NEWS ABOUT GM ISSUES • February 2010
This page was not updated from 12 - 28 February
For coverage during this time – and to keep informed on GM food and farming, we recommend you subscribe to GM Watch Newsletters at www.gmwatch.org/newsletters Cultivating controversy
Sofia Echo [Bulgaria], 12 February 2010:
http://www.sofiaecho.com/2010/02/12/856623_cultivating-controversy
A public outcry in Bulgaria culminated when protests, organised by the coalition To Sustain the Nature and other environmentalist organisations, saw all of 300 protesters gathering in front of the central library in Sofia in late January under the motto "Clean food, a healthy earth! Bulgaria GM foods free."
Protesters carried signs reading "GM food is trading with our health," "Our health is not for trade" and "GMO = imperialism."
Organisers wanted any changes to the Genetically Modified Foods Act to limit the use of GM foods to scientific purposes. Changes being proposed served only the interests of a small group of interested parties and foreign companies, organisers said.
The amendments, the first reading of which was approved by Parliament, allow cultivation of genetically-modified tobacco, vines, cotton, rose, wheat and vegetables. The bill did not allow cultivation in areas protected under the EU's Natura 2000 programme, but lowered the minimum distance from protected areas at which such crops could be cultivated.
On February 7, Bulgarian National Television (BNT) reported that Euro-Toques Bulgaria, the local chapter of a European association of chefs, which lobbies to promote traditional recipes and regional products, was against the cultivation of GM foods.
Tanya Pravchanova, deputy chairperson of Euro-Toques Bulgaria, was quoted as saying "if we cook ordinary pork, and at some point the meat starts to smell like fish, then we wonder how this meat has been produced."
According to Euro-Toques Bulgaria, this did not immediately mean the meat was genetically modified, BNT said, but it "does not exclude fact that a large part of our food is not what it is advertised to be."
In a statement on February 3, the Environment and Water Ministry said amendments to the law were necessary to bring Bulgarian statute in line with European legislation.
The amendments targeted implementing two directives, both of which were long overdue. The European Commission had already started infringement procedures against the country concerning the implementation of one of the directives, the ministry statement said.
"I also do not want my children to eat genetically modified foods, but I do not think that is a reason to stop GM foods," Bulgarian news agency BTA quoted Deputy Agriculture and Foods Minister Preslav Borissov as saying on February 5.
According to Borissov, a ban on GM foods would hurt Bulgarian competitiveness in the European market as neighbouring countries were already gaining experience with GM food production.
In the face of public opposition, which appears to be stronger than protest rallies, judging by the heated debates in online forums, Environment Minister Nona Karadjova was drafted in to present the compromise solution: the EU directives would be implemented, but a five-year moratorium would be put in place, banning the cultivation of genetically-modified crops for test or commercial purposes. Amendments to that end were being drafted by the country's ruling party, GERB, she said.
That failed to assuage the critics, however, who viewed it only as a temporary postponement of making a decision rather than a solution to the problem.
Seeing an opportunity to oppose GERB on an issue where public opinion was already against the Government, opposition party Movement for Rights and Freedoms (MRF), which enjoys a traditionally strong support in the agricultural areas in Bulgaria populated by ethnic Turks, called on other political parties to oppose GMOs, under the slogan "Bulgarian lands GMO free."
According to MRF MP Lyutvi Mestan, 70 per cent of Bulgarian land was suitable for ecological agriculture, compared to only around five per cent in many other European countries.
Bulgaria's other major opposition party, the Socialists, also took a stance against GM crops and party leader Sergei Stanishev was quick to point out, on February 2, that earlier statements by Nikolai Cherkezov, the leader of the Socialist youth organisation, did not represent the party's position, only Cherkezov's personal views.
As it emerged two days later, to the disappointment of conspiracy theorists and Stanishev's mild embarrassment, it was a case of mistaken identity - the Socialist youth leader shared the same first and last name as the head of Bulgarian operations for Monsanto, the world's leading GMO seeds producer.
Monsanto's Cherkezov was caught on camera in November 2009 - even before the first set of amendments, which widened the scope of GMO cultivation in Bulgaria, was submitted to Parliament - as saying at an annual farmers convention that Bulgarian laws were about to change, allowing the cultivation of genetically-modified maize in the country.
The recording, broadcast by terrestrial TV channel Nova Televiziya, further fuelled media speculation that the amendments were the result of lobbying and backroom deals with MPs.
A lot at stake
US-based Monsanto is by far the biggest producer of GMO seeds globally, to the extent that the US department of justice opened a formal antitrust investigation of the seed industry in January. Monsanto's rivals have often accused it of unfairly using monopoly powers to drive up prices and hinder competition in the corn and soybean segments of the market, an allegation that Monsanto denies.
Forbes magazine's company of the year in 2009, Monsanto sold $7.3 billion of seeds and seed genes in the fiscal year ending on August 31 2009. Its total revenue was $11.7 billion and net profit was $2.1 billion for the period.
Monsanto's competitors include fellow US companies DuPont and Dow Chemical. In Europe, German chemical giant BASF won approval to cultivate GM soy in Brazil earlier in February and Swiss agrochemicals group Syngenta is another big player.
But despite the rapid growth of their business worldwide, opposition in the European Union to the cultivation of genetically-modified crops remains strong. Only two genetically-modified crops have been approved for cultivation in the bloc, but some other crops grown elsewhere are allowed to be importedand used in the EU.
The Netherlands has emerged as the leading voice for liberalising the existing rules, arguing that the spreading use of GMOs globally meant that the EU could not afford doing nothing.
The EU had to find a better way of handling cultivation approvals, Dutch officials have argued, putting forward a proposal that would give individual governments the final say on the issue, as opposed to the current single-market approach.
The proposal is backed by several countries, including Austria, one of the least countries most opposed to GMOs in the EU, but only because that would allow the country to completely ban all genetically-modified crops.
European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso was reported to be in favour of the plan, but critics have said that it could set a dangerous precedent for the single-market and could result in internal barriers being raised between countries that adopted eased restrictions and those that opted out altogether.
11 February 2010
India Says No to Cultivation of Genetically Modified Eggplant
• The GM seeds would have been marketed by the Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Company owned in part by Monsanto, a US corporation.
Salem News [Oregon, USA], 11 February 2010:
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/february112010/india_gmo.php
(NEW DELHI / SALEM) - India rejected genetically modified eggplant on Wednesday, amongst concerns of public health and "inadequate" science.
Following broad opposition by citizens, farmers, politicians and environmentalists, India's Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh announced a moratorium to prevent commercial cultivation of what would have been the country's first genetically modified (GM) food product.
Ramesh stated "It is my duty to adopt a cautious, precautionary, principle-based approach and impose a moratorium on the release until scientific tests can guarantee the safety of the product." Although, he acknowledged there is still no scientific agreement on what constitutes "an adequate protocol of tests".
He went on to say "There is no overriding food security argument for Bt brinjal," or genetically modified eggplant. Ramesh said at a press conference in the capital, yesterday.
"Our objective is to restore public confidence and trust in Bt brinjal." A moratorium will be imposed until safety studies are carried out "to the satisfaction of the scientific community," he said.
The GM seeds were developed by local scientists, but would have been marketed by the Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Company owned in part by Monsanto, a US corporation. Backers of the genetically modified aubergine (eggplant) claim the genetically modified product would boost yields by up to 50 percent, while reducing dependence on pesticides.
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) statistics from 1997 show that expanded plantings of Roundup Ready soybeans (i.e. soybeans genetically engineered to be tolerant to the herbicide) resulted in a 72% increase in the use of glyphosate. According to the Pesticides Action Network, scientists estimate that plants genetically engineered to be herbicide resistant will actually triple the amount of herbicides used.
Farmers, knowing that their crop can tolerate or resist being killed off by the herbicides, tend to use them more liberally[1].
India isn't the first country to ban the use of genetically modified foods. In 2008, Monsanto lost an appeal in French courts against a ban on GM corn[2].
In May 2001, Sri Lanka also banned the importation of genetically modified foods, preservatives and additives. Regulations in Italy, Greece, France, Denmark and Luxembourg have enforced de facto moratoriums on Genitically Modified Organisms (GMO), while other countries in the European Union have limited GMO field testing, imports and marketing.
Citizen activists worldwide are raising safety concerns about genetically altered plant products for human consumption. British newspapers have called GMOs "Frankenstein Foods."[3]
Professor of genetics Nagib Nassar, at the Universidade de Brasilia warned "Introducing transgenic wheat means replacing this diversity and leaving it to extinction. It will be replaced by a monoculture with a very narrow genetic base. This is a problem. This will be a catastrophe."
For thousands of years, Iraqi farmers have saved seed from each year's crops, replanting and cross-pollinating varieties for higher yields, better pest resistance, and other beneficial traits. But Order 81 makes it illegal for Iraqi farmers to reuse seeds from any crops planted using a patented seed variety. Farmers who chose to use patented varieties would have to buy new seed every year."[4]
Arun Shrivastava, with the Centre for Research on Globalization, reported in 2006 "The United States of America declared a war on Indian rice [and food security] way back in the early 1960s when India's No 1 scientist mole, Dr M.S. Swaminathan, stole the gene bank of rice, evolved over decades by Dr Riccharia, and passed it over to the Americans."
Shrivastava goes on to quote, "Dr. Swaminathan was the main dramatis personae in what is known as "the great[est] gene robbery" in the history of mankind. [See, "The Great Gene Robbery", by Dr Claude Alvarez, The Illustrated Weekly of India, March 23-April 5, 1986]".
He further explains that "India had 120,000 varieties of rice seeds; today, no more than 50 are available.
India already allows the use of genetically modified cotton and supporters say it has sharply improved yields, although in another Global Research article Shrivastava reports that 70% of the farmer suicides in the Maharashtra belt are Bt cotton farmers. During the latter part of April, the Centre for Sustainable Agriculture uncovered deadly toxic reaction in sheep and goats in Warnangal in AP from grazing in Bt cotton fields in Feb/March, after the last cotton harvest of 2005-2006.
Local shepherds estimate the total mortality for the area to be around 10,000 dead sheep and goats." [Page 4, Application for interim order, in the SC of India, No 260 of 2006][5].
This crisis was branded the 'GM Genocide' by campaigners, and was emphasized when Prince Charles claimed that the issue of GM had become a 'global moral question' - and the time had come to end its unstoppable march. Speaking at a conference in the Indian capital, New Delhi, he enraged bio-tech leaders and supporters by condemning 'the truly appalling and tragic rate of small farmer suicides in India, stemming... from the failure of many GM crop varieties'.
When crops failed in the past, farmers could still save seeds and replant them the following year. But with GM seeds they cannot do this. The GM seeds contain so- called 'terminator technology', which means they have been genetically modified so that the resulting crops do not produce viable seeds of their own.
Monsanto admitted that soaring debt was a 'factor in this tragedy', but pointed out that cotton production had doubled in the past seven years. Later they insisted their seed is 'only double' the price of 'official' non-GM seed[6].
References:
[1] Organic Consumers Association
http://www.organicconsumers.org/Monsanto/glyphocancer.cfm
[2] Mindfully.org: "Monsanto Loses Appeal of French Ban on Genetically Modified Corn"
http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/Monsanto-Roundup-Glyphosate.htm
[3] Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide
http://www.elaw.org/node/880
[4] Critics decry GM rule in Iraq By Anne Harding The Scientist, Nov 30 2005
http://www.gmfoodnews.com/ts301105.txt
[5] Biotech GM Seeds Buccaneers Destroy India's Rice Economy by Arun Shrivastava
http://www.mindfully.org/GE/2006/India-Biotech-Buccaneers21dec06.htm
[6] Nov. 2008 The GM genocide: Thousands of Indian farmers are committing suicide after using genetically modified crops
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1082559/The-GM-genocide-%20Thousands-Indian-farmers-committing-suicide-using-genetically-modified-crops.html
For more GM news around the world visit: http://www.gmfoodnews.com
India puts moratorium on GM crop
Press release
Friends of the Earth UK, 11 February 2010:
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/india_gm_09022010.html
Responding to reports that India has today (Tuesday 9 February 2010) halted the commercial cultivation of a genetically modified aubergine crop (Bt-Brinjal), following several public consultations across the country and resistance from scientists, farmers and green campaigners, Friends of the Earth's food campaigner Kirtana Chandrasekaran said:
"India's environment minister has listened to the concerns of scientists, farmers and the public and concluded that this GM crop poses real risks to human health and the environment.
"GM crops around the world benefit big business, not local farmers or hungry people - in South America vast GM soy plantations are wiping out farming communities and forests to provide animal feed for factory farms in the UK.
"The UK Government must end its backing of industrial GM farming - here and overseas - and get behind planet-friendly farming that benefits consumers, farmers and the environment."
Notes to Editors
1. Despite fierce opposition from scientists, farmers and campaign groups, the GM crop Bt brinjal was cleared by an Indian government panel for commercial cultivation in October 2009. It was also cleared by The Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), India's bio-technology regulator. If it is finally approved by the Indian government, it will become the first GM food crop in India. Anti-Bt-Brinjal groups argue that its cultivation will affect the small farmers and harm humans. More information at: http://www.indiablooms.com/EnvironmentDetailsPage/environmentDetails090210a.php
2. Friends of the Earth campaigns against genetically modified crops. A report by Friends of the Earth International 'Who Benefits from GM crops' is at:
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/gm_crops_increase_pesticid_13022008.html.
3. Friends of the Earth is calling for the UK government to move towards
planet-friendly farming with its Food Chain Campaign: http://www.fixthefoodchain.com.
If you are a journalist seeking press information please contact the Friends of the Earth media team on 020 7566 1649.
11 February 2010
India and GM food: Without modification
• A setback for GM in India
The Economist [UK], 11 February 2010 :
http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15498385
BANGALORE - HUNDREDS of farmers in long, faded cotton sarongs swarmed outside an auditorium at Bangalore University on February 6th. They were waiting for India's Environment Minister, Jairam Ramesh. This was the last of his public consultations on the commercial release of Bt Brinjal, a genetically modified (GM) aubergine, created by Mahyco, an Indian hybrid-seed company, and Monsanto, an American biotech giant. Waving placards and appetising images of aubergines, known in India as brinjal, they shouted themselves hoarse praising the transgenic vegetable.
But most of these men, registered at the consultation as farmers, were in fact landless labourers with no aubergine experience. Mr Ramesh was the first to call their bluff. The companies, he said, without naming any, had bussed farmers from rural districts, to play the pro-GM crowd at the hearing that day.
The tactic failed miserably. On February 10th Mr Ramesh announced that he would not allow Bt Brinjal to be grown or consumed in India until independent studies could show that it would have no adverse impact on human health, the environment or biodiversity. This overruled the recommendation last October by India's Genetically Engineered Approvals Committee (GEAC) that Bt Brinjal was safe, in spite of being modified with a gene from the soil bacterium, bacillus thuringiensis.
Mr Ramesh's seven-city roadshow to canvas public views was unusual. And many were surprised at his decision to snub the seed companies and powerful domestic and American biotech lobbies. GM crops have always been highly controversial in India. But they already account for about 85% of the cotton grown there. Supporters claim that Bt Brinjal could cut losses from insect damage by over 50%, and pesticide usage by 80%.
The moratorium is a victory for what has become India's first nationwide anti-GM movement. After the GEAC judgment, consumers, medical groups, farmers and state governments mobilised at once to campaign against Bt Brinjal. Hindu-nationalist and Communist politicians rallied to the unmodified brinjal's cause. Anti-GM groups cried foul over India's lack of an independent biosafety regulator. They also argued that the guidelines for trials of GM foods are flawed and that studies revealing more about the long-term health dangers had been ignored.
Environmental groups claimed Bt Brinjal might, through cross-pollination, wipe out thousands of indigenous brinjal varieties. Throughout November and December the "Coalition for a GM-Free India", grouping more than 100 NGOs from 15 states, campaigned at village councils and farmers' meetings, political rallies and in the non-English press and blogosphere. They held countless protests, fasts and educational drives in public schools.
The crucial step, however, was to enlist the support of the chief ministers of the state governments - a requirement the seed companies seem to have overlooked Under India's federal constitution, agriculture is a "state subject". States have the authority to regulate the planting or importing of GM crops. In mid-January the states, one after another, began to declare themselves against the release of Bt Brinjal. With nearly half of India's 29 states opposed, "a lack of consensus in the scientific community" and an unusually well-organised national protest movement, Mr Ramesh, said his official statement, felt obliged to be "responsible to science and responsive to society" and impose an indefinite moratorium on Bt Brinjal.
10 February 2010
Indian decision to put moratorium on GM crop hailed
Xinhua News Agency [China], 10 February 2010:
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/sci/2010-02/10/c_13171283.htm
NEW DELHI -- India's decision to stop the release of its first genetically modified food crop because of health concerns has been widely hailed by agriculture scientists and environmentalists across the country, terming it an "extremely positive" development that has saved the nation from a " catastrophe".
One of India's largest seed companies, Maiko, has developed a GM eggplant which it said was modified to be pest-resistant. But, after weeks of heated debate on the whether the GM eggplants should be grown on farms for commercial use, India Tuesday imposed a moratorium on the cultivation of a genetically modified Bt brinjal till scientific studies established it as completely safe.
