some good -- if the groups can break industrial ag's profit-driven willingness to sacrifice soil vitality, agricultural biodiversity, human endocrine and neurological health, farmer control of seeds and a nation's nutritional well-being. Or it may just be the best agri-greenwashing money can buy.

This event kicked off a campaign by these corporate leaders to claim the moral high ground in addressing world hunger, which already impacts 1 billion people, according to the UN. While nutrition received prominence at the event, the top three agenda items listed at the GHI website are seeking new funds for research, liberalized ag trade, conservation.

The GHI overture appears to be geared to grab even more money, attention, research, trade and policy support for high-input dependent systems. This mission runs counter to calls from several world food study groups (here and here) who say organic and ecological production systems are the best hope for transforming the "feeding the world" challenge from simply producing more corn and soybeans on industrial farms toward growing more diverse and nutritive crops, better suited to feed the hungry poor, produced in more ecologically sound ways based on locally-available, biologically renewable resources.

Food-focused farmers already know how well biology works. Without further research, organic farms in widely varied climates and sizes are already producing highly nutritious food in sustainable ways that are reducing greenhouse gases, increasing resilience in the face of changing climatic conditions, and providing greater economic opportunity.

With a fraction of the hundreds of millions of research dollars already spent to overcome chemical agriculture's failures, agricultural researchers around the world could work on organic farming advances relevant to their bioregions. NGOs dedicated to exploring ecologically sound ways to optimize hunger-relieving livestock and crop production could adopt and teach organic techniques to help bring degraded soils into production -- a goal of the GHI's white paper -- while improving nutrition through complex crop mixes that are impossible when pesticides are used.

"Conservation" in today's symposium too seemed to be crafty balancing of "agricultural sacrifice zones" (where pesticides and fertilizers protect commodity monocrops) with non-farmed wild areas. Mitigation is good, but organic systems done well actually increase biodiversity throughout farmed land: in the soil, as fungi and other microorganisms build up to support crop productivity over time; in the fields as crops are protected by health soil and beneficial insects; around the fields through hedgerows and scattered bio-habitat plantings.

And how telling about GHI means and ends is this quote from its white paper:

While the technological advances brought by the Green Revolution have been fully exploited by now, a new frontier -- biotechnology -- has emerged with the capacity to provide important new benefits for both developed and developing countries, and even to target new technologies specifically to local needs and conditions, including those in developing countries.

I want hungry people to be fed, farmers to prosper, ecosystems to thrive while farming improves, wildlife to flourish and whole bio-regions to develop sustainable economies. That's why I demand organic agriculture be front and center on the global food agenda.

Rodale Institute is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit engaged in research and advocacy for "Healthy Soil, Healthy Food, Healthy People, Healthy Planet." We were founded in Kutztown, Pennsylvania, in 1947 by organic pioneer J.I. Rodale.

Our research findings are clear: A global organic transformation will mitigate greenhouse gas emissions in our atmosphere and restore soil fertility. Our mission: We improve the health and well-being of people and the planet.

Follow Timothy LaSalle on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RodaleInstitute

Swine Flu Vaccine in Your GMO Foods

Politocol News [USA], 22 September 2009:
http://politicolnews.com/swine-flu-vaccine-in-your-gmo-foods/

The onslaught of vaccines will increase as we know the scientists at the University of Iowa are already working on inserting the Swine Flu Vaccine into genetically modified corn. Well the pharmas and monstanto have teamed up to bring you the newest breakfast ceareal you can imagine:

The New GMO Swine Flu CornFlakes - Get all your toxins in one box! No need to search for that vaccine, or go see a doctor or even get a prescription. Not at all because it will all be in the very food you buy at the grocery store.

I can see backyard farming becoming a big hit in a hurry in the days to come, and you wonder why people are growing their own food again like they did in the 50's when I was a child.

Who would eat corn anymore? Certainly if the GMO chemicals don't kill you first the vaccine ingredients will do the job.

Quoted From Info Wars: May 11, 2009.

AMES, IOWA - Iowa State University researchers are putting flu vaccines into the genetic makeup of corn, which may someday allow pigs and humans to get a flu vaccination simply by eating corn or corn products.

"We're trying to figure out which genes from the swine influenza virus to incorporate into corn so those genes, when expressed, would produce protein," said Hank Harris, professor in animal science and one of the researchers on the project. "When the pig consumes that corn, it would serve as a vaccine."

This collaborative effort project involves Mr. Harris and Brad Bosworth, an affiliate associate professor of animal science working with pigs, and Kan Wang, a professor in agronomy, who is developing the vaccine traits in the corn.

According to the researchers, the corn vaccine would also work in humans when they eat corn or even corn flakes, corn chips, tortillas or anything that contains corn, Mr. Harris said. The research is funded by a grant from Iowa State University's Plant Sciences Institute, and is their Biopharmaceuticals and Bioindustrials Research Initiative.

If the research goes well, the corn vaccine may be possible in five to seven years. In the meantime, the team is trying to expedite the process. "While we're waiting for Wang to produce the corn, we are starting initial experiments in mice to show that the vaccine might induce an immune response," Mr. Bosworth said.

Mr. Harris said the team still needs more answers. "The big question is whether or not these genes will work when given orally through corn," he added. "That is the thing we've still got to determine."

Stability and safety are several advantages to the corn vaccine. Once the corn with the vaccine is grown, it can be stored for long-term without losing its potency, researchers claim. If a swine flu virus breaks out, the corn could be shipped to the location to try to vaccinate animals and humans in the area quickly. Because corn grain is used as food and feed, there is no need for extensive vaccine purification, which can be an expensive process.

Well it appears there will be a new jihad waged in a Holy War against these terrorist Drug/ and Food Manufacturers real soon. We think the pigs will be outliving us all.

As they are already putting pesticides in corn - now they are putting pharmaceutical drugs in the food supply.

EFSA puts heads together for novel foods guidance

Food Navigator, 22 September 2009:
http://www.foodnavigator.com/Legislation/EFSA-puts-heads-together-for-novel-foods-guidance/?c=4UZvOL3vyw2QltZJ%2FlboeA%3D%3D&utm_source=newsletter_daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Newsletter%2BDaily

EFSA is to bring together experts on novel foods and manufacturers at an event that will help it put together guidance for future applicants under the revised legislation.

The original novel foods regulation came into effect in 1997. Under this, foods and food ingredients that have no history of safe use in the EU before 15 May 1997 may not be place on the market before they have gone through an approvals process. Once the first approval has been granted, subsequent applicants can apply for approval on the grounds of substantial equivalence.

However the regulation is currently being revised, partly because there are some new and emerging technologies such as nanotechnology that need to be taken into consideration.

The regulation has also come in for criticism since approvals can take a long time to come through, which can have an impact on the competitive of the European food sector. It has been proposed that the updated regulation should contain a system for assessing foods that already have a safe history of use outside the EU.

The revision is still making its way through the law making process in Europe, but the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) expects that it will be asked to give scientific and technical advice on how applications should go about their applications in the future.

To prepare for this, it is hosting a colloquium in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, in November, where experts and other interested parties will be able to share views on several important topics.

Participants - whose number is limited to 100 - will be divided into discussion groups covering: history of (safe) use and traditional foods from outside the EU; data requirements on anticipated intakes and maximum levels; issues of absorption, distribution, metabolism; excretion, toxicology; and allergenicity; data requirements for demonstrating safety of foods derived from nanotechnology.

The groups will report back at a final plenary session, and the conclusions will be summarised in a post-meeting report. The issues raised will then serve as important input for EFSA in formulating its guidance.

Interested parties may register until 9 October, subject to space.

More information is available at http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_locale-1178620753812_1211902675847.htm

---

Comment by GM-free Ireland:

The EU's current authorisation process for new GM crops, animal feed and food violates the requirements of EU law by basing the approval exclusively on the opinions (all positive to date) of a single EU body, the European Food Safety Authority. Moreover, EFSA itself has been widely criticised for recommending approval of new GMOs based on secret risk-assessment dossiers provided by the applicant companies, with no possibility of independent scientific peer review! The Council of Ministers has also slammed EFSA for failing to take into account the economic and social impacts of GMOs, their effect on non-target organisms, and the views of independent scientists and member states.

For details see:

•

The European Food Safety Authority and GMO Risk Assessment in the EU
Presentation by Helen Holder
GMO, Food and Farming campaign coordinator
Friends of the Earth Europe
EFSA Conference, September 2009:
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/DocumentSet/3.FoEEpresentation_sept_conference.pdf?ssbinary=true

•

Environmental Risk Assessment:
Presentation by Andreas Heissenberger
Environment Agency Austria
EFSA Conference, September 2009:
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/DocumentSet/4.EFSA_RA_Brussels_Heissenberger.pdf?ssbinary=true

•

Effects of GMOs and pesticides systematically underestimated
CRIIGEN appeal to public authorities
Committee for Independent Research and Genetic Engineering, July 2009:
http://www.criigen.org/images/stories/pressrelease-ijbs_080709.pdf

•

EU GMO risk assessment needs reforming
Greenpeace briefing paper, September 2008:
http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/eu-unit/press-centre/policy-papers-briefings/Reform-of-EU-GMO-risk-assessment.pdf

•

EU animal feed imports and GMO policy
European Farmers Coordination, Friends of the Earth Europe and Greenpeace, May 2008:
http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/animal_feed/Briefing_animal_feed_GMOs_May_2008.pdf

•

Flaws in the EU authorisation process for GMOs
Greenpeace briefing paper, April 2008:
http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/eu-unit/press-centre/policy-papers-briefings/flaws-in-the-EU-authorisation.pdf

•

Zero tolerance - acting to prevent widespread GMO contamination
Friends of the Earth Europe:
http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/zero_tolerance.html

Commercial influence on science

BanGMfood.org, 22 September 2009:
http://www.bangmfood.org/quotes/24-quotes/16-commercial-influence-on-science

"When we spliced the profit gene into academic culture, we created a new organism - the recombinant university. We reprogrammed the incentives that guide science. The rule in academe used to be 'publish or perish'. Now bioscientists have an alternative - 'patent and profit'."
– Tom Abate, "Scientists' 'publish or perish' credo now 'patent and profit'", San Francisco Chronicle, 13 August 2001

"The universities are cheering us on, telling us to get closer to industry, encouraging us to consult with big business. The bottom line is to improve the corporate bottom line. It's the way we move up, get strokes.... We can't help but be influenced from time to time by our desire to see certain results happen in the lab. All of these companies have a piece of me. I'm getting checks waved at me from Monsanto and American Cyanamid and Dow, and it's hard to balance the public interest with the private interest. It's a very difficult juggling act, and sometimes I don't know how to juggle it at all."
– John Benedict, Texas A&M University entomologist, quoted in Susan Benson, Mark Arax and Rachel Burstein, "A Growing Concern", Mother Jones, January/February 1997

"There is a great deal of potential research investment in the UK that could come from food technology industries, and any concerns about the safety of these foods could jeopardise this huge investment. So I can understand why scientists would be very anxious about jeopardising that investment."
– Dr Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet, Channel 4 News, 15 October 1999

"These competing interests are very important. It has quite a profound influence on the conclusions and we deceive ourselves if we think science is wholly impartial."
– Dr Richard Smith, editor of the British Medical Journal, quoted in Liz Lightfoot, "Scientists 'asked to fix results for backer'", Daily Telegraph, 14 February 2000

"All policymakers must be vigilant to the possibility of research data being manipulated by corporate bodies and of scientific colleagues being seduced by the material charms of industry. Trust is no defence against an aggressively deceptive corporate sector."
– Editorial, The Lancet, quoted in Sarah Boseley, "$2m plot to discredit smoking study exposed", The Guardian, April 7 2000

"A survey measuring attitudes toward biotechnology among Cornell University agricultural and nutrition-science faculty and extension staff (who advise farmers) found that nearly half have reservations about the health, safety, and environmental impacts of genetically engineered food crops and doubt they are the answer to global hunger. Though their numbers were fewer, the biotech promoters said they felt very comfortable publicly voicing their views, while the concerned majority did not express that sentiment."
– Karen Charman, "Spinning Science into Gold", Sierra Magazine, July/August 2000

"Public health professionals need to be aware that the 'sound science' movement is not an indigenous effort from within the profession to improve the quality of scientific discourse, but reflects sophisticated public relations campaigns controlled by industry executives and lawyers whose aim is to manipulate the standards of scientific proof to serve the corporate interests of their clients."
– Dr Stanton Glantz and Dr Elisa Ong, "Constructing 'Sound Science' and 'Good Epidemiology': Tobacco, Lawyers, and Public Relations Firms", American Journal of Public Health, November 2001, Vol. 91, No. 11, pp. 1749-1757

"One in three scientists working for Government quangos or newly privatised laboratories says he has been asked to adjust his conclusions to suit his sponsor.... [Charles Harvey, spokesman, The Institute of Professionals, Managers and Specialists, said,] 'The piper is calling the tune and it raises worrying issues. We have seen the BSE crisis, food scares and the GMO debacle and the public is losing confidence in Government as an independent, fair-minded arbiter.'"
– Liz Lightfoot, "Scientists 'asked to fix results for backer'", Daily Telegraph, 14 February 2000

"This is confirmation of all our worst fears that the Government's GM policy is being driven by bad or fraudulent science. They are reliant on the industry that wants to sell these seeds to monitor the trials. This is insane, and criminally irresponsible. If data from one company has been falsified how do we know others have not been up to the same."
– Alan Simpson, UK Member of Parliament, quoted in Antony Barnett, "Revealed: GM firm faked test figures: Poor crop results were replaced by a forgery, Ministry's internal paper shows", The Observer, April 16 2000

"History has shown that meaningful assessment of cost as well as benefit issues is unlikely when technology assessment is provided by proponents who have a clear vested interest in the adoption of the technology."
– Dr E. Ann Clark, associate professor, department of plant agriculture, University of Guelph, Canada, "Genetic Engineering in Field Crops: Ethics and Academia", paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the Saskatchewan Institute of Agrologists, April 1999

"There is too much hype. Every gene that is discovered will lead to a cure for cancer."
– Dr Maxine Singer, the National Academy of Sciences, quoted in "Big Science: Bloated, Whiny and Self-Important", Scientific American, September 2001

"I think there is a very real problem from the point of view of university research in the way that private companies have entered the university, both with direct companies in the universities and with contracts to university researchers. So that in fact the whole climate of what might be open and independent scientific research has disappeared, the old idea that universities were a place of independence has gone. Instead of which one's got secrecy, one's got patents, one's got contracts and one's got shareholders."
– Prof Steven Rose, professor and chairman of the department of biology, Open University, quoted in "Science Fact or Fraud?", BBC World Service, 15 September 2000

"The independent scientist who conducts research for the public good 'barely exists any more,' according to one leading expert on technology and public policy. 'They get up and talk as if they are neutral. But they almost always have some share in the company or some self-interested gain for their work,' said Philip Bereano, a professor from the University of Washington in Seattle."
– Les Perreaux and Sandra Rubin, "Courts last defence against scientific 'elite': professor", National Post, 14 August 2001

"For any scientist who wants a good job and a nice home with mortgage payments, he's not going to choose the Union of Concerned Scientists."
– Dr Hugh Gusterson, MIT, quoted in Kristina Canizares, "Science Good, Nature Bad: The Biotech Dogma", AlterNet, June 26 2001

Leading critic of GM on trial in Germany

GM Watch, 22 September 2009:
http://www.gmwatch.org

A well known critic of GM in Germany and a whistleblower on the corruption and sleaze surrounding its introduction there is facing two major court cases and a possible prison sentence.

The first case involves a court appearance at Giessen on September 30th as a result of the decontamination of some GM barley in Giessen in 2007 - a field trial of the University there. This could lead to a lengthy prison sentence, as two of the 'field liberators' were previously sentenced to 6 months in prison and the prosecutor appealed against this sentence on the grounds that it was too lenient!

Jorg Bergstedt will then be in court again on October 12th in Saarbrucken, because of his whistleblowing on "insider relationships" and networks in the area of genetic engineering. Bergstedt is author of the pamphlet Organisierte Unverantwortlichkeit (Organised Irresponsibility), in which he shows, with many supporting references, the close links that exist among pro-GM politicians, regulatory authorities, companies, lobbyists and research institutes in Germany.

Now an injunction by the district court in Saarbrucken has ordered him (and only him!) to stop disseminating the pamphlet and its content. The case against Jorg Bergstedt was brought by Prof. Uwe Schrader, head of the pro-GM lobby group InnoPlanta, and Kerstin Schmidt, CEO at AgroBioTechnikum and BioTechFarm. Interestingly, in terms of the incestuous world that Bergstedt exposes, their lawyer is Horst Rehberger, who is also the lawyer who represents the Leibniz Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research (IPK)* in Gatersleben in the case of the decontamination of a GM field trial by 6 activists.

Jorg Bergstedt is determined not to let anybody stop him from telling the truth and has appealed the decision. His supporters are hoping people will be able to be present in Saarbrucken to express their support for Jorg Bergstedt on the day of the hearing. The case is scheduled for 1pm on October 12th.

Sources / Further reading (in German)

http://www.gendreck-weg.de
http://de.indymedia.org/2009/09/261082.shtml
http://www.projektwerkstatt.de/gen/filz.htm
http://www.projektwerkstatt.de/gen/filz/brosch.pdf
http://www.projektwerkstatt.de/gen/filz/tabelle.pdf
http://www.projektwerkstatt.de/gen/2009/aktionstage/flyer_boerde.pdf
http://www.nadeshda.org/foren/cl.medien.raberalf/p217s223a20.html

* The Leibniz Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research (IPK) in Gatersleben is a large plant research centre. With the central ex situ gene bank, IPK possesses a unique collection of plant genetic resources from more than 3,000 botanic species of about 800 different genera, the stock currently totals approximately 148,000 specimens.

Mixed Signals

Nicholas Zeman
Biodiesel Magazine [USA], October 2009 issue, published 22 September 2009:
http://www.biodieselmagazine.com/article.jsp?article_id=3724&q=&page=all

Biotechnology is starting to have a dramatic impact on global trade scenarios as international testing, container use and tolerance levels are inconsistent. Negotiations are ongoing to prevent intense stress felt by buyers, sellers and risk managers when international trade is disrupted.

Controversy hit the international commodities trade sector in August when a shipment of contaminated U.S. soybean meal was unloaded and detained in Tarragona, Spain, the nation's largest port. But the problem wasn't the soybeans themselves - commercial soybean events are all approved in the EU - it was a dirty container. As a result, 180,000 tons of soybean meal were sequestered and EU importers are refusing to book additional shipments of U.S. soybeans and soybean meal until the issue is resolved.

"We're disappointed that a shipment was halted and that there was a disruption to trade and to our customers in Europe," says Johnny Dodson, president of the American Soybean Association. This certainly affects the biodiesel industry, Dodson says, even if not directly. Certainly, biodiesel producers that possess complimentary crush operations have potential markets in the EU, even if U.S. methyl esters have essentially been banned there. When trade is disrupted, even a single shipment, there is a ripple effect that is felt by everyone in the system, especially risk managers.

The issue is that when more and more genetically modified organisms (GMO) are cultivated and traded globally, accidental contamination in shipments may become more frequent. Hence, it is it likely that, in the future, buyers may not want to face the costs of a more frequent rejection of grain at the border of countries applying a zero-tolerance policy towards low-level presence of unapproved GMO crops. "That puts us all in an uncertain, risky trade situation, and that is most serious for the entire European Community trade, livestock production and economy," says David Merino, a spokesman for the European Commission.

A different source in the American soybean industry had another opinion. "I've been involved in the futures markets since 1972 and I never saw any problems until we had the price explosion," the source tells Biodiesel Magazine. "Then the bottom fell out of the market, and buyers obviously want out of those contracts."

Sources further observed that ports in the EU are often stricter with shipments coming from the U.S. than they are with other sources such as Brazil, Argentina and India. "It wasn't like they found 100 pounds of corn in this shipment," says Jerry Gidel of North American Risk Management Services in Chicago. "They decided to test the dust. I don't know how often they test dusts and residues, but it seems a little odd." GMO contaminated corn dust was found along the edges of the soybean shipment in Spain. It is speculation, however, to say the situation resulted from a disgruntled buyer looking for a reason to keep from paying on delivery. There are many corn "events," or commercially ready genetic modifications, in different stages of the approval process, but GMO maize is still prohibited in the EU.

Zero Tolerance, New Products

Dodson says the ASA has been working for the past 18 months to make the approval process quicker for new GMO events, and to have a "reasonable tolerance" level for any material that is not approved. "We want there to be something besides zero tolerance," Dodson says. "It's almost impossible to meet these criteria, and we need to have some level of tolerance that would be acceptable to not disrupt trade."

Two out of three of the biggest GMO developers in the world are headquartered in Europe. Also, 80 percent to 90 percent of the soybeans grown in the Western Hemisphere are genetically modified. RoundUp Ready 1 and RoundUp Ready 2 made by Monsanto, and Liberty Link, made by Bayer Crop Sciences U.S., are approved for cultivation and use in Europe. Bayer just launched Liberty Link earlier this year as an alternative to Monsanto's glyphosate platform, which certain weeds have started to resist.

"If they had [marketed an event] that focused on increased oil or a better protein schedule, the whole world would have loved them," Gidel says. "Instead, the first thing they come out with is something that encourages the increased use of their herbicides. People act like these are radioactive beans, and you're lucky they don't explode in your system as soon as you eat them."

