NEWS ABOUT GM ISSUES • January 2010

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

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

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

•

A new approach to controlling infections using Gram-negative bacteria

•

Bacteriophage holins and their membrane-disrupting activity

•

Anti-staphylococcal lytic enzymes

•

Membrane-targeted enzybiotics

•

Design of phage cocktails for therapy from a host-range point of view

•

Novel methods to identify new enzybiotics

•

Genetically modified phages that deliver suicidal genes to target bacteria

The authors, all active enzybiotics researchers, offer a variety of perspectives, the benefit of their own hands-on investigations, as well as a thorough review and analysis of the current literature.

As more and more bacteria become resistant to antibiotics, the development of new disease-fighting agents has become essential. This book demonstrates the full potential of the emerging field of enzybiotics to control infectious diseases. Moreover, it will serve as a springboard for new research and the development of new therapeutics.

30 January 2010

''GM Free Karnataka'' observe one-day fast

PTI (via Yahoo!) [India], 30 January 2010:
http://in.news.yahoo.com/20/20100130/1416/tnl-gm-free-karnataka-observe-one-day-fa.html

Bangalore, Jan 30 (PTI) Ahead of the public hearing on Bt brinjal here next month, activists belonging to "GM Free Karnataka" observed a one-day fast here today. Expressing their unwillingness to accept Bt brinjal, activists comprising consumers, farmers, youth and scientists alleged that approval of genetically engineered Brinjal without proper tests had caused a "national outrage among independent scientists, consumers, farmers and civil society groups".

The protesters wore coverings in the shape of huge eyes and ears, symobolising that they "are hearing and watching the proceedings on Bt brinjal and refuse to eat toxic food". Chief Minister B S Yeddyurappa has said he would not allow cultivation of the genetically modified brinjal in Karnataka.

29 January 2010

War against Monsanto
• In Cuiabá, Aprosoja is preparing a court action against Monsanto, and in Sinop, steps are being taken to follow suit.

Marcondes Maciel and Tania Rauber
Diário de Cuiabá [Brazil], 29 January 2010 :
http://www.diariodecuiaba.com.br/

[English translation courtesy of GM-free Ireland]

Growers in [the Brazilian State of] Mato Grosso have declared war against Monsanto, the multinational corporate owner of the GMO soya technology known as RR (Roundup Ready). After exhausting all attempts to engage the company in dialogue, the growers are now considering legal action. In Cuiabá, Aprosoja (the Soya and Corn Producers Association of the State of Mato Grosso) is preparing a lawsuit. In Sinop (500km North of Cuiaba) the growers are looking to sue the company as well.

Aprosoya wants to determine if the [patent] royalty fee paid by the soya growers is actually due. "We want to know what sort of patent is generating this type of fee, because depending on the type, the company does not have the right to charge us anything at all. We also need to know the patent's validity period" - explains the President of Aprosoja, Mr. Glauber Silveira.

In Mato Grosso, growers increased the cultivated area of GMOs from 2.6 million hectares (2008/09 crop) to approximately 3 million hectares in this year's crop. The expansion of the area will increase Monsanto's profit from R$39 million (€15.2m) to R$45 million (€15.6m), an increase of 15.38%. According to calculations made by the producers, the fee Monanto charged for the use of its patent amounts to R$15.00 (€5.85) per hectare.

Aprosoja intends to issue a notification demanding that Monsanto provide proper justification regarding the royalty fees. "We have been informed that Monsanto is inducing the seed producers of Mato Grosso to provide only GMO seeds", denounces Mr. Silveira. In Mato Grosso the GMO plantation now occupies half of the entire cultivated area of soya, comprising about 6 million hectares.

SINOP - Following several meetings without any positive results, the Sinop Rural Union is also planning to sue Monsanto. Approximately 50% of the crop fields in the Northern Region of Mato Grosso are currently cultivated with GMO varieties. These differ from the conventional because of their resistance to herbicides containing glyphosate, used in desiccation before and after planting to eliminate all kinds of weeds.

This kind of resistance enables the growers to apply the herbicide on the soya only, thus reducing their production costs and the number of herbicide applications. But the sectors' questions concern the royalty fees imposed by Monsanto for their use of the seed.

The president of the Union, Mr. Antônio Galvan, explained that two collections are made: The first one being when the seed is bought (by bank order). "In January they charged R$0.45 per kilo of seed, which is equivalent to 30% of the price of each sack.

The main questioning lies on the second collection which is made when the product is leaving the fields. When it arrives to the warehouses the grain is tested and identified as GMO or non-GMO. The problem occurs when, in many cases, conventional oleaginous seeds are contaminated and the growers end up having to pay royalties without having acquired any GMO seeds in the first place.

This contamination occurs in the fields by means of pollenisation or at the time of planting, as well as at the time of stocking the harvest. "Cross pollenisation may take place if there's a field of GMO soya next to a Non-GMO one at flowering time. Contamination can also take place if the machines are not well cleaned at harvest time, and some GMO beans remain. In this way, they will be considered GMO when they are tested".

First Genetic Modification Case to Go Before Supreme Court

Christine Lin
Epoch Times [California, USA], via CheckBiotech.org, 29 January 2020:
http://greenbio.checkbiotech.org/news/first_genetic_modification_case_go_supreme_court

Genetic modification food giant Monsanto and a San Francisco-based consumer advocacy group are set to take the battle over genetically engineered foods to court. This week, the Supreme Court decided to hear a case over Monsanto's genetically-engineered alfalfa sprouts designed to be resistant to the Monsanto herbicide Roundup.

The court agreed to hear the case after Monsanto petitioned following its defeat in 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year.