"It is my duty to adopt a cautious, precautionary principle- based approach and impose a moratorium on the release of Bt brinjal, till such time independent scientific studies establish, to the satisfaction of both the public and professionals, the safety of the product from the point of view of its longterm impact on human health and environment," Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh Ramesh said.
Noted agriculture scientist M.S. Swaminathan, known as the " Father of the Green Revolution", has described the Indian government's moratorium on commercialization of Bt brinjal until independent studies established its safety, as "a wise and appropriate decision".
"It's appropriate not to hurry and to look at the problems to the satisfaction of all. The government should utilize the time to put in place a credible, effective and transparent system for the benefit of the country and conduct tests in a manner that have public trust," he said, adding biotechnology was a powerful tool but it should be utilized for "public good".
India is one of the largest producers of eggplant in the world, and the crop accounts for 9 percent of country's vegetable production. If approved, BT brinjal would be the first GM vegetable to be grown in the world.
But, V.S. Vijayan, the chairman of the Kerala State Biodiversity Board, has said that the government's decision has saved the country from a "catastrophe", while Vandana Shiva of Navdanya and Research Foundation for Science, Ecology and Technology, claimed the decision was a "victory for scientists, farmers, ecologists and all those who called for caution."
Kavitha Kuruganti of the Kheti Virasat Mission hailed the decision as an "extremely positive" development. "During the moratorium period the government should put in place a liability provision in the Environment Protection Act which makes a (GM) crop developer solely liable for any potential leakage and contamination. Jairam Ramesh has set a good precedent," she told the media.
Echoeing similar sentiments, Sunita Narain, the Director of Center for Science and Environment said: "We have consistently voiced our concerns. We are not against the use of genetically modified technology to improve crop yields. But we definitely oppose the introduction of Bt brinjal."
She added: "Here, for the first time, we are genetically modifying a common vegetable which is used nearly daily in most of our homes. Brinjal is consumed directly and not processed into bread or used in other processed foods. In many parts of the country, it is even eaten uncooked. We, therefore, need to be extremely cautious in our review of this food."
9 February 2010
Moratorium on Bt. Brinjal a victory for GMO-free movement
Press statement
Navdanya [India], 9 February 2010:
http://navdanya.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=82:press-release-moratorium-on-bt-brinjal-a-victory-for-gmo-free-movement&catid=10:news&Itemid=49
The Minister of Environment Jairam Ramesh announced the Moratorium on the Bt. Brinjal [aubergine]. As he stated, the moratorium implies rejection of this particular case of relief for the time being. It does not in anyway mean conditional acceptance. This should be clearly understood.
The moratorium is based on a series of seven public hearings organized by the environment minister. Navdanya welcomes this decision. We also welcome commitments made by the minister for creating a more robust biosafety framework including independent testing as well as mandatory labeling. However, the minister makes no reference to creating a liability framework in case of contamination by GM crops. The period of the Moratorium should not be used to streamline approvals of GMOs. The moratorium must be used for doing independent arrangements for deepening the democratic process of decision making and for deepening the federal structure for agriculture. The rejection of Bt. Brinjal by the state governments is a major reason for the moratorium. Another reason is the evidence that the genetically engineered Bt. Brinjal is an unreliable method of pest control. Ecological/organic farming and non-pesticide management are proven methods for controlling pests and producing pesticide free food. These alternatives need to be further developed in the period of the moratorium. The Government's single minded obsession with Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology is disastrous for India's food security and food sovereignty.
We also welcome the moratorium as a victory of Indian democracy. All the pressure of Monsanto has been applied to rush Bt. Brinjal into the market.
Dr. Nina Fedoroff, Technology Adviser to Hilary Clinton and the highest official placed US official imposing GMOs on the world is in Delhi to influence the decision. We are glad that Indian democracy and Indian sovereignty stood strong in face of the U.S. pressure. It is now time to strengthen our food sovereignty and seed sovereignty.
For further information, please contact
Dr. Vandana Shiva
Navdanya
A-60, Hauz Khas,
New Delhi 110 016
Phone : 91-11-26968077 / 26532561
Email : vandana(at)vandanashiva.com
Website : www.navdanya.org
BT Brinjal -- science reasserts itself
Press release
GM Free Cymru [Wales, UK], 9 February 2010:
http://www.gmfreecymru.org/news/Press_Notice09bFeb2010.htm
GM-Free Cymru has welcomed today's decision by the Indian Environment
Minister, Mr Jairam Ramesh, to block the commercialization of BT
brinjal [aubergine], a key food crop which has been genetically modified by
Monsanto. He announced a moratorium until "independent scientific
studies establish to the satisfaction of both the public and
professionals the safety of the product from the point of view of its
long term impact on human health and environment" -- and he warned
that this was a real rejection on scientific grounds, and not just a
delayed acceptance.
The announcement, eagerly awaited across India and in many other parts
of the world, followed weeks of protests and demonstrations across
India, as one state after another declared its opposition to the
commercialization of BT brinjal in the absence of convincing
scientific evidence that it was safe. The GM variety had in fact been
given "approval" by the country's Genetic Engineering Approvals
Committee (GEAC), the country's bio-technology regulator, in October
of last year. It would have become the first GM food crop in India --
and it was of course also backed by commercial and industrial
interests, and by the country's Agriculture Minister.
Inevitably, the Indian biotechnology industry and Monsanto spokesmen
have already damned Minister Ramesh's decision as "a victory for
hysteria over science" -- but if one reads the Minister's careful
statement it is clear that his main concerns were actually based on
science. He pointed out the deficiencies (he might have mentioned
scientific fraud, but he was too polite) of the supporting dossiers
submitted by Monsanto when it applied for consent for
commercialization, and also the shambles within the Indian regulatory
body, GEAC. He also clearly took on board the scientific assessments
of scientists from abroad -- including Prof Jack Heinemann, Prof
Gilles-Eric Seralini, and Dr Doug Gurian-Sherman, all of whom found
that the BT brinjal risk assessments were deficient. The Minister
decided that the only prudent course of action, in the circumstances,
was to impose a moratorium. And he even indicated his disdain for
GEAC be re-naming it the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee,
replacing the word "approvals" which has until now been in its name.
He has further demanded an overhaul of the Committee and of its
working procedures, so as to ensure that future GM applications are
scrutinised properly, by competent scientists who think of safety
first and commercial interests second.
Speaking for GM-Free Cymru, Dr Brian John said: "We welcome this news
from India, and applaud those who have worked hard for years to expose
the corruption of the regulatory system and the deficiencies of the
supposedly "scientific" GM dossiers which are placed before GEAC.
Monsanto and the other GM corporations have had it all their own way
until now, helped by complacent and compliant regulators in many
countries. What we see here is the reassertion of science -- and the
GM industry worldwide will not be best pleased.
"Now we wonder whether there are any other Environment Ministers in
the world who have the courage -- and the respect for good science --
to go against the advice of their feeble advisory committees and their
regulatory bodies and to halt GM projects which are obviously deeply
flawed. Mr Benn, are you listening?"
Contact:
Dr Brian John
GM-Free Cymru
Tel + 44 1239 820470
India Rejects First GM Vegetable, Hampering Monsanto
Jay Shankar and Thomas Kutty Abraham
?
Bloomberg / Business Week [USA], 9 February 2010:
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-09/india-rejects-first-gm-vegetable-hampering-monsanto-expansion.html
India's government rejected the nation's first genetically modified food after protests by farmers, hampering the expansion of seed makers including Monsanto Co. in the world's second-most populous nation.
"There is no overriding food security argument for Bt brinjal," or genetically modified eggplant, Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh said at a press conference in the capital, New Delhi, yesterday. "Our objective is to restore public confidence and trust in Bt brinjal." A moratorium will be imposed until safety studies are carried out "to the satisfaction of the scientific community," he said.
Ramesh, 55, had to balance the technology's promise to help feed a nation growing by 18 million people a year, more than the population of the Netherlands, and concern that food safety and threats to biodiversity haven't been investigated. Monsanto, the world's largest seed maker, supplied the gene for the vegetable and introduced genetically modified cotton in India in 2002.
"This will delay the government's plan to tackle food security," said M. Khadi Basavaraj, dean at the University of Agricultural Science in the southern city of Dharwad, who advised an independent panel which passed transgenic brinjal as safe in October. "It now feels there were not enough tests to prove it's safe. The government has taken the right decision."
To gauge the nation's mood, Ramesh held seven public meetings in major cities. "I cannot ignore public opinion and I can't ignore science," the minister said after four hours of debate with farmers, scientists and environmental activists in Bangalore on Feb. 6.
Pest Protection
The brinjal, or aubergine, had been genetically modified by the Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Company Ltd., known as Mahyco, in which St. Louis-based Monsanto has a 26 percent stake. Shares of Monsanto India Ltd. fell as much as 7.5 percent today in Mumbai, and traded down 4.3 percent at 10.12 a.m.
A gene known as cry1Ac from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt, and sourced from Monsanto has been introduced to help it fend off common borer pests.
Monsanto spokesman Christopher Samuel yesterday referred calls to the Mumbai-based seed maker. Maharashtra Hybrid said in a statement it respected Ramesh's decision and will follow the government's directives. "Mahyco is confident that sound science based on evidence obtained over nine years of rigorous testing will prevail," the company said.
Brinjal is a staple that India also exports to the U.K., France, Germany, Hong Kong, and Canada, according to the National Horticulture Board.
Cotton Success
"While we feel relieved that Bt Brinjal will not be on our plates right away we feel that we also lost a chance to change the paradigm of agriculture in this country," Rajesh Krishnan, who campaigns against genetic engineering for pressure group Greenpeace said in an interview from Bangalore.
India's farm ministry wants GM technology to be part of efforts to raise production of staple foods, following the success of transgenic cotton introduced in 2002.
GM cotton, including that of Monsanto's Bollgard varieties, now accounts for 80 percent of planting and had doubled yields by 2008. India moved from a net importer to the world's No. 2 producer and exporter.
The success of Bt cotton shows Indian farmers "are not opposed to new technologies," M.K. Sharma, Maharashtra Hybrid's general manager, said in Feb. 3 interview.
Pesticide Risks
With existing varieties of brinjal, Indian farmers have to spray pesticide on as many as 80 days in the six-month crop cycle, Sharma, said in Mumbai. Larvae that bore into plants wipe out as much as 70 percent of yield, he said.
"Alongside these losses, there is also the problem of health risks as farmers use pesticides without precautions or masks," said Sharma.
Farm Secretary T. Nanda Kumar said before the announcement that GM is just one technology that India can apply to increase food security. "It could be the technology of better seeds, it could be the technology of using less water," he said in interview in New Delhi. "Ultimately it's going to be combination of all these."
GM plants "are studied much more extensively than any other plant product in the world, and provide equal or greater assurance of safety," Gyanendra Shukla, Monsanto's India director, said in a statement before the decision.
While the U.S. and Canada have grown genetically modified crops like corn and soybean for years, resistance remains strong in Europe, where some countries rejected the use of crops changed to increase resistance to drought, pests or specific herbicides. Germany's BASF SE has had a GM starch potato stuck in the European Union's approval process for 14 years.
Incomes Rise
By 2015 there may be 120 different "transgenic events" in commercial crops worldwide, from 30 in 2008, said a report by the European Commission's Seville, Spain-based Institute for Prospective Technological Studies. As many as 33 may be developed in India, the report said.
While 456 million Indians live on less than $1.25 a day, according to a 2008 World Bank report, as a nation they are eating more than ever. Twenty Indian cities are projected to see household income grow 10 percent annually up to 2016, New Delhi's National Council of Applied Economic Research said.
Whether India can meet demand for food worries Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. There's a "false sense of security" that availability of food has ceased to be a concern for the South Asian nation, he said on Feb. 1.
Rising food costs accounted for 80 percent of December's inflation when wholesale prices rose an annual 7.3 percent, the fastest pace since November 2008, after the weakest monsoon rains since 1972 pushed up prices.
-- With assistance from Pratik Parija and Tushar Dhara in New Delhi. Editors: Mark Williams, Stephen Foxwell
Opposition to GM
News Release
The Scottish Government, 9 February 2010:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2010/02/09165625
India's decision to reject the cultivation of GM aubergines [Bt brinjal] has been welcomed by the Scottish Government.
Environment Minister Roseanna Cunningham said the decision was further evidence of growing concern about the damage GM could inflict on the environment.
The Indian Government earlier today (Tuesday) deferred a decision on GM aubergines, until further scientific tests have been carried out.
Ms Cunningham said:
"We know very little, if anything, about the long-term effects of growing GM crops. To take risks with our natural environment is wholly indefensible and irresponsible. We simply cannot afford to take risks with untested technologies.
"We are ready to stand shoulder to shoulder with other nations who are opposed to GM and fight for what our people want. It is clear that concerns about GM exist in the developing, as well as the developed world, and I am pleased to see that the Indian Government has listened to public opinion."
Countries who have already joined with Scotland in declaring their opposition to GM include Austria, Hungary and Ireland as well as many regions across Europe.
Scotland welcomes global resistance to GM food and farming
The Scottish Parliament
Business Bulletin No. 16/2010, 9 February 2010:
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/businessBulletin/bb-10/bb-02-09f.htm
S3M-5698 Rob Gibson: Celebrating Global Non-genetically Modified Crop Successes
- That the Parliament welcomes a lengthening list of non-genetically modified seeds and crops that are being grown successfully around the world and that include allergen-free peanuts, striga-resistant cowpeas, salt and drought-resistant wheat, corn, maize and rice, beta-carotene rich sweet potatoes, virus-resistant cassavas and blight-resistant potatoes; recalls that the evidence of increased yields, environmental security and consistent results has never been proven for GM varieties; anticipates that non-GM plant varieties will continue to promote biodiversity, security of production in both subsistence and commercial farming; believes that these non-GM seeds and plants deserve far wider publicity and understanding, and congratulates scientists who are adding to the success of non-GM varieties across the globe.
S3M-5697 Rob Gibson: Global Alert to Stop Monsantoizing Food, Seeds and Animals
- That the Parliament welcomes global action timed for late March 2010 in order to present governments, politicians and patent offices around the world with a call to stop the Monsantoizing of food, seeds and livestock, which is considered to be growing at an alarming rate; notes that individuals and organisations can sign the global alert petition at http://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org/monsantoizing.htm; encourages farmers, growers, crofters and consumers in Scotland to understand that rising food prices, the loss of independence and rising indebtedness for farmers, a reduction of plant and animal diversity, ever higher constraints for breeding and research activities and the concentration of the seed sector in the hands of a few multinational firms represent the most worrying impacts of this trend, and asks as many concerned citizens as possible to join this global alert.
GM Wheat rejected by 233 Consumer, Farmer Groups in 26 Countries
CNW Group [Canada], 9 February 2010:
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/February2010/09/c8060.html
OTTAWA, MONTREAL, WASHINGTON, TOKYO and SYDNEY - 233 consumer and farmer groups in 26 countries have joined the "Definitive Global Rejection of GM Wheat" statement to stop the commercialization of genetically modified (GM) wheat and remind the biotechnology corporation Monsanto that genetically modifying this major crop is not acceptable to farmers or consumers. (1)
The 233 groups signed the rejection statement first launched by 15 Australian, Canadian and U.S. farmer and consumer groups in June 2009.
"Canadian farmers have just lost their export sales to Europe and other markets because of GM flax contamination from a GM variety deregistered a decade ago and never even sold. Our current experience with GM flax contamination clearly illustrates the crippling losses Canadian farmers will suffer if GM wheat is introduced," said Terry Boehm, a flax and wheat farmer and President of the National Farmers Union in Canada. "Flax is yet another warning that once a GM crop is introduced, contamination is inevitable."
In July 2009, Monsanto announced new research into GM wheat and industry groups kicked their promotion of GM wheat into high gear. "Widespread farmer and consumer resistance defeated GM wheat in 2004 and this global rejection remains strong, as demonstrated by today's statement," said Lucy Sharratt, Coordinator of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network.
"In 2004, a coalition of Japanese consumer and food industry groups delivered a petition to the Governments of Canada and the U.S. urging them not to introduce GM wheat. Today, consumer rejection of GM wheat in Japan is just as strong as ever. 80 organizations in Japan have already signed the rejection statement," said Keisuke Amagasa of the Tokyo-based No! GMO Campaign. "A large majority of consumers here in Japan are voicing their strong opposition to the cultivation of GM wheat. We see strong opposition from all sectors of society."
Japan's flour companies are also rejecting GM wheat, echoing consumer opposition. In a statement released today, the Flour Miller's Association of Japan wrote to the No! GMO Campaign indicating its opposition.
"Under the present circumstances, with all the doubts about safety and the environment that the consumers in Japan have, including the effect on the human body from GM foods, GM wheat is included among the items that are not acceptable for the Japanese market," Kadota Masaaki, senior managing director of the Flour Miller's Association wrote to the No! GMO Campaign.