Before the commercial launch of the product, import approvals were obtained in key soybean export markets with biotech approval processes including Australia, China, the EU, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Russia, South Africa and Taiwan, as it has been recognized that certain crop threats have already developed a resistance to Monsanto's glyphosate platform.

"Glyphosate-resistant weeds have been confirmed in 19 states, and many states report weed resistance to multiple chemistries including ALS-, PPO- and triazine herbicides," Bayer stated. "By rotating to Liberty Link soybeans, growers have the benefit of effective, over-the-top weed control with Ignite, which has a unique, nonselective herbicide mode of action."

Peripheral Developments

While the shipment of soybean meal contaminated with GMO corn dust has led to an indefinite de facto ban against U.S. soy shipments, the EU nevertheless started accepting GMO canola from Canada earlier this summer. "We've been shut out since 1996, so it is a very positive development," said Joanne Buth of the Canola Council of Canada. "But this is not a huge market for us, and we don't expect that it will be because Europe has increased its acreage of rapeseed quite dramatically. But any additional demand is good for our growers."

Europe is a big buyer of the world's commodities but seems to have contradictory policies when it comes to buying GMO feedstuffs. Canola's primary application is as a food ingredient, but grocers and other manufacturers in Europe have to label their products appropriately if they use GMO ingredients, so they might be discouraged from buying Canadian oil or seeds. Regarding increasing feedstock availability for biodiesel production, sources say that the unofficial stance of the European biodiesel industry is that it doesn't want to be associated with GMOs.

There are certain countries, Dodson says mostly in the Eastern Bloc, adopting zero tolerance policies against all GMO material, above and beyond EU guidelines. "The possibility that no GMO products will be accepted in these countries is causing great concern for their grocers and animal ag-groups," he says. About 10 percent of the U.S. crop is grown under contract for certain export markets, especially Japan, as well as the natural foods and organic industries, Dodson says.

China is the biggest importer of soybeans in the world and has a strong genetic program, which it sees as something that will help the country increase production. But Asia as a whole is a strong market for U.S. growers banking on projections that world protein needs will continue to increase exponentially in coming years. Some countries, however, are still fiercely resistant to the proliferation of GMO crops, even though biotechnology is seen as a means to combat world hunger and some environmental problems.

Also, there is no World Trade Organization standard for GMO acceptance. As previously mentioned, even some European countries are bucking the policies of the union in resistance to biotechnology. This is the situation of mixed signals that Dodson says some of the advocacy work he has been involved in hopes to change. Steadfast, 100-percent purity is virtually impossible to maintain in commodities shipments, and intermodal containers are used to serve the entire market, which consists of dozens of various feedstuffs. Containers are certainly not sterile, and are not boiled or scrubbed after every use, however these practices have very little to do with producers. "We have to come to agreement that is slightly more tolerable than absolute zero," Dodson says. "What percentage or level that would be, I don't know, but zero is zero and that's just impossible."

Nicholas Zeman is an associate editor for Biodiesel Magazine. Reach him at (701) 738-4942 or nzeman@bbiinternational.com.

Monsanto gets nod for genetically modified business

The Economic Times [India], 22 September 2009:
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Monsanto-gets-nod-for-genetically-modified-business/articleshow/5040143.cms

NEW DELHI: The agriculture ministry has okayed Monsanto India's plan to do business in genetically modified material. The move would be a step forward for the company which wants to integrate its agro-chemical business in India with its US parent's seed business.

The agriculture ministry has said that Monsanto India can be allowed to deal in genetically modified seeds or planting material in compliance with the existing environment protection laws. The agriculture ministry has told the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) last month that Monsanto India may be given the green signal subject to its compliance with all applicable trade and environment safety norms as well as all future laws that may be enacted in the sector.

Before giving the go-ahead to Monsanto, the FIPB decided to seek the views of the ministry of environment as well as the department of biotechnology. A final decision is expected soon, said a government official who attended the FIPB meeting last month-end.

The government keeps a tight control over the import and distribution of genetically modified material including seeds as they have the potential to affect the natural flora of the country and its reproduction. The company's foreign collaboration agreement approved in year 2000 does not allow it to deal in genetically modified seeds or plants.

21 September 2009

Judge White's Decision:
USDA-APHIS Violated National Environmental Policy Act in deregulation of RR sugarbeets

Organic Seed Alliance [USA], 21 September 2009:
http://blog.seedalliance.org/2009/09/22/judge-whites-decision--usdaaphis-violated-national-environmental-policy-act-in-deregulation-of-rr-sugarbeets.aspx

Great news for plaintiffs Organic Seed Alliance, High Mowing Seed, Sierra Club, Center for Food Safety, and the farmers and consumers we represent. And big thanks to our lawyers at Earth Justice and Center for Food Safety.

September 21, 2009, Federal District Court Judge White ruled that USDA-APHIS agreed with plaintiffs that USDA-APHIS violated the National Environmental Policy Act by failingto prepare an Environmental Impact Statement before deregulating RoundUp Ready sugarbeets, based on his finding that APHIS improperly failed to evaluate the impacts, including socio-economic impacts, resulting from possible cross-pollination of conventional sugar beets and Swiss chard and table beets in the Willamette Valley. The remedy phase of the case will occur on October 30.

Organic seed is the foundation of organic farming and organic food integrity. We must continue to protect this natural resource, along with the rights of organic farmers to be protected from negative economic impact from GE crops, and consumers rights' to choose to eat food free of GE components.

We'll keep you informed as we learn more. For now, here is a section from Judge White's ruling:

"In light of the large distances pollen can travel by wind and the context that seed for sugar beets, Swiss chard, and table beets are primarily grown in one valley in Oregon, Plaintiffs have demonstrated that deregulation may significantly effect the environment.

As the court concluded in Geertson Seed Farms v. Johanns, this Court finds 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, and an action that potentially eliminates or reduces the availability of a particular plant has a significant effect on the human environment. "APHIS's reasons for concluding that the potential for the transmission of the genetically engineered gene is not significant are not 'convincing' and do not demonstrate the 'hard look' that NEPA requires.

Because APHIS concluded that it was not required to consider the effects of gene transmission and observed the lack of evidence regarding an organic beet seed market, it did not consider the effects of gene transmission on conventional farmers and consumers of sugar beet seed or of gene transmission to the related crops of to red table beets and Swiss chard. To the limited extent APHIS did examine this issue, it did so only on a cursory level. It did not consider the fact that the isolation distances are only voluntary. It did not examine whether the isolation distances were actually followed and likely to be followed in the future. Nor did APHIS analyze, in light of the evidence that pollen may travel significant distances, whether the isolation distances set by the Oregon Seed Certification Standards are sufficient to protect the non-genetically engineered crops. Moreover, there is no support in the record for APHIS conclusion that non-trangenic sugar beet will likely still be sold and will be available to those who wish to plant it and that farmers purchasing seed will know whether it is transgenic because it will be marked and labeled as glyphosate tolerant. Therefore, the Court finds that APHIS's finding of no significant impact was not supported by a convincing statement of reasons and thus was unreasonable. APHIS is required to prepare an EIS."

United States - The dairy crisis

Meat Trade News Daily [UK], 21 September 2009:
http://www.meattradenewsdaily.co.uk/news/210909/united_states___the_dairy_crisis.aspx

Dairy farmers, stung by a price-depressing glut of milk, are pressing federal antitrust regulators to investigate competition in the industry.

A group of dairy farmers is slated to meet with antitrust enforcers Thursday in Washington, and Christine Varney, chief of the Justice Department's antitrust division, is scheduled to appear Saturday at a Vermont hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is populated with several Democrats from big dairy states such as Wisconsin, Minnesota and New York.

The price of milk began a historic run-up in 2007, and dairy farmers raced to cash in by expanding their herds. Then, the global recession doused foreign demand for milk in 2008, contributed to an oversupply.

In the past year the price farmers get for their milk has dropped 36%, to the lowest level in three decades.

Between early 2007 and December 2008, U.S. farmers added about 190,000 milk cows, an increase of 2%, according to industry economists. In August, farmers on average were paid $11.80 for every hundred pounds of milk, down from $18.40 in August of last year.

Dairy farmers have long complained that they have too few buyers and too little competition for their milk. The industry is dominated by two players: Dean Foods Co. of Dallas, which is creating a national brand in what had been a fragmented industry, and Dairy Farmers of America Inc., a Kansas City, Mo., cooperative that buys milk from farmers and sells some of it to Dean Foods.

In a statement, Dean said it "does not control dairy prices or the dairy market. The numbers that have been reported by various media are grossly inaccurate. We buy less than 15% of [the] nation's raw fluid milk supply."

Dairy Farmers of America said in a statement: "The national scope and size of our cooperative brings about scrutiny. We understand that and we invite open dialogue with those who want to understand our business better."

Andy Gilbert, a third-generation farmer in Potsdam, N.Y., who owns 800 milk cows, said farmers are struggling and he is borrowing to pay his bills. "I don't know any dairymen who are covering their cost of production," he said. "It's a stress on all of us. You sweat blood over it."

Consumers are benefiting. The federal Bureau of Labor Statistics said in its monthly Consumer Price Index report released Wednesday that retail dairy prices in August were 10.4% lower than they were a year ago.

The Bush administration's Justice Department cleared the way for the 2001 merger of the nation's two biggest dairy processors. From this, Dean Foods emerged in a strong position in several regions in the market for bottled milk.

Democratic Sens. Charles E. Schumer of New York and Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin and independent Bernard Sanders of Vermont signed an August letter to the Justice Department's antitrust division complaining that Dean Foods controls at least 80% of the fluid-milk market in Michigan, Massachusetts and Tennessee, and has 70% of the New England market.

"Based on our research and conversations with agricultural economists, we believe that one reason for Dean Foods' recent profits may be its ability to exercise monopoly pricing power in many parts of the country," the senators' letter said.

Among other things, the lawmakers asked Justice officials to "reconsider" the 2001 Dean Foods merger and resurrect what the senators suspect was a two-year antitrust investigation into the dairy industry by Justice that stalled.

Some dairy farmers are irked that Dean Foods' lower cost of milk supplies helped to increase the company's net income for the second quarter ended June 30 by 31% to $64.1 million, on sales of $2.7 billion.

A Justice Department representative, citing agency policy, wouldn't comment on whether any investigation actually occurred earlier this decade or whether anything else is in the works.

The Obama administration is planning a nationwide series of listening sessions next year to hear from farmers concerned about market concentration in everything from genetically modified seed to meatpacking to dairy [emphasis added – GMFI].

It is far from clear whether Justice investigators could mount a successful probe of dairy concentration. Many economists doubt that Dean Foods -- which benefits from being able to buy plentiful supplies of cheap raw milk to make everything from bottled milk to cheese to ice cream -- is to blame for this year's depressed milk prices. Indeed, the company's market clout wasn't enough to stop the prices farmers received for their milk from hitting record and near-record high levels in 2007 and 2008.

"Concentration has nothing to do with the recent price fall," said Mary Ledman, a dairy economist at Keough Ledman Associates, Libertyville, Ill.

Source: desmoineregister

Antitrust Claims Shucked From Monsanto Patent Suit

Ann Urda Law 360 [USA], 21 September 2009:
http://contract.law360.com/print_article/123462

A federal judge will allow Monsanto Co. to sever nemesis DuPont Co.'s antitrust counterclaims from the agricultural giant's original patent and breach of contract suit alleging infringement of the technology behind its herbicide-resistant genetically modified soybeans and corn.

U.S. District Judge E. Webber Jr. on Sept. 16 granted Monsanto's motion to conduct a separate trial on the defendants' antitrust counterclaims, while allowing discovery to proceed on the antitrust claims that do not hinge on resolution of the patent claims.

"In sum, the court concludes that a stay of discovery and a separate trial of defendants' antitrust counterclaims is warranted," the order said.

"Discovery should proceed, however, on defendants' antitrust counterclaims that will not potentially be eliminated or narrowed by resolution of plaintiffs' patent claims, specifically, defendants' claims related to the 'switching strategy' and the Monsanto-Dow agreement," it said.

The agreement refers to a contract that prohibits Dow Chemical Co. from permitting Pioneer to sublicense to independent seed contractors, which DuPont claims is anti-competitive.

Monsanto had argued that staying discovery and approaching DuPont's counterclaims separately would be more efficient since resolving the patent claims could make many of those allegations moot.

While Judge Webber concurred that bifurcation of the patent and antitrust claims would be more efficient, he said he did not believe a stay was the right course of action regarding all of the antitrust allegations.

"There is no suggestion by either party that defendants' claim concerning the Monsanto-Dow agreement will be affected in any way by resolution of plaintiffs' patent claims," the opinion said.

DuPont filed counterclaims in June in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, alleging Monsanto's Roundup Ready technology is not being infringed and that the suit is part of Monsanto's anti-competitive scheme to block farmers' access to rival agricultural products.

Those allegations came a month after Monsanto claimed that DuPont and subsidiary Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc. infringed U.S. Patent Number RE 39,247E, a reissue of U.S. Patent Number 5,633,435. The patent covers the company's Roundup Ready technology, which makes soybean and corn crops resistant to Monsanto's popular Roundup herbicide.

The suit accuses DuPont of conducting field tests with soybeans and corn that contain both Monsanto's Roundup Ready trait and Pioneer's Optimum GAT trait, a practice known as stacking.

But DuPont argued that combining Optimum GAT and Monsanto's Roundup Ready technologies is within its rights under a 2002 license agreement Pioneer entered with Monsanto. Monsanto's Roundup Ready patent is invalid and therefore not infringed when the technologies are stacked in soybeans, it said.

DuPont also claims that Monsanto has engaged in a scheme to monopolize agricultural biotechnology traits in corn and soybeans and the combinations of such traits, which help create crops that are resistant to insects and that have improved nutritional value.

DuPont claims Monsanto procured, by fraud and inequitable conduct before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, patent protection for a corn and soybean trait that provides tolerance to glyphosate, one of the most widely used herbicides by farmers. Monsanto markets its glyphosate herbicide as Roundup and its glyphosate-tolerant corn and soybean seeds as Roundup Ready.

Scott Partridge, deputy general counsel for Monsanto, said DuPont's filing was a "smoke screen to divert attention from its problem-plagued product, Optimum GAT, and its unlawful use of Monsanto's successful Roundup Ready technology to fix defects with Optimum GAT."

He said DuPont failed to disclose until January that Optimum GAT presented an "unacceptable risk" to farmers and that the company improperly used Monsanto's technology to cover up the flaws of Optimum GAT.

DuPont has said it intends to sell the stacked crops by the 2011 growing season and believes it can capture part of the Roundup Ready market, according to Monsanto's complaint.

The suit includes counts of patent infringement, induced infringement, breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Monsanto is asking the court for a permanent injunction preventing DuPont from selling its stacked soybean and corn products and an award of compensatory and exemplary damages.

The suit is not the first patent dispute between the two companies. Monsanto sued DuPont in the late 1990s for allegedly breaching a license agreement related to Monsanto's YieldGuard pest-resistant corn and misusing Monsanto's patented technology. The two companies settled the dispute through a new licensing agreement.

The patent-in-suit is U.S. Patent Number RE 39,247E, a reissue of U.S. Patent Number 5,633,435.

Monsanto is represented by Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP. DuPont Co. is represented by Lewis Rice & Fingersh LC, Kaye Scholer LLP and Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP.

The case is Monsanto Co. et al. v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co. et al., case number 4:09-cv-00686, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

--Additional reporting by Brendan Pierson

Environmental safety approval for a plant genetically modified for omega-3 fatty acid production (MON 87769) from Monsanto Canada Inc.

CheckBiotech.org, 21 September 2009:
http://greenbio.checkbiotech.org/news/environmental_safety_approval_plant_genetically_modified_omega_3_fatty_acid_productio

The CFIA and Health Canada have received a submission from Monsanto Canada Inc. seeking an approval for unconfined environmental release (including for import purposes) and livestock feed and food use of a soybean line designated as MON 87769, which has been genetically modified to produce stearidonic acid (SDA).

The submission received is in accordance with CFIA guidelines for assessment of plants with novel traits (PNTs) for unconfined release, CFIA guidelines for assessment of novel feeds from plant sources, and HC guidelines for assessment of novel foods. To view information related to the environmental assessment of a plant with novel trait (PNT) or a novel feed, please refer to the CFIA Web site. To view the information related to the health and safety assessment of a novel food, please refer to the Health Canada Web site.

Summary of the Submission Package

Updated scientific information may be added to this submission by the developer at a later date, or CFIA and/or Health Canada may request further information from the developer.

For more detail please click here http://www.seedquest.com/news.php?type=news&id_article=10429&id_region=&id_category=&id_crop=

Vietnam to label genetically modified foods from 2015

Vietnam Business Finance, 22 September 2009:
http://www.vnbusinessnews.com/2009/09/vietnam-to-label-genetically-modified.html

VNBusinessNews.com - Vietnam's Government is drafting a decree governing the safety of biotechnology-based foods, so the labeling of genetically modified foods is expected to start from 2015, according to the HCMC Biotechnology Center.

Duong Hoa Xo, director of the center, told the Daily on the sidelines of a seminar on biotechnology in the city on Monday that the Government had provided guidelines for the testing of gene modification on some farm produce.

Genetically modified foods can hit the market in 2015, he said, adding that according to the draft decree, foods that are over 5% genetically modified must be labeled as biotechnology application before going to the consumer.

The detailed regulations on such GM food labeling will be issued by the Ministry of Science and Technology.

According to some domestic and international scientists at the seminar, the biggest hindrances to the production and trading of such biotech-products will be high production cost, big investment in laboratories and highly skilled technical staff for the labeling job.

Vietnam's biotech scientists said that the country was working on a pilot scheme for using biotech to grow corn, soybean and some other crops, so the country would need to develop a GM food labeling law.

Professor Paul Teng, dean of Graduate Programmes and Research Office of Singapore's Nanyang Technical University, told the seminar that the mandatory labeling of GM foods would increase production cost by 12% and thereby lead to an increase of 10% in the product price.

In Canada's Quebec for example, he said, a labeling system might cost some 160 million Canadian dollars.

The first biotech-products were commercialized in 1993, he said, and by December 2008, some 680 GM products had been approved by 64 countries, with about 40% of them in Asia.

He said that despite this high cost, some 25 countries were still genetically modifying farm produce thanks to higher output, reduced use of insecticides and a cleaner environment.

The scientists said at the seminar that the most important thing of the labeling was to provide customers with options for products and product information, not for safety reasons because all GM foods must be approved for sale by regulatory agencies after undergoing risk assessments.

Ag-tech upstart is armed to take on Monsanto

AgBios [USA], 21 September 2009:
http://www.agbios.com/main.php?action=ShowNewsItem&id=11017

Author: Jeffrey M. O'Brien
Publication: CNN Money
Date: Monday, September 21, 2009

Cibus Global uses bioscience to enhance plant genes with a different approach than agribusiness giants.

Israeli crop-protection company Makhteshim-Agan is investing $37 million in San Diego ag-tech startup Cibus Global to spur the development of new strains of crops that will be resistant to various forms of disease, pests, and herbicides.

The investment, which will occur over five years and will eventually allow the Israeli company to acquire slightly more than 50% of the startup, provides a shot in the arm for the 8-year-old upstart whose grand ambitions could put it on a collision course with ag-tech giants like Dow Chemical (DOW), Monsanto (MON), and Syngenta (SYT).

Cibus's primary asset is its so-called Rapid Trait Development System. Unlike the transgenic approach used by Monsanto, where a foreign gene is inserted into a plant's genome to confer, for example, immunity to an herbicide (ý la Roundup-ready cotton and soybeans), Cibus's technology teases out such characteristics from the genome without inserting foreign material.

It essentially hurries along standard plant breeding in a highly controlled setting. In simple terms, a molecule is inserted into a plant's cell, causing the plant to mutate in a desired way. What could take Mother Nature tens of thousands of years to accomplish through millions of mutations over myriad generations takes Cibus anywhere from three to five years, lab to market.

Winning over activists and international governments

This is an important breakthrough for a few reasons: PR, accuracy, and money. While the company is highly successful, Monsanto, for example, has battled a persistent public relations onslaught over its transgenic practices.

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have been largely resisted by European nations, rejected by much of Africa, and railed against by various environmental organizations that claim genetically modified crops are either highly infectious to other crops, potentially dangerous to our health, or both.

A technology that could achieve the same benefits - pest or herbicide resistance, for example - without inserting foreign material into a genome should gain the approval of the marketplace and activists alike.

What's more, transgenic mutations are highly complex and notoriously difficult to get right - which makes for an expensive process.

Zigging while Monsanto zags

"Monsanto estimates that it takes as much as $50 million to launch a transgenic product, which includes all the regulatory work to get it cleared in the U.S. -- and in some parts of the world, it's not even possible," says Keith Walker, president of Cibus. "For us," Walker says, "it's a $5 million to $7 million exercise to take a product to market. That gives us opportunities to work in crops that are smaller in acreage."

The arrangement with Makhteshim-Agan allows Walker and his team of bio-scientists to explore any number of crops and characteristics. Walker won't yet say which crops he's targeting, but they won't be the enormous ones where Monsanto already has a foothold: cotton, soy, and corn. But that still leaves plenty of opportunity. "The markets are multiple billions of dollars," says Walker, "and you don't have to go against Dow Chemical and Monsanto until you're ready."

Cibus has already gone through field testing with several crops and has two herbicide-resistant canola products in the works, one that was developed in-house and will debut in 2011, and another that was developed in conjunction with BASF, slated for introduction in 2013.

Its success in the marketplace should pave the way for Cibus to launch subsequent products quickly, and there are few ends to what such a technology can accomplish. "Monsanto puts a whole gene in, but it's not necessary," says Walker. "Literally, as each day goes by, we see new information coming out of functional genomics research that creates new potential targets of opportunity."

Genetically Modified Crops: claiming intellectual property rights on God's original handiwork and farmers' wisdom

G. Serrano
Trends Updates, 21 September 2009:
http://trendsupdates.com/genetically-modified-crops-claiming-intellectual-property-rights-on-god%E2%80%99s-original-handiwork-and-farmers%E2%80%99-wisdom/

The wisdom of collective farming has been slowly getting into the hands of shrewd agribusiness multinationals. It seems that the latter have been tweaking on God's original handiwork and taking advantage of farmers' collective wisdom, knowledge, and skills for their corporate aggrandizement and coffers.

Today, genetically-modified crops are said to have increasingly lessened the role of farmers in agriculture, while capitalizing on farmers' knowledge. The current genetics of agriculture have produced genetically-modified crops that are 'rigorously licensed forms of intellectual property.'

'Introduced more than a decade ago, genetically modified crops are now planted on millions of acres throughout the world. But the fundamental questions about them remain - both about their safety and their long-term impact on global food security and the environment.'

The increasing cost of farming inputs, no thanks to the same agribusiness multinationals that constantly hike the prices of fertilizers and pesticides, has brought about the high cost of grains.

Traditional farmers have been left with no choice but to abandon some of their planting activity, thereby resulting in lessened availability of traditionally produced grains. By some sheer business acumen, this market condition now 'seems to favor genetically modified crops' since 'the cost of conventionally-grown grain goes up and up because there is less and less of it. This leaves the world open to the nearly unchecked proliferation of genetically modified varieties.'

EFSA holds open debate on GMO assessments with national experts

AgBioteh Reporter, 21 September 2009:
http://www.agra-net.com/portal2/home.jsp?template=newsarticle&artid=20017700043

Member State experts challenged EFSA earlier this month on how it extrapolates long term exposure from medium term studies in GMO assessments, how it is evaluating the increasingly complex stacked gene crops and some of the statistical analysis put forward by GMO companies. EFSA invited its critics to an open debate in Brussels where the Authority set out the changes it is making in its GMO risk assessment guidance, including environmental risk assessment.

[Subscription required for rest of this article]

GM-free Landliebe Country Milk catches on in Germany - increased sales confirm acceptance

Press Release
Friesland Campina [Germany], September 2009:
http://www.en.frieslandcampina.com

Heilbronn - While consumers altogether drink less fresh milk than one year ago and the overall market is declining [1], the feeding concept of the Landliebe premium brand has shown significant success. During the first seven months of 2009, sales of GM-free Landliebe Landmilch could be increased by about 7.7 percent. This development is supported by a new, broadly laid out TV campaign that has been aired since March of this year.

"The retailers have confirmed to us that the 'Ohne Gentechnik' (GMO-free) seal fits Landliebe like a glove", reports Michael Feller, Managing Director of FrieslandCampina Germany. And the labeling has contributed to the success of Landliebe Landmilch, as the figures confirm. According to Feller, the long-term goal is to achieve that the entire Landliebe product range can display the "Ohne Gentechnik" seal. There is still some way to cover, though, because by then all ingredients will have to be guaranteed free of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). This is a real challenge in products containing numerous other ingredients besides milk.

The feeding concept

Since October 2008, the "Ohne Gentechnik" seal offers information to consumers on all fresh milk and UHT milk cartons on the GMO-free status of Landliebe products. This was made possible by a feeding initiative on Landliebe farms that is probably unprecedented: For instance, cows are given primarily feed that has always been cultivated in Germany and therefore can do quite well without genetic engineering, such as grass, rapeseed or lupines. At the same time, the concepts does entirely without feed imports from overseas and therefore also without genetically modified soy.

1 Source: Nielsen

Contact

For further information please contact:

Campina GmbH
PR & Kommunikation
Wimpfener Straþe 125
74078 Heilbronn
Deutschland
Phone: +49 (7131) 489-303
Fax: +49 (7131) 489-354
E-Mail: presse@campina.com

---

Comment by TraceConsult™

Besides Campina holding FrieslandCampina, the news in the company's press release will make many other stakeholders happy, too. It is difficult to say whom the most.

To Ilse Aigner, Germany's Minister for Nutrition, Agriculture and Consumer Protection, the information will probably be most helpful in the current federal election campaign. Campina is clearly the biggest brand so far to have picked up on her department's offer launched on 1 May 2008 to label animal products as GM-free (Ohne Gentechnik). The Minister's call for "more transparency when purchasing food " (http://is.gd/3uiDs) is clearly met by Campina's Landliebe brand.

A number of consumer organizations and NGOs will delight because their demands put to the entire German food industry about 18 months ago has been met by such a big name. And on top of that, Campina fulfils the criteria without the use of any soy protein, which was another demand of many NGOs. Rather quietly, consumers are content at their local grocer's dairy counter because now also a national brand offers them an informed choice, after a small handful of German regional dairy producers already took off from the pole position last year.

And if increased sales figures convert well into increased profits even Campina's owner, Amersfoort-based Royal FrieslandCampina, is likely to put on a nice smile.

We don't know of any further parties that are happy about the Landliebe sales growth at Campina, but we see the pressure increasing on retailers and on other big brands to follow suit in offering consumers an alternative.

20 September 2009

More unauthorised GMOs contaminate the European food chain

EU Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed
accessed 20 September 2009:
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/rasff-window/portal/index.cfm?event=notificationsList

Date of case: 11/09/2009
Last change: 18/09/2009
Refererence: 2009.BQF
Country: ES
Subject: unauthorised genetically modified maize MON 88017 in soybean hulls from the United States
Product category: feed materials

Date of case: 11/09/2009
Last change: 18/09/2009
Refererence: 2009.BQE
Country: ES
Subject: unauthorised genetically modified maize MON 88017 in high quality soybean cake from the United States
Product category: feed materials

Date of case: 11/09/2009
Last change: 18/09/2009
Refererence: 2009.BQC
Country: ES
Subject: unauthorised genetically modified maize MON 88017 in low protein soybean cake from the United States
Product category: feed materials

Date of case: 11/09/2009
Last change: 17/09/2009
Refererence: 2009.1198
Country: DE
Subject: unauthorised genetically modified (FP967 suspected: 0.05-0.1 %) linseed with raw material from Canada and the United States, dispatched from the Netherlands
Product category: nuts, nut products and seeds

Date of case: 07/09/2009
Last change: 16/09/2009
Refererence: 2009.1165
Country: NL
Subject: unauthorised genetically modified maize (MON88017/MIR604) in soy products from the Netherlands, with raw material from the United States
Product category: cereals and bakery products

Date of case: 08/09/2009
Last change: 16/09/2009
Refererence: 2009.1171
Country: DE
Subject: unauthorised genetically modified (FP967 suspected) linseed from Canada, via Belgium
Product category: cereals and bakery products

Date of case: 20/08/2009
Last change: 15/09/2009
Refererence: 2009.1091
Country: DE
Subject: unauthorised genetically modified (MON 88017 < 0.1 %) precooked white maize flour from Colombia, via the Netherlands
Product category: cereals and bakery products

Date of case:15/09/2009
Last change: 15/09/2009
Refererence: 2009.1208
Country: DE
Subject: unauthorised genetically modified (FP967 suspected) linseed used in baking mixture from Germany, with raw material from Canada, via the Netherlands
Product category: cereals and bakery products

Date of case: 22/07/2009
Last change: 15/09/2009
Refererence: 2009.BIQ
Country: ES
Subject: unauthorised genetically modified (Bt 63) rice noodles from China (Hong Kong)
Product category: cereals and bakery products

Don't sell us GM food, over 24,000 people tell

Zee News [India], 20 September 2009:
http://www.zeenews.com/news564981.html

New Delhi: Over 24,000 people have asked big manufacturers of processed foods in India, including Nestle, Britannia and Hindustan Unilever, not to use genetically modified (GM) foods after Greenpeace put up a list of companies that could be using GM products.

The NGO put up a list on the internet 11 days ago mentioning firms that did or did not say they used such foods.

The public response to the website safefoodnow.org has forced five of the 11 firms on its 'red list' to write to Greenpeace -- which started the site -- clarifying that they did not use any GM material in the food they sold in India.

GM foods are banned in the country.

The original 'red list' and 'green list' had been put up on the basis of responses received from processed food giants when Greenpeace asked them if they used any GM material in the food, according to Jaikrishna R. the NGO's campaigner for sustainable agriculture.

Since the lists were put up, Nestle, Agro Tech Foods, Cadbury, Britannia and Hindustan Unilever has written to Greenpeace saying they do not use any GM products in the foods they sold in India, Jaikrishna said. These firms were earlier on the 'red list' because they had not responded to questions from the NGO.

However, the Nestle management had written that they believed GM food was a good idea, which atitude Jaikrishna condemned, pointing out that many Nestle consumers had now written to the firm saying they did not want any GM ingredient in the food.

IANS

US grain exports to EU shown the red card over genetic alteration worry

Reuters (via The Economic Times [India]), 20 September 2009:
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/features/the-sunday-et/markets/US-grain-exports-to-EU-shown-the-red-card-over-genetic-alteration-worry/articleshow/5032405.cms

CHICAGO: US soybean and soymeal shipments to the European Union will remain on hold for at least a month as EU authorities decide whether to relax a zero tolerance policy on unapproved genetically altered grain, analysts said.

New sales to the EU may also remain dull until buyers there feel more confident that shipments will be allowed to enter, they said. Several shipments of U.S. soybeans and soymeal found to contain residues of unapproved GMO corn have been blocked at EU borders this summer and most shippers at the moment appear unwilling to risk a similar fate, they said.

"It has caused what amounts to a temporary halt in shipments from the U.S. because of the fear on the part of shippers that boats will be held up or rejected," said Anne Frick, oilseed analyst with Prudential Bache Commodities.

The 27 EU nations bought a total of about 2.2 million tonnes of U.S. soybeans in the 2008/09 marketing year, which ended on Aug. 31, and nearly 440,000 tonnes of US soymeal in the marketing year, which ends on Sept. 30, according to the U.S. Agriculture Department.

That amounts to roughly 6 percent estimated US soybean exports in the last marketing year and about 5-1/2 percent of projected soymeal exports. EU livestock producers and feed makers are clamoring for authorities to relax the policy, even temporarily, claiming tight feed supplies may cause food prices to rise.

Analysts say a final ruling may not come for a month or more and Europe's farm chief has called for a ruling by the end of the year. On Friday, a European Commission spokeswoman said Spanish authorities found GMO corn dust in several U.S. soybean shipments and the vessels were refused entry.

10 years later: StarLink risk appears dead, but not completely buried

Art Hovey
Lincoln Journal Star [USA] (via AgBios), 20 September 2009:
http://www.agbios.com/main.php?action=ShowNewsItem&id=11012

Ten years ago, Nebraska farmers worked their way through corn harvest, hauled off 1.15 billion bushels to sale or storage, and put their grain-gathering equipment away for the winter.

It all seemed normal enough.

But normalcy started to unravel the next summer, when a genetically modified variety of corn called StarLink turned up in Taco Bell taco shells and then in loads of corn delivered to grain elevators and other delivery points in the state.

The trouble, in the early days of biotechnology, was that StarLink was not approved for human food use. It was not supposed to be in food-processing plants and it was not supposed to be co-mingled with the supply of conventional corn.

And trouble quickly rolled up to the front door of the Lincoln Inspection Service, licensed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to do grain quality tests in Southeast Nebraska.

Corn purchasers scrambled to find corn not contaminated with StarLink.

"It was a complete fiasco here, you might say," said Carolyn Buckmaster, now in her 29th year in a Garfield Street laboratory. "It was a very terrific workload."

Traces of the footprint left by one of the biggest food-safety stories of the decade remain in 2009.

It's been nine years since StarLink was pulled from the seed-corn market and five since the last StarLink-contaminated corn turned up in Lincoln.

And it's been more than a year since the Food and Drug Administration gave what amounted to an all-clear signal on safety concerns.

Yet Buckmaster and her peers are still doing the $8 tests for its presence. They're grinding up corn samples, adding water and dropping test strips into the solutions.

Mark Fulmer, manager of the inspection business, said grain buyers still seem to want the sense of assurance that goes with negative results.

So far this year, that's been the case 400 times.

"It's something to protect themselves," he said, and it may say something about the sensitivities that go with food safety scares.

"All it takes is just a rumor of something bad," he said.

Back in 2000 and 2001, fears were fed by the possibility consumers with potentially deadly food allergies would eat taco shells made from corn that might, because of its altered gene structure, trigger a severe reaction.

Dave Schneider, now general manager of the Farmers Cooperative Company at Waverly, has equally painful memories from the time he worked at the Plymouth elevator in Jefferson County at the start of this decade.

Schneider said farmers and elevators were not ready to deal with an unprecedented situation in which federal regulators had decided to allow a corn product genetically endowed with insect resistance to be used for feed, but not for food.

"It was nearly impossible to prepare for that in so short a period of time," he said of the government expectation that StarLink would be segregated from other corn.

"The other thing is that it becomes the local elevators, all of a sudden, who are expected to do police work."

It was hard to make order out of so much disorder.

And there had to be an element of trust about whether farmers had any StarLink corn in the loads they brought to Plymouth.

"Our primary function was to simply ask the producer," Schneider said. "And we did the best we could."

The StarLink debacle triggered lawsuits and tens of millions of dollars in payments to farmers and others in the grain-supply pipeline. The objective was to get the bio-tech corn into channels where livestock consumption, rather than human consumption, was assured.

Over time, the allergy worries proved unfounded. And as Nebraska farmers finish out a decade of corn production this year, an estimated 91 percent of all corn is grown from genetically modified seed.

Kelly Brunkhorst of the Nebraska Corn Board said farmers recognize the value that comes with insect and herbicide resistance.

"Those efficiencies have led to greater production."

A record corn crop of 1.55 billion bushels is expected in 2009. In hindsight, the contamination risk that went with approving corn for feed use and not for food is seen as a huge mistake.

"I think we've learned a lot about the regulatory approval process," Brunkhorst said, "and being sure we have full regulatory approval versus a split release."

Konstantinos Giannakas, an agricultural economist at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, continues to do research on the market and welfare effects of genetically modified products in the agri-foods system.

"What we do know is that StarLink was at some point in the past," Giannakas said. "Ten years ago, most of the time, feels like three years ago."

There is little to suggest lingering and deep concerns about gene alterations of grain and other food basics among U.S. consumers, he said. That is not the case in many European countries, including his birthplace of Greece.

Much more common in much of Europe, he said, is talk about "Frankenfoods" and "playing God."

He cited a lack of trust in the food safety inspection system, in general, plus a very strong pro-organic movement in Greece.

Grain inspection official Fulmer agrees there's no widespread evidence of that on this side of the Atlantic.

"Here in the United States, people don't have a concern for food safety," he said. "If it's USDA-approved, they take for granted that it's safe."

Giannakas thinks European attitudes will soften as U.S. consumers show no ill effects from eating foods with a genetically modified organism link and as the next generation of food biotechnology moves from farmer benefits to such consumer benefits as Vitamin A-enriched rice and high-protein wheat.

He's not one to pass judgment on what happened with StarLink 10 years ago. At minimum, "there was a failure in the system."

Beyond that, "did they overreact? I don't know."

Monsanto wins delay of DuPont antitrust suit

Delaware Online [USA], 20 September 2009:
http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20090920/BUSINESS/909200321/1003/BUSINESS/Business-in-the-courts

Monsanto Co., which is suing to prevent DuPont Co. from producing soybean seeds that combine the companies' herbicide-resistant traits, persuaded a federal judge this week to separate DuPont's antitrust counterclaim from the lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Richard Webber in St. Louis sided with Monsanto, which argued that DuPont's complaint that Monsanto is misusing its patent rights to control the market would slow the case by years and confuse jurors. Monsanto argued on Sept. 2 that some antitrust claims may be dismissed after the first phase of litigation. Webber said some antitrust discovery related to the DuPont counterclaim could proceed if it wouldn't be affected by the resolution of the patent claim. A separate trial on Monsanto's patent claims "has the potential of mooting a number" of DuPont's antitrust claims, he said. Monsanto filed a complaint in May accusing DuPont of violating a 2002 license by using Monsanto's Roundup Ready trait with DuPont's GAT genetics in soybeans. GAT genetics were designed to be an alternative to crops that tolerate applications of glyphosate herbicide, known as Roundup. DuPont said it has the right to use Monsanto's trait and also claimed the Monsanto patent is invalid and the company is misusing its patent rights to control the markets for "virtually every commercially important agricultural biotech trait in corn and soybeans." The dispute highlights competition in the $8.3 billion market for biotech seeds that ward off insects or withstand the application of weed killers. More than 90 percent of soybeans and 80 percent of corn in the U.S. are genetically modified.

Hotels join Negros 'organic island' campaign

abs-cbnNEWS.com [The Philippines], 20 September 2009:
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/lifestyle/09/19/09/hotels-join-negros-organic-island-campaign

MANILA - Hotel and restaurant owners in Negros have agreed to support a campaign to make Negros Island an "organic island" that is free of genetically modified organisms (GMO).

The group, headed by the Hotel and Restaurant Association of Negros Occidental (HRANO) also seeks to convince the Provincial Board of Negros Occidental not to ratify its anti-GMO ordinance (Provincial Ordinance 007).

The ordinance is reportedly set to be reviewed because local hog raisers and crop farmers complained that the ban on GMOs has made farming and backyard raising more costly.

The governments of Negros Occidental and Negros Oriental had previously entered into an agreement to make Negros Island the "Organic Bowl of Asia", amid biddings to host the 2011 International Organic Conference. However, they lost the bid.

Though there are no GMO rice in restaurants in Bacolod hotels, HRANO members want to preclude the entry of such products.

GMO-free rice

Chef Margarita Fores, an organic food advocate, said GMO products may cause harm to humans. As a thyroid cancer survivor, Fores said she was prompted to support organic food and farming advocacies because she belives that chemicals in GMO and processed food caused her cancer.

She said the campaign will set a good example for other towns in the Philippines, and could even garner international attention.

"It brings so much positive goodwill to the province... because it's the chance for the province to really advance," she said.

Other hotel and restaurant owners, however, admitted that they serve some GMO products like corn and meat at their restaurants because GMO-free products are scant. But this doesn't stop the HRANO from trying, according to HRANO Vice President Aboy Evaristo.

"We love our rice GMO-free. Maybe we would like to send that message that we're serving with rice. If we have a choice, we want that everything [that are] served in our restaurants and hotels be GMO-free," he said.

A similar campaign by restauranteurs by the Bistro Group in Manila, in partnership with international environment group Greenpeace. The project was part of Greenpeace's "I Love My Rice GMO-free" campaign, that seeks to protect diners from GMO contaminated-food.

Greenpeace believes GMO products pose health risks, threaten biodiversity, and affect farmers' livelihoods. - Report by Ragie Mae Arellano, ABS-CBN Negros.

19 September 2009

UCS Study Says Genetically Modified Crops Have Failure to Yield

Aaron Turpen, citizen journalist
Natural News [USA], 19 September 2009:
http://www.naturalnews.com/027058_crops_food_GMO.html

A 43-page study released by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) reveals that since the inception of genetically modified (GM or GMO) crops, no significant increases in crop yields can be attributed to them. This is directly contrary to what Monsanto and other seed-makers have often pointed out in their own research and the UCS study answers why that is. The study, titled Failure to Yield, is available online, free of charge1.

While crop yields overall have increased substantially, including in corn and soybean crops--both of which have a significant percentage of share in GMO--these increases have not been directly related to the use of genetic modifications. Instead, they are due to several changes in farming practices, agriculture in general, and the overall trend towards higher yields in all of food production.

The study, led by Doug Gurian-Sherman, a lead scientist in UCS Food and Environment Program, is a compilation of published, peer-reviewed, and scientifically-accepted studies done since the early 1990s. These studies looked at crop production, various attributes of different crops, how environment and other factors affected yields, and so forth. According to UCS, overall these studies have shown that the yield increases often attributed to genetic modifications are often not because of the GMs at all, but due to other factors.

The UCS study shows that genetically engineered corn varieties have only increased crop yields marginally while engineered soybean varieties haven't increased yields at all.

In fact, says UCS, the substantial increases in crop yields over the past decade or so have largely been due to traditional breeding and improvements in agricultural practices.

The only gains apparent in the knowledge gained by GM practices are in the understanding of the plants' genomes themselves. Many breeding practices could benefit, says the study, by utilizing the knowledge gained about plant genomes and how these genes can be marked and targeted in breeding practices.

In other words, traditional plant breeding could lead to better hybrid varieties with less worrisome outcomes as compared to direct genetic modification (gene splicing and manipulation) by using the knowledge of plant DNA to breed, not engineer, better plants.

Further, states UCS, the needed increase in crop yields to keep up with human population requirements is in precisely the areas where genetically modified crops are generally unavailable due to cost constraints and largely primitive agricultural methods. In Africa, for instance, the food needs of the population would be better-served by providing education and resources for better agricultural practice than would be seen by introducing genetically modified, non-indigenous crops.

In fact, the study goes so far as to recommend that the U.S. Department of Agriculture remove funding from GMO studies and redirect it to other, more beneficial uses and programs.

Several other factors outside of the study have created more hot-button questions about how the proliferation of GM crops have affected us and our health. A recent release of secretive FDA memos about concerns with GMOs has created new questions about their safety2.