In the U.S., a recent report from the Western Organization of Resource Councils, a network of seven community farmer, rancher and consumer organizations, shows that U.S. wheat prices could fall by 40 percent or more if industry efforts to develop GM wheat succeed. (2)
"U.S. family farmers will do everything to protect our wheat from Monsanto and we do not accept that any corporation has the right to patents on life, including seeds," said Dena Hoff from the National Family Farm Coalition in the U.S. "GM wheat would contaminate our crops and food supply, and put an end to organic grain production. Farmers in the U.S. have already rejected GM wheat and Monsanto is sorely mistaken if they think farmers will ever accept GM wheat."
"The big push is on from Monsanto to pave the way for GM wheat but the reality is that strong and widespread opposition from farmers and consumers in Australia and across the world is here to stay," said Laura Kelly from Greenpeace Australia Pacific.
Notes
(1) The list of signatories to the "Definitive Global Rejection of Genetically Modified Wheat" statement can be viewed at http://www.cban.ca/globalstopGMwheat
(2) "A Review of the Potential Market Impacts of Commercializing GM Wheat in the U.S." January 2010, Western Organization of Resource Councils, http://www.worc.org/GM-Wheat
For further information:
In Canada:
Terry Boehm, National Farmers Union Canada, (in Paris) 33 144 84 7250; Lucy Sharratt, Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, (613) 241-2267 ext. 6, info@cban.ca;
In Tokyo:
Michiyo Koketsu, NO! GMO Campaign, 81 3 5155 4756, office@gmo-iranai.org; Ryoko Shimizu, Policy Research Institute for the Civil Sector, 81 90 6001 0495, ryoko-s@prics.net;
In the US:
Kathy Ozer, National Family Farm Coalition, (202) 543-5675;
In Australia:
Laura Kelly, Greenpeace Australia Pacific, (61) 040741 4572
Ireland cannot afford to be seen as an innovation-free zone
The Irish Times, 9 January 2010:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/education/2010/0209/1224264024011.html
PRESIDENT'S LOG: Expect some interesting clashes between the Government and our new European commissioner ahead, writes FERDINAND VON PRONDZYNSKI
IN THESE difficult times, politicians don't always get a good press. So it is heartening to see an Irish politician stand on the international stage and make an immediate good impression. I am talking here about Maire Geoghegan-Quinn, the European Commissioner Designate for Research, Innovation and Science.
Last month, she appeared before the Industry, Research and Energy Committee of the European Parliament as part of the confirmation process of her appointment, and by all accounts she was in command of her brief. While she was questioned closely, her responses were well-received by the MEPs present.
All of this is of much more than passing interest to the Irish university sector. I spent a lot of time following the process, and in particular finding out what the commissioner designate was saying to MEPs. From our point of view, the allocation of her portfolio couldn't be better: if we are to be the kind of innovative knowledge society and economy that we all say we want and need to be, then research is vital.
Europe has set itself some targets for the development of RD. Under the Lisbon strategy agreed by the European Council in 2000, the EU was to become "the most dynamic and competitive knowledge-based economy in the world" by 2010. We are very far from achieving that aim, and so the next steps to be taken really matter.
In her replies to MEPs, Geoghegan-Quinn hit all the right notes. She emphasised the role of research in pulling Europe out of recession; she would aim to reduce bureaucracy in European research funding programmes; she declined the suggestion that only "profitable" research should be funded; she spoke about the importance and complexity of protecting intellectual property rights; and she showed awareness of the value of proper career paths in science and research.
But she also went further. When asked about research into nuclear energy and genetically modified crops (a subject former Irish commissioner David Byrne was also active in, to very positive effect), she indicated that such research was beneficial and should be developed. Indeed, according to the Sunday Business Post , a spokesman for Geoghegan-Quinn stressed she would support and continue the policy of developing and funding research into these issues, and that any Irish policy on these matters would not influence her.
And this is where it gets interesting. In the 2007 programme for government, there are commitments (presumably pushed by the Green Party) to reject nuclear power as a source of energy in Ireland, and oppose it in Europe, and to "negotiate the establishment of an All-Ireland GM-free zone".
While it is probably true that a majority of the Irish population is sceptical about or hostile to nuclear energy and genetically modified organisms (GMOs), there has been little debate here about the merits of these technologies in the light of further discovery and new scientific insights. The nuclear issue has tended to be wrapped into attitudes to Sellafield, while opposition to GMOs has often been influenced by various campaigns using scaremongering labels such as "Frankenstein foods".
Indeed, if we are to take the Government's commitment to having Ireland as a GM-free zone seriously, one of the first steps we have to take would be to advise all diabetics to leave the country as we would have to ban insulin.
As a country, we have to come to the understanding that innovation and research cannot survive if they're made subject to prejudice and ideology. In most countries, nuclear power is now recognised as a key component of a carbon-free (and environmentally sustainable) energy programme; not one without issues still to be addressed, but a form of power we will need to develop. Equally, there is a growing realisation that at least some of the opposition to GMOs is based on fears that have no basis in fact, whereas the development (under proper conditions of scrutiny) of GMOs has the potential to solve many of the world's problems such as hunger, disease and poverty.
The idea that Ireland will hold itself up as a place where such innovation will not be applied, examined or assessed is incompatible with our desire to be a "smart economy" built on a knowledge society. We appear to be saying that not only do we not want to use these technologies, we don't even want to know about them.
Ireland cannot afford to be seen as an innovation-free zone. We must want to participate in viable research conducted according to international best practice - we must want to be seen as a location of choice for such research. The commitment against innovation in these key areas is a significant mistake, but we now have a chance to correct this in the light of the new commissioner's approach, and Irish universities should be up there with the best in Europe addressing this agenda. We don't need to decide now if we want nuclear power or GMOs, but we do need to say that we will be part of the process of research and discovery in these matters.
Ferdinand von Prondzynski is president of Dublin City University
---
Comment from GM-free Ireland:
The Government's nomination of Maire Geoghan-Quinn to the post of EU Commissioner for Research, Innovation and Science is the latest proof of the Fianna Fáil / Green Party coalition's moral bankruptcy - since her stated intention to promote nuclear power and GM farming is a flagrant violation of the agreed Programme for Government GM-free policy announced by both parties in October 2009.
Contrary to what von Prondzynski claims, Ireland's former EU Commissioner for Consumer Affairs David Byrne did not have a "very positive effect" on food and farming. Byrne terminated the EU-wide embargo on the cultivation of GM crops two weeks before the end of Ireland's presidency of the EU in 2004, to the fury of the majority of the Member States and the vast majority of their citizens who oppose GM crops, seed patenting, and the corporate takeover of the food chain. Byrne's deregulation fiat was directly responsible for the release of Monsanto's Bt toxin-producing GM maize for cultivation in the EU. The crop has since been banned in France, Germany, Austria, Luxembourg, Hungary and Bulgaria. It was grown on less than 0.06% of arable land in the EU in 2008, and decreased by a further 7% in 2009. But Spain continues to allow it, causing widespread and probably irreversible contamination of Europe's food supply chains, exposing contaminated farmers to mandatory GM labelling, loss of market share, and exposure to Monsanto's extortion tactics and patent infringement lawsuits.
Ireland's most recent Commissioner, Charlie McCreevy, who led the EU Directorate for the Internal Market and Services, was also widely despised in Brussels for his similar deregulation of safeguards which contributed to the current global financial depression. Maire Geoghan-Quinn's promotion of nuclear power and GM farming looks set to follow the example of her predecessors.
The Canadian scientist David Suzuki famously observed that anyone who claims GM crops are safe is either a liar or a fool. Does von Prondzynski really believe Monsanto's propaganda claim that the Government intends to ban the production of insulin (which is routinely produced from GM bacteria in sealed vats in secure laboratories), and "advise all diabetics to leave the country"? No such policy exists. Making such claims, while accusing those who oppose GM food and farming of "scaremongering" elevates the art of hypocrisy to a pinnacle of self-delusion.
von Prondzynski's repetition of the biotech industry spin that GMOs have the potential to solve hunger, disease and poverty - despite overwhelming evidence to the contray - indicates just how debased Ireland's so-called "knowledge economy" has become.
To anyone familiar with media coverage of GM food and farming issues beyond this island's isolated shores, the lack of related information in the Irish Times and other national media outlets is Kafkaesque. Keeping people ignorant of the emerging global consensus on the risks an perils of industrial GM agriculture may suit the likes of von Prondzynski, Irish Times Trust Chairman David McConnell and other GM industry lobbyists and academics who hope to continue to benefit from biotech industry and EU funding.
But keeping Irish farmers ignorant of the market for safe GM-free quality food, condemns them to compete in a globalised race to the bottom to produce the lowest quality GM-fed meat and dairy produce in Europe, and thus lose market share on EU supermarket shelves.
That's a shame, since - with real knowledge - Ireland the food island has the potential to secure a unique selling point: the most credible safe GM-free food brand in Europe.
Bulgaria's Potential Is Larger in Environmentally Preferable than in Genetically Modified Products
Black Sea Grain / Ukraine Agro Consult / Bulgarian Telegraph Agency, 10 February 2010:
http://www.blackseagrain.net/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=26950&Itemid=107
Bulgaria has a potential to develop and market environmentally preferable and healthy food products. As part of Europe, this country is more interested in producing such type of products than in staking on the production of genetically modified foods, Divil Kulev, Research and Analyses Manager at the NOEMA Market Research Agency, said in a BTA interview.
Both food industry companies and consumers themselves show interest in the development of wholesome and organic products, Kulev said. As far as consumers are concerned, a fairly large group of chronically ill and elderly people are interested in healthy products for purely physiological reasons, but they cannot afford to buy more expensive foods. Another consumer group interested in such products consists of people who do not have health problems but insist on a healthy and environment-friendly lifestyle. This market segment covers 10-15 per cent of Bulgaria's population and is particularly attractive to food industry companies, the expert said. Precisely those 15 per cent of Bulgarians are ready to pay more but be sure that they will get a wholesmome product, Kulev said.
"A large part of the surveys we are conducting now target precisely the development of projects for the supply of environmentally preferable products," he said. "Because the crisis, the market of environmentally preferable and high-quality products in Bulgaria has now contracted and stagnates, but it is precisely in this segment that companies can find their niche and reach European markets," Kulev commented.
Markting experts have found that companies which are new to the food industry have a niche precisely in the supply of environmentally preferable and health foods because the low-price segment for which many companies vie is already occupied. A winning strategy in the food branch is focussing on added value organic products, e.g. calcium-enriched milk or olive oil with curative effect on certain physiological problems.
"If genetically modified foods are cheap and can achieve a low production cost, they will be bought by pensioners and other low-income consumers," Kulev reasons. "On the other hand, the elderly are rather conservative and if companies are obliged to indicate the content of GMO on their product labels, people may well avoid such products unless they are extremely cheap," he commented.
In Europe, there is a growing demand for environmentally preferable products and if Bulgaria asserts itself as a producer fo such products, this would be a better idea than opting for genetically modified foods which require competition with major mass producers, the analyst said. Bulgaria can hardly become a mass producer of, say, maize but can produce environmentally preferable products for all Europe. Europe is the principal market of Bulgarian products and, unlike the rest of the world, Europe is far more conservative in respect of GMO, Kulev concluded. PK/LG
India drops GM food plans
• India has dropped plans to release the country's first genetically
modified food crop because of fears over the long-term effects on
human health.
Dean Nelson
The Telegraph [UK], 9 February 2010:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/7196372/India-drops-GM-food-plans.html
NEW DELHI - The environment minister had been expected to announce the go-ahead
for GM aubergine, known in India as Bt brinjal, after a government
committee of scientific experts announced its backing.
Since then farmers have led a national campaign against the proposal,
citing concerns over the effects of long-term human consumption and
the impact on farmers who would have to buy the seeds from an Indian
partner of the American biotech giant Monsanto. They claim it would
leave farmers poorer and lead to more suicides.
The new variety was created to minimise crop destruction by insects
and reduce pesticide use. It contains a toxic protein which kills
fruit and shoot borers, which is destroyed during cooking and in the
human gut.
Its approval would have paved the way for more than 50 other
genetically-modified crops currently being developed.
Jairam Ramesh said more independent studies on the impact on human
health were needed before it could be commercially released.
"There is no overriding urgency to introduce it ... When the public
sentiments have been negative, it is my duty to adopt a cautious,
precautionary and principle-based approach," he said.
"I will not impose a decision till such time independent scientific
studies establish safety of the product from long-term view of human
health."
India puts moratorium on Bt-Brinjal
India Blooms News Service, 9 February 2010:
http://www.indiablooms.com/EnvironmentDetailsPage/environmentDetails090210a.php
New Delhi -- Faced with huge outcry of scientists, greens and farmers, India on Tuesday put a moratorium on release of the genetically modified Bt-Brinjal after several public consultations by Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh across the country.
Ramesh told an eagerly awaited press conference here that after studying long term impact of the GM crop only a decision can be taken.
"It has been a difficult decision to take. I had to balance science and society, producer and consumer, centre and state," Jairam Ramesh said.
"As a responsible minister I had to take a considered decision. It is responsible to science, it is responsive to society," he said.
"There is no overriding urgency to introduce Bt-Brinjal," he added.
In a statement he said: "It is my duty to adopt a cautious precautionary principle based approach and impose a moratorium on the release of Bt-Brinjal till such time independent scientific studies establish to the satisfaction of both the public and professionals the safety of the product from the point of view of its long term impact on human health and environment, including the rich genetic wealth existing in brinjal in our country."
He said: "A moratorium implies rejection of this particular case of release for the time being; it does not , in any way, mean conditional acceptance. This should be understood."
He said the move should not be construed as discouraging ongoing R&D in using tools of modern biotechnology.
Earlier during volatile public consultations, Ramesh had said that he was trying to take a middle path on the controversial issue.
"I am not an extremist. I am trying to take a middle path," he told reporters in Bangalore after the heated exchange at the public consultation last week.
He had lost his cool in Bangalore consultation when he was accused of being an agent of Monsanto, the US company with the Bt-Brinjal technology.
He said he had sleepless nights on the issue for months and aged.
Amidst much controversy and protests, the genetically modified Bt brinjal was cleared by a government panel for commercial cultivation in October last.
The Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), country's bio-technology regulator, has approved the commercial cultivation of genetically modified (GM) Bt brinjal. If approved by the government, it will become the first GM food crop in India.
Anti-Bt-Brinjal groups argue that its cultivation will affect the small farmers and harm humans.
Alarm raised over GM crop samples
• Banned production is increasing, group says
Bangkok Post [Thailand], 9 February 2010:
http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/32560/alarm-raised-over-gm-crop-samples
Genetically-modified chilli and soybean have been found growing in farms in the North and Central Plains, fuelling concerns over the possible spread of the banned crops.
Farmer advocacy group Biothai and the Academic Network on Bio-Resources Protection yesterday released the lab results of 768 crop samples, including maize, rice, papaya, soybean, chilli, pineapple, cotton, tomato and sunflower, which show 17 of the samples are GM crops.
The samples were collected in 40 provinces countrywide from November 2008 to July 2009 and sent to Chulalongkorn University's laboratory for testing.
The GM crops were maize from Chiang Mai, Phrae, Phitsanulok, Ayutthaya and Saraburi; papaya from Nakhon Sawan and Ayutthaya; soybean from Mae Hong Son, Nakhon Sawan and Chiang Mai; chilli from Chiang Mai; and cotton from Lop Buri.
It was the first time the two groups found local chilli and soybean which contained genetically-modified organisms (GMOs).
"GMOs contamination in these two crops is a big warning that the GM crops have been spread to many types of farm crops," said Piyasak Chaumpruk, director of the Laboratory of Plant Transgenic Technology and Biosensor at Chulalongkorn University.
"However, we have found only one sample of GM chilli and, fortunately, we've found no GMOs in rice," Mr Piyasak said.
"This means the spread of GM crops in the country is controllable if there is active cooperation between related agencies."
Mr Piyasak said the GM soybean had similar genes to herbicide-resistance soybean grown in other countries. It is believed the GM soybean is grown from imported seeds.
GM papaya found in Nakhon Sawan and Ayutthaya could be caused by a leakage of transgenic papaya from the state-run field trials of GM crops, he said.
Biothai director Withoon Lianchamroon called on agencies to urgently set up a joint committee to deal with the spread of GM crops to local farms.
He gave the agencies two months to stop the contamination of GMOs otherwise the farmer network would come up with means to pressure the government on the matter.
Mr Withoon also demanded that agencies strengthen regulations to prevent GM crops from entering the country, revise the biosafety law to increase the punishment for anyone causing GMO leaks and provide compensation for damaged parties.
The commercial planting of GM crops is banned in Thailand. The government only allows field trials of the crops under the close supervision of the Department of Agriculture.
Monsanto 'faked' data for approvals claims its ex-chief
Dinesh C. Sharma
India Today, 9 February 2010:
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/story?sId=83093&secid=120&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=twitterfeed
NEW DELHI: The debate on genetically modified (GM) brinjal [aubergine] variety continues to generate heat. Former managing director of Monsanto India, Tiruvadi Jagadisan, is the latest to join the critics of Bt brinjal, perhaps the first industry insider to do so.
Jagadisan, who worked with Monsanto for nearly two decades, including eight years as the managing director of India operations, spoke against the new variety during the public consultation held in Bangalore on Saturday.