Concern over the genetic modification of food crops and its effect on the environment, our health, and more have all caused many of us to wonder why these GMOs are being foisted on us. Now that their number one argument for existence (increasing crop yields) has been scientifically questioned, the final straw may be loaded. Will the FDA's continual promotion of GM crops finally change?

Find out what you can do to fight back in my earlier article here at Natural News, How to Fight Back Against Genetically Modified Foods.

Resources:

1 - Failure to Yield: Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops, UCS Study, PDF, 43 pages.
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/food_and_agriculture/failure-to-yield.pdf

2 - Secret FDA Memos Reveal Concerns About Genetically Modified Foods (GMOs), ByteStyle.tv.
http://bytestyle.tv/content/secret-fda-memos-reveal-concerns-about-genetically-modified-foods-gmos

See also:

More GM information here at Natural News:
http://www.naturalnews.com/GoogleSearchResults.html?q=gm+food&cx=010579349100583850635%3Aw_kzwe9_yca&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8&sa.x=0&sa.y=0&sa=Search#1360

Failure to Yield, a summary of the study at ByteStyle.tv
http://bytestyle.tv/content/failure-yield-evaluating-performance-genetically-engineered-crops

18 September 2009

USDA Organic-Biotech report pulled

By Karl Haro von Mogel
Biofortified blog, 18 September 2009:
http://www.biofortified.org

The USDA Report by Cyndi Barmore, The Unexplored Potential of Organic-Biotech Production (http://www.biofortified.org/2009/08/usda-report-on-organic-biotech/), has recently been pulled from the USDA website. This is the USDA's explanation:

"On May 26, 2009, the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) posted a Global Agriculture Information Network (GAIN) report titled, "The Unexplored Potential of Organic-Biotech Production." This report should have been accompanied by a clear statement that the report does not represent the policy of the United States Government, and given this, the report has been removed from the agency's Web site. It should be noted that USDA's National Organic Program regulations exclude the use of genetically engineered organisms in organic production. Additionally, FAS has no role in the administration of the National Organic Program."

It turns out that there was a resounding negative response from certain organizations that do not like genetic engineering - and the very thought of organic + biotech is disconcerting. It led to a pile of emails sent in the USDA's direction.

The Organic Consumer's Association told a whopper when they first heard about it:

This USDA report attempting to make the case for "organic genetically engineering" is part of a well-funded campaign coordinated by Monsanto and their governmental, corporate, and non-profit partners to legitimize a dangerous and untested technology.

First of all, USDA employees are very careful about their contacts. Secondly, according to GE opponents, Monsanto is all about the chemicalz. So why would they be interested in GE organic crops, when they can't sell their roundup herbicide to those farmers? Finally, the OCA has no evidence that the few people promoting the Organic-Biotech partnership, such as Pam Ronald, are funded by Monsanto in any way. No research in her laboratory is funded by any company, for example. This is a cynical attempt at poisoning the well. If they can prevent fans of organic from considering the arguments, then they have accomplished their goal.

The Grassroots Netroots Alliance issued a call to action, which may have been the source of the deluge of emails:

Please use the form below to tell the USDA that you (1) oppose their cynical attempt to promote genetic engineering as potentially organic

One wonders why they are so resistant to this possibility. If Organic agriculture is all about moving toward a more sustainable, biological way of farming, genetically engineered traits that can help that would be an ideal tool to include in that system. The GNA, however, tells us the reason for the opposition:

One reason consumers shop for things that are certified organic is to avoid the ubiquitous and unlabeled genetically engineered and nanotech products that have filled stores in recent years.

After so many years of beating back attempts to contaminate organic with untested technologies, it is very discouraging to learn that the USDA under Obama, just like under Clinton and Bush, is still trying to help industry destroy organic.

What would be "destroyed" is the perception that organic is a refuge for people with food fears. Without that psychological assurance, they fear that they will lose some customers. In my humble opinion, I think organic should be a positive vision of what agriculture should be, not a negative vision of what it shouldn't.

Jill Richardson of La Vida Locavore says that putting the report up on the web in the first place was a no-no, but I think the knee-jerk closed-minded response of some people to this possibility is the real no-no. The signal they have sent to the USDA is 'don't think about how to make agriculture better - just satisfy our predispositions.'

The Fanatic Cook noticed the report, and did give it some thought, for a millisecond:

"Organic-Biotech." If ever there was an oxymoron.

Well I suppose you could use an ox in organic ag, but what about the moron? Tee hee. This is one of the problems that genetic engineering in organic agriculture faces - because of how the political lines were drawn early on in the history of organic standards, now people are just defending the standards as-is, without going back to what is the real basis for the exclusion. In other words, they are defending a historical contingency - something that people decided in the past before understanding how genetic engineering could be used to help organic production. And so the status quo is assumed to be the right way, without any thoughtful analysis whatsoever.

Indeed, if Bix at The Fanatic Cook thought about the meaning of Biotechnology, they would realize that organic is biotechnology. A technology using biology, from inserting genes with a gene gun, to making cheese with enzymes and fungi, is a bio-technology. Using cover crops, rotations, beneficial insects, and Bt-toxin producing bacteria are all biotechnologies - Organic is a term that refers to a specific set of biotechnology. The question is, will the organic system and its adherents be open to one more bio-technology in that system, or will we need to look elsewhere for a rational, scientific approach to growing crops?

In the meantime, I have uploaded the USDA report here so that you can still download and read it. The USDA should have never pulled the report form the site - a clarification that the agency is not taking a position on the issue, but is allowing discussion to take place would have been the proper response. Looks like it's not just the organic folks that are too sensitive to the boat being rocked.

Spain Finds Unauthorized Monsanto Biotech Corn in Soybean Cake

Rudy Ruitenberg Bloomberg, 18 September 2009:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601012&sid=age5.PjzqV78

Spain found unauthorized Monsanto Co. genetically modified corn in soybean cake and soybean hull shipments from the U.S., according to notifications to the European Union's food alert system.

Customs checks on Aug. 25 found illegal MON88017 biotech corn in feed shipments, notifications via the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed dated Sept. 11 and updated today show. The feed materials were detained, the EU said.

MON88017 corn, marketed as YieldGard Rootworm/Roundup Ready, is resistant to corn rootworm and herbicide-tolerant. St. Louis-based Monsanto filed for EU approval to import the corn in November 2005, and the process is currently suspended, according to GMO Compass, an EU-financed database.

To contact the reporter on this story: Rudy Ruitenberg in Paris at rruitenberg@bloomberg.net.

Argentina - The GM crops debate

Meat Trade News Daily [UK], 18 September 2009:
http://www.meattradenewsdaily.co.uk/news/180909/argentina___the_gm_crops_debate.aspx

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: newsroom - meattradenewsdaily.co.uk

EU rejects more U.S. soy with GM corn traces
• Spain finds unauthorised GM corn in U.S. soy shipments
• Several ship loads from same company sent back
• Follows other blocked shipments earlier this summer

Reuters, 18 September 2009:
http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSLI66751020090918

AMSTERDAM/BRUSSELS - Spanish authorities detected traces of unauthorised forms of genetically modified (GM) corn in U.S. soy shipments on August 25 and blocked the imports, a European Commission spokeswoman said on Friday.

Traces of corn variety MON88017, which is yet to be approved in the EU, was found in different shiploads of soy from the same company and the shipments were sent back to the U.S., the spokeswoman said.

The MON88017 variety is manufactured by Monsanto (MON.N), an official at the biotech company in Spain said.

Officials from the Spanish Agriculture Ministry were not able to give any details on Friday.

European Union buyers had moved to stop imports of U.S. soy after shipments to Spain and Germany were found to contain traces of GM corn, a spokesman for the EU in Washington had said on August 6. [ID:nL6205652]

The EU has approved a string of GM products, mainly corn and some soy types, but it does not permit the presence of non-approved types, even in tiny amounts, until it has assessed the safety of that product for health and the environment.

EU animal feeds groups have raised concerns that Europe could face a shortage of soybeans and soy meal that could cost its food industries billions of dollars because of the EU's tough policy on GM imports. [ID:nL2501385]

They have said the risk of shipments being rejected because of the EU's zero tolerance rule on unauthorised GMOs is too high for many operators to even attempt to import from the United States.

Europe's agriculture commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel urged the 27-member bloc on Monday to draw up rules by end-2009 to allow resumption of vital soybean imports from the U.S., one of its main suppliers. [ID:nLE636474] (Additional reporting by Martin Roberts in Madrid) (Reporting by Catherine Hornby and Bate Felix, Editing by Peter Blackburn)

Codex Alimentarius and the Idiocracy

Scott Tips (Editor of Health Freedom News, President and Legal Counsel for NHF)
Sovereign Independent [Ireland], 18 September 2009:
http://www.sovereignindependent.com/downloads/Sovereign_Independent_Issue1.pdf

Three years ago a film came out of Hollywood that was conceptually great even if the execution was fatally flawed. Called Idiocracy, this comedy follows the mishaps of a character named Joe Bowers who is not the sharpest tool in the shed, but who, through a government hibernation experiment gone wrong, awakens to a society in the year 2505 that has become so stupid because of mass commercialism that Joe shines as a genius in comparison.

After a predictable series of mishaps, the point is clear: We are on the wrong track in pushing dumbed-down, 'me too' concepts and products. Society will only worsen, not improve.

Organic vs. Artificial

It is a lesson that modern-day fighters for individual liberty learned decades ago. In ensuring and protecting freedom for the individual, we create a better society. On a pragmatic level, individual liberty is a concept that sees the health and happiness of the parts as leading to the health of the whole - not the reverse. Put another way, individual liberty is organic - when not blocked artificially, it flows naturally and creates healthy relationships in an ever-expanding web of mutually-beneficial interactions among people.

On the other hand, much of today's political and economic structure is not organic but artificial. It comes from the Top down, not the bottom up. It does not flow naturally, easily, and quickly but with artificial constraints that are marked by dissension, delays and waste. It is, by nature, coercive. 'You do what we say because you have to and at the ultimate point of a gun. You do not do it voluntarily.'

With this in mind, we can see that the larger structures being created or expanded in the 21st Century are not geared to preserving or even considering individual freedom. Rather, they are all about mass uniformity and commercialism in their worst forms. Whether it is the European Union or the still-in-utero North American Union, their object is the same: stifling individualism in favour of a collectivistic uniformity. Yes, of course, lip service will be paid to the individual with such hollow slogans as 'Land of the Free, Home of the Brave'; but it is still the Whole consuming the Parts. It is still artificial, stiff, and unnatural.

Codex Alimentarius

For those readers not familiar with the Codex Alimentarius Commission, it is just one more of these mass-uniformity structures. Originally created in 1962 by the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization with the noblest of stated intentions - that is, to protect consumer food health and eliminate barriers to international food trade - the Codex Alimentarius Commission has been engaged in developing food standards and guidelines that will be imposed from the Top down. Captured by interests antithetical to health freedom, Codex is now well on the path to promulgating food rules that will lead to 'dumbed-down' health - a kind of health Idiocracy - for individuals throughout the World.

That is precisely why the National Health Federation (NHF) (www.thenhf.com), an international nonprofit consumer health freedom organization, has been sending me to these Codex committee meetings every year for ten years in a row now. Having obtained official Codex observer status, the NHF is able to attend and speak out at these meetings. It is also able to submit, and has submitted, written arguments in favor of health-freedom positions at many of these meetings. As the only health-freedom organization accredited by Codex, NHF has almost always been the lone voice striving to eliminate oppressive standards and guidelines while enhancing consumer freedom of choice. The other delegates and organizations at these meetings are basically FDA-style bureaucrats and trade organizations with their own special commercial interests and agendas.

In particular, NHF has opposed the Codex Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplement Guidelines that were adopted in framework form in 2004-2005, and that will limit access to healthy dietary supplements as well as 'dumb down' their potencies to non-beneficial levels. These maximum upper permitted limits have not yet been set. However, if the Germans, Danes and others have their way, then ridiculously-low limits will be imposed that will ensure that supplements pose no competition with their pharmaceutical industry. For example, the German Institute (BfR) that has conducted 'research' into this area has determined that niacin is dangerous to consumers at levels higher than 17 milligrams per capsule! This is the madness that they would impose upon the rest of us as they die from their drug-and-sausage-induced heart attacks. That is a party we have no intention of joining!

In another area, ironically enough, the EU and NHF have worked together at the Codex Committee on Food Labelling meetings to see that genetically-modified foods are labeled as such for the consumer. In this case, the North Americans, joined by the Argentineans, Australians, and New Zealanders, are the bad actors, contending, as the American delegate has said, that "the consumer is too ignorant to understand GM-labelled foods." So far, this battle has been a draw but NHF has been aggressively vocal at each of these meetings arguing for the right of the consumer to know what he or she is eating.

Codex guidelines and standards cover many more subjects than those just mentioned. Ranging from oils and food additives to pesticides and natural mineral waters, Codex is involved. And while these standards are ostensibly to be applied to international trade, the Codex Strategic Plan specifically states - and almost all countries agree - that they will be applied domestically as well. It is just a matter of time, they say.

Bigger Is Not Always Better

In the European Union, which began innocently enough as nothing more than a Customs Union, decisions - important decisions - are increasingly made by the European Commission in Brussels. Each year, fewer and fewer decisions are being made in Dublin or London or Paris or Madrid. The natural tendency of governments and their institutions to grow over time is asserting itself, inexorably, like the laws of gravity and space. Power is being sucked in to the Center. It is being increasingly centralized.

And therein lies the major problem, for the more that you distance the power wielders from those over whom they exercise that power, the more corrupt and arrogant they will become and behave. It is ultimately about accountability, and you cannot have true accountability when the rulers are not immediately and directly accountable to the citizens.

The problem with the latest attempt to accumulate even more power in the hands of the EU Superstate, through the Lisbon Treaty, is that the rulers and the ruled will become even more distant from one another than they already are! Centralization of power is the bane of freedom. As rulers become less accountable to their subjects - or citizens - they will become more corrupt and more likely to do harm.

But as unlikely as it may seem now, there is another, more important reason to shun centralization: Increased concentration of power attracts sociopaths to it like flames attract moths. Such power in one place is irresistible to those who crave it. This is hard for the average decent person to comprehend, but sociopaths do exist and they do gravitate towards power. A more powerful Brussels will be an even stronger magnet for the future powermongers of the World. Do we really need to invite another Hitler or Stalin to rain ruin down upon us?

The Banality of Centralization

While some might scoff at a future EU dictator in the same way that the Germans scoffed at a Nazi Germany in the 1920s, even the scoffers must accept the very real risk - I would say certainty - that a more powerful and centralized European Union will result in the banality of life - its 'dumbing down' as political, economic, and social life is forced into an artificial, bureaucraticallycrafted mold of European uniformity.

This is already taking place. The heavy hand of distant bureaucrats is felt throughout the EU's member states over the littlest of details - from weights and measures to employee relations to vitamin and mineral food supplements. Think of any aspect of your life in the European Union and the EU Superstate is involved at some level. Again, distant bureaucrats making important decisions about your life.

Codex and the EU

This, too, is where the worlds of the EU and Codex intersect. Unknown to the average citizen, the Codex Commission and Committees are trundling along, each year, making rule after rule that its member countries, the EU included, are expected to adopt - both in international trade and domestic trade. There are treaties and agreements that exist right now that commit the member states to adopting these Codex 'guidelines.' These include, but are not limited to, the Technical Barriers to Trade and the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreements, and the EU is a signatory to both of these.

At Codex meetings, the EU representative has been pushing his narrow view that consumers must be protected from vitamin and mineral food supplements. They are too strong in potency and there are too many 'unproven' ones, he claims, so they must be 'dumbed down' to a level that will be of no benefit to anyone except to the pharmaceutical companies whose profits are protected by the elimination of competition. The EU representative at the Codex Committee dealing with this issue has immense influence; and I have even seen him giving instructions to the Committee Chairman right in front of the other delegates during the meeting. That is how bold it has become!

So the EU Superstate - claiming all the while that it of course has the best interests of the consumers in mind - is pushing reduced potency and variety of supplements within the EU and internationally through Codex. Within the EU, Ireland, Britain, Sweden, and the Netherlands (being the most liberal countries, permitting the sale of a wider variety and higher potency of supplements) will be the first to fall (at the end of this year through the EU Food Supplements Directive - not because of Codex as some misinformed persons will tell you), to be followed later at some as-yet- to-be-determined date by global Codex rules. The United States and Canada, represented as they are by food bureaucrats of their own, are happy enough to be along for the ride.

Unless resisted successfully, the end result will be EU markets full of foods that are less healthy without the availability of food supplements to bridge the gap. The Idiocracy will have arrived - literally - as the general population is starved of real nutrition for their brains and bodies. A compliant, non-rebellious citizenry, what more could our distant Rulers ask for?

---

Scott Tips received his Bachelor of Arts degree, magna cum laude, from the University of California at Los Angeles in 1976, studied at the Sorbonne (Paris I) from 1976-1977, and obtained his Juris Doctorate degree from the University of California, Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall) in 1980, where he was the Managing Editor of the California Law Review.

A California-licensed attorney, he was admitted to the California Bar in 1980 and has specialized in food-and-drug law and trademark law, but also engages in business litigation, general business law, and nonprofit organizations, with an international clientele. Since 1989, Mr. Tips has been the General Counsel for the National Health Federation, the World's oldest health-freedom organization for consumers. In 2007, Mr. Tips became NHF President, and has been a speaker for the organization on several continents.

A legal columnist, he writes a monthly column forWhole Foods Magazine called "Legal Tips," a column he started in 1984. Currently, Mr. Tips is occupying much of his time with health-freedom issues involving the Codex Alimentarius Commission and its and other attempts to limit individual freedom of choice in health matters. In that capacity, he has recently compiled, edited, and published a book on the subject entitled Codex Alimentarius - Global Food Imperialism.

He also attends Codex meetings worldwide and has attended more Codex meetings than any other health-freedom activist.

Swiss tire of biotech debate

Swiss Info, 18 September 2009:
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/front/Swiss_tire_of_biotech_debate.html?siteSect=105&sid=11237764&rss=true&ty=st&ref=ti_spa

Despite its sometimes controversial reputation, green biotechnology is failing to arouse great interest in Switzerland.

According to a new study, stakeholders are tired of the topic, the media is not reporting on it and the public is ambivalent.

And most people welcome the government's proposal to extend the current moratorium on the commercial use of genetically-modified (GM) plants.

The "Green Technology in the Public Sphere" project, whose results were revealed in Zurich on Friday, looked into attitudes towards green biotechnology among the stakeholders - such as scientists, the agro industry and non-governmental organisations - the media and the public.

It is part of the government-backed National Research Programme NRP 59, which is investigating the benefits and the risks of GM plants from a wide-ranging scientific perspective.

Swiss voters accepted a five-year moratorium on the commercial use of GM plants in 2005, giving Switzerland some of the toughest legislation in Europe. The sowing of genetically modified seeds is, however, allowed under strict controls for research purposes.

In July this year the government announced that it wanted to extend the moratorium, which runs out in 2010, for three years to have more time to look into scientific and legal issues. This still has to be considered by parliament.

A bit tired

"The stakeholders are a bit tired [of the debate], most of them told us that the current moratorium is not bad," said study leader Heinz Bonfadelli, of the Institute of Mass Communication and Media Research at Zurich University.

"The government is discussing prolonging the moratorium and this is the dominant opinion among the stakeholders as well," he told swissinfo.ch.

The study found that there was hardly any market, products or field testing in Switzerland. Furthermore, the stakeholders considered that all arguments had been aired and welcomed the "lull in fighting" between those for and against GM.

As for the media, interest fell after the moratorium was decided. Current reports are mostly driven by the political agenda, although the science side did get some exposure. Tabloid-style newspapers tended to focus on health risks. A recent story highlighted a government investigation into whether GM linseed had found its way into Swiss food.

Ambivalence reigns

What was striking about the public part of the study, which surveyed more than 1,000 people, was that attitudes had hardly changed in the six years included in the research and that ambivalence reigned.

Currently, one third of the population is against biotech in agriculture or food and one third is in favour, leaving a strong group of undecided, Bonfadelli said.

"Our research showed us that when people read the words genetic engineering or biotechnology and they see applications in medicine or genetic testing, most people are in favour, as they see positive evaluated future possibilities," the academic explained.

"But when it comes to applications in agriculture or food, they see risks, or they have problems with future-oriented topics like a decrease in biodiversity. This probably a bit explains these ambivalent attitudes."

Men were generally more in favour of GM and acceptance rose along with levels of education.

Only around 15 per cent of those surveyed said that biotech was a burning issue for them.

Communication

However, the Swiss population are still better informed than some stakeholders think, argued Bonfadelli. The Swiss perform well in European comparisons, which is due to the political discussions surrounding the moratorium and other GM issues.

In all, 60 per cent of the people asked were in favour of prolonging the moratorium and only 25 per cent said it should be stopped.

Bonfadelli said that, nevertheless, an active public debate on green biotechnology was needed in Switzerland.

"There is not much communication in the media and by the stakeholders. We still need much more active dialogue among scientists, stakeholders, the NGOs and schools," he said.

"Nobody can afford to wait for other people to do the communication job in this field."