On Monday, he elaborated by saying the company "used to fake scientific data" submitted to government regulatory agencies to get commercial approvals for its products in India.
The former Monsanto boss said government regulatory agencies with which the company used to deal with in the 1980s simply depended on data supplied by the company while giving approvals to herbicides.
"The Central Insecticide Board was supposed to give these approvals based on the location and crop-specific data from India. But it simply accepted foreign data supplied by Monsanto. They did not even have a test tube to validate the data and, at times, the data itself was faked," Jagadisan said.
"I retired from the company as I felt the management of Monsanto, USA, was exploiting our country," Jagadisan, 84, said from his home in Bangalore.
"At that time, Monsanto was getting into the seed business and I had information that a 'terminator gene' was to be incorporated in the seeds being supplied by the firm. This meant that the farmer had to buy fresh seeds from Monsanto at heavy cost every time he planted the crop," he said.
Jagadisan said the parent company also retracted from the assurance given to then minister for chemicals and fertilisers, Vasant Sathe, on setting up a manufacturing unit in collaboration with Hindustan Insecticides for the herbicide butachlor.
"The negotiations went on for over a year and in the meantime, Monsanto imported and sold large quantities of the product and made huge profits," he said.
Asked to comment on Jagadisan's allegations, a Monsanto spokesperson said: "We have full faith in the Indian regulatory system, which has its checks and measures in place to ensure accuracy and authenticity of data furnished to them." On approval of GM crops, the spokesperson said the regulatory process was stringent and "no biotech crops are allowed in the market until they undergo extensive and rigid crop safety assessments, following strict scientific protocols".
8 February 2010
India to rule on future of aubergine as country's first genetically modified food
• Minister to make key decision on major crop
• Broad alliance takes on Monsanto subsidiary
Jason Burke
The Guardian [UK], 8 February 2010:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/08/india-gm-crops-aubergine
A fierce row over the future of the humble aubergine, staple ingredient of fiery brinjal curries for tens of millions of Indians, will reach a climax on Wednesday with a key government decision on the possible future commercial cultivation of genetically-modified strains of the plant. If permission is given, the aubergine will become the first GM foodstuff to be grown in India.
The decision will be taken by the environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, who pledged last year to end the heated argument over whether aubergines modified with a gene from the soil bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis should be distributed to Indian farmers.
An alliance of voices ranging from environmentalists to leftwing politicians and Hindu extremists have called on Ramesh to deny permission for the commercial cultivation of the Bt Brinjal strain, named after the bacteria and the local word for aubergine.
"It will open the gate," said Leo Saldanha, an environmental campaigner in the southern city of Bengalooru. "It raises huge legal and cultural issues."
The decision Ramesh takes will reveal how far "India was willing to allow the farmer to be subordinated to corporate interests", he said.
Ramesh told one of the many rowdy meetings he has attended as part of a public consultation exercise that trying to reconcile the opposing camps had "turned [his] hair grey".
Aubergine is a major crop in India, where it has been cultivated for thousands of years. Though not native it is seen as an integral part of culture and diet, particularly of the poor.
Backers claim the modified aubergines would cut crop losses due to insect damage by more than half and drastically reduce pesticide use. They argue also that extensive animal testing has shown that the bacterium introduced into the aubergine, though toxic to boring insects, would not be harmful to humans.
Campaigners question the evidence, and argue that commercial interests have overly influenced the regulatory process. They say the 2,000-odd varieties of aubergine cultivated in India would be threatened if Bt Brinjal was introduced. "It is a hugely important decision, not just for India, for the whole world," said Dr Shiva Vandana, director of a network of groups campaigning against GM foods in India, and a key figure in the development of international biosafety treaties. "The question is whether or not public opinion will be listened to."
The seeds have been developed by Indian scientists but will be marketed by the Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Company, an Indian firm partly owned by the US multinational Monsanto - the cause of much criticism and controversy.
The southern state of Kerala, run by an alliance of opposition leftwing parties, has already banned GM crops on the grounds that they are a threat to biodiversity.
Last week, the state's Marxist chief minister, VS Achuthanandan, claimed GM foods would lead to the "colonisation of the food sector.
"We shouldn't be a part of a system that will destroy traditional seeds and crops and allow [multinational corporations] to infringe on the agriculture sector," he said.
Hindu nationalists from the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) have also taken up the aubergine's cause. Mohan Bhagwat, a senior RSS official, told a public meeting in Bengalooru last weekend that Bt Brinjal was "untested" and "dangerous" and its introduction would only benefit "the multinationals". He likened the new aubergines to "terrorist infiltrators" sent by foreign powers to destabilise India.
Government scientists have, however, told ministers that Bt Brinjal poses no threat. "Our experts examined the science behind Bt Brinjal and concluded that it is absolutely safe. The only thing that hasn't been done is human testing," Dr Maharaj Kishan Bhan, a senior research scientist at the ministry of science and technology said. "You can take a philosophical view that all GM foods are bad - but from a scientific point of view I would say it is fine."
GM crops have a chequered history in India, alternately praised as yield-boosting or suicide-inducing. Trials of a Bt cotton found it needed 70% less pesticide and gave 87% more crop than traditional plants. It was made by Monsanto, who provoked uproar by taking a patent over nap hal, wheat particularly suited to chapatis, but saying it had no plans to exploit the patent. The bitterest row has involved the claim, by Prince Charles among others, that failing GM crops led to suicides among farmers. Analysis by the International Food Policy Research Institute found that, if anything, the reverse was true. By 2006, Bt cotton covered 39% of cotton area, with yield doubled. India is the world's second largest cotton producer.
Join the Non-GMO Uprising
Hesh Goldstein, citizen journalist
Natural News [USA], 8 February 2010:
http://www.naturalnews.com/028115_GMOs_GM_foods.html
For several years, The Institute for Responsible Technology has predicted that the US would soon experience a tipping point of consumer rejection against genetically modified foods. Now, in a December article in "Supermarket News", that prediction is supported and the non-GMO consciousness uprising is gaining momentum.
Besides the Institute's new non-GMO website and non-GMO shopping guide, which was disclosed in a previous article, another Non-GMO project is being launched. The project would offer the country's first consensus-based guidelines to include third-party certification and a uniform seal for approved products. The organization would also require documented traceability and segregation to ensure the tested ingredients are what go into the final product.
The "Supermarket News" article alerts supermarket executives to the fact that the growth of organic, local, and green product categories reflects a generation of consumers that could be less tolerant of genetic modification.
In the past, health culprits like fats, refined carbs, salt and sugar were addressed, in that food companies offered options with, without, or with low levels of them. Now, the GMOs are coming to light. These executives are becoming aware that GMOs do not offer a single consumer benefit. They are finally learning that the five major GMOs, soy, corn, cottonseed, canola, and sugar beets, which are gene spliced to tolerate or produce poisonous insecticides, offer the consumer nothing. They are also learning that companies can eliminate GMOs without having to change recipes.
When the major food companies notice even tiny losses in market share, their GMO clean out will be widespread. The large food companies will recognize that the same consumer trend that forced them to remove all GM ingredients in Europe and Japan is taking place in the US.
Right now, about 28 million Americans regularly buy organic and about 87 million are opposed to GM foods and believe they are unsafe. And, 159 million say they would avoid GMOs if they were labeled. Imagine what people would say if they all learned that Monsanto paid off our elected officials to not require labeling of GMOs. You see, they knew full well that no one would buy their GMO garbage if it were labeled as such.
In the past, the decade could be defined with regard to the "culprits". In the 80's, it was fat; in the 90's, it was carbs. Hopefully, we won't need this whole decade to send GMOs packing. And, God willing, by this time next year, Monsanto, the largest GMO producer in the world, will not be a "happy camper".
Read labels. If soy (including soy lecithin), corn, cotton, canola and sugar do not say organic, do not buy it.
Aloha!
5 February 2010
Declaration of GM-free Regions' Network on Labels and GM-free Farming
European GMO-free Regions Network, Brussels, 5 February 2010:
Download as PDF:
http://www.gmofree-euregions.net:8080/docs/ajax/ogm/Final%20Declaration_EN.pdf
The GM-Free Regions' Network which gathers 51 regional governments of the European Union is
proud of the great success of its initiative "3rd Conference Non-GM Labels, quality productions
and European regional agricultures' strategy", taking place in Brussels on 3 and 4 February 2010
thanks to the support of the European Union's Committee of the Regions, the European Association
of Geographical Indications (AREPO), Slow Food and the members of Greens groups - EFA, Social -
Democrat and Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.
This conference, which welcomed several hundreds of participants from the United States, Brazil,
the European Union, India, Norway, Switzerland and Ukraine, allowed showing the reality of a
fully-committed non-GM labelled products' market gaining by a powerful consumer's
movement. To that effect, we have to understand the establishment of national labelling
policies in Austria, Germany, France and tomorrow, Ireland. To that effect too we have to
understand the participation of about a hundred of food processing production and
transformation businesses collecting their products among more than 700,000 farms.
The network is proud of its concerns being heard beyond the Union's boarders. To answer to its call,
Brazilian producers created in June 2008 the ABRANGE which federates the supply of GM-free
soy. On 16 and 17 march 2010 in New Delhi will be held the first Indian conference on GM-free
soy to which is invited the GM-free European Regions' Network.
The Network is also proud of groups from the European Parliament having answered to its call and,
on their own initiative, having organised for 5 November 2009 a meeting called "GM-free products
an economic opportunity for European producers" strictly in accordance with the objectives
defended by the regions.
The GM-Free Regions' Network expresses its satisfaction before the progress achieved since its
first mission in Brazil in 2005 and the organization of December 2007 1st Conference on GM-free
soy.
They note with keen interest:
•
That the producers of GM-free soy have organized themselves and that the spectre of a
shortage of this raw material vital for a good many industries is removed.
•
That in Brazil but also in the United States, the number of lands dedicated to GM-free
production stopped decreasing and that in some cases, they succeeded for the first time
in reversing the trend. They are proud of GM soy's banning in India.
•
That in several countries of the EU national laws were set up to allow identification of
meat and dairy products without resorting to GMOs in animal diet.
•
That many sectors are trying to reduce their dependence to imported vegetable proteins to
commit themselves to a farming allowing a better bond with the soil, a bigger respect
for human, environment, landscapes and climate.
•
That today and even more tomorrow, one of the conditions to conservation of
competitiveness in European farming, within the framework of the CAP's revision, will
lie in its capacity to maintain the authenticity, the tradition, and the bond to territory
of its products for an open, healthy and fair commercial supply.
•
That the issue on genetically modified organisms' use in farming is a high importance strategic and trade issue both for production sectors and environment, economic, social
and territorial sustainability of the European regional economies.
The GM-Free Regions' Network urges its institutional partners of the European Commission, the
European Parliament, and the Committee of the Regions to consider the wishes expressed by the
whole parties, production sectors, transformation sectors, distribution networks and regional
institutions attending the conference:
•
The network requests that the European Commission and the European Parliament, taking
advantage of the open debate by its various interventions, do their best to know
exhaustively the real issues of making secure a GM-free animal diet.
>
The network requests that a specific policy on needs detection be created considering all
the interests of the sectors' contributors.
•
The network hopes that the consumer have access to a real openness from the pitchfork to
the fork and among others that consideration be taken on the exact nature of the animal
diet's composition part of the European livestock's intake for production of dietary goods.
>
The network requests that the consumer have access to an educated-choice with Labels
and quality distinction signs.
•
The network considers as vital to bring up again the question of the European Union's
capacity to produce this type of raw materials.
>
The network requests that a policy on GM-free vegetable proteins production be
implemented over the European Union territory and that this chapter be recalled in a
specific way in bilateral trade relations with the United States, India, China, Africa, and
the MERCOSUR.
The network requests that these themes be considered in the next revision of the common
agricultural policy in order that European agriculture represents an example of sustainable
development for the whole planet, in order to break food shortage, development gaps and
inequality in resources' access.
The GM-Free Regions' Network undertakes to:
•
help making known the efforts of private and public labels in their wish to defend
their products quality;
•
give substance to and reinforce the implementation of sustainable agriculture to
reconcile producers and consumers and to protect the environment in which the next
generations will live;
•
contribute to the work of national and European authorities over the issue because
the regions, thanks to their institutional role and/or their closeness with civil society, are in
the best position to provide the defence of their territory interests.
_______________________
Pentagon Looks to Breed Immortal 'Synthetic Organisms,' Molecular Kill-Switch Included
Kate Drummond
Danger room: What's next in national security
Wired [USA], 5 February 2010:
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/02/pentagon-looks-to-breed-immortal-synthetic-organisms-molecular-kill-switch-included/
The Pentagon's mad science arm may have come up with its most radical project yet. Darpa is looking to re-write the laws of evolution to the military's advantage, creating "synthetic organisms" that can live forever - or can be killed with the flick of a molecular switch.
As part of its budget for the next year [http://www.darpa.mil/Docs/FY2011PresBudget28Jan10%20Final.pdf], Darpa is investing $6 million into a project called BioDesign, with the goal of eliminating "the randomness of natural evolutionary advancement." The plan would assemble the latest bio-tech knowledge to come up with living, breathing creatures that are genetically engineered to "produce the intended biological effect." Darpa wants the organisms to be fortified with molecules that bolster cell resistance to death, so that the lab-monsters can "ultimately be programmed to live indefinitely."
Of course, Darpa's got to prevent the super-species from being swayed to do enemy work - so they'll encode loyalty right into DNA, by developing genetically programmed locks to create "tamper proof" cells. Plus, the synthetic organism will be traceable, using some kind of DNA manipulation, "similar to a serial number on a handgun." And if that doesn't work, don't worry. In case Darpa's plan somehow goes horribly awry, they're also tossing in a last-resort, genetically-coded kill switch:
Develop strategies to create a synthetic organism "self-destruct" option to be implemented upon nefarious removal of organism.
The project comes as Darpa also plans to throw $20 million into a new synthetic biology program, and $7.5 million into "increasing by several decades the speed with which we sequence, analyze and functionally edit cellular genomes."
Of course, Darpa's up against some vexing, fundamental laws of nature - not to mention bioethics - as they embark on the lab beast program. First, they might want to rethink the idea of evolution as a random series of events, says NYU biology professor David Fitch. "Evolution by selection is not a random process at all, and is actually a hugely efficient design algorithm used extensively in computation and engineering," he e-mails Danger Room.
Even if Darpa manages to overcome the inherent intelligence of evolutionary processes, overcoming inevitable death can be tricky. Just ask all the other research teams who've made stabs at it, trying everything from cell starvation to hormone treatments. Gene therapy, where artificial genes are inserted into an organism to boost cell life, are the latest and greatest in life-extension science, but they've only been proven to extend lifespan [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2723912/] by 20 percent in rats.
But suppose gene therapy makes major strides, and Darpa does manage to get the evolutionary science right. They'll also have a major ethical hurdle to jump. Synthetic biology researchers are already facing the same questions, as a 2009 summary [http://www.synbioproject.org/library/publications/archive/synbio3/] from the Synthetic Biology Project reports:
The concern that humans might be overreaching when we create organisms that never before existed can be a safety concern, but it also returns us to disagreements about what is our proper role in the natural world (a debate largely about non-physical harms or harms to well-being).
Even expert molecular geneticists don't know what to make of the project. Either that, or they're scared Darpa might sic a bio-bot on them. "I would love to comment, but unfortunately Darpa has installed a kill switch in me," one unnamed expert tells Danger Room.
_______________________Five-year ban on GM foods proposed in Bulgaria
Sofia Echo [Bulgaria], 5 February 2010:
http://www.sofiaecho.com/2010/02/05/853432_five-year-ban-on-gm-foods-proposed-in-bulgaria
Following the wave of protests against a bill of amendments that would allow genetically-modified organisms (GMO) to be grown in Bulgaria, the country's ruling party will now propose a five-year ban on all genetically-modified cultures in the country, it emerged on February 5 2010.
The ban would affect all crops and the entire country, Environment Minister Nona Karadjova said. Now, there is a ban on some crops in parts of the country, she said.
The measure was a compromise, Karadjova said, between the strong public opposition to GMOs and the European Union regulations, which preclude an outright ban on laboratory and commercial cultivation.
The initial amendments, which were passed at first reading by Parliament, allowed cultivation of genetically-modified tobacco, vines, cotton, rose, wheat and vegetables. The bill did not allow cultivation in areas protected under the EU's Natura 2000 programme, but lowered the minimum distance from protected areas at which such crops could be cultivated.
About 300 people protested in the centre of Sofia against proposed amendments to the Genetically Modified Foods Act (GMFA) on January 31 2010.
Protests were held in front of the National Library, under the motto "Clean food, a healthy earth! Bulgaria GM foods free." Later, protesters marched to the buildings of Bulgarian National Television and the Bulgarian Parliament.
The protesters demanded any decision on loosening GM foods restrictions to be postponed until a wider public debate on the topic had been held.
'Frankenstein'-food fears keep GMOs out of Europe
Reuters Global News Journal, 5 February 2010:
http://blogs.reuters.com/global/2010/02/05/frankenstein-food-fears-keep-gmos-out-of-europe/
As the new European Union executive prepares to debate fresh policy proposals which might unblock the stalemate over approving genetically modified crops for feed, processing or cultivation, there are few signs that Europe's fears over what some have termed "Frankenstein foods" are easing.
On Friday Bulgaria's ruling GERB party proposed a five-year moratorium on the production of genetically modified (GM) crops for scientific and commercial reasons following public outcry over a new legislation.
Bulgaria follows in the footsteps of Austria, Germany, Hungary and France, all of whom have banned the commercial cultivation of the only GM crop (Monsanto's MON 810 maize type) allowed to be grown in the European Union.
Why, despite all the assurances from the scientific community and food safety authorities, do so many remain so adverse to GMOs?
The answer you often get from consumers when you ask why they don't like GMOs is: "You just never know" - suggesting they think there are still dangers lurking out there.
The last survey conducted by the European Union on public acceptance of GMOs, in 2006, showed that while many had faith in biotechnology, few had an appetite for food made from genetically modified organisms. For Europeans, the perceived risk still seems to outweigh the demonstrated benefits in terms of higher crop yields and less use of pesticides.
Recent events suggest European opinion has altered little since 2006, suggesting it could be a long time still before Europe embraces a GMO-world.
Bayer to pay $1.5 mln in 2nd lawsuit over GM rice
• Second ruling of about 500 similar cases pending
• Company says will consider legal options
Reuters, 5 February 2010:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE61421W20100205
FRANKFURT - Germany's Bayer (BAYGn.DE) was ordered by a jury in the United States to pay $1.5 million in damages to three farmers for losses they incurred because of contaminations of Bayer's genetically modified rice, the second in about 500 similar cases pending.
The jury's ruling in a St. Louis court against Bayer's CropScience division follows a related case in December, in which Bayer was ordered to pay $2 million, the chemicals- and drugmaker said on Friday after the close of trading in Germany.
"The company will assess this ruling thoroughly and consider its options," a Bayer spokesman in Germany said.
"Bayer CropScience is standing by its view that the company has handled its biotech rice responsibly and appropriately at all times," he added.
A rice variety whose genetic code had been modified by a Bayer subsidiary for research purposes and which was not approved for commercial cultivation was found in the food supply chain in August 2006 after it had been tested by a U.S. university.
As a result, Japan and the European Union restricted U.S. rice from crossing their borders, leading to a plunge in rice prices, a drop in exports and extensive losses incurred by U.S. rice farmers.
"Since the amounts claimed differ considerably from case to case, the rulings so far do not allow for conclusions regarding the outcome of the remaining cases pending," Bayer said.
The long-grain rice in question had a protein known as Liberty Link, which allows the crop to withstand applications of a certain weed killer.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration said at the time there was no public health or environmental risk associated with the rice variety. (Reporting by Ludwig Burger; Editing by Rupert Winchester)
Second Bayer 'Bellweather' trial results
In another verdict for plaintiffs: $1.5 million award to rice farmers in Arkansas and Mississippi, USA
Media release via TGI Marketing Communications [USA] on behalf of farmers' attorneys:
http://www.tgidirect.com
A St. Louis, Mo. jury today found Germany-based Bayer Cropscience AG and several of its affiliates negligent in the second of several "bellwether trials" scheduled for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, and awarded a total of $1.5 million to two Arkansas long-grain rice farmers and one in Mississippi whose crops and their livelihood, the jury determined, were harmed by Bayer's genetically modified rice.
Joe and Jim Penn, of Portia, Ark., were awarded $480,692 in compensatory damages and fellow Arkansas rice farmer Jerry Catt, of Corning, Ark., was awarded $96,996 in compensatory damages. Black Dog Planting Co., of Lyon, Miss., represented by partner Gary Goode, was awarded $923,154 in compensatory damages.
The suit was brought on behalf of the rice farmers based on economic damages they suffered from contamination of their crops by an unapproved genetically modified strain of rice seed produced by Bayer. Discovery of the contamination led to a dramatic drop in U.S. rice prices, as the European Union stopped purchasing the U.S. rice. The farmers suffered economic loss due to the much lower demand for their rice since 2006, when the contaminated rice was discovered.
This trial, which began January 11, is the second of five scheduled "bellwether" - or test - trials scheduled by U.S. District Court Judge Catherine Perry that involves rice farmers in Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. These trials represent the first step Perry ordered in hearing the multi-district litigation involving some 6,000 rice producers in those five states.
St. Louis attorney Don Downing, of the firm Gray, Ritter & Graham, was the plaintiffs' lead attorney in the first two cases and is co-lead counsel of the multi-district litigation.
"We're pleased that another jury returned verdicts in favor of our clients and their family farming operations. A second consecutive verdict against Bayer should send a clear and strong message to the company about its negligent conduct and the damages that conduct actually caused to American rice farmers, not only in this case but in the other matters that are scheduled for trial," Downing said.
The jury used the same formula in awarding compensatory damages due to the price drop for all plaintiffs. The awards varied because they were based on the number of acres each farmer planted and the impact of the contamination on their land.
More test trials involving Bayer and rice farmers are scheduled for this summer in the same federal courtroom and will include farmers from Louisiana and Texas.
Who Is Brazil Catering to in Approving Bayer's New Controversial Rice?
Verena Glass
Brazzil (magazine), February 2010:
http://www.brazzil.com/component/content/article/215-february-2010/10350-who-is-brazil-catering-to-in-approving-bayers-new-controversial-rice.html
It is possible that Brazil may win a sad new title in 2010: the first country in the world to license the commercial planting of a new variety of genetically-modified rice, Bayer's LL62. If CTNBio (National Technical Commission on Biosecurity) approves the proposal at a meeting later this month, the rice will be the 20th genetically-modified product grown commercially in the country.
CTNBio has maintained a steady flow of approval of GMO (genetically-modified organisms) licensing requests over the last years. Between 2005 and 2009, CTNBio gave licensing for two varieties of soy, eleven varieties of corn and six of cotton. There seems to be little doubt that the commission will continue this trend and approve the rice, except for one thing: this time there is a generalized opposition to the rice from various sectors.
Opponents include researchers, consumer groups, environmental groups, and even groups that have traditionally been pro-transgenic, such as Embrapa (Brazilian Agricultural Research Company, a public entity which has supported GMOs), Farsul (Agricultural Federation of Rio Grande do Sul), and Federarroz (Federation of Rice Grower Associations of Rio Grande do Sul).
According to Embrapa and Southern rice farmers, the major threat of Bayer's rice is the possible transference of a genetic mutation of red rice, which is considered the most invasive plant of irrigated rice farming. With contamination, this plant, which already causes damages to productivity and quality of the rice in areas which are highly infested, will become resistant to chemical control.
In other words, according to Embrapa, if transgenic rice is licensed, it will be a threat to food security, capable of contaminating other varieties of rice in the country.
Thus, if researchers (concerned with scientific evaluations), producers (concerned with economic questions), and consumers (concerned with what they eat - Greenpeace has already gathered 20,000 signatures against the transgenic rice) are opposed to the proposal, then one could ask the question, To whom is the CTNBio catering if it votes in favor of Bayer's rice?
Perhaps it would be imprudent to suggest that the sales of multinational transgenic companies is related to the licensing of GMOs in Brazil. But the fact is, according to Exame magazine, Monsanto, which has had nine varieties of GMOs approved, earned in sales US$ 783.9 million in 2006, US$ 899.2 million in 2007, and US$ 954.8 million in 2008.
According to the Law of Biosecurity, the commission, created in 2005, was to "give technical and consultative support to the federal government in formulating, updating, and implementing the National Policy of Biosecurity, relative to GMOs, such as the establishment of technical norms and technical partners in regard to the protection of human health.
"Such protection also extended to other organisms and the environment, and activities which involve the construction, experimentation, farming, manipulation, transportation, commercialization, stocking, consuming, licensing and disposal of GMOs and their derivatives."
In order for a GMO to obtain commercial licensing, fourteen of the 27 members of the commission must approve the product.
According to entities of civil society who have watched over the work of CTNBio, many of the technical analyses in the processes of licensing GMOs have lacked scientific rigor and have not followed the principles of caution as outlined in the Protocol of Cartagena regarding Biosecurity. In addition these processes have lacked research on national soil that proves the security of the commercial planting of the varieties that were licensed.
On the contrary, a strong characteristic of the majority of the commission's members is that they favor GMO technology. In 2003, eight of the current members of CTNBio wrote an open letter in which they affirmed that "Brazil cannot let go of transgenic technology" as it is "essential for sustainability and keeps agribusiness and small family farms competitive, and brings innumerous social and economic benefits to the country."
Among current members, there are various who have or have had some personal relation with biotech companies or with the pro-transgenic lobby groups of Basf, Bayer, Cargill, Dow, Dupont, Monsanto, Pioneer, Syngenta, and others.
Regarding observance of adequate scientific criteria in the process of licensing GMOs, or in the establishment of security norms for protection against contamination of non-transgenic fields by GMOs, CTNBio has been repeatedly challenged by diverse institutions.
In 2007, the licensing of Bayer's transgenic corn Liberty Link and Monsanto's MON 810 (outlawed in France, Austria, Greece, Luxemburg, Hungary, Italy, Poland and Germany) was questioned by Anvisa (National Sanitation Agency) and Ibama (Brazilian Institute for the Environment and Natural Resources).
Both entities pointed out errors in the technical reports which were fundamental in the licensing. In the case of Bayer's corn, Anvisa pointed out the insufficient data around proof of the security of transgenic corn for human consumption.
According to Ibama, CTNBio ignored the inexistence of environmental impact studies and an analysis of risk. The Minister of the Environment also pointed out the absence of "studies or literature which prove the absence of environment damage, something alone which should have impeded the licensing."
Shortly after these charges were made, entities filed a civil suit which forced the Justice Department to demand of CTNBio the creation of norms which would in theory protect non-GMO corn fields from contamination. In this case, minimal distances were established to protect non-GMO corn fields from transgenic corn - 20 to 100 meters depending on different types of barriers.
But over the past three years, various entities have reported the contamination of non-GMO corn fields. The Department of Inspection and Agriculture Defense officially confirmed these accusations in 2009, proving that the CTNBio's norms are inadequate.
"The preliminary reports indicate that under the present norms it is impossible to secure the coexistence of GMO fields, conventional fields, and organic fields, as at the present moment all areas monitored show cross-pollination at a distance much greater than the current norm provides," affirmed the Secretary of Agriculture.
Given this information, at the end of October 2009, various organizations of civil society promoted a civil law suit that ask for the suspension of the licensing for commercially planted transgenic corn until an adequate norm can be established. The suit currently is awaiting a decision from a judge in Paran·.
In response to this issue, a representative of the Science and Technology Ministry, Luiz Antonio Barreto de Castro, acknowledged the contamination of non-GMO corn, but stated, "the norms of CTNBio were established taking into consideration that not always would the contamination result in damage for the farmers who produce varieties called heirlooms...even if contamination occurs, it will be to the advantage of the farmer."
But contrary to Castro's assertion, damages caused by contamination from GMO fields are recurrent in Brazil and in the rest of the world. In 2004, for example, Eco Brazil Organics Ltda in the state of Paran· had its production paralyzed after their fields were contaminated - three million dollars worth of damage.
In 2006, Bayer's experimental fields for transgenic rice contaminated conventional fields and caused damages of one billion dollars around the world, according to a report issued by Greenpeace International.
CTNBio's generosity towards transgenic has already had its collateral effects. Biotech companies originally argued that their technology would mean less use of chemicals and pesticides. Yet one study shows that the use of herbicides on soy, for example, has actually increased.
In 2004, 129.6 thousand tons of herbicides were poured into soy fields. In 2008 the volume was raised to 192 thousand tons. It is important to remember here that Brazil has become the biggest world consumer of agricultural chemicals, using nearly 673,890 tons per year. The collateral effects of this: 6.3 thousand cases of human intoxication in 2007 resulting in 162 deaths.
Verena Glass writes for Revista Sem Terra and Agência Carta Maior.
Bulgaria: Government Proposes 5-Year Ban on GM Crop Trials
Novinite [Bulgaria], 5 February 2010:
http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=112836
Environment Minister, Nona Karadzhova, concluded that the ban, that will mean a ban on any cultivation of all GM crops in the country, was a good compromise and stressed that the change in policy was due to the Bulgarian public's negative opinion on GMOs.
The center-right governing GERB party has proposed that all cultivation of GM crops should be banned for 5-years, in a change to the new GMO Act.
After a meeting of the Parliamentary Group of the center-right governing GERB party, Group Co-Chair, Iskra Fidosova, announced that GM crop trials should be banned for 5 years on the territory of Bulgaria.
Fidosova added that the decision would mean that the controversial changes to the GMO act would have to be altered before their second hearing next week. The original changes which were passes at their 1st parliament hearing in January, were made to bring Bulgaria in-line with European legislation. They allowed for GM crop trials immediately of many crops and laboratory testing of GMO cultures.
Fidosova explained "next week's second reading will have to include a change in the number of texts and will require drafting amendments to the bill on GMOs, whilst ensuring compliance with the European directive on the matter."
GERB also announced that, through their MEPs, they will try to push for the introduction of an EU ban on GM crop trials and commercial growing.
Environment Minister, Nona Karadzhova, concluded that the ban, that will mean a ban on any cultivation of all GM crops in the country, was a good compromise and stressed that the change in policy was due to the Bulgarian public's negative opinion on GMOs.
Note from GM Watch:
This comes after recent demonstrations in Bulgaria. Bulgaria is following in the footsteps of Austria, Germany, Hungary and France, who have all banned the commercial cultivation of the only GM crop (Monsanto's MON 810 maize) allowed to be grown in the European Union. Whether Bulgaria has gone further and banned all GM crop trials as well, as this article states, remains unclear.
Irishman scotches ban on GM crops
Andrew Arbuckle
The Scotsman [UK], 5 February 2010:
http://business.scotsman.com/business/Irishman-scotches-ban-on-GM.6045941.jp
AN IRISH businessman claims he can grow malting-quality barley in Argentina and get it to port for £50 a tonne and still make a profit - not a message that Scottish growers want to hear.
Jim McCarthy's speech at a conference in Carnoustie, Angus, set the audience of mainly arable farmers back on its heels. He also hit out at European governments for ruling out GM technology.
McCarthy has interests in land worldwide, and one of these businesses, Agro Terra, owns about 11,000 hectares of top-quality land in the South American country. Currently, it is growing maize and soya, but he produced figures showing costs that would work out at about £35 per tonne, leaving £15 per tonne for profit and haulage to the nearest port.
He gave one example of how he was able to keep his costs low. For sowing his grain, he uses an 8m-wide drill and two tractormen each do an eight-hour shift, sleeping in a caravan next to the field. They do this seven days a week until the work is complete.
He admitted afterwards that the prospect of South American grain going into Scotch whisky might be a shock to those who live in this country.
But he stuck to his guns, saying that Scotch was an international drink and "the man in Shanghai" may like Scottish whisky, but he would not be too concerned about where the grain making the drink came from. "The point I want to make is that food and drink are international commodities and that suppliers with low costs of production are better placed to remain in business."
His crops in Argentina, mainly soya and maize, are all genetically modified and he declared himself an enthusiastic supporter of this new science.
He was also heavily critical of the attitude of governments in this country and in Europe for turning their backs on GM technology, saying he believed that European farmers were now being placed at a disadvantage in world markets because of this stance.
Although he farms land in Latvia and other Baltic states, he said he was unlikely to increase his interests in Europe, as he feared becoming "Europeanised", which he later explained was tied into too many regulations.
In South America, his pesticide costs are now very low, with GM varieties controlling most of the pests that attacked conventionally bred cultivars.
NFU Scotland president Jim McLaren, who was in the audience for McCarthy's speech, admitted that "my mailbox is filled everyday with people who are anti-GM", and he wanted to know how consumers could be assured of the safety of new GM varieties?
McCarthy was in no doubt that the testing regime for these was strict and that there was no problem for those eating the produce from the 500 million acres of GM crops grown last year.
During his talk, McCarthy referred to the increasing population of the world and the responsibility that would fall on farmers to feed the extra mouths. It was not just a case of more people looking for food; he also predicted increased demand for a wider range of food as societies developed. Another angle on the GM debate emerged at the conference when plant scientist Dr Mark Taylor, from the Scottish Crop Research Institute at Invergowrie, revealed that a GM potato cultivar created at SCRI would be field-tested in Israel, because it was not allowed in the UK.
The cultivar being put on trial is a mix of the tuberosum and phureja potato genes, and the scientists believe that they have combined to create a much more flavoursome tattie.
---
Comment from GM-free Ireland:
Jim McCarthy is a prominent member of the Irish Farmers Association who farms a 42,000 acre GMO soya ranch in Argentina and 2,000
acres in Kildare. He has described the 80% of EU consumers who reject GM food as a "vocal minority", farmers who refuse patented GM seeds and crops as "eco-fundamentalists", and said that farming is "all about profit, the rest is commentary". Now he wants Scotland to produce GM whisky!