Isobel Leybold-Johnson in Zurich, swissinfo.ch

Impact of volunteer GM maize on conventional crops is low

EnvironmentalExpert.com, 18 September 2009:
http://www.environmental-expert.com/resultEachArticle.aspx?cid=8819&codi=70523&level=0§ion=5

Courtesy of European Commission, Environment DG

A recent EU-supported study has analysed the development of volunteer or 'rogue' GM (genetically modified) maize plants in a conventional crop field. It finds that their numbers are low and do not exceed the EU's threshold of 0.9 per cent for incidental GM content.

Scientific data on the role of maize volunteers on cross-pollination is limited. The most detailed studies have been conducted in Spain. The EU regulation on GM food and feed sets a threshold of 0.9 per cent incidental GM content in non-GM feed and food products. Above this threshold the products must be labelled as containing GM organisms (GMO). Volunteer plants are not planted deliberately by farmers. In the case of GM maize they usually grow from cobs or cob fragments that are left after harvesting and are particularly common in temperate regions.

To comply with the EU regulation it is important to understand the effect of GM volunteers on the yield of an otherwise conventional field.

The research took place in Girona, Spain, where both GM and conventional maize is grown. Twelve fields were researched in which GM maize had been grown in 2004 and conventional maize in 2005. The distribution of volunteer GM plants was recorded and classified over three years. The study also monitored the growth of the volunteers and the level of flowering and cob production. The research was supported by the EU SIGMEA and Co-Extra projects.

The density of volunteer plants ranged from residual (less than 30 per hectare) to extremely high (above 8000 per hectare and making up almost 10 per cent of total plants). The variation depended on several factors, such as climate and the preparation of the field before sowing. For example, furrows for irrigation eliminate a large number of volunteers.

The volunteer plants tended to be defective. They rarely produced cobs and those that were produced normally had no grains. Pollen dispersion appeared to be difficult because volunteers were much shorter than normal plants. When cross-fertilisation did occur it tended to be low.

On the basis of the number and fertility of the volunteer plants in the fields the study estimated the effect of the GM volunteers on the presence of GMO in the yield of a conventional maize crop grown in the field the following year. The percentage of GMO ranged from 0.016 to 0.16 per cent, depending on the field. This is well below the 0.9 per cent threshold established by EU legislation.

However, this contribution of volunteer plants to incidental GM levels should not be ignored, especially if the initial density of volunteer plants is above 1000 per hectare. This information is particularly valuable to growers who wish to know in advance the risk of incidental GMO from volunteers.

Maize volunteers are usually easily controlled by currently applied agricultural techniques and potential accidental presence may therefore be considered negligible.

---

Comment by GM-free Ireland:

This study failed to examine the main route of GM contamination for maize, which is pollen drift from neighbouring crops in the same growing season! The study is therefore not just a waste of EU taxpayer's money, but an outrageous abuse that was obviously designed to cover up the facts.

The real impact of GM maize in Spain is widespread contamination of conventional and organic crops:

•

"Altered crops in Europe: At what cost? By Elizabeth Rosenthal, International Herald Tribune, 25 May 2006: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/news/2006/may.php#catalunia

•

"Impossible Co-existence: Seven years of GMOs have contaminated organic and conventional maize: an examination of the cases of Catalonia and Aragon", report by Assemblea Pagesa de Catalunya, Greenpeace and Plataforma Transgenics Fora!: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/coexistence/Greenpeace/impossible-coexistence.pdf.

•

In August 2008, over 100,000 Catalan citizens signed a petition demanding a local ban on GM maize. For details see the website of Som Lo Que Sembrem (We Are What We Sow) at http://www.somloquesembrem.org

Block US soybean imports in response to tire tariffs

China.org.cn, 18 September 2009:
http://www.china.org.cn/business/news/2009-09/18/content_18552555.htm

By Zheng Fengtian and Han Zhenhua

The Ministry of Commerce is probing US dumping of cars and chicken onto the Chinese market in response to the 35 percent tariffs imposed on Chinese tires. But this mild response will not dampen the growing mood of protectionism in the Democratic Party. A better alternative would be to hit US farmers with curbs on soybean imports. This would enrage US farmers and put pressure on the Obama administration, while providing welcome relief for domestic soybean producers, who have been badly hit by massive imports of genetically modified beans from America.

China sees the US tire tariffs as a violation of the World Trade Organization (WTO) rules and is threatening to file a formal complaint. The China Rubber Industry Association has condemned the decision as "unjust and unfair" and called on the Chinese government to retaliate. Alejandro Jara, deputy director-general of the WTO, said the US government's decision is "a cause of concern".

But simple denunciations will not change anything. Protectionism is an old trick rolled out regularly by the Democratic Party. Obama couldn't afford to antagonize China in the midst of the financial crisis, but now the recession is easing, old stereotypes are resurfacing. The sanctions on tires follow a pattern pursued by Obama's Democratic predecessors. This time the excuse is the need to protect 5,000 jobs in the US tire industry. But has Mr. Obama thought about how his move will affect the job market in China? Does he care how many Chinese will lose their jobs because of his protectionist decision?

China can't afford to give US protectionists a smooth ride. We need to teach our partners the importance of mutual respect. The best way to do this would be to impose punitive sanctions on soybean imports.

Domestic soybean producers hit by transgenic imports from U.S.:

Margins on domestic soybean production were not bad in the years from 1996 to 2000 when soybean oil could be sold for 4,000 yuan (US$585.8) to 5,000 yuan a ton. Domestic production reached about 17 million tons per year. But things changed in 1999 when overseas investors began to take stakes in the market. Oil production capacity jumped by 5 million tons in 2001, 2.8 million tons in 2002, and 13.5 million tons in 2004. The National Development and Reform Commission calculates that the processing capacity of soybean oil has reached 70 million tons, far greater than existing demand.

The market first dived in 2004 following a group purchase of American soybean futures by Chinese processors. The purchase was the result of fraudulent information circulated on the Chicago futures market. It was signed at the extremely high price of about 4,300 yuan per ton, which plummeted to about 3,100 yuan just one month later. The blunder cost the domestic oil industry more than 4 billion yuan. Many factories closed down. This gave overseas investors the chance to buy into the industry. By the end of 2005 foreign interests controlled 70 percent of the domestic soybean oil market. In April 2006, 64 out of 97 producers of edible oil were either wholly-owned foreign companies or joint ventures. Between them, they controlled 85 percent of the soybean market in China.

The takeover of the Chinese soybean market may have been planned even before the wrongheaded purchase in 2004. As early as in 1999, overseas investors started to import their transgenic soybeans to be processed in plants they had set up along the southeastern coast of China. That was the first step in their move to monopolize the market.

The takeover of domestic factories on the brink of bankruptcy following the 2004 soybean futures fiasco was the second stage in the multinationals' grab for the Chinese soybean market.

Multinationals have gradually forced the Chinese soybean industry into a supply chain that starts with cheap agricultural supplies from the Americas, where conglomerates control soybean prices by manipulating prices of soybean futures on the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT), and ends at 64 manufacturing bases in China.

US soybean subsidies mean unequal competition:

The 2002 US Farm Bill raised already high soybean subsidies and delivered a major boost to exports. The subsidies led to year-on-year reductions in the price of US soybeans. The major overseas market for US soybeans is China.

As China increased its imports of soybeans, the income of domestic producers fell. In 1998, the net return per mu (equal to 1/15 of a hectare or 1/6 of an acre) was 64 yuan (1 yuan equals to around US$0.15); by 1999, it had fallen to 56 yuan; and by 2001 it had dropped as low as 33 yuan.

According to a survey carried out by the Development Research Center of the State Council, each time the price of US soybean drops by one percentage point, the aggregate annual income of Chinese soybean farmers falls by 270 million yuan.

US subsidies violate international trade rules:

In 1998, unit production costs of US soybeans were already higher than unit income. From 1998 to 2001, the unit income from US soybeans continued to fall, and the gap between costs and income grew. Only government subsidies allowed soybean farmers to stay in business. From September 1999 to August 2001, the market price was, on average, 30 percent lower than production costs. From 1998 to 2002, earnings from each hectare of soybeans were, on average, US$675 lower than production costs.

But encouraged by increased subsidies, US soybean farmers increased their planting area from 23.39 million hectares in 1990 to 30.44 million hectares in 2004, an average annual growth of 2 percent. Output grew from 52.42 million tons to 85.49 million tons, an average rise of 3.6 percent per year.

Increased supply saw prices of US soybeans fall 40 percent from US$7.35 per bushel in 1996 to US$4.38 in 2001. Paradoxically, the area planted with soybeans grew from 28.33 million hectares in 1997 to 30.06 million hectares in 2000.

The soybean subsidies in 2002 US Farm Bill were of two kinds: The first is direct subsidies to producers, including marketing loans, loan deficiency payments and seasonal subsidies; the other is in the form of government services, including research, technology, pest control, checking and testing, infrastructure construction and environmental protection.

Research by scholars such as Cheng Guoqiang of the Development Research Center of the State Council shows US soybean subsidies were over US$5 billion in 2004. For every US$100 worth of soybeans, US$24 is financed by US government subsidies and only US$76 by the market. This is a clear violation of WTO rules.

The US subsidies artificially drive down soybean prices in China and worldwide:

Since China opened its soybean market in 1996, imports have grown from 1.11 million tons to 20.23 million tons in 2004, and are now 20 percent higher than total domestic production. US soybeans account for 40 percent of imports. As American soybean subsidies depress the international market price, domestic prices have in turn declined. This directly affects the income of Chinese farmers. By 2006, the price of domestic soybeans had dropped to less than 2 yuan per kilogram.

This blog was first published in Chinese on September 14, and translated by Wu Jin and Zhou Jing.

17 September 2009

Flax prices continue to nosedive

CKLQ.mb.ca [Canada], 17 September 2009:
http://cklq.mb.ca/index.php?cmd=TmV3cw==|QWdyaWN1bHR1cmU=&t=MTY2ODk=

Flax prices have plunged as much as 31 per cent.

Viterra says flax prices dropped 118 dollars a tonne earlier this week after sales to Europe were put on hold when a German lab found some genetically modified markers in a Canadian shipment.

The issue has puzzled farm groups across canada, since Canadian farmers do not grow genetically modified flax.

Barry Hall, of the Flax Council of Canada, says it's possible the G-M marker came from a canola crop.

The Saskatchewan Research Council is investigating.

CDC Triffid Flax Scare Threatens Access To No. 1 EU Market
• Long deregistered, never commercialized, our first and last GM flax may have popped up overseas

Allan Dawson
Manitoba Cooperator [Canada], 17 September 2009.

Like a movie monster that refuses to die, CDC Triffid, a genetically modified (GM) Canadian flax deregistered in 2001, has surfaced in Germany, European Union (EU) officials believe.

And flax prices have plummeted just as farmers feared they might when they lobbied to have the variety voluntarily pulled from the market. Although the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) declared CDC Triffid safe, the EU has not yet approved GM flax.

Earlier this summer, the EU found the genetic marker NPTII in two cargoes of Canadian flax, indicating it had been genetically modified.

Barry Hall, president of the Flax Council of Canada says it's hard to fathom how CDC Triffid, which was never commercialized, could be showing up now. As of last week, Hall said he hasn't seen any laboratory results proving the flax in question is CDC Triffid. But a reliable source said signs are pointing in that direction.

The CFIA has a sample of CDC Triffid in storage. Later this week the CFIA and Canadian Grain Commission (CGC) hope to identify the flax in question through their own testing.

The CGC's Grain Research Laboratory has already found the NPTII marker in a sample of flax exported to the EU, CGC spokesman Remi Gosselin said.

Ironically, CDC Triffid, which was developed to tolerate carry-over sulfonylurea herbicide (such as Glean) residues in soil, shares its name with genetically altered, venomous, three-legged plants that wreak havoc in the 1951 science fiction novel, "Day of the Triffids.'

The EU has so far not blocked imports of Canadian flax or requested all imports be tested, both of which are future possibilities, but EU officials have raised the matter with Canadian trade officials.

"This is creating havoc," Hall said in an interview. "Companies have lowered prices in the country or are even withdrawing offers. It's sending quite a shock wave in the country."

If it is CDC Triffid, every possibility as to how it got into the grain-handling system will be explored, Hall said. The Canadian Seed Growers' Association has a record of every grower who produced CDC Triffid seed, how much they produced and where.

Pedigreed CDC Triffid seed was thought to have been purchased from seed growers and processed years ago, said Michael Scheffel, the CFIA's seed section national manager.

Of all the crops, flax is the one farmers most often produce from farm-saved seed, Hall said. Flax is also a crop farmers sometimes hold a long time hoping to get better prices.

Unlike canola, flax doesn't outcross easily, nor is it a competitive volunteer.

The least likely explanation is that CDC Triffid was used as a parent when developing new flax varieties.

"There's no way that could've happened," said Dorothy Murrell, managing director of the Crop Development Centre.

An official with CFIA said despite safeguards, nothing is impossible.

Alan McHughen, who developed CDC Triffid, gave away small packets of the seed early in the decade - a move criticized by the flax industry at the time. But industry officials find it hard to believe that could have resulted in quantities large enough to affect exports.

"If there is any Triffid seed out there it would be in minuscule quantities," McHughen, a plant biotechnologist at University of California, Riverside, said in an interview last week. "I can't believe any farmer in Western Canada would be growing it intentionally anyway, first of all because they are all aware of the sensitivity to growing GM flax... and secondly there are newer varieties out there that make Triffid obsolete."

McHughen said the EU can't say for sure it has found CDC Triffid because there are other GM flax genotypes (none grown commercially) and the EU doesn't have information on them, he said.

"If it turns out to be Triffid, fine, but I would be very surprised," McHughen added.

Garvin Kabernick, a Sanfordarea farmer and president of the Manitoba Flax Growers Association, said there's no good time for flax prices to drop, but it's especially disappointing at harvest time.

National Farmers Union vicepresident Terry Boehm said the best news would be that the flax was contaminated by GM canola. If it is CDC Triffid, access to Canada's biggest flax customer is in peril.

"This is an absolute nightmare for flax growers and why we worked so hard to have the GM flax removed," he said.

The Organic Trade Association said in a release biotechnology companies should be held responsible for the damage their products cause to markets.

Japan set to reject genetically engineered canola

True Food Network, 17 September 2009:
http://www.truefood.org.au/newsandevents/?news=65

Australia's canola [oilseed rape] exports are likely to be significantly impacted by the change of government in Japan. The Democratic Party of Japan has pledged to implement stringent GE labelling laws.

The Government's pledge reflects the overwhelming Japanese distrust of genetically engineered (GE) food.

The party has said it will establish a food traceability system and has repeatedly called for more stringent labelling of GE food. Japan already has mandatory labelling of some GE foods and it is expected that new labelling laws will extend to processed foods such as GE canola oil.

Greenpeace GE campaigner Michelle Sheather says the change in government in Japan and the new position on GE food labelling will have major implications for Australia: "This is highly significant, since Japan is a major export market for Australian canola," Ms Sheather said. "Tighter labelling laws will likely lead to greater demand for GE-free canola products, and lower demand for food products that need to be labelled as containing GE ingredients."

In Australia, GE canola is grown commercially in small quantities in NSW and Victoria, and Western Australia is currently reviewing the Act concerning its moratorium on GE crops. A number of Japanese groups made submissions to Western Australia's Review of the Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003. These include the Seikatsu Club Consumers' Cooperative Union and the Consumers Union of Japan.

Seikatsu - an umbrella group of 29 Seikatsu Club Consumers' Co-Operatives - and its oil crushers Okamura Oil Mill Ltd and Yonezawa Oil Co. Ltd - all have non-GE canola policies. The groups stopped importing canola from Canada after the introduction of GE canola, when contamination made it impossible to guarantee a non-GE supply.

Seikatsu said in its submission: "[We] are concerned that we may be unable to buy non-GM canola from WA in the future...

"If a GM labelling system similar to Europe's were implemented in Japan, a huge rejection of GM ingredients is anticipated. According to a poll conducted by the prefectural government of Hokkaido in October 2008, 80% of consumers feel anxious about eating GMOs. It has been claimed that GMOs are well-accepted in Japan, because Japan is the biggest importing country of Canadian GM canola but it is not true. In reality, a lot of Japanese consumers are eating oil derived from GM canola without knowing it."

A survey by the Pew Global Attitudes Project shows that Japanese consumers are overwhelmingly opposed to scientifically altered fruits and vegetables because of health and environmental concerns. A 2006 poll, by the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Fishery and Forestry (MAFF), found that 78% of Japanese consumers were uncertain about the impacts of eating GE food.

In 2007, a group representing 2.9 million Japanese consumers travelled to Australia, urging state governments to extend their GE food crop bans. No GE crops are grown in Japan.

Modification of the residue definition of glyphosate in genetically modified maize grain and soybeans, and in products of animal origin on request from the European Commission

CheckBiotech.org, 17 September 2009:
http://greenbio.checkbiotech.org/news/modification_residue_definition_glyphosate_genetically_modified_maize_grain_and_soybe

Germany as the Rapporteur Member State (RMS) for the active substance glyphosate has received an application from DuPont de Nemours regarding the amendment of the risk assessment residue definition for new varieties of genetically modified soybeans and maize produced in the USA.

The evaluation report prepared by the RMS on this subject and the application were submitted to the European Commission and forwarded to EFSA on 30 January 2009.

- Summary (0.1Mb)
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/cs/BlobServer/Reasoned_Opinion/praper_ro_ej_1310_glyphosate_soybean_maize_summary_en.pdf?ssbinary=true

- Reasoned opinion (0.3Mb)
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/cs/BlobServer/Reasoned_Opinion/praper_ro_ej_1310_glyphosate_soybean_maize_en.pdf?ssbinary=true

Source: European Union - European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) http://www.efsa.europa.eu/

Why I Still Oppose Genetically Modified Crops

Verlyn Klinkenborg [member of the editorial board of the New York Times]
Opinion: Business & Innovation
Yale Environment 360 [USA], 17 September 2009:
http://www.e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2191

Introduced more than a decade ago, genetically modified crops are now planted on millions of acres throughout the world. But the fundamental questions about them remain - both about their safety and their long-term impact on global food security and the environment.

For the past dozen years, I've been writing editorials opposing the introduction of genetically modified crops. When I began, genetically modified corn and soybeans were still just getting a foothold in American fields. Now, of course, hundreds of millions of acres here and abroad have been planted to these new varieties, which are usually engineered to withstand the application of pesticides - pesticides usually made by the same companies that engineer the seeds. Even wheat and rice producers, latecomers to the genetically modified table, are feeling the pressure to convert.

There has been a frenzy in the grain markets in the past couple of years - a new volatility in futures and in prices on the ground - that seems to favor genetically modified crops. It makes sense. The cost of conventionally-grown grain goes up and up because there is less and less of it. This leaves the world open to the nearly unchecked proliferation of genetically modified varieties.

After a dozen years, I still oppose genetically modified crops. This may sound like sheer truculence on my part - a Luddite reluctance to accept the future. It is certainly dispiriting. Like many people, I feel, as I did a decade ago, that genetically modified crops were introduced with bland assurances of safety based on studies from small test plots, a far different thing from the uncontrolled global experiment we now find ourselves in the midst of.

Scientists are still discovering the extent to which genetic fragments from these new crops can drift into other organisms. There is no evidence yet of catastrophic drift, where a genetic shard from a new crop cripples other organisms. But there is plenty of evidence to show that genetically modified fragments are turning up in places they're not wanted. The worry is not just how widespread the altered versions of familiar crops, like corn and soybeans, are becoming. It's also that many more conventional crops are being modified and that many more landscapes and ecosystems, yet untouched, will be planted with genetically modified varieties.

These crops close the circle on the farmer's knowledge, finally eliminating, after 10,000 years, the farmer's role in the genetics of agriculture. Genetically modified crops are rigorously licensed forms of intellectual property. Every seed is a binding contract with stiff penalties attached. This represents the final transfer of the collective farming wisdom of the human race into corporate hands. Only the minutest fraction of the DNA in a genetically modified crop has been modified. The rest is the result of the infinite elaboration of working farmers choosing their own seeds, season after season, over all those thousands of years.

But the trouble with genetically modified crops isn't merely the fact that they're genetically modified. It's that they embody so completely the troubling logic of modern agriculture. They demonstrate the tendency of commercial seeds to drive out traditional, locally adapted varieties, a pattern that has been intensifying since the introduction of hybrid corn in the 1930s. They exemplify the consistent bias toward expensive high-tech solutions, when, in much of the world, simple low-tech solutions still make much better, and much more affordable sense. They foster the spread of commodity crops, grown for cash, in place of subsistence crops.

Genetically modified crops create the illusion of more and better choices when, in fact, they represent a narrowing of genetic ownership and a model of genetic diversity that is unattainable outside the laboratory. Because of that, they may well turn out to decrease food security, especially as new non-food varieties - crops genetically modified to produce pharmaceuticals, for instance - go into production. The risk is enhanced by the licensing restrictions on genetically modified seeds that prevent independent research on their environmental impact. In effect, the GM seed industry is able to stifle research, even by agricultural scientists who are sympathetic to the technology.

Above all, genetically modified crops give the illusion of revolutionizing farming without actually changing much of anything. Farmers who plant them do spend less time - and less fuel - in the field, which is a good thing. But trying to pack a revolution into a seed won't do when the entire system needs revolutionizing. Industrial agriculture is antithetical to diversity of every kind - biological, social, cultural, political. To understand its real effects on diversity you have only to look at Brazilian soybeans, a commodity crop, growing where there was once Amazonian forest.

There is no disputing the enormous productivity of industrial agriculture, as long as you measure productivity solely in terms of the relationship between yield and labor and pay no attention to the health of the land or the well being of the people who live there. But in pursuing the unrelenting logic of an industrial version of agriculture we have left a world of alternatives unexplored.