Like other members of the pro-GM brigade in the IFA, McCarthy ignores the mountain of scientific evidence of the health and environmental dangers of GM crops. His fondness for money also disregards the devastating social and economic impacts of GM farming which led the Swiss-based Covalence Ethical Quotation System to rate Monsanto as the world's most unethical company in 2009:
http://www.covalence.ch/index.php/ethical-rankings/across-sectors/
4 February 2010
Nielsen: GMO-Free Is Fastest-Growing Corporate-Brand Claim
Supermarket News [USA], 4 February 2010:
http://supermarketnews.com/news/nielson_gmofree_0204/?cid=upd
SCHAUMBURG, Ill. - Store brands comprise almost 40% of items making health and wellness claims related to preservative; one in four organic product sales; and nearly one in five items making natural and fat claims in food, drug and mass channels, according to the Nielsen Co.
It found that GMO-free claims are the fastest growing among store brands. Sales of these items increased 67% in 2009 to $60.2 million, followed in popularity by gluten free (62%), absence of specific fat (53%) and lowers cholesterol (45%) store brands.
Private-label marketers are steering clear of other health and wellness claims for the time being, according to Tom Pirovano, director of industry insights at Nielsen.
"Store-brand development lags with respect to the products with newer claims such as high fructose corn syrup free, with many retailers adopting a wait-and-see attitude to determine if a claim has 'legs' or is merely the latest blip on the consumer trend screen," he said in a blog post.
Brinjal [aubergine] a political hot potato in India
Neeta Lal
Asia Times [Hong Kong, China], 4 February 2010:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/LB04Df03.html
NEW DELHI - The fronts in India's brinjal war are sharply drawn between opponents of the commercial launch of the nation's first genetically modified (GM) vegetable and those who see it as a new avatar for the crop, which is commonly known as eggplant or aubergine.
The biotech industry and some government ministers, say Bt Brinjal, as the GM version of the vegetable is known, is "safe for human consumption'', won't hurt the environment and can reduce dependence on pesticides. Critics point to gaps in India's regulatory process, a lack of a labeling regime for consumers, and
the imminent toxic effects of the foreign genes in the modified crop.
"The case of Bt Brinjal in India has now become symbolic because it will impact the future of several other edible crops which are now in various stages of genetic modification waiting to flood our markets," says Dr Vandana Shiva, an environmental scientist who opposes GM crops in India.
The government, which says it will decide this month whether to allow introduction of the crop, has so far stumbled between the lines, only considering the merits of public debate when the controversy threatened to grow into a crisis of confidence for Indian consumers. Half a dozen Indian state governments recently decided to keep the new variety - and possibly all GM crops - out of their fields, due to lack of clarity on the issue.
Such are the perceived dangers from Bt Brinjal in India that the Warangal incident is often quoted to support a ban. It was in this district in India's southern state of Andhra Pradesh in 2006 where over 2,000 sheep died after grazing in a field of Bt Cotton for seven days.
Indian activists aren't the only ones demanding GM products don't make it to dinner. Hungary banned the planting of US-based global seed giant's GM maize in January 2005. French President Nicolas Sarkozy has similarly invoked EU safeguards to suspend the marketing and cultivation of GM crops.
Jairam Ramesh, the Minister for Environment, has said a final decision on the commercial introduction of Bt Brinjal will be taken after February 10.
Union Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar has stood firm in his resolve to go ahead with Bt Brinjal, saying that "initially there maybe constraints but in the long run such crops will only prove to be an advantage for India".
Bt Brinjal has the Cry1Ac gene from Bacillus Thuringiensis (Bt) which is supposed to make the plant resistant to the Shoot and Fruit Borer insect that attacks it throughout its lifecycle. GM activists assert that Bt crops could pose serious health risks and hurt the agricultural industry.
Opponents of GM crops also point out that the introduction of Bt Brinjal would adversely affect biodiversity and companies would have a monopoly over the seed varieties, which will have a multiplier effect on increasing their prices. "The traditional brinjal crop - of which we have over 2,000 varieties today - will vanish if the genetically modified variety is allowed," explains Shiva.
Monsanto is promoting GM crops in India through Mahyco-Monsanto Biotech, its joint venture with Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company (Mahyco).
"We look forward to a positive decision because it will help millions of our brinjal farmers who have been suffering from the havoc caused by the Brinjal Fruit and Shoot Borer (BFSB),'' Raju Barwale, Mahyco's managing director, said in October. "Bt brinjal will help them tackle this pest in an environment-friendly manner and increase yields and farm income."
Monsanto has been saying that GM activists are irrationally opposing new technology. Normal farmer sprays pesticide at least 50 to 80 times in the whole lifecycle of a brinjal crop, which does far more damage as GM technology isn't harmful to humans, it argues.
However, GM opponents aren't convinced. "The Bt toxin gene produces poison and when it can harm pests, where's the proof that it won't be harmful to humans?" Shiva asked. "The GM agenda is dictated by the profitability for multinational and Indian seed companies and not by concerns relating to food productivity, security or public safety."
Concerns about the impact of Bt Brinjal are vital for India as brinjal is used extensively in ayurvedic medicines. Bt brinjal would also have a significant negative economic impact on farmers, observers say. They point to Vidarbha region in India's western state of Maharashtra, where farmer suicides showed a dramatic upward spiral from 2,000 to 4,000 within a span of few years after the introduction of Bt cotton.
Due diligence is critical here as other genetically modified food crops are awaiting approval.
Ramesh, the environment minister, voiced apprehension about the crop last year and set up an expert panel (Genetic Engineering Approval Committee) to regulate research, testing and commercial release of GM crops, foods and organisms. But the outfit was accused of bypassing safety and environmental concerns and working "to promote the interests of the international biotech industry".
Ramesh even went on record to state that the "expert panel [Genetic Engineering Approval Committee] may well be a statutory body but when critical issues of human safety are involved, the government has every right and in fact, has basic responsibility to take the final decision based on the panel's suggestions."
Fingers were also pointed at the composition and functioning of the 16-member expert committee that granted approval to Bt Brinjal. Professor Arjula Reddy, who chairs the Committee, was reportedly under tremendous pressure to clear Bt Brinjal. Another committee member, Dr K K Tripathy, was under investigation by the Central Vigilance Commission for alleged abuse of power to promote interests of certain companies. Dr Mathura Rai of the Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI) was reportedly a Bt Brinjal developer-turned-committee member.
Governmental consultations and conclusions ought to have transpired before and not after 2006 when Mahyco got permission to carry out field trials for Bt Brinjal in India.
Besides, India, as a signatory to the Convention on Biodiversity - and having ratified the Cartagena Protocol (CP) - is committed to the safe handling of genetically modified organisms. Brinjal is a traditional crop in India, and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety has provisions that discourage genetic modification of crops in their land of origin.
GM crops in India also have pending PILs (public interest litigation) to contend with. In 2008, the Supreme Court issued a notice to the Union government on a PIL seeking annulment of the government's order that exempts GM foods and crops from mandatory laboratory tests. The bench recommended that the state allay "fears of the petitioner that the government might be playing into the hands of multinationals".
Shiva asserts that India also lacks a crucial labeling regime which means that once Bt Brinjal inundates local markets, there is no way of distinguishing it from the ordinary variety, thus compromising consumer choice.
"Moreover, all research on GM crops is funded by private companies and then presented to the regulators for clearance, casting doubt on its scientific integrity, Shiva said. "It is vital that research done on edible crops be transparent and publicly-funded."
Food scientists add that GM food labeling requires a stronger laboratory and regulatory framework than India currently possesses. Testing of contamination to non-GM crops is neither easy nor cheap. While procedures to guard against it are in place, implementation of these procedures in the farms and fields across swathes of the Indian countryside is a tough proposition.
Neeta Lal is a widely published writer/commentator who contributes to many reputed national and international print and Internet publications.
---
Comment by TraceConsult™
This probably marks the first time that there are major public protests in India on behalf of the prevention of endangering brinjal (eggplant / aubergine), a plant commonly used in Ayurvedic medicine, India's ancient traditional medical system. It is once again our favorite life science player Monsanto Company, recently awarded both Company of the Year as well as Least Ethical Corporation, who, under the name of its Indian subsidiary Mahyco, is causing all the trouble.
2 February 2010
Fine Gael's genetically modified Creed
• Opposition party and Teagasc led by GM industry spin doctors
Media release
GM-free Ireland Network, 2 February 2010:
http://www.gmfreireland.org/press/GMFI47.pdf
DUBLIN - In 2008, the Irish Times reported on a leaked email [1] from Fine Gael [Ireland's main centre-right opposition party] which revealed that its pro-GM food and farming policy was produced by a Canadian Government spin doctor
who has been internationally condemned for scientific fraud [2].
Fine Gael has now made a fool of itself again when the party's agriculture spokesperson Michael Creed
accused the Government of trying to stifle a study [3] by Teagasc [Ireland's Agriculture and Food Authority] which falsely suggested that the
Government intends to ban GM animal feed, and that doing so would terminate the Irish pig industry [4].
Creed - whose opinions on GM food and farming sound like they were drafted by Monsanto's PR
department - made his latest gaffe during Dail Questions last week. The misinformation has since been
disseminated by the Fine Gael web site [5], GM industry front groups [6], and the Irish Farmers Journal
[7].
But Creed got it wrong on three counts.
First off, the Department of Agriculture did not reprimand Teagasc for its pig study, but for expressing a
related political opinion (which state bodies are not allowed to do, particularly when Teagasc is funded by
and reports to the Dept. of Ag). Teagasc Director Prof. Gerry Boyle has since admitted the mistake in a
letter to the Minister of Agriculture.
Second, the Programme for Government [8] makes no mention whatsoever of any ban on GM feed. The
Government's GM-free Ireland policy aims to prohibit field trials and cultivation of GM crops, and to
introduce a voluntary GM-free label for farmers and producers who choose to remove GM feed from their
supply chains. This will enable agri-food operators to retain access to - and compete in - the rapidly
growing international market for top quality, safe GM-free food which the vast majority of EU and
international consumers demand, and which Irish grass-based cattle and dairy farmers can produce more
cost-effectively than farmers in competing countries [9]. Fine Gael's perpetuation of the myth of a nonexistent
government ban on GM feed imports to scare-monger the farming community only serves the
interests of the giant biotech and commodity trade corporations which are desperate to get the world's
farmers addicted to their patented GM products.
Third, Teagasc's claim that using Non-GM feed would wipe out Irish pig farming is simply incredible. Pig
farmers across Europe are thriving on their GM-free supply chains. Here in Ireland, the Vice-Chairman of
the IFA Pigmeat Committee, Pat O'Flaherty, produces over 8,000 pigs a year in his factory farm at Gort
Na Muc in Rathangan, Co. Kildare, with no GM feedstuffs and no use whatsoever of soy feed - without
incurring one cent in extra costs [10]. 40% of Brittany's pork production is GM-free; leading French,
German, Italian pork brands are GM-free, as is all of Switzerland's beef, pork and dairy production [11].
Teagasc's pro-GM propaganda
Teagasc has spent millions of taxpayer funds on research and development of GM crops, co-funding a
Canadian GM industry conference promoting GM food [12], and maintaining a website whose content
appears to have come from Monsanto's PR department [13]. Teagasc is currently planning to close down
its Kinsealy research centre for conventional horticultural crops which provides essential analytical and
diagnostic services for Teagasc advisers and for the horticultural industry.
The head of Teagasc, Prof Gerry Boyle, is an agricultural consultant to the World Bank, which uses public
tax-payer funding from the rich countries to promote GM farming in the developing countries. Teagasc
hosted an international conference promoting GM seeds and crops at University College Cork in 2008
[14], on behalf of a Canadian biotech industry front group called the Agricultural Biotechnology
International Conference (ABIC) Foundation, managed by Ag-West Bio Inc. and funded by Monsanto.
ABIC's Board of Directors includes Jimmy Burke (Teagasc's head of Biotechnology), the conference chair
Ashley O'Sullivan (a former Monsanto employee), Roger Kemble (President of Syngenta Biotechnology
Inc), and Malcolm Devine (former employee of Aventis CropScience and Bayer CropScience)!
Boyle makes the astounding claim that the record of GM crops internationally has been "very good" -
completely ignoring the scientific evidence of health dangers, reduced yields, GM superweeds, crop
failures, widespread contamination, patent infringement lawsuits, product recalls, billion-dollar food
industry losses, EU market rejection and loss of biodiversity. And Teagac's head of biotechnology, Prof.
Jimmy Burke, has hailed the introduction of GM maize in Spain as a "great success", despite the
widespread contamination of conventional and organic farmers in that country.
Smart economy
Tomorrow and Thursday, the EU Committee of the Regions will host the 3rd World Conference on Non-GMO labels, Quality Production and European Regional Agriculture Strategies [15], attended by agri-food
delegations from 51 EU Regions including high-level representatives of the GM-free Ireland Network and
the Irish Cattle and Sheepfarmers Association.
If Fine Gael were remotely serious about supporting Ireland's agri-food sector, they would be attending
this event. But neither they - nor the other pro-GM bodies including the IFA, ICMSA, and the Irish
Farmers Journal - will be there, even though phasing out GM feed would provide the Irish agri-food
sector with the most credible safe GM-free food brand in Europe.
But if Fine Gael and Teagasc have their way, Irish pig farmers will only be able to produce the lowest
quality GM-fed produce in Europe. New leadership, please!
ENDS
Contact
Michael O'Callaghan, Co-ordinator, GM-free Ireland Network
+353 (0)87 799 4761
mail@gmfreeireland.org
www.gmfreeireland.org
Notes for editors
1. "Fine Gael emailer comes a cropper", Miriam Lord's Week, Irish Times, 13 October 2007.
2. "Briefing Document for Fine Gael: GMOs and Ireland: 10 years of poor FF led policy":
http://www.gmfreeireland.org/politics/GMOs-and-Ireland.fg.document.oct.2007.doc
The Fine Gael briefing contains, inter alia, verbatim text from a letter which Shane Morris previously sent
to the Editor of the
Kilkenny Voice newspaper, dated 28 September 2007 (published 27 September). Morris is an employee
of the Canadian Government agency, Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada, who has been accused of scientific
fraud on GMOs. He is currently studying "Science Communication" at UCC. For details see
http://www.gmfreeireland.org/morris/ and his Spin Profile
http://www.spinprofiles.org/index.php/Shane_Morris
Morris's authorship of the briefing is well-known in
Fine Gael circles and was also confirmed by Fianna Fáil politicians after the email was sent to them by
mistake in October 2008.
Fine Gael's credibility on GM food and farming was already in tatters before this embarrassing revelation
that they are being advised by a covert agent of the Canadian Government.
In the lead up to the 2007 General Election, Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny told Michael O'Callaghan of GM-free
Ireland that this Ireland can "do nothing" to stop the invasion of GM animal feed, food and crops -
apparently unaware that many other EU member states and Regions have already banned the crops and
were starting to phase out GM animal feed as well.
On 20 October 2007, Fine Gael MEP Mairead McGuinness, along with MEPs James Nicholson (Ulster
Unionist Party) and Struan Stevenson (Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party), engaged in a failed
attempt to introduce numerous amendments to an EU Parliament Resolution on behalf of the PPE-DE
Group. The amendments aimed, inter alia, to raise contamination thresholds for imported GM animal
feed, and to fast track the EU approval of illegal GM imports from the USA and other countries. In
December 2006, McGuinness attempted to introduce numerous amendments into a Motion for a
European Parliament Resolution on Biotechnology: Prospects and Challenges for Agriculture in Europe
(2006/2059 (INI)). Her proposed amendments included weakening EU regulations on GM food and feed, and
promoting the release of GM pharma crops, which would contaminate food crops with pharmaceutical
products, agrofuels, and industrial chemicals! Luckily, MEPs threw out the Motion and the Resolution
after widespread protest by citizens. For details see http://www.gmfreeireland.org/politics
3. "The GM debate and the Irish pig meat sector. Peadar Lawlor and Maria Walsh explore the viability of
the Irish pig industry in the presence of a GM feed ban." T Research, Volume 4, Number 4, Winter 2009,
ISSN 1649-8917: http://www.teagasc.ie/publications/tresearch/tresearch200910.pdf).
4. The study is full of misinformation and spin. See GM-free Ireland's detailed critique at
http://www.gmfreeireland.org/news/2009/nov.php#teagasc
If you do the math on Teagasc's estimated extra cost of €2.51 to €3.93 per GM-free pig, with an average
Irish pig deadweight of 70kg, the consumer would only have to €0.04 to €0.06 extra per kg of GM-free
pig meat. That's less than one euro cent for a package of bacon or sausages!
Note that the Vice-Chairman of the IFA Pigmeat Commmittee, Pat O'Flaherty, produces over 8,000 pigs a
year in his factory farm at Gort Na Muc in Rathangan, Co. Kildare, with no GM feed stuffs and no use
whatsoever of soy feed - without incurring one cent in extra costs.
Related research found that the extra cost which a consumer would have to pay for a litre of GM-free
milk in the UK is GBP 0.0045.