The human species is still running ahead of the Malthusian prediction that we will outgrow our ability to feed ourselves. But this is a deeply troubling time for agriculture, as even a quick scan of the headlines reveals. Soaring food prices in the poorest parts of the world, soaring profits in the richest, ongoing - and wholly unnecessary - subsidies, growing competition between food and non-food crops, the list goes on and on.

To Americans, the continued resistance to genetically modified crops in other parts of the world may look Quixotic, a refusal to accept a done deal. But it is more than resistance to a type of seed. It is also resistance to a model of agriculture whose failings are all too plain.

UK to explore consumer views on GM food

By Carina Perkins
Food Navigator, 17 September 2009:
http://www.foodnavigator.com/Legislation/UK-to-explore-consumer-views-on-GM-food

The UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) has announced the formation of an independent steering group to engage with consumers over genetic modification.

The agency said that it is forming the group in response a government request that it lead a dialogue project to explore the subject of genetic modification (GM) with consumers.

"This project will provide an opportunity to discuss with consumers their understanding of GM and what they think it might bring in terms of risks and benefits," said an FSA spokesperson.

Professor John Curtice of the University of Strathclyde has been appointed as the chair of the group. With a long career in researching social and political attitudes, Professor Curtice has considerable experience in analysing consumer opinions.

The FSA said that the steering group will include stakeholders from a number of different areas. A spokesperson was unable to confirm exactly what groups will be included, however, saying that "the chair has only just been confirmed and it is it is far too early to speculate on who else will be asked to join the group."

The spokesperson was also unable to comment on exactly how the group's findings might influence government policy on GM, but said that the FSA is committed to transparency on the issue, and will publish updates on its website as appropriate.

Consumer concerns

The government is keen to understand current consumer attitudes towards GM food because the food industry has warned that it might not be able to maintain a GM-free supply chain in the future.

Non-GM ingredients already cost 10 to 20 per cent more than GM equivalents and some ingredients, such as soya, are very low in supply.

The situation is set to worsen over coming years. According to research from the European Union Joint Research Centre (JRC), the number of commercialised GM crops is set to increase from 30 to 120 by 2015.

---

Comment by GM-free Ireland:

Only one GM crop is approved for commercial cultivation in the EU - Monsanto's patented MON 810 maize. Although it is only grown on 0.02% of EU arable land (mostly in the Spanish regions of Catalonia and Aragon), it continues to contaminate maize seeds, crops, animal feed and food - conventional and organic.

---

Comment by TraceConsult™

Poor FSA is sent out again by the British Government to give it another try at introducing GMOs to the public. Unfortunately, there are all those voters dubbing as consumers, too, who need to be convinced to give the right answers. Undoubtedly, trusty Professor Curtice and his team will create some meaningful questions for this survey.

With the food industry having already spread its warnings that GM-free supply will become difficult in the future, the right questions should come easy.

What should be interesting to watch is which stakeholder groups will be invited to the process and which actual stakeholders will then fill the groups.

Revised profile of GM flax developer
He's one of the GM attack dogs named in the recent article in Nature.

Spin Profiles, 17 September 2009:
http://www.spinprofiles.org/index.php/Alan_McHughen

Alan McHughen is a molecular geneticist who spent twenty years at the University of Saskatchewan before joining the University of California, Riverside. He is said to have helped develop Canadian and US regulations governing GM plants.

McHughen developed and spread the GM flax called Triffid which in 2009 was revealed to have contaminated European flax supplies (see "GM-contaminated flax débacle", below).

He is the author of the book, Pandora's Picnic Basket; The Potential and Hazards of Genetically Modified Foods, which claims to 'explode the myths and explore the genuine risks of genetic modification (GM) technology'. In the same year his booklet "Biotechnology and Food" was published by the American Council on Science and Health, which John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton described in their book, Toxic Sludge is Good for You, as an "industry front group that produces PR ammunition for the food processing and chemical industries"

In Pandora's Picnic Basket McHughen argues that many of the concerns about genetic engineering are based in reality on "myths" and "misinformation". McHughen has even claimed, "Opponents to GM put forward untenable pseudo-scientific assertions, then run away, unwilling or unable to defend their positions."

Yet Pandora's Picnic Basket contains a number of "untenable pseudo-scientific assertions". For instance, on p. 233 we read:

According to Dennis Avery of the Hudson Institute the highly respected US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in Atlanta noted 2471 cases, including 250 deaths, of infection by the unpleasant E. coli strain O157:H7 in 1996 alone. These bacteria live in manure. Manure is used as a fertilizer in organic farming systems. Organic foods were implicated in about a third of the confirmed O157:H7 cases despite the fact that organic food constitutes only about 1% of food consumed in the US.

In fact, according to Robert Tauxe, M.D., chief of the food borne and diarrheal diseases branch of the CDC, there is no such data on organic food production in existence at their centers and he says Avery's claims are "absolutely not true". According to Tauxe, "The goal of the CDC is to ensure food is produced using safe and hygienic methods, and that consumers also practice safe and hygienic methods in food preparation, regardless of the source, be it organic, commercial, imported or otherwise."[2]

Avery's claims have repeatedly been debunked, with even Gregory Conko of the Competitive Enterprise Institute commenting that, "looking at a few selectively reported cases from a single year doesn't seem to be convincing anybody who doesn't already have a predilection to believe you in the first place".

McHughen targets flax

That McHughen should have a predilection to believe Avery may not be surprising given that McHughen's own work has centered on seeking to genetically engineer flax in the face of strong opposition. The president of Flax Growers Western Canada, Chris Hale, accused McHughen of a 'clear misunderstanding' of flax markets when McHughen argued it was an ideal crop for engineering such industrial traits as the production of plastics or drugs as it wasn't part of the food chain.[3]

Hale pointed out that Europe, which was 'far and away' the biggest importer of Canadian flax, required an assurance from the Canadian Grain Commission that no GM flax was grown in Canada. Contrary to McHughen's claims, flax seed oil is an important health food product in Europe and is bought by health-conscious consumers as a good source of Omega 3 oils. Hale also pointed out that the residue of flax exported to Europe for industrial purposes is fed to livestock. The Canadian flax industry managed to get a chemical-resistant variety of flax, developed by McHughen, banned from commercial production.[4]

GM-contaminated flax débacle

Hale was proved correct - and McHughen was proved wrong - on September 10, 2009 the European Union (EU) Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) reported finding an unapproved genetically modified (GM) flax/linseed variety in cereal and bakery products in Germany. The Canadian flax seed market promptly collapsed. The brand name of this GM flax was Triffid, and it was developed and registered for use in Canada by Alan McHughen.

McHughen's seed

Alan McHughen, over the strong and vigorous objections of the flax growers in Canada, insisted on bioengineering and then registering the GM Triffid flax with public funds through the University of Saskatchewan Crop Development Center.[5] Triffid was approved by Canadian regulators in 1998 but the Flax Council of Canada convinced the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to remove variety registration for the GM flax in 2001, making it illegal to grow. Flax growers took this action to protect their export markets from the threat of GM contamination.[6] The University of Saskatchewan lost a substantial sum of money from this episode.[7][8][9] In September 2009 Resource News International reported:

Cash bids for flaxseed in Western Canada have taken a dramatic turn for the worse. with some of the decline being linked to European concerns the crop contains genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

There were reports that Viterra has lowered its bids in Manitoba to as low as $6.78 a bushel, which would be down significantly from bids in the province ranging from around the $10/bu. level just a few days ago. A number of elevator companies across the Canadian Prairies are believed to have halted their flax buying program all together.[10]

GM flax FP967 (CDC Triffid) has tolerance to soil residues of sulfonylurea-based herbicides. Canada supplies approximately 70% of the total flax/linseed utilized in the EU annually.[11]

Views on GM contamination of Mexican maize

Despite his cavalier attitude to genetically engineering flax, McHughen has recognised the problems associated with 'contamination' via pollen drift etc. Perhaps for that reason McHughen was one of the few genetic engineers ready to question the treatment of Dr Ignacio Chapela, the UC Berkeley scientist who published a paper on the contamination of native maize by GM varieties in Mexico. The journal Science and Policy Perspectives reported:

Another scientist who strongly sides with Chapela is Alan McHughen, a researcher at the Crop Development Center at the University of Saskatchewan in Canada. McHughen is one of those who believe the outburst toward Chapela was far out of proportion to the alleged offense and senses that the attacks on Quist and Chapela were coordinated and conspiratorial. "I think there are a group of people who for whatever reason don't want to hear anything at all about reasons to question the technology," says McHughen. "I read Chapela's paper over and over again and I just couldn't find anything that was inflammatory about it."[12]

Attacks on scientists who find problems with GM crops

McHughen, the inventor or "engineer" of Triffid GM flax, was one of a group of scientists who have been accused of setting up Russian scientist Irina Ermakova for an aggressive attack in the pages of Nature Biotechnology in 2007.[13][14] Ermakova's multi-generational feeding studies on GM soya found that it created ill effects and high mortality in experimental rats.[15]

McHughen was also among the scientists identified in a 2009 article in the jornal Nature as having played a lead role in a campaign to denigrate the research of the scientist Emma Rosi-Marshall. An editor for the Entomological Society of America complained in the same article about those "who denigrate research by other legitimate scientists in a knee-jerk, partisan, emotional way that is not helpful in advancing knowledge and is outside the ideals of scientific inquiry." [16]

Notes

1. John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton, cited by Jane Akre and Steve Wilson in "Media serve genetically modified food industry", Media Alliance website, accessed 24 March 2009
http://www.media-alliance.org/article.php?id=454

2. Dr Tauxe's comments have been cited widely, including in J. Robert Hatherill, Ph.D, and Jeff Nelson, "Organics: The Blurred Vision of ABC's 20/20", Earthsave Newsletter, Spring 2000 Volume 11 Number 2
http://iron-body.com/index.php/Diet-&-Nutrition/Why-Eat-Organic.html

3. Sean Pratt, Flax growers reject GM proposal, The Western Producer, November 1 2001, accessed 9 September 2009
http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/11474-flax-prices-dive-over-gmo-concerns

4. Sean Pratt, Flax growers reject GM proposal, The Western Producer, November 1 2001, accessed 9 September 2009
http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/11474-flax-prices-dive-over-gmo-concerns

5. Illegal GM Flax Contaminates Canadian Exports, press release, Greenpeace, 10 Sept 2009, accessed 14 Sept 2009
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/September2009/10/c3959.html

6. Illegal GM Flax Contaminates Canadian Exports, press release, Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, 10 Sept 2009, accessed 14 Sept 2009
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11485:illegal-gm-flax-contaminates-canadian-exports

7. Genetic flax research cancelled, CBC News, 23 June 2001, accessed 14 Sept 2009
http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2001/06/23/gmflax010623.html

8. Jason Warick, GM Flax Seed Yanked Off Canadian Market - Rounded Up, Crushed, The Star Phoenix, June 23, 2001, accessed 14 Sept 2009
http://www.rense.com/general11/gm.htm

9. Posting by Ken Hanly to PEN-L listserv, 30 July 2000, accessed 14 Sept 2009
http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/pen-l/2000m07.5/msg00027.htm

10. Dwayne Klassen, Prairie flax bids fall over Europe's GMO concerns, Resource News International, 4 Sept 2009, accessed 9 Sept 2009
http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/11474-flax-prices-dive-over-gmo-concerns

11. Specific test now available for recently detected unauthorized GM flax/linseed variety FP967 (CDC Triffid), Genetic ID press release, Sept 10 2009, accessed Sept 14 2009
http://greenbio.checkbiotech.org/news/specific_test_now_available_recently_detected_unauthorized_gm_flaxlinseed_variety_fp9

12. Wil Lepkowski, "Biotech's OK Corral", Science and Policy Perspectives, No. 13, posted July 09, 2002, version archived in web archive 16 October 2002, accessed March 24 2009
http://web.archive.org/web/20021016201217/http://www.cspo.org/s&pp/060902.html

13. GM Free Cymru, Nature Biotechnology facilitates premeditated GM rottweiler attack, 17 Sept 2007, accessed 14 Sept 2009
http://www.gmfreecymru.org/pivotal_papers/rottweiler.htm

14. [GM Free Cymru, Supporting Information Requested by Alan McHughen, accessed 14 Sept 2009
http://www.gmfreecymru.org/open_letters/support_Open_letter28Sept2007.htm

15. Genetically modified soya leads to the decrease of weight and high mortality rate of rat pups of the first generation. Ermakova I.V. EcosInform, 1: 4-9, 2006. Also see Genetically Modified (GM) Foods - Renewed Threat to Europe, reference no. 13.
http://www.spinprofiles.org/index.php/Genetically_Modified_%28GM%29_Foods_-_Renewed_Threat_to_Europe

16. Emily Waltz, "GM crops: Battlefield", Nature 461, 27-32 (2009) doi:10.1038/461027a, 2 September 2009, accessed September 2009
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11463:the-intimidation-of-researchers-whose-papers-suggest-concerns-about-gm

GM flax not just in 1 German state (Baden-Württemberg). Now in Bavaria, Hessen, Hamburg, Brandenburg, Schleswig-Holstein:

Illegale Leinsamen
Gentechnik im Müsli

By Stephan Börnecke
Frankfurter Rundschau [Germany], 16 September 2009:
http://www.fr-online.de/top_news/1952127_Illegale-Leinsamen-Gentechnik-im-Muesli.htmlhttp://www.fr-online.de/top_news/1952127_Illegale-Leinsamen-Gentechnik-im-Muesli.htmlhttp://www.fr-online.de/top_news/1952127_Illegale-Leinsamen-Gentechnik-im-Muesli.htmlhttp://www.fr-online.de/top_news/1952127_Illegale-Leinsamen-Gentechnik-im-Muesli.htmlhttp://www.fr-online.de/top_news/1952127_Illegale-Leinsamen-Gentechnik-im-Muesli.html

Die Funde von illegalen Gen-Leinsamen häufen sich: Nach dem zunächst in Baden-Württemberg im Bäckergrosshandel unerlaubter Öllein entdeckt worden war, gibt es nun auch Funde in Hessen, Hamburg, Brandenburg, Bayern und Schleswig-Holstein, die zu Rückrufen führten. Insider vermuten, dass die in der EU nicht zugelassenen Leinsamen schon jahrelang in Brot, Brötchen oder Müsli verarbeitet wurden. Öko-Leinsamen sind von den Verseuchungen bisher nicht betroffen.

Auf die Spur der illegalen Körner waren die Analytiker des Chemischen und Veterinäruntersuchungsamtes Freiburg Mitte August durch Hinweise privater Labore gestossen, denen bei Gen-Tests von Brot Unregelmässigkeiten aufgefallen waren.

Die behördlichen Analysen ergaben nun, dass ein Drittel der Proben bis zu einem Prozent Gen-Leinsaat enthalten. Die Analytiker glauben, dass die Verunreinigungen auf Saatgutverschleppung oder auf verbotenen Anbau von Gen-Saat zurückzuführen sind.

Die herbizidresistente Gen-Leinsaat hat in Kanada (dem Weltmarktführer bei Leinsamen) zwar im Gegensatz zur EU eine gentechnische Zulassung. Da die Sortenzulassung aber 2001 erlosch, darf auch in Nordamerika kein kommerzieller Anbau stattfinden. 2001 hatten zuletzt 40 Farmer Gen-Leinsamen angebaut: Die Ernte soll vernichtet worden sein.

Bundeslandwirtschaftsministerin Ilse Aigner (CSU) bezeichnet das "rechtswidrige Inverkehrbringen" der Leinsaat als "nicht hinnehmbar". Der Bund ökologische Lebensmittelwirtschaft sieht in den Funden einen Beleg dafür, "dass die Agro-Gentechnik eine nicht beherrschbare Technologie ist".

Greenpeace hat in Tests die illegalen Körner inzwischen in Produkten nachgewiesen, die bei Edeka, Rewe, Rossmann und Schlecker gekauft wurden.

GM flax puts market in turmoil

By Sean Pratt
Western Producer [Canada], 17 September 2009:
http://www.producer.com/free/editorial/news.php?iss=2009-09-17&sec=news&sto=000

Saskatoon newsroom - Flax trade with Europe has come to a grinding halt as officials try to sort out why an unregistered genetically modified flax variety is showing up in food products, according to European lab tests.

At least four German companies have taken cereal and bakery products off store shelves after they tested positive for the presence of CDC Triffid, a GM flax variety developed at the University of Saskatchewan's Crop Development Centre in the late 1980s.

[subscription required for rest of article]

Flax developer skeptical

By Sean Pratt
Western Producer [Canada], 17 September 2009:
http://www.producer.com/free/editorial/news.php?iss=2009-09-17&sec=news&sto=0028

Saskatoon newsroom - The developer of the only genetically modified flax variety to receive regulatory approval in Canada is as flummoxed as everybody else as to how a line that was deregistered eight years ago is suddenly at the centre of a market access firestorm.

On Sept. 8, the European Commission's Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed issued a notification that a German lab had detected the presence of the unauthorized GM flax FP967 (CDC Triffid) that came into the country from Canada via Belgium. The incident is disrupting flax sales to Europe as growers harvest this year's crop.

[subscription required for rest of article]

Bayer takes long-term aim at No.3 spot in GMO market
• Aims to triple plant biotech sales to 1.4 bln eur by 2018
• Trains sights on Syngenta's No.3 spot in GM seeds market
• Earmarks 3.5 bln eur for biotech R&D through 2018
• CropScience unit head says 25 pct margin goal "ambitious"

Ludwig Burger and Frank Siebelt
Reuters, September 17 2009:
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssHealthcareNews/idUSFAB01325220090917

MONHEIM, Germany - Bayer (BAYG.DE) aims to boost its genetically-modified (GM) seeds business and challenge Syngenta (SYNN.VX) of Switzerland for the No. 3 spot among the world's largest supplier of GM crops, it said.

Bayer, also jostling with its Swiss rival for market leadership in conventional pesticides, needs to shore up its plant biotech operations because old and new approaches to crop protection were gradually converging, the head of Bayer's CropScience unit told Reuters.

"Without biotech you're not seeing the whole picture," unit head Friedrich Berschauer told Reuters late on Wednesday. "I'm thoroughly convinced that you need to combine crop protection, seeds and biotech."

The company aims to triple its annual sales from biotech seeds to 1.4 billion euros ($2.1 billion) by 2018, it said.

It had the "ambitious" goal to become the third or fourth largest supplier in that market in 10 years, the head of strategy at CropScience, Ruediger Scheitza, said.

Bayer, even though the world's largest supplier of modified cotton and rape seeds, is a distant sixth in the overall market for GM crops, trying to reach 500 million euros in sales from such products this year.

Market leader Monsanto (MON.N) posted $6.4 billion in sales at its Seeds and Genomics unit last year, out of a total $11.4 billion for the group.

Runners-up in the $26 billion global market are DuPont's (DD.N) Pioneer unit and Syngenta.

Bayer expects the GM seeds market to gain 6 percent annually over the next 10 years, while it sees growth in conventional crop chemicals gaining only 1-2 percent per year.

It plans to spend a combined 3.5 billion euros on research and development in that area through 2018 and to pursue smaller acquisitions to meet its growth target, Bayer added.

Research ventures include manipulating genes to make wheat grow with less nitrogen fertilisers or to help rice plants resist floods.

Berschauer said that Bayer needed to begin tailoring package deals for farmers that comprise modified seeds, traditional pesticides and services.

A pesticides-only business would eventually come under threat from cheap copies of off-patent pesticides, mainly out of China, and from plants that were engineered to produce their own insecticides, Berschauer cautioned.

He said the CropScience unit's margin target was now "ambitious". The business aims for earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) excluding special items of 25 percent of sales.

Falling prices for wheat and corn as well as unfavourable weather conditions in Europe had weighed on business in the third quarter, he added.

The second half of the year traditionally accounts for only about a quarter of annual core earnings at the division because farmers on the northern hemisphere, its largest customer group, typically apply crop chemicals in the first half.

The division posted 6.4 billion euros in sales last year, up almost 10 percent from the year earlier, accounting for about 20 percent of Bayer's total revenue.

Bayer, one of the few remaining companies that combine chemicals and drugs businesses, has stressed its reliance on its solid pharmaceuticals and pesticides units, while its plastics unit was drawn into the maelstrom of the economic crisis.

Ludwig Burger tel +49 69 7565 1311
ludwig.burger.reuters.com@reuters.net

---

Take action:

Oppose Bayer's GM rice
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/genetic-engineering/hands-off-our-rice/hands-off-our-rice

Dow Chemical to keep agricultural unit for now
• CEO wants to 'unlock' unit's value
• Agricultural unit kept company afloat in Q1
• Rohm & Haas loan will be paid off soon
• Shares up 2.7 percent

By Ernest Scheyder
Reuters, September 16 2009:
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idUSN1612512820090916

NEW YORK - Dow Chemical Co (DOW.N) plans to hold onto its agricultural business for now and hopes to pay off debt from its April buyout of Rohm & Haas very soon, Chief Executive Andrew Liveris said on Wednesday.

Liveris was backing away from statements earlier this year that Dow might spin off the fast-growing unit, sell it, or team up with another agricultural company in order to cut its debt from the Rohm & Haas purchase.

"Unlocking the value of Dow AgroSciences has always been on our radar screen," Liveris said at the Credit Suisse Chemical and Agricultural Science Conference. "We will not let that value go out the door."