5. "Gov bid to gag Teagasc raised in Dáil - Creed", Fine Gael press release, 27 January 2010:
http://www.finegael.org/news/a/2164/article
6. "Emerald politics fail to bring home the bacon: Irish Government attempts to gag GM research: issue
raised in Irish Parliament", GMO Pundit a.k.a. David Tribe, 27 January 2010:
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/
7. "Creed claims Teagasc reprimanded over GM", Pat O'Keefe, Irish Farmers Journal, 30 January 2010.
8. The Irish Government announced its GM-free policy on page 11 of the Renewed Programme for
Government of 10 October 2009
(http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/eng/Publications/Publications_2009/Renewed_Programme_for_Governmen
t,_October_2009.pdf). The policy states that the Government will "Declare the Republic of Ireland a GMFree
Zone, free from the cultivation of all GM plants", and "To optimise Ireland's competitive advantage
as a GM-Free country, we will introduce a voluntary GM-Free logo for use in all relevant product labelling
and advertising, similar to a scheme recently introduced in Germany." The policy has not yet been
implemented with legislation.
9. See video clip of the November 2009 GM-free Ireland press conference on GM-free labelling at
http://www.gmfreeireland.org
For more information, download "GM-free food production: a unique selling point for Ireland - the food
island" (47-page briefing with GM-free market survey, 17 Nov. 2009 (1.2MB pdf):
http://www.gmfreeireland.org/GMFI-briefing-3.pdf
10. Communication to Michael O'Callaghan of GM-free Ireland at the 2009 Euro-Toques National Food
Forum & Fair 'The Whole Hog; Re-examining how we rear, kill and eat pigs in Ireland today':
http://www.eurotoquesirl.org
11. See note 9 above.
12. Irish Government slammed for GM food conference, GM-free Ireland press release, 24 August 2008:
http://www.gmfreeireland.org/press/GMFI41.pdf
13. Teagasc maintains the Irish Government's official Information Centre for Genetically Modified (GM)
Crops in Ireland, co-funded by the the Environment Protection Agency (EPA). The Centre's web site at
http://www.gmoinfo.ie reads like a Monsanto advertisement. The website's short section on what it refers
to as the "perceived risks" fails to mention anything about the health, environment, economic and food
sovereignty danger of GMOs.
14. See note 12 above.
15. http://www.gmofree-euregions.net
Scope for law against GM crops being studied
The Hindu [India], 2 February 2010:
http://www.hindu.com/2010/02/02/stories/2010020253890400.htm
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: The State government will examine the possibility for legislation against arbitrary introduction of genetically modified (GM) crops for field trials in Kerala, Agriculture Minister Mullakkara Ratnakaran said here on Monday.
At a news conference, the Minister said his department had requested the Law Department to examine the possibility for such a law in view of Kerala's rich biodiversity and the export-oriented nature of the State's agriculture. The State functioned within serious limitations in the matter and could not go in for legislative measures without examining all aspects of the issue.
Mr. Ratnakaran, accompanied by Kerala State Biodiversity Board Chairman V.S. Vijayan, said the State government had told the Centre that no field trial of GM crops should be conducted in Kerala without its concurrence.
On a field trial being detected by an NGO in north Kerala, he said there was nothing wrong in it, as such organisations were closest to the people. The government was a huge system, which, though it worked among the people, was dependent on such sources for most such information. The government was alert to the dangers of such field trials and wanted to play an active role in the formulation of a clear policy on GM crops at the national level. It had also written to the Centre seeking conduct of a public hearing on the proposal for introducing Bt brinjal, and hoped that its request would get a favourable response from the Centre.
He said the Agriculture Department and the Kerala State Biodiversity Board were jointly organising a national level workshop on "GM crops: their merits and demerits" here on Tuesday and Wednesday to discuss in detail the implications of introducing GM crops on farmers' welfare, biodiversity, especially agro-biodiversity, food security, seed and food sovereignty, cost issues and the question of intellectual property rights over the technology and seeds.
The Agriculture Ministers of seven States and experts - Devinder Sharma, Chairman, Forum for Biotechnology and Food Security, New Delhi; Vandana Shiva, Director, Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology, New Delhi; Pushpa M. Bhargava, Founder-Director, Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology and Supreme Court's nominee in the GEAC - were expected to attend the workshop to be inaugurated by Chief Minister V.S. Achuthanandan, he said.
Germany - New labelling for GM food
Meat Trade News Daily [UK], 2 February 2010:
http://www.meattradenewsdaily.co.uk/news/020210/germany___new_labelling_for_gm_food_.aspx
The CEO of the National Federation of the German Food Industry (BVE), Matthias Horst, told one of Germany's leading newspapers, the Süddeutsche Zeitung, that if genetic engineering has been involved in the production of a product, then this must be stated on the product's label. His sector wants "transparency" and is for the positive labelling of genetically modified food. Any product that has had any type of contact whatsoever with genetic engineering should be labelled accordingly.
Many current widespread uses of genetic engineering do not fall under mandatory labelling regulations, such as the milk, eggs or meat coming from animals given genetically modified feed. Likewise for additives, vitamins and enzymes derived from genetically modified microorganisms. Even "incidental, technically unavoidable" admixtures of genetically modified plants - especially widespread in foods containing soya - are not required to be labelled. If that were the case, an estimated 60 percent of the food products on German shelves would have to be so labelled.
Gerhard Sonnleitner, president of the German Farmers' Association, also spoke out critically against current labelling regulations at the International Green Week in Berlin, Germany. He called for a "clear decision": either all uses of genetic engineering throughout the entire production chain be declared on the end product or go back to the product-related labelling, in force in the EU up to 2004, which only required labelling of the use of genetically modified organisms if their presence could be detected in the food product.
Sonnleitner called "GM-free" labelling "dishonest". It is "misleading" when the vitamins, enzymes and vaccines produced with genetic engineering that are used in animal husbandry do not need to be declared. All feed today contains traces of genetic engineering. Yet milk and meat derived from that is allowed to carry a "GM-free" stamp.
No changes to current labelling regulations can be expected in the near future. Comprehensive labelling as called for by environmental and consumer associations could only be carried out at the European level. Even if there were to be a majority ruling in the European Parliament and among EU Member States, the legislative process required would take several years.
---
Comment from GM-free Ireland
The article fails to mention that Germany's GM-free labelling regulation for food - including meat, poultry, eggs, fish and dairy produce fed a Non-GMO diet - came into effect in 2008. The regulation allows the use of the GM-free label for animal produce whose diet includes vitamins, enzymes and vaccines produced from GM bacteria, but excludes all use of feedstuffs from GM crops.
The last paragraph claims that "comprehensive labelling" could only be carried out at the European level. But France, Germany, and Austria have already set up their own national GM-free labelling regulations, soon to be followed by Ireland.
Bt Brinjal will be single largest disaster, says scientist
Mangalorean [India], 2 February 2010:
http://www.mangalorean.com/news.php?newstype=broadcast&broadcastid=167340
New Delhi, Feb 2 (IANS) With less than 10 days to go for Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh's final call on the introduction of genetically modified brinjal, leading scientist Pushp Bhargava, who was also the Supreme Court nominee to the country's biotech regulator, Monday warned that if Bt Brinjal is allowed it would be the "single largest disaster".
"Scientists all over the world have opposed GM foods. Renowned scientists like Rupert Sheldrake and many others have said that they don't support GM foods. They have written to India saying that it should not be allowed. If despite all this and the public hearing against Bt Brinjal, it is released it will be the single largest disaster in the country," Bhargava told IANS over phone from Kochi.
Bhargava is the founder director of the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB) as well as a National Knowledge Commission member.
He is also the independent nominee of the Supreme Court to the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), the country's biotech regulator.
He added: "If it is indeed allowed, we won't let it! It will end up as a third war for independence....We will seek legal action. We can file an appeal with the court, asking them to stop the commercial release of the crop, since Bt Brinjal will not be packaged and will look the same as normal brinjal. This is a processed food and the consumer must know what he buys or eats. So, since this highly processed GM food won't be labelled, it shouldn't be allowed."
Last year two leading European scientists who spearheaded the movement against GM food in Europe had visited India and appealed to India to reject the Bt Brinjal.
Gilles-Eric Seralini, the president of the scientific council of the CRIIGEN (Committee for Independent Research and Information on Genetic Engineering), and Micheal Antoniou from the department of medical and molecular genetics at King's College, London, had criticised the Indian government's growing support for GM crops just ahead of the GEAC's approval to Bt Brinjal in October.
Bhargava stressed that when the entire European Union had denied Bt products, the only reason wellknown faces in the biotech industry like Kiran Mazumdar Shaw were vouching for its release was business interests.
He has in the past protested that Bt Brinjal was cleared by the GEAC and its expert committees without proper tests and under pressure from the developer Monsanto-Mahyco.
"They all have business interests. I know them well, and they are looking only at the vast export market that the US offers... I hope the minister takes note of this and puts a moratorium of seven years and sets up an independent testing lab facility. This will also give time to revamp the biotech regulatory system which is essential now," Bhargava said.
Last week, Bhargava alleged that the environment minister was under pressure from the Prime Minister's Office. Ramesh denied this.
Demanding that the government reverse its decision, farmers, scientists and NGOs have staged angry demonstrations and disrupted public hearings organised by the ministry on the issue in the past few days.
Ramesh said he could elicit the public response during his planned visits to key farming centres and regions of the country before taking a decision on Bt Brinjal.
1 February 2010
Study: GM Wheat Still "Poison" to Montana Farmers' Bottom Lines
Deb Courson
Public News Service [USA], 1 February 2010:
http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/12502-2
HELENA, Mont. - Genetically modified (GM) wheat is still "poison" for Montana growers' pocketbooks. A new review of consumer attitudes in Europe, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan shows if GM wheat is introduced in the U.S., buyers will reject Montana wheat because of the possibility of contamination. And that would send prices for hard red spring wheat down 40 percent.
Dr. Neal Blue, a grain market consultant and former research economist at Ohio State University, did the survey because a coalition of some U.S. wheat-farming groups has started pushing GM wheat. He calls that a dangerous move, because action is swift against GM - as seen in 2006, when GM rice was found in American shipments to Europe.
"When they saw it, they immediately ceased imports of United States rice. That's a very clear message, and it took a couple years for the United States rice growers to clean up all of that."
The new push for GM wheat is backed by the argument that growers and processors need all the advantages they can get to boost production as wheat acreage has declined. However, Blue says the solution to more production is not in GM - it is in Washington D.C.
"One of the driving factors causing the wheat acres to go down in the United States over time is agricultural policy that favors corn and soybeans."
The review is a follow-up to a study seven years ago that came to the same conclusion. Blue says genetically modified foods may eventually be accepted in foreign markets, but that is at least 10 years away.
The full report, "A Review of the Potential Market Impacts of Commercializing GM Wheat in the U.S.," is available at www.worc.org.
GM-Free Certified Seed Part Of Plan To Regain Flax Exports To EU
• Traces of CDC Triffid have been found in Mons and Normandy breeder seed
Allan Lawson
AGCanada.com, 1 February 2010:
http://www.agcanada.com/Article.aspx?ID=17377
The ongoing CDC Triffid saga could end farmers' practice of saving flax seed from year to year, industry sources say.
Not all the details have been worked out, but the industry, represented by the Flax Council of Canada, is heading toward requiring certified seed, said council president Barry Hall. However, he noted that certified seed will have to be tested for GM flax too.
"It's our best effort, no-holds barred, to clear this up once and for all," Hall said.
Canadian flax farmers traditionally grow mostly farm-saved seed. But they will instead be expected to grow certified seed that has been tested and found to be free of CDC Triffid, a genetically modified (GM) variety that is contaminating Canadian flax supplies and blocking sales to the European Union (EU).
National Farmers Union (NFU) president Terry Boehm says farmers should be allowed to deliver flax grown from farm-saved seed so long as the seed and subsequent crop tests GM-free, especially since one source of the Triffid contamination is breeder seed from the University of Saskatchewan's Crop Development Centre.
"Just because it's certified seed doesn't guarantee anything," Boehm said in an interview. "The seed system was the source of the contamination originally."
Boehm said the seed industry is always looking for ways to force farmers to buy new seed and will use Triffid contamination to that end.
Traces Found
The European Union (EU) found traces of CDC Triffid in shipments of Canadian flax last summer. Although Triffid was approved for release in Canada and the United States, it wasn't approved in the EU, Canada's biggest flax market. That's why CDC Triffid was de-registered and the pedigreed seed recalled and processed before it was sold to farmers to grow commercially.
When traces of Triffid began showing up in Canadian flax, there was speculation some of the seed made it into farmers' hands. That still might have happened, but some of the spread is due to contamination in the breeder seed of two other Crop Development Centre flax varieties - CDC Normandy and CDC Mons.
Dorothy Murrell, managing director of the University of Saskatchewan's Crop Development Centre, said testing revealed the contamination, but she doesn't know how it happened.
Breeder seed is distributed to seed growers who multiply it, eventually selling certified seed to farmers for commercial production. If breeder seed is contaminated, the seed produced from it will be too.
Purity
Depending on the stage, pedigreed seed is required to be 99.95 to 99.8 per cent pure. But when comes the unapproved presence of GM, any level is intolerable by the EU.
All stocks of pedigreed CDC Normandy and CDC Mons will be pulled off the market, tested for contamination and marketed accordingly. Then both varieties will be de-registered, Murrell said.
CDC Normandy was registered in 1995. It accounted for 14 per cent of the Canadian Grain Commission's flax harvest samples in 1999, its peak year.
CDC Mons was registered in 2002 and peaked at 0.7 per cent of the samples in 2005.
Since Triffid is widespread at low levels in Canadian flax, Murrell doubts CDC Normandy and CDC Mons are the only sources.
"Dorothy might be right, but I'm hoping she's wrong because if we can nail it down to two varieties, pull them off the market, pull all the pedigreed seed of that off the EU-destined market and then start to clean up farm-saved seed we might have the problem solved," said Dale Adolphe, executive director of the Canadian Seed Growers Association.
About 3.5 per cent of the farmer and elevator flax samples tested have been positive for CDC Triffid at or above 0.01 per cent (one seed in 10,000), Quinton Stewart of Viterra told the Saskatchewan Flax Development Commission meeting in Saskatoon Jan. 11.
Ten to 15 per cent of the rail shipments tested positive and seven per cent of the vessel holds.
That's why Canada's flax industry, including farmers, must take extraordinary action to remove CDC Triffid and regain the confidence of EU buyers, Richard Wansbutter, Viterra's vice-president of government and commercial relations, said in an interview.
Farmers can test farm-saved seed, but only growing certified seed, which has also been tested and found to be GM-free, provides better seed management and hopefully a faster resolution to the problem.
"This is not an issue of farmsaved seed versus certified seed." Wansbutter said. "The issue is, we've got a critical situation where we cannot access the European market."
Testing key
Boehm counters that one year won't eradicate all traces of CDC Triffid and testing seed, whether certified or farm-saved, as well the harvested product, is the only solution.
"The testing is the critical piece," Boehm said. "It's not whether it's certified or farmsaved, it's out there now."
Under the Canada Grain Act licensed elevators are obliged to take delivery of crops farmers want to deliver if they have space, Boehm added.
That's true, said Canadian Grain Commission spokesman Remi Gosselin, but the act doesn't say what the company has to pay. Presumably if an elevator only wants to buy flax grown from certified seed it will heavily discount the price of flax that wasn't.
The problems created by CDC Triffid illustrate seed developers need to be concerned about disrupting markets, Boehm said. "The long and the short of it is once the genie is out of the bottle you can't contain it."
allan@fbcpublishing.com
Russia to tighten labeling requirements for GMO food products
Eugene Vorotnikov
Food Biz Daily.com Moscowe:
http://foodbizdaily.com/articles/96174-russia-to-tighten-labeling-requirements-for-gmo-food-products.aspx
MOSCOW - Russian food producers will be required to label their products with "This product contains GMOs" inscription, according to Russian media reports. Such proposal has recently been introduced by some members of the Russian Parliament.
According to the bill, the size of inscription must be at least 20% of the advertising space of the package. Many of the Russian officials believe that the absence of such information confuses the Russian consumer and violates the right of consumers to receive truthful information about the products they use.
Lack of information about the presence of GMOs in the product prevents the consumer's right to choose natural and safe product for themselves and their families, analysts believe.
"Despite the fact that the use of genetic engineering can improve the efficiency of production, we must recognize that the impact of GMOs on the human body has not been fully studied, and there are many reputable studies proving their devastating effects on human health, according to the Russian lawmakers - Russia's legislation obliges manufacturers to label food products only if their composition contains 0,9% or more of the components derived from the use of GMOs.
Moreover the current legislation gives a right to producers whose products contain less than 0.9% GMOs, to say that they "Do not contain GMOs."
"It seems out that the Russian consumers buy products with traces of GMOs, even without knowing it" - analysts said.
GM Crops Facing Meltdown in the USA
Dr. Mae-Wan Ho
Institute of Science in Society report, 1 February 2010:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMCropsFacingMeltdown.php
SUMMARY: Major crops genetically modified for just two traits - herbicide tolerance and insect resistance - are ravaged by super weeds and secondary pests in the heartland of GMOs as farmers fight a losing battle with more of the same; a fundamental shift to organic farming practices may be the only salvation.
Read the full report online:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMCropsFacingMeltdown.php
Staple food endangered: EU urged not to approve Bayer¥s GM Rice
Keycode Bayer 446 Press Release
Coalition against Bayer Dangers [Germany], 1 February 2010:
http://www.cbgnetwork.de/3262.html
Great Greenpeace clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsxFZ0rUCoM
The Coalition against Bayer Dangers urges European authorities to refuse an import approval for Liberty Link Rice (LL62) produced by Bayer CropScience. LL62 has been modified with a gene that makes the plant tolerant to glufosinate, a weed-killer produced by Bayer under the brands Basta and Liberty. An approval of this modified rice strain would pose unknown risks for human health and the environment.
Glufosinate is to be phased out in Europe due to its hazardous nature. The herbicide is classified as toxic for reproduction and can also cause birth defects. With LL62, usage levels for glufosinate would increase, also increasing the likelihood of herbicide residues on the rice itself.
A European approval would also allow Bayer to promote GM rice cultivation in developing countries, especially in Asia. This would inevitably lead to genetic contamination of existing rice cultivation, to poisoning of peasants and to the elimination of local rice strains. Europe has a strong moral obligation to take these developments into account when assessing LL62.
Bayer already applied in 2003 to import LL62. The application was rejected several times when voted on in the EU council of ministers, but has so far not been withdrawn. Bayer is also pushing for legal approval in Brazil, South Africa, India and the Philippines. In the USA, LL62 has already been permitted for commercial planting, although farmers in the US are reluctant to plant it because it is not approved for import elsewhere in the world. EU import approvals so far have mainly been granted for genetically manipulated feed crops. Liberty Link rice would be the first GM product intended directly for human food use.
Philipp Mimkes from the Coalition against Bayer Dangers, an international network that has been monitoring Bayer for more than 30 years: "Allowing the import of Liberty Link Rice would give the green light to multinationals to promote this unsustainable form of farming in developing countries. The world's most important staple food must not fall into the hands of companies like Bayer." The Coalition has introduced several countermotions on the issue at Bayer¥s annual shareholder meetings in recent years.
In July 2006, Bayer LL601, a similar rice variety that was not approved for commercial distribution or human consumption anywhere in the world, appeared in supermarkets worldwide. According to a Greenpeace study the damages amounted to 1.2 billion US$. In December 2009 Bayer was sentenced to pay about $2 million for losses sustained by two US farmers. The verdict of the federal court in St. Louis is seen as a test run for up to 3000 cases brought by other rice farmers in the US. "We call for the stringent application of the precautionary principle with regard to GM rice. The incident in the US shows that risks linked with genetically modified crops cannot be controlled in the long term", Mimkes adds.
See also:
•
US: BAYER ordered to pay damages
http://www.cbgnetwork.de/3169.html
•
India: Bayer, Hands off our Rice
http://www.cbgnetwork.de/3017.html
•
Take Glufosinate off the Market immediately!
http://www.cbgnetwork.de/2785.html
•
Open Letter to the European Food Safety Authority
http://www.cbgnetwork.de/1592.html
•
Reject Bayer's application to import genetically modified rice into the EU
http://www.cbgnetwork.de/300.html
_______________________
Rise in GM crops in Brazil alarms industry watchdog
War on Want, 1 February 2010:
http://www.waronwant.org/news/latest-news/16781-rise-in-gm-crops-in-brazil-alarms-industry-watchdog
War on Want partner the Alternative Agriculture Support Service (AS-PTA) has expressed major concerns about the rate at which genetically modified (GM) seeds are being approved for commercial use in Brazil. The organisation, which raises awareness of the dangers of GM seeds, has linked the rise in GM crop cultivation to the growing influence of multinational agribusiness.
The watchdog AS-PTA recently challenged the impartiality of the National Technical Commission for Bio-safety, a regulatory body set up by the government in 2005 to monitor the effects of GM crops on human health, the environment and growth of non-GM crops. AS-PTA has criticised the relationship between many of the Commission's members and multinational companies that deal in GM crops. Dr. Lia Giraldo resigned from the Commission over concerns about its bias, declaring that "the majority of those who are involved are biotechnology specialists and have a direct interest in the development of genetic engineering, whereas only a few are actually specialists in bio-safety."
AS-PTA has also accused the Commission of lacking "scientific rigour" and ignoring the safety procedures set out in the Cartagena Protocol, an international agreement which Brazil has signed that seeks to protect biological diversity from the risks posed by modern biotechnology.
The rise in GM crops has led to an increase in the use of powerful chemical pesticides, many of which are banned in other countries. Agro-chemical firms wield enormous political influence, and in 2008 industry lobbyists tried to block the Brazilian National Health Surveillance Agency from carrying out a safety assessment of agrochemicals used to cultivate GM crops. It was only after pressure from civil society groups, including AS-PTA, that the decision was overturned, allowing the survey of agrochemicals to proceed. The results of the study, released in 2009, revealed that a total of 12 agrochemicals were in breach of health regulations.
Despite these findings, multinational agribusinesses continue to win approval for their products. According to an AS-PTA spokesperson, "we only need examine the list of requests for authorisation filed with the National Technical Commission for Bio-safety to see how genetically modified seeds will play a big role, particularly in the expansion of the pesticide market."
AS-PTA plays a leading role in the GM-Free Brazil Campaign, a coalition of Brazilian NGOs, social movements and individuals who exert pressure on the government to implement effective forms of control over GM crops and dangerous agro-chemicals. The long-term goal of the coalition is to eliminate all GM crops from Brazil. War on Want is proud to support AS-PTA's work promoting alternative and sustainable agriculture based on small-scale farming projects.
Equivita thanks Minister Luca Zaia and urges him to proceed in defense of Italian citizens' rights
Press release
Equivita [Italy], 1 February 2010:
http://www.equivita.it
[Translation courtesy of GM-free Ireland]
The EQUIVITA Scientific Committee expresses its support to the [Italian Agriculture] Minister Zaia, who has been placed in a difficult position by Council of State's sensational ruling to authorise the cultivation of genetically modified maize by the Futuragra organisation - upsetting the institutional procedure for the authorisation of GMOs under decree no 212 of 2001.
"I fail to understand the motivation for this decision", said Fabrizia Pratesi, secretary of the EQUIVITA Scientific Committee. "The European Union has not established an obligation to cultivate GMOs. The Member States are only allowed to use them under norms of traceability, labelling and co-existence. In regards to co-existence, it has requested the Member States to formulate the regulations which, in Italy, are connected to the route of legislative decree 212/2001. These regulations are indispensable, if only for economic reasons, and may not be disregarded.
Pre-empting [the implementation of these regulations] signals a disregard for the Precautionary Principle on which the Treaty of the Union is based, the Cartagena Protocol [on Biosafety], and numerous other international agreements.
Moreover, European Commission President Manuel Barroso recently expressed his favourable dispositin towards allowing the Member States the freedom of choice on GMOs, and the European Union has accepted the existence of GM-free zones.
We agree with Slow Food in viewing this episode as another move in the sequence of "faits accomplis" through which GMOs have spread up to now, beginning in the USA with their approval by the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) despite the negative opinions of scientists.
EQUIVITA supports the proposal made by the President of Coldiretti [Italy's largest farming union] Sergio Marini for a national referendum (pending it being extended on the European level), since no-one can yet demonstrate any improved traits of GMOs (for citizens or farmers) which would justify not only their dangers and risks, but also all this related confusion and regulatory difficulties.
---
Comment from GM-free Ireland
This refers to today's announcement that Italy's highest court of appeals has overruled a decision by the Ministry of Agriculture which refused consent for Futuragra, a pro-GM front group based in Vivaro, near Venice, to grow GM maize in defiance of the de-facto ban on the cultivation of GM crops in Italy. The Ministry' previous denial of authorisation cited the lack of regulations on the so-called "co-existence" of GM crops with conventional and organic agriculture.
Commenting on the court of appeals decision, the Agriculture Minister Luca Zaia said authorisation for the cultivation of the GM maize would still require approval by a technical commission - which is unlikely given the lack of "co-existence" regulations.
"The court decision ... obviously contradicts the will of an overwhelming majority of the Italian citizens and regions. And first of all, of an overwhelming majority of farmers who do not want GMOs in their fields.'
Italy's farmers, food producers and consumers are furious at the move.
The main farming union Coldiretti (with 18 regional federations for 98 provinces, 765 area offices, 9,812 sections, and over 568,000 farms) is totally opposed to GM food and farming. The most recent Italian survey - carried out by Coldiretti-SWG in 2009 - found that 63% of Italian consumers believe that GM foods are less healthy than traditional foods, up from 52% in 2003
According to Coldiretti's GM expert Stefano Masini, the court's decision only applies to the Futuragra farm and does not signify any change whatsoever to Italy's de-facto national ban on GM crops.
Minister Zaia's web site states that "A new ethics for agriculture is needed if we truly want to feed the world. My opposition to GMOs is well-known, in fact I do not believe that they are the solution to the hunger problem. We are with the farmers and always with those who work.
Heated protests take place over Bt brinjal [aubergine] in India
B. Chandrashekhar
The Hindu [India], 1 February 2010:
http://current.com/17uq44c
[Photo caption: Union Minister of State for Environment and Forests Jairam Ramesh with a brinjal garland put up by protesters at the Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture in Hyderabad on Sunday.]
HYDERABAD: Union Minister of State for Environment and Forests Jairam Ramesh faced angry protests at the consultations on Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) brinjal at the Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture here on Sunday.
The demonstration by activists of farmers' and non-governmental organisations, opposing introduction of genetically modified crops began with the Minister's entry at the institute.
The protesters, led by Andhra Pradesh Rythu Sangham president K. Ramakrishna, blocked his entry to the auditorium.
Others, including activists of the Swadeshi Jagaran Manch, raised slogans such as 'Bt brinjal go back' and 'Monsanto agents go back.' The exercise did not commence for one hour.
Mr. Ramesh lost his cool several times and prompted the police to "push out" the protesters after they did not heed his requests to stop shouting. He asked the protesters not to "bring disrepute to Hyderabad," as nowhere else were such uncalled-for interruptions marred the public consultations.
After hearing a large number of farmers, social activists, scientists, doctors, representatives of NGOs and farmers and consumer organisations for more than two-and-a-half hours (a majority of them arguing against Bt brinjal and GM crops), Mr. Ramesh said he would announce his decision on the first GM food crop in the country on February 10.
"My decision won't be influenced by any quarter, including scientists, NGOs, agriculture universities or Monsanto. Neither is there any pressure from the PMO nor the Prime Minister. My decision will be fair and judicious, and will be based purely on the outcome of consultations," he said.
Mr. Ramesh described as unfortunate the polarisation of the debate from the beginning. It was not correct to dub those supporting Bt brinjal as 'agents of Monsanto' and the opponents as 'anti-technology.'
He appealed to the scientists to educate the people on the facts, and not to add fuel to the fire.
Final decision on Bt Brinjal [Aubergine] after 10th Feb
News On Air (via Press Note) [India], 1 February 2010:
http://www.pressnote.in/english/readnews.php?id=66232
Environment and Forests Minister, Jairam Ramesh has said that a final decision on introduction of BT Brinjal for commercial cultivation will be taken by the 10th of this month.
The Minister said, the final decision will be taken after taking into consideration all shades of opinion.
Addressing a public hearing held at the Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture in Hyderabad on Sunday, he said the debate over the BT Brinjal has been highly polarised.
Mr Ramesh said, those who were favouring BT Brinjal are accused of being agents of Multi National Companies and those who were opposing were alleged to be anti-technologists.
He appealed to all sections to express their opinions in a democratic and restrained manner. He also said majority of the Chief Ministers in the Country have opposed BT Brinjal.
AIR Correspondent reports, the public hearing held in Hyderabad is the 6th in the series being held across the country.
Before taking a final decision by 10th of February whether to introduce the BT Brinjal for commercial cultivation, the Minister will hold the last public hearing in the series in Bangalore on 6th February.
Refuting all allegations the Minister has made it clear that he would take an independent decision over introduction of BT Brinjal after due consideration of opinions from all sections.
Stating that it would be difficult to take a decision which would be acceptable to every one, as the public opinion on the matter has been highly polarised.
Speaking to reporters about various issues relating to BT Brinjal, the Minister said he wrote to all Chief Ministers and well known Scientists seeking their opinion and added that most of the Chief Ministers have opposed introduction of BT Brinjal.
The Minister has opined that an independent Regulator should be set up in the Agriculture sector to tackle issues relating to genetically modified crops. Unlike in other places, the public hearing has witnessed wide protests.
In Kerala, protest against the move to introduce genetically modified Brinjal is fast gaining momentum.
Kerala Agriculture Minister Mullakkara Ratnakaran has written to Union Environment & Forest Minister to hold a public consultation in Kerala as well, before taking any decision to launch Bt. Brinjal.
The state will be sending a team comprising of environmentalists and scientists to Bangalore for the forthcoming consultation next week.
For the first time in Kerala, the state Government, environmentalists, scientists and farmers have come together against genetically modified crops. They say that introduction of Bt. Brinjal will be against farmers and the rich biodiversity of Kerala.
The capital city of Thiruvananthapuram witnessed participation of eminent persons in a hunger strike held on Sunday against genetically modified crops.
They have planned a high level convention in Kochi against bt. Brinjal.
Experts point out that introduction of Bt.brinjal can lead to destruction of two thousand varietes of indigenous Brinjal. Eminent agriculture scientist M S Swaminathan has already expressed concerns on introduction of genetically modified crops.
Ryanair near bottom of 'ethical ranking' list [Note: Monsanto in worst place!]
Frank McDonald, Environment Editor
The Irish Times, 1 February 2010:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0201/1224263502392.html
RYANAIR HAS appeared in the bottom 10 of an "ethical ranking" of 581 companies, based on environmental performance, corporate social responsibility and information provided to consumers.
The ranking was compiled by Geneva-based Covalence, which measures qualitative data on 45 criteria including labour standards, waste management, social utility and human rights policy.
The company claims that its "reputation index", which is distributed by Thomson Reuters, Bloomberg and Capital IQ, is "a barometer of how multinationals are perceived in the ethical field".
Ryanair is ranked 575 on the latest list, just ahead of Occidental Petroleum, US tobacco company Phillip Morris and oil giant Chevron. At the bottom is Monsanto, chiefly known for genetically modified foods.
CRH plc, the only other Irish firm on the list, comes close to the bottom, with a ranking of 557 - sandwiched between Exxon Mobil and Japan Tobacco.
Guinness manufacturer Diageo is ranked high, at 39.
The top 10 are headed by IBM, followed by Intel (which has a major plant at Leixlip, Co Kildare), HSBC Holdings, Marks Spencer, Unilever, Xerox, General Electric, Cisco Systems, Dell and Procter & Gamble.
"Environmental initiatives, eco-innovative products and social sponsorships enabled companies to generate positive coverage in 2009, while issues related to downsizing, CO2 emissions and working conditions caused the most criticisms," Covalence said.
New sector leaders are BMW (cars), Walt Disney (media), and Suncor Energy (oil & gas). Across sectors, companies progressing the most during 2009 were British Telecom, Kimberly-Clark, Samsung Electronics and Siemens.
Well-known companies in the top 20 include Alcoa Aluminium, Pepsico, Nike, Microsoft, Starbucks, DuPont, BASF, Danone and Vodafone, while those in the bottom 20 include Royal Dutch Shell, AIG, British American Tobacco and Halliburton.
Google is ranked at 24, Toyota at 32, Walmart at 42, Barclays at 46 and Coca-Cola at 47. Still in the top 100 are French conglomerate Veolia (which operates Luas in Dublin) at 89, Statoil at 90, Mazda at 93, Tesco at 97 and Fiat at 98.
Ethical companies: best and worst
TOP 10
1 International Business Machines Corp Technology
2 Intel Corporation Technology
3 HSBC Holdings Banks
4 Marks & Spencer Retail
5 Unilever NV Food Beverages
6 Xerox Technology
7 General Electric Co Industrial Goods Services
8 Cisco Systems Technology
9 Dell Technology
10 Procter & Gamble Personal & Household Goods
BOTTOM 10
572 Total SA Oil & Gas
573 Grupo Mexico SA de CV Basic Resources
574 Syngenta AG Chemicals
575 Ryanair Travel & Leisure
576 Occidental Petroleum Oil & Gas
577 Philip Morris International Personal & Household Goods
578 Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Basic Resources
579 Chevron Oil & Gas
580 Halliburton Company Oil & Gas
581 Monsanto Food & Beverages
2010: Jan
2009: Jan • Feb • Mar • Apr • May • Jun • Jul • Aug • Sep • Oct • Nov • Dec
2008: Jan • Feb • Mar • Apr • May • Jun • Jul • Aug • Sep • Oct • Nov • Dec
2007: Jan • Feb • Mar • Apr • May • Jun • Jul • Aug • Sept • Oct • Nov • Dec
2006:
Jan • Feb • Mar • Apr • May • Jun • Jul • Aug • Sept • Oct • Nov • Dec
2005:
Jan/Feb/Mar • Apr/May/Jun/Jul • Aug/Sept/Oct • Nov/Dec
2004 • 2003