The unit has the potential to be a big player in an industry dominated by Monsanto Co (MON.N), so a sale or spinoff just does not make sense right now, he said.

"Everyone wants to be the next Monsanto," Liveris said. "We want our current shareholders to benefit."

Dow AgroSciences, which makes genetically modified seeds, herbicides and pesticides, has seen explosive growth in recent years, helping to bolster its parent's overall performance.

Midland, Michigan-based Dow would not have made a profit in the first quarter if not for the agricultural unit.

In recent months, rumors have swirled that Switzerland's Syngenta (SYNN.VX) or China National Chemical Corp [CNNCC.UL] might be interested in the unit.

Meanwhile, Liveris said Dow would fully pay off the loan from its more than $16 billion purchase of Rohm & Haas Co once it completes the sale of its Morton Salt and Optimal businesses.

The company has said in the past it expects those deals to close by the end of the year.

Shares of Dow were up 70 cents, or 2.7 percent, at $26.53 in morning New York Stock Exchange trading. The stock price has ranged from $5.89 to $39.99 in the past 52 weeks. (Reporting by Ernest Scheyder; Editing by Lisa Von Ahn)

BASF gets EPA approval for new herbicide

Associated Press, 16 September 2009:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gahG1Tiyuz9ySEtyN4it8XeD6BkQD9ANQ65G3

RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, N.C. - German chemical company BASF SE says it has received U.S. approval to market a new herbicide to battle broadleaf weeds resistant to a chemical in commonly used herbicides like Roundup.

BASF said Tuesday the Environmental Protection Agency has approved its Kixor herbicide for use in four products that will be offered this fall.

It expects sales to reach about $200 million by 2012.

Growers discovered that some broadleaf weeds have developed a resistance to glyphosate, a key chemical that Monsanto Co. first patented and used in Roundup. BASF says Kixor herbicide will attack those resistant weeds.

A Monsanto spokeswoman declined immediate comment.

Anti-GM extremists strike again

David Leyonhjelm, Agribuzz
Business Spectator [Australia], 17 September 2009:
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/fmISBlogHome?OpenForm&is=Agribusiness&blog=AgriBuzz

When those who oppose something consider it legitimate to destroy it, they are viewed as extremists, perhaps even fundamentalists or terrorists. These days we mostly hear about the Islamic kind, but in Europe there are also anti-GM extremists.

Last month, field trials of genetically modified barley were destroyed in Iceland. The trials were being conducted by the Icelandic company, ORF Genetics, and were part of a program that began in 2004. They had been approved by the Ministry of the Environment.

The destruction was caused by the activist group, Ilgresi, which, in an anonymous email to the media, threatened that "from now on, genetic modification will not take place in Iceland without us interfering".

Field trials of genetically modified fanlleaf virus-resistant grapevine rootstock were also destroyed in France over the first weekend of this month. The trials were being conducted at Colmar in the Haut-Rhin principality by the French national institute for agricultural research, the INRA. They had been going on for four years.

The French Minister for Agriculture condemned the destruction, saying it "weakens our research capacity", apart from being illegal and lacking respect for property.

The trials foreshadowed a more environmentally-friendly approach to controlling the virus disease than the current approach of spraying for insect vectors. They had also involved a participatory approach that included researchers, growers, farmers' unions, teachers, politicians and associations.

The perpetrator has been caught, reports French media, and faces a maximum of three and a half years imprisonment and a fine of €150,000.

Towards the beginning of the year, a French criminal court sentenced eight GMO extremists to three months in prison and fined them €5,000 for having wrecked 11 ha of Monsanto's GM insect-resistant maize in 2007. Last year, all of Monsanto's test plots in France were destroyed in similar acts. Many of its test plots in Germany have suffered a similar fate.

16 September 2009

Education key to GM and irradiation acceptance: Report

Carina Perkins
Food Navigator [US edition], 16 September 2009:
http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Science-Nutrition/Education-key-to-GM-and-irradiation-acceptance-Report

Negative consumer attitudes towards biotechnology (GMOs) and irradiation could be improved through communication and education, a new report has concluded.

The report, published in the Food Quality and Preference journal, reveals a strong correlation between knowledge and acceptance of new technologies. It suggests that as people become more informed about technologies, their attitudes may become more positive.

"Food irradiation, in particular, becomes more acceptable as consumers become more informed, principally because their concerns about its effects on the environment and nutrition are eased," it states.

The report stresses that not only is information important, but so is the way in which that information is presented. "Advocacy groups have the potential power to slowdown or halt the development and implementation of food technologies through their presentation of information," it states.

The authors point to the results of a USDA consumer survey, which revealed that, until now, most consumers have learnt about biotechnology and irradiation through research on organic methods.

"Knowledge about organic production seems to be the gateway to knowledge about the other technologies," they wrote. "Very few people knew about biotechnology or irradiation if they did not also know about organic methods, whereas many people knew about organic production who did not know about one or both of the other technologies."

With most organic groups portraying biotechnology and irradiation in a negative way, these technologies have therefore become less acceptable.

The report concludes that with a relatively low number of people considering themselves informed about biotechnology and irradiation, there is scope for the food industry to become involved in "active education" to shape future consumer attitudes towards these technologies.

"The number of people who consider themselves informed about these two technologies is still low, which means that, at least in the USA, substantial numbers of people are available to learn more about the technologies," it states.

The findings of the report have implications for the way in which the food industry approaches the communication of information on biotechnology and irradiation.

It suggests that consumers are more likely to know about, and accept, organic foods because they are clearly labeled and widely available - a point which provides an interesting perspective on the biotechnology labeling debate.

"If our hypothesis is correct, then the lack of biotechnology labeling may have hindered the ability of biotechnology proponents to positively influence attitudes toward foods produced with biotechnology," the authors wrote.

Source: Food Quality and Preference

Vol. 20 (2009) pp. 586-596

"Information effects on consumer attitudes toward three food technologies: Organic production, biotechnology, and irradiation"

Authors: Mario F. Teisl, Sara B. Fein and Alan S. Levy

---

Comment by TraceConsult™

The FoodNavigator editorial team is wise enough to reserve this article for its U.S. audience exclusively. European readers can only stare in disbelief at this review of a recent report published in the reputable magazine Food Quality and Preference, the official journal of the Sensometric Society (http://www.sensometric.org), an organization that "advances sensory and consumer science through better methodology".

However, the average European reader, arrogant as he is by cliché, would be wrong to assume that the authors are based in the U.S.; the Sensometric Society is a platform sponsored by Denmark's Technical University.

Another natural assumption would be incorrect: The report's authors do not arrive at the conclusion that with appropriate "education" (read: brainwashing) consumers would be more open to irradiation and GMOs in their food. No, their hypothesis is that early GMO labeling would have given biotechnology proponents a better chance to influence the public pro GM.

Since U.S. legislationÝ rendered that option impossible a long time ago, we wonder if, at last, that effect is likely to change with the advent of The Non-GMO Project (http://www.nongmoproject.org), a collaboration of farmers, manufacturers and retailers to allow for GM-free labeling. One way or another, American consumers may at last get their education in order to embrace GMOs!

GM flax issue keeping Canadian market quiet

Phil Franz-Warkentin
Country Guide [Canada], 16 September 2009:
http://www.country-guide.ca/east/issues/ISArticle.asp?aid=1000341274&PC=FBC&issue=09162009

(Resource News International) -- The western Canadian flaxseed cash market remains stagnant in the aftermath of the unexpected discovery of genetically modified flax in a European shipment.

While Canadian flaxseed may eventually find its way into other markets, for the time being bids to farmers are either non-existent or very low, as market participants wait for a resolution to the current issue.

GM flax has been illegal to grow in Canada since 2001. However, the European Commission confirmed the presence of a genetic marker which is common to GM crops, NPTII, in some recent Canadian samples.

The discovery has put Canadian flaxseed sales to Europe on hold for the time being as market participants wait for firmer details on the matter.

Europe is the largest buyer of Canadian flaxseed, taking over 420,000 tonnes, nearly 80 per cent of all exports, in 2008-09, according to the latest Canadian Grain Commission data.

Flax bids in Western Canada dropped sharply, or were taken away altogether, as the GM issue came to light in early September.

"There's still no bids, or drastically discounted bids," said analyst Mike Jubinville of ProFarmer Canada on Wednesday. Available prices were "all over the place," he said, ranging from the $6 per bushel area to as high as $8.50 per bushel.

With sales to Europe unlikely, at least for the time being, Canada will be faced with the task of finding new buyers for its large flaxseed crop.

Jubinville noted the European demand for flaxseed, normally filled by Canada, will still need to come from somewhere. He thought some will come from Eastern Europe, while U.S. flaxseed could also move to Europe.

If more U.S. flaxseed makes its way to Europe, that would open the door for Canadian exports to the U.S.

"It will take some time to readjust the matrix," said Jubinville, adding that price incentives need to be put in place in order to encourage such a change in the trading pattern.

Overall, Canada will likely build its carryout of flaxseed, said Jubinville. "We can't just replace a buyer of that kind of volume."

The saviors of food
• Foodwatch exposes the big and little lies told by the producers - By Christine Schulz

The German Times, 16 September 2009:
http://www.german-times.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19183&Itemid=27

Every year brings yet another food scandal - rotten meat, spoiled cheese, fake ham, fake prawns. It's enough to turn your stomach. At last, there is an organization that wants to ensure that we know what we are eating.

No company wants PR like this. Recently, a man-size yogurt bottle emblazoned with the Danone brand name Actimel strolled across Munich's Marienplatz holding a banner reading, "I don't want to be an advertising lie anymore." At the same time, two representatives of Foodwatch were asking permission to enter the company's German headquarters a few kilometers away. They wanted to present Danone with the "Golden Windbag 2009," which these self-named "food saviors" award annually for the most audacious advertising lie. The winner is chosen by visitors to the Foodwatch website www.abgespeist.de. Naturally, Danone did not want to accept the trophy and the Foodwatch soldiers had to stay outside.

Foodwatch takes on the industry titans, unabashedly placing the word "crook" next to big names - and they have no recourse because Foodwatch beats the industry at its own game. "What we do is based on the information provided by the producers themselves or the findings of laboratories," said spokesman Martin Rücker. Foodwatch then presents the facts, sometimes in an unusual way.

Danone's lie is that enjoying its liquid yogurt, sold in slim, portion-sized bottles, prevents colds and strengthens the immune system when in fact it is no more and no less effective than any conventional natural yogurt. It does cost four times as much, however - and contains double the sugar.

The dairy products producer Bauer took second place in this year's Windbag Contest. The company systematically misled parents, in particular, with an advertisement for its Kinderdrink Biene Maja (Maja the Bee children's drink). The ad promised them a drink that is especially good for children, one full of vitamins and particularly low in fat. However, one liter of the beverage contains the equivalent of 44 sugar cubes. Next to that, Coca Cola seems "like a diet drink" with "only" 28 sugar cubes per liter, says Foodwatch.

Still, after an email campaign organized by Foodwatch, Bauer took the product off the market. It reappeared under the name Bugs Bunny, with a reduced sugar content - although the drink still contains far too much for children's delicate teeth. Eckes Granini has stopped calling its children's drink Frucht-Tiger a "healthy thirst quencher" since Foodwatch made it known that the citric acid contained in the drink will dissolve tooth enamel as it washes over the teeth with every sip.

Foodwatch currently has 15 products on its cheat list. One is Bertolli's Pesto Verde, supposedly containing the "best ingredients" and "finest olive oil." In fact, the product contains only a thimble full of olives and has plenty of undefined vegetable oil and artificial aromas. A particularly expensive milk with the name Landliebe (evoking peaceful country scenes) claims to come from "selected farms" and humanely kept cows, yet there is no proof of its healthy origins whatsoever. A tinned soup made by an upscale producer comes in a can featuring the face of a prominent German chef but its contents, like any cheap soup in a packet, are made mostly from powdered ingredients as well as additives and artificial flavorings.

Foodwatch had declared war on this kind of daily deceit. The consumers are being "legally misled" by fraudulent advertising, says Rücker. That is true of a Nestlé breakfast cereal for example. On the front of the box it reads, "Fitness & Fruits," suggesting a healthy lifestyle. Those who read the small print on the back of the box learn that sugar makes up one-third of this supposed path to a dream figure. In the case of other products, the manufacturers like to hide the charged term "sugar" under cover of "carbohydrates."

Foodwatch counters the cynical argument that it is up to the consumer to do their homework and that they can't complain if they want cheap food. The group says that such deception has nothing to do with the price and that no customer can be expected to go shopping with a magnifying glass and a dictionary.

On top of that, who knows what the letters and number codes on the list of ingredients actually mean? The euphemistic phrases are also a challenge to understand - the term "natural flavors" for example, can mean an extract from a wood fungus. Products labeled "nature-identical flavoring" contain synthesized flavors. A "formed ham" is not called that because the butcher gave it an appealing shape but rather because it consists of meat leftovers that have been pressed into a mold.

All this is detailed in the book, "Abgespeist - Wie wir beim Essen betrogen werden und was wir dagegen tun können" (How we are being cheated when it comes to food and what we can do about it) by Foodwatch founder Thilo Bode, who has been fighting against the machinations of the food industry since 2002. Previously, he headed Greenpeace Germany for five years before taking the helm of Greenpeace International for 11 years.

The impulse for his book was the mad cow disease scandal. The cause of this epidemic was the feeding of animal remains to herbivores. Eating meat from BSE-infected cattle is believed to cause the deadly Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in humans.

Foodwatch has made it its mission to uncover such scandals. The organization proved, for example, that numerous German mineral waters and spa waters, among them brand name products, contained uranium in such high doses that it can cause kidney damage.

Foodwatch also makes it known that the ban in Germany on the cultivation of genetically modified corn by no means guarantees that meat, milk, and eggs are free of these substances. After all, large quantities of corn and soy are imported from overseas and fed to German livestock. For Foodwatch, in this case, it wasn't about whether that was damaging to people's health or not. The group believes that consumers have to be able to decide for themselves whether they are satisfied ingesting such products or would rather avoid them.

Foodwatch was also a champion of the "traffic light," the marking of foods with a red, yellow or green dot, depending on its sugar, salt and fat content. The watchdog says the fact that the EU has postponed the introduction of the "traffic light" is proof that policymakers are more concerned with the interests of lobbies than with the rights of the consumer.

The authorities don't act any differently, says Bode and points to the fact that hardly any government official names those responsible when yet another food scandal hits the headlines: Confidentiality is used as an excuse - or the protection of jobs. He says that the penalties are also usually so low that it is easier for the culprit to accept the punishment than to follow the rules.

So Foodwatch has a lot to do. The group will soon be opening an office in Brussels and another one is planned for the Netherlands.

The Greenpeace experience is visible in the campaigns. Greenpeace also started out small once. But today, most governments in the world have an environment ministry.

Foodwatch won't face a shortage of funds. Even now, more than 15,000 donors support the organization with about a €1 million annually. Almost half of that goes toward campaigns. So far, Foodwatch hasn't had to spend a single euro on legal costs.

EU-funded study urges caution on transgenic fish farming

Cordis News, 16 September 2009:
http://cordis.europa.eu/fetch?CALLER=EN_NEWS&ACTION=D&RCN=31252

How can we curb overexploitation of fish stocks and give commercial fish farming a boost? Some experts say transgenic fish, whose genetic material has been altered to boost growth rates, is just the ticket. But EU-funded researchers in Sweden have sounded a warning bell: the escape of transgenic fish into the natural environment could trigger many problems that affect the well-being of people.

The research from Sweden's University of Gothenburg is part of the ERATS ('Ecological risk-assessment of transgenic salmon') project, funded with more than EUR 202,600 under the Marie Curie Actions mobility programme of the EU's Sixth Framework Programme (FP6). ERATS partners studied the environmental effects of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) within fish farming, seeking to better understand the potential ecological risks associated with commercial production of transgenic fish.

Researchers have been able to produce fish that grow faster than normal, or are more resistant to diseases, by providing fish with genes from other organisms. These fish are known as transgenic fish. A transgene is a gene or genetic material that has been transferred naturally or by some genetic engineering techniques from one organism to another.

The selected gene is propagated using bacteria and then isolated, purified and introduced into the eggs of the host fish by microinjection. The transferred genes contain a DNA sequence with codes for the required characteristic. To date, around 20 fish species like salmon, carp and catfish have been genetically modified.

Advances in this field have also allowed researchers to produce fish that can cope better with cold weather. The upshot is that the fish can breed more easily in colder conditions. From a commercial fish farming perspective, experts believe transgenic fish can deliver higher production yields.

But others say these types of fish can also carry risks and have undesirable effects on the natural environment. A case in point is the fact that environmental toxins may accumulate because transgenic fish can fight these toxins. If this happens, consumers will get the short end of the stick. Also, the higher level of growth hormone in the fish may affect consumers.

'Until further notice, transgenic fish should be bred in closed systems on land,' stated Dr Fredrik Sundström from the Department of Zoology at the University of Gothenburg.

By simulating escapes in a laboratory setting, Dr Sundström was able to study transgenic salmon and rainbow trout to determine the ecological risks that could wreak havoc on the natural environment. The results showed that when they escape, transgenic fish have a significantly greater effect on the natural environment than hatchery-reared non-transgenic fish.

GMO fish have a stronger chance of survival when there isn't enough food, for example. 'It is probably due to the fact that genetically modified fish have a greater ability to compete and are better at converting food,' Dr Sundström pointed out.

A major concern, say researchers, is that transgenic fish would beat out their natural counterparts. But it's hard to determine how escaped transgenic fish would affect the natural environment, because a laboratory environment is not exactly the same as a natural setting.

For Dr Sundström, across-the-board consensus is needed before commercial farming can get off the ground. A precautionary principle must also be applied, he said.

'One option is to farm the transgenic fish on land, which would make escape impossible,' the Swedish researcher explained. 'At least fertile fish should be kept in a closed system.'

Commercial farming of transgenic fish is not allowed anywhere, but a number of applications for such operations are being assessed by EU and US authorities.

For more information, please visit:

University of Gothenburg http://www.gu.se

Vote gives commission more 'authority', says Barroso

Honor Mahony and Valentina Pop
EU Observer, 16 September 2009:
http://euobserver.com/9/28674/?rk=1

STRASBOURG - Jose Manuel Barroso was re-elected for a second five-year term as European Commission by a clear majority in the European Parliament on Wednesday (16 September), putting an end to weeks of uncertainty and sabre rattling by his opponents in the EU house.

Against many predictions, the centre-right Portuguese politician won an absolute majority of the 736-strong parliament hauling in 382 votes in his favour, 219 against and 117 abstentions.

A clearly delighted Mr Barroso, who received a bouquet of flowers from the Swedish EU presidency, thanked MEPs for their "expression of confidence" and pledged to work "with all political groups" in the parliament.

Charged by critics with being a weak president too willing to bow to the wishes of large member states, Mr Barroso said his re-election gives the commission and its president "great authority."

"I will use that [political] capital for more energy for Europe."

While pledging "loyalty" to member states, he said he would in future "challenge" those countries who are looking out for "strictly national interests."

He refused to apologise for his leadership style, a point of strong criticism for his opponents, saying that building consensus and the art of compromise is the way Europe works.

Based on anti-Europeans

The clear result puts an end to attempts by the Socialist group ahead of the vote to position anything less than an absolute majority as a failure deserving of another vote at a later point.

The leverage from this scenario would have come from a new set of EU institutional rules, the Lisbon Treaty, that may come into force in the near future and which requires an absolute majority for election of the commission president, rather than a simple majority of votes cast under current rules.

Socialist leader Martin Schulz, a voluble critic of Mr Barroso over the past weeks, painted the outcome in harsh terms, however.

Speaking to journalists after the vote he said: "Barroso is a weak commission president because he took the votes of the anti-Europeans, who are the only group that voted unanimously for him. It's not a comfortable majority."

The bulk of the Barroso majority in the secret ballot came from the centre-right EPP and the eurosceptic ECR. But some liberals and some of Mr Schulz's own socialists, particularly split on the issue, also appeared to have voted for him.

Mr Schulz blamed the failure to block Mr Barroso on the national governments in Spain, Portugal and the UK, which backed the commission president despite being left-wing and said he would now channel his energy towards getting more Socialist portfolios in the new commission.

Next steps

With the president in place, thoughts are now turning to filling the remaining commissioners posts. But the EU's possible but uncertain move to the Lisbon Treaty is creating political and legal headaches.

Mr Barroso said he would wait until after the Irish referendum on 2 October before thinking about forming his commission, with the current Nice and Lisbon treaties differing on the composition of the EU executive.

However, even if the Irish vote in favour, the fate of the Lisbon Treaty remains unclear as the Czech Republic is dragging its feet on final ratification of the document.

The Swedish EU presidency would like to get the whole issue of posts, a question that is highly distracting for member states sorted by the end of October if possible.

Speaking to EUobserver, Swedish Europe minister Cecilia Malmstrom said:

"No decision whatsoever can be made before the Irish referendum, because we don't know whether we'll have a Nice or a Lisbon commission. For instance, if we'll have an external action service, that might reflect on the number of commissioners in the [external relations] area.

If everything goes well, if there's a yes in Dublin and all the states have ratified in October, our ambitious, optimistic goal is to get the whole package for the October summit (29-30 October)."

But she admitted that Prague could be the big sticking point.

"If there is a no in Ireland, then obviously the commission will be appointed on Nice. If there's a yes and still there are uncertainties in the Czech Republic, then we'll have to figure out if there's any possibility to get a date, an answer. If it's just postponed on and on, then we'll have to form a Nice commission, even if Lisbon is ratified by everybody else."

The Nice Treaty foresees a reduction in the number of commissioners but does not specify how many. If Ireland votes no to Lisbon, then member states will have to solve this.

The Swedish prime minister recently indicated that a solution would be to give the member state that does not get a commissioner the post of EU foreign policy chief.

Poland's Golden Cross of Merit for GM-free campaigner

Press release
International Coalition to Protect the Polish Countryside, 16 September 2009:
http://www.icppc.pl

We are pleased to inform you that the President of the Republic of Poland, on the 9th of September 2009, decided to award Jadwiga Lopata (known, amongst other things, as a GMO Free Poland and Europe activist) with the state decoration "Golden Cross of Merit" *, which is the highest social activism decoration. She received the award on 12th of september 2009, during the National Ecologic Harvest Festival ("Doz..ynki") and National Regional Products Promotion.

Notes

(*)Krzyz Zaslugi (Cross of Merits) - is a Polish civil state decoration to recognize the services to the state or citizens, established by Law from 23th of June 1923 and given until the present day. There are three kinds of Cross of Merit:

- Golden Cross of Merit
- Silver Cross of Merit
- Bronze Cross of Merit

Photo of Jadwiga in a traditional countryside dress:
http://www.icppc.pl/antygmo/wp-content/gallery/wydarzenia/zloty_krzyz.jpg

More information on (in Polish):
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krzy%C5%BC_Zas%C5%82ugi

Contact

ICPPC - International Coalition to Protect the Polish Countryside
Miedzynarodowa Koalicja dla Ochrony Polskiej Wsi
34-146 Stryszów 156, Poland
tel./fax +48 33 8797114
biuro@icppc.pl
www.icppc.pl www.gmo.icppc.pl www.eko-cel.pl

15 September 2009

Basmati exports to Iran may suffer on negative media reports

Prabha Jagannathan, ET Bureau
The Economist Times [India], 15 September 2009:
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/markets/commodities/Basmati-exports-to-Iran-may-suffer-on-negative-media-reports/articleshow/5011706.cms

NEW DELHI: Basmati exporters are trying to fend off fresh threats to their business with Iran. The threats are being fuelled by media reports in Iran that the rice varieties, especially the Pusa 1121 variety, was genetically modified, chemically treated and harmful to health. The industry has breifed commerce secretary Rahul Khullar on the subject and urged government intervention at the appropriate level.

Last week, Navneesh Sharma, deputy GM of APEDA, sent urgent missives to the Indian embassy in Tehran highlighting the baseless allegations against Indian rice imports appearing in sections of the Iranian press. This was followed by yet another letter from the All India Rice Exporters Association (AIREA). Both letters requested the Indian embassy in Tehran to monitor the situation closely and keep Indian authorities informed.

Exporters also had meetings with senior APEDA officials recently and, the commerce secretary is understood to have assured action on the issue. AIREA executive director Jai Oberoi, in a letter to the chairman and the members of the Middle East Committee of the association, said wrong and malicious reports were appearing in Iran media about the quality of Basmati rice imported from India. He said that the motivated reports could have been planted in the press by unscrupulous elements and can have a wider commercial impact for all members.

Top rice exporters, in the Rs 13,000-crore industry, have been earning a substantial chunk of their profits from Iran since 2007-08. No other buyer in the region is as good a payer for huge orders of Indian rice. This year, infact, Iran was India's biggest buyer of the Pusa 1121 variety during the Persian New Year and virtually propped up the entire rice exporter trade in India.

The industry currently holds huge rice stocks can not afford any fresh threats to exports, particularly to Iran. "Iran had bad harvests earlier but this year, it's own paddy output has been good. Iranian rice has always been priced around one-and-half times over Indian Basmati and other rice and with the price cuts this year, there is possibly apprehension that domestic farmers will be disadvantaged in a big way, all the more since we're expecting to export around two million tonnes." an AIREA official told ET.

According to Tilda Riceland director RS Seshadri, India exported a record 1.8 million tonnes of Basmati rice in the financial year ended March 2009. Crucially, India's Basmati rice exports are likely to top 2 million tonnes in the current marketing year ending September 30. According to industry officials, boosted mainly by high demand from Iran and the inclusion of Pusa-1121 in the premium rice category.

Again, in the new season beginning October 1, industry estimates are that a record 2.5 million tonnes of Basmati rice will be exported, with a substantial chunk of this comprising Pusa 1121 exports to Iran. Ironically, despite it's late entry into the Basmati stable, it was the Pusa 1121 variety whose prices shot up to even higher than some traditional Basmati varieties during the year, fetching as much as $1500/tonne or Rs 70/kg in Isfahan.

In comparision, in June this year, Indian Basmati prices were being quoted at only about $1,300-1,500 a tonne, free-on-board. In 2008-09, India exported around 800,000 tonnes of Pusa 1121, which led to record total Basmati exports, despite stiff competition from Pakistan.

Oberoi's letter to AIREA members further maintained "These allegations are written in certain government controlled newspapers and contain baseless information that consumption of rice causes is chemcially contaminated or causes illness or that Pusa 1121 is actually a genetically modified crop."

Indicating the concern among exporters on the issue, the letter emphasized "This needs to be taken up most strongly especially as the new crop season is fast approaching." Subsequently, the AIREA asked the IARI to issue authoritative rebuttal of allegations on the purity of the Pusa 1121 variety and the fact that there is "no GM rice being cultivated in India."

One translation of an article by Maryam Honarmanesh done by the IARI on September 9 said "Based on a interview with Mehdi Hashempoor of Standards and Research Studies Institute of Tehran, Ms Maryam has reported that Indian and Paksitani rice is contaminated with chemicals and have no nutrition. The detailed analysis of the chemicals is underway and it is anticipated that the consumption of these rices may have some harmful effect on human health" The report also said that upon cooking, the rice varieties did not naturally taken on a long shape.

Yap told to explain $120m rice project

Leon Manaig
Saudi Gazette [Saudi Arabia], 15 September 2009:
http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentID=2009091550017

MANILA - Agriculture Secretary Arthur Yap should explain and disclose to the public the disbursement and re-payment details of the $120-million funding that the government seeks to secure from the $20-billion Food Production Fund of the Group of Eight (G8) nations.

The call was made by a group called Green Convergence after Yap earlier announced that the fund will be used by the Philippine Rice Research Institute (Philrice) and International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) for field trials of climate-ready seeds. Green Convergence is a movement of more than 50 civil society organizations whose focus is safe food, healthy environment and sustainable economy.

"Yap owes a detailed report, especially when that fund would be used for the field trials of genetically modified rice," said Dr. Angelina Galang, Green Convergence convener.

Agent Green marks Romanian GMO free restaurants to protect consumers
• Snack Attack is the first chain of restaurants to go GMO free

Press release Agent Green, Romania:
http://db.zs-intern.de/uploads/1253084076-20090915_pr_gmo_free_restaurants.pdf

Starting today Agent Green marks the Romanian GMO free restaurants to stop the invasion of these organisms on the market by showing consumers where they can eat without exposing themselves to health risks posed by GMOs. A GMO free restaurant is one that guarantees either by laboratory analysis or on self responsibility that is not using any GMO labeled product in their food.

The eurobarometers and the latest national poll in Romania shows that the vast majority of the consumers rejects categorically GMOs from their plates. Agent Green has been inviting starting August 100 of the largest romanian restaurants and restaurants chains with strategical locations to become GMO free. The first ones to respond the invitations are Sorriso, Violeta and Batistei. The first chain of 17 restaurants is Snack Attack. These 20 have already been marked in the most visible place at their entrances with stickers containing the text "Restaurant liber de OMG" (GMO free restaurant) and the visual expresing vegetables in the form of a scary skull that is placed in a plate [1]. "Altough EU's most important agriculture countries have banned even the cultivation of GMOs, the romanian government avoids to satisfy the consumers expressed wish and gives way to GMOs to invade the fields, the shelves and the plates. We know that besides the political will, the consumers have the power to decide. Agent Green informs the wide public and call the market to stop GMOs. For the begining we set up GMO free restaurants. We are happy that Snack Attack is the first restaurant of this kind. McDonalds is next on our list", said Gabriel Paun, President of Agent Green.

"We are loyal to quality food with carefully chosen ingredients that are as close as possible to their natural state in order to protect consumers health. We do not wish to use ingredients that are industrialy manufactured and we choose the ones that are obtained by environmentaly friendly practicies. Therefore there is no point to have GMO food in our restaurants. Everytime we buy ingredients for our food we demand our suppliers analysis reports to guarantee the absence of GMO contamination. It costs us more, but it's worthed", said Carmen Strugari, Production Manager, Snack Attack.

GMOs are new biological entities created in laboratories using genetic engineering techniques that forces gene transfer between different species and even different kingdoms. GMOs do not occure naturally, but once deliberately released in environment they cannot be controlled as they are living organisms free to multiply. The first GMOs has been released in the '90s to be used in agriculture for higher yields. There are two types of marketed GMOs: herbicide tolerant and insect resistant. Up to date none of these have performed the promised yields. There are not enough studies to prove their safety, but the independent ones associate their consumption with alergies and toxicity for internal organs of the tested animals. In environment GMOs poses significant risks for soil, non-target insect species, aquatic systems and lead to increased pests resistance [2].

Agent Green is a member of GENET, the european network of 51 organizations engaged in the critical debate of GMOs [3]. The objective of "STOP invasion of GMOs" campaign is to stop the GMO expansion in Romania.

Notes:

[1] The visual of the "GMO free restaurants" is availabe to view, download and use for free at:
http://www.agentgreen.ro/new/assets/images/OMG/liber_de_OMG_restaurant.jpg

[2] More information about GMOs and Agent Green campaign available at
http://www.agentgreen.ro/new/index.php?id=139

[3] More information about the GENET available at http://www.genet-info.org

Consuming the world's resources: Europe's role, Europe's responsibilities

Friends of the Earth Europe, 15 September 2009:
http://www.foeeurope.org/press/2009/Sep15_Consuming_world_resources_Europe%27s_role_Europe%27s_responsibilities.html

Brussels, 15 September 2009 - Europe is using increasing quantities of the world's natural resources, according to a new report [1] launched by Friends of the Earth Europe at the 'World Resources Forum' in Davos, Switzerland today (Tuesday 15 September)[2]. The report also shows that Europe is more dependant on imported resources than other global regions.

The extraction and use of natural resources such as food crops, fossil fuels, minerals, agrofuels and timber has major environmental and social impacts. Case studies in the report - including of oil extraction in Nigeria and biofuel production in Indonesia - demonstrate some of these impacts. Europe does not just import such materials directly, it also imports them as part of finished products, for example a computer imported from China will have large amounts of resources associated with its production.

Dr Michael Warhurst, who leads Friends of the Earth Europe's Resources and Consumption campaign, said:

"Europe is using an ever-increasing amount of the world's resources, and our society is already very dependant on imports of materials - yet we have no targets to reduce this resource use, and new policies are not assessed for their potential to increase our resource efficiency.

"Friends of the Earth Europe is calling on the EU to take the first steps to tackle this issue through ensuring that our resource use is measured, and by adopting new policies to increase our resource efficiency, such as higher recycling targets. The EU must also start to devise long term targets and strategies in order to radically reduce our resource use."

Friends of the Earth Europe and Sustainable Europe Research Institute (SERI) have analysed possible methods of measuring Europe's resource use, and are proposing that four key aspects be covered: material use (the focus of this report), land use, water use and greenhouse gas emissions [3]. Each of these analyses must properly account for the impacts of Europe's consumption on the rest of the world, by incorporating the 'rucksack' of the resources used to make products which are imported into Europe.

Dr Warhurst added:

"In order to continue to thrive on this planet, our societies will need to become less resource dependent, so that we are able to protect our natural resource base and the fragile eco-systems on our planet.

"Europe is using more than its fair share of resources, and reducing our consumption will also free more resources to increase the quality of life in the developing world. In addition, a more resource-efficient economy will be a competitive advantage for Europe as resource availability becomes more constrained in the future."

***

For more information please contact:

The Friends of the Earth Europe Resources and Consumption Campaign
E-mail michael.warhurst@foe.co.uk and becky.slater@foe.co.uk, or phone +44 20 7490 1555

Francesca Gater, Friends of the Earth Europe communications officer,
francesca.gater@foeeurope.org, +32 2893 1010, +32 485 930515

***

Notes:

[1] 'Over consumption? Our use of the world's natural resources' has been written by Sustainable Europe Research Institute (SERI - www.seri.at) in Vienna and GLOBAL 2000 (Friends of the Earth Austria), in collaboration with Friends of the Earth England Wales and Northern Ireland (FOE EWNI).

The report (including a one page executive summary) is available online at: http://www.foeeurope.org/publications/2009/Overconsumption_Sep09.pdf

[2] http://www.worldresourcesforum.org

[3] "How to measure Europe's resource use. An analysis for Friends of the Earth Europe", SERI (for Friends of the Earth Europe), available from:
http://www.foeeurope.org/publications/2009/seri_foee_measuring_eu_resource_use_final.pdf

Genetic engineering now an issue for five neighbouring Asian countries

Viet Nam News Agency, 15 September 2009:
http://vietnamnews.vnagency.com.vn/showarticle.php?num=02ECO150909

HA NOI - Viet Nam is one of five neighbouring nations considering issuing a declaration against the use of genetically modified soybeans.

This was announced at the second annual conference of the so-called Greater Cuu Long (Mekong) Delta Sub-region (GMS) a the weekend.

At the meeting, Viet Nam reported that several non-modified varieties of rice, soybean and potatoes it had received from other members had brought promising results.

The move to ban transgenic materials was made by Thailand, one of the six members of the GMS.

Thailand is one of the growing number of nations throughout the world that has banned the importation of transgenic soybeans for any purpose.

The other members of the group are Viet Nam, Myanmar, Thailand, China and Laos.

The basic function of the regional group is to test plant species and varieties that are highly productive and suitable to the region.

"Last year, we sent five varieties of rice, four of soybean and three of potato to the network for experimentation," said Bui Huy Hop, deputy director and presidential assistant of the Viet Nam Academy of Agricultural Sciences (VAAS).

"And, in turn, we have received several varieties mentally cultivated them," he added.

Viet Nam has encouraged its neighbours to continue exchanging breeding materials, scientists and publications as well as sharing experience and training.

It has also initiated a move to develop joint research on breeding and growing techniques.

"We have also recommended that some burning issues on insect and disease control should be studied in the region," Hop said.

Hosted by the Vietnamese Academy of Agricultural Sciences and the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the meeting was described by Dr Ouk Makara, president of the Cambodian Agricultural Research and Development Institute as highly meaningful for a stronger partnership and common prosperity.

Results of programmes to train farmers in new techniques were also presented at the conference.

Upland tour

Earlier this month, delegates made a six-day upland study tour of northern Phu Tho and Bac Ninh provinces to visit VAAS's experimental stations producing soybeans, maize, vegetables, fruit and flowers.

The first meeting of the sub-regional group was held in Kunming, China, last September.

Its first workshop last year defined the priority areas of regional components as soybeans, potatoes, sugarcane and upland rice.

The organisation aims to provide food security, alleviate poverty and promote the practice of environmentally sustainable agriculture.

14 September 2009

Resistance threatens conservation tillage

David Bennett
Farm Press [USA], September 14 2009:
http://deltafarmpress.com/cotton/conservation-tillage-0914/

Since its introduction in the mid-1990s, Monsanto's Roundup Ready technology has allowed U.S. agriculture to adopt an unprecedented level of conservation tillage. Over the last decade, there has been such a steady increase in con-till that it is now accepted as a way of doing business while cutting farmers' costs and bringing efficiency to their operations.

Numerous side benefits include reducing erosion, water conservation and water quality.

"I've got numbers showing the amount of energy expended for cotton production and how much it has decreased in the last 10 years," says Ken Smith, Arkansas Extension weed specialist. "It's impressive."

Today, over 70 percent of all the cotton, rice and corn in the United States are devoted to conservation tillage. The wonder of Roundup Ready technology has allowed this. Without exaggeration, Roundup Ready changed the face of U.S. agriculture.

But a dark side has also emerged: glyphosate weed resistance. As Roundup Ready crops were planted on more and more acreage, more weeds were selected out with increasing doses of Roundup (glyphosate). Now, the problem has become so acute in some areas of the South that growers are warning about the loss of con-till acreage.

(For more, see http://deltafarmpress.com/searchresults/?ord=d&terms=weed+resistance).

"If herbicide resistance turns us back to tillage, it will be devastating to the con-till gains," says Smith, interviewed in August. "I visited with a group of major cotton farmers today. They'll tell you, 'Yeah, we've got to go to more tillage despite not wanting to.'

"One said, ''If I have to go back to the old levels of cultivation and whatnot, I'll just retire. I'm not going back.'"

Others have told Smith they can't afford to go back. The reason: once a farmer switches to con-till he's able to reduce equipment inventory. Instead of farming 350 acres per tractor, he might use one tractor on 1,000 acres. If he's farming 5,000 con-till acres and has to go back to tilling, he'll need to purchase another 10 tractors at $200,000 per.

Smith and research colleagues are running as fast as they can to find answers on how to tackle the growing resistance problem.

"Farmers are interested in anything they can do to maintain the current level of con-till," says Smith. "Our goal is to be able to farm cotton in a resistant-weed area with only one in-crop, post-direct herbicide application per year. Everything else would go over the top. But they will have to maintain a hooded sprayer, a post-direct rig - something to allow one application in-crop."

Rapid adoption / changes

Earlier this summer, Smith began sounding the resistance alarm with agencies that oversee conservation efforts. Following his presentations, "they were worried very quickly. Thankfully, now it is getting attention from state and federal officials. This is gaining traction."

Andrew Wargo agrees.

"Weed resistance is hitting us on several fronts," says the business agent/farm manager for Baxter Land Company in southeast Arkansas' Desha County. "We must get the word out on this. We must come to a meeting of the minds and develop a collective plan among all concerned to not digress with conservation tillage."

Wargo has been aware of herbicide weed resistance since the 1980s when barnyardgrass couldn't be controlled with propanil. Shortly thereafter, certain cockleburs began showing tolerance to MSMA.

Wargo also accepts his part in the spread of resistant weeds. "Most are now aware that the way to quickly develop a resistance to a drug, a herbicide or insecticide is to continually treat the same problem with the exact same chemistry. It's Mother Nature's way. Resistance develops when you select out those that are tolerant to the treatment.

"When we were provided the blessing of Roundup Ready crops, it was great from an agronomic rotation standpoint. But as far as weeds, we began rotating nothing - it was Roundup 24/7."

Across the world, some 189 weed species (331 resistant biotypes) have developed herbicide tolerance. In the United States, there are now nine weed species resistant to glyphosate (16 in the world). Waterhemp, Palmer amaranth, Johnsongrass, horseweed and ryegrass are among the most troublesome resistant species.

"We used Roundup before Roundup Ready crops as a target-specific herbicide," says Wargo. "We used it in recycle sprayers, sometimes with wick-bars over-the-top, and on right-of-ways.

"When Roundup Ready cotton and soybeans came along - at that time, corn wasn't a large player in this area, although more recently it has come in as an alternative crop - they were readily adopted."

Prior to that, farmers had "quite an arsenal" of preplant, pre-emergence, and postemergence herbicides. However, as glyphosate became the product of choice - sometimes the only product used by farmers to fight weeds - by the late 1990s the roster of worldwide companies working with developmental chemistry had shrunk.

In the face of chemical company mergers amid spiking glyphosate use, alternative herbicide labels were often allowed to expire and production lines shut down, says Wargo. "Many of the products we used to have are simply gone."

"Syngenta, Bayer, DuPont, Dow and BASF still have active synthesis groups," says Smith of the current situation. "A handful of other companies, mostly Japanese, have very active bench chemists. Those mostly synthesize and then sell to another company with a marketing group."

State and federal agencies

In the Mid-South, the Roundup Ready system eliminated many erosion problems. Prior to conservation tillage, the combination of, in some cases, a dozen trips across fields and furrow irrigation was causing unacceptable soil losses. The implementation of buffer strips also helped.

Wargo has seen weed resistance develop while serving as an appointed member of the state's County Conservation District Board, a position he's held since the 1980s. For the last several years he's also served on the executive board of the Arkansas Association of Conservation Districts (AACD), a statewide network of conservation districts.

Formed in 1992, the Arkansas Conservation Partnership (ACP) will also play a huge role in solving the state's looming resistance/con-till issues. The ACP is comprised of the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), the AACD, the Arkansas Association of Conservation District Employees, the Arkansas Resource Development Council, the University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service, University of Arkansas - Pine Bluff, the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, and the Arkansas Forestry Commission.

"It's rather unique to have everyone under the same umbrella," says Wargo. "In other states, agencies are so embroiled in turf battles it's counterproductive to their effectiveness. In Arkansas, of course, each agency is proud if its role and mission. But through the ACP, we're all working for the common good. Agencies interact and work together almost seamlessly."

Many times, federal programs require more than one discipline or agency to be fully effective in implementation. The ACP "has been incredible with that."

Earlier this summer, having been briefed by Smith on the continuing boom in resistance, an alarmed Wargo contacted officials in the state NRCS who received his message warmly. Also, the mid-summer meeting of the National Association of Conservation Districts (NACD) was set to start and Wargo - who was to be a delegate at the Washington, D.C., meeting - figured that would be another place to crank up the volume on weed resistance.

"I called the Natural Resource Committee chairman up there, explained the concerns, and asked to be on the agenda.