The seed at the center of the debate is Monsanto's alfalfa, the first perennial crop to be genetically engineered. Alfalfa, extensively used for cattle feed and with more than 20 million acres in cultivation, is the fourth most widely grown crop in the nation.

The fact that it is open-pollinated by bees makes this patented genetically modified organisms (GMO) a new and potentially wide-reaching problem in U.S. agriculture. As bees carry the pollen of Monsanto alfalfa to non-GMO alfalfa plants, the foreign DNA can enter organic alfalfa, thus disqualifying those crops as USDA organic.

Furthermore, conventional farmers will have to switch to Monsanto pesticide as the crop becomes unsuited for conventional pesticides.

The Case Against Monsanto

In 2006, consumer advocacy group Center for Food Safety (CFS) filed a lawsuit against the USDA for approving Monsanto's Roundup-resistant alfalfa on behalf of a coalition of nonprofits and farmers. They said that the spread of genetically modified alfalfa genes, whether intentional or unintentional, would threaten consumer choice. Though they think they are buying organic, the produce will have already had some degree of GMO contamination.

As for the environment, farmers and advocates worry that as the pesticide treadmill speeds up, it will be impossible to get off, and the wide use of pesticides will degrade the soil, water, and air. The more agriculture relies on pesticides to protect their crops, the more resistance the pests will gain, and a new, stronger pesticide would be required the next growing season.

Federal courts ruled in favor of CFS and banned the sale of GE alfalfa until the USDA completed an environmental impact statement (EIS) to assess the full risks of allowing such a crop into the nation's fields. A draft EIS was released in December and is open for public comment until Feb. 16.

This is the first time the U.S. government has ever done an in-depth environmental analysis for any GE crop.

Monsanto representatives did not reply for comment.

Genetically Modified Forest Planned for U.S. Southeast
• International Paper Co. and MeadWestvaco Corp. are planning to transform plantation forests of the southeastern United States by replacing native pine with genetically engineered eucalyptus

Paul Voosen
Scentific American [USA], 29 January 2010:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=eucalyptus-genetically-modified-pine-tree-southwest-forest

Genetic engineering is coming to the forests.

While the practice of splicing foreign DNA into food crops has become common in corn and soy, few companies or researchers have dared to apply genetic engineering to plants that provide an essential strut of the U.S. economy, trees.

But that will soon change. Two industry giants, International Paper Co. and MeadWestvaco Corp., are planning to transform plantation forests of the southeastern United States by replacing native pine with genetically engineered eucalyptus, a rapidly growing Australian tree that in its conventional strains now dominates the tropical timber industry.

The companies' push into genetically modified trees, led by their joint biotech venture, ArborGen LLC, looks to overcome several hurdles for the first time. Most prominently, they are banking on a controversial gene splice that restricts trees' ability to reproduce, meant to allay fears of bioengineered eucalyptus turning invasive and overtaking native forests.

If such a fertility control technology -- which has come under fire in farming for fear seed firms will exploit it -- is proven effective, it could open the door to many varieties of wild plants, including weedy grasses, to be genetically engineered for use in energy applications like biomass and next-generation biofuels without fear of invasiveness.

The use of such perennial plants -- so named because, unlike annual farm crops, they live and grow for many years -- has long interested business and government, including the Energy Department, which has collaborated with ArborGen. The plants, which include many grasses targeted for cellulosic ethanol, can be harvested when needed and, given their hardiness, grow on marginal land.

Yet many questions remain about the effectiveness of the fertility system used by ArborGen, which, according to leading scientists, has never been rigorously studied in multiyear trials to prove that it can effectively control plants' spread. More research must be conducted before such systems are relied upon to restrict pollen and seed spread, they say.

Despite these calls, ArborGen has been seeking government deregulation of its eucalyptus, which is primarily engineered to resist freezing temperatures, since 2008. If successful, ArborGen would likely revolutionize the timber industry and the Southern landscape by becoming the first company to roll out bioengineered trees on a massive scale, observers say.

In its rosiest scenarios, growers using ArborGen's presumably expensive seeds would see huge gains in productivity and become the preferred tree stock for a new generation of bioenergy refineries. The South would become the new Appalachia; timber would serve as its coal. Inklings of such progress have already arisen, including recent word that the German utility RWE AG would build the world's largest wood-pellet plant in Georgia to supplement its coal habits.

By adopting eucalyptus as a tree stock, the United States would simply be catching up with countries like Brazil, which has leveraged vast tree plantations in recent decades to pivot from a net wood importer to an exporter. While the South saw a rise in pine plantations during this time, pine cannot compete with eucalyptus for sheer growth rate, the company says.

"The United States is behind the game on this," said Les Pearson, ArborGen's director of regulatory affairs. "Lots of countries around the world have been growing eucalyptus for many decades."

Indeed, primarily because of competition from South America, demand for traditional American tree pulp has gone slack. This sagging industry could allow up to 10 million acres in the Southeast to be repurposed for fast-growing eucalyptuses, according to corporate estimates.

But it still remains unclear if the nascent bioenergy industry will be enough to make up for demand lost to Brazilian plantations, said Curtis Seltzer, a timber consultant who has studied ArborGen and calls its trees a "game changer."

"It's not clear to me that biomass will pick up the slack for the traditional markets [as they] ebb," Seltzer said. "But it could."

Even given government incentives and a price on carbon, however, ArborGen must satisfy concerns from regulators and environmental groups that its engineered trees will not, especially when gifted with the ability to resist cold, spread untrammeled through forests.

Pollen problems

At its most basic, life is about reproduction. And the species' struggle to adapt and survive can make attempts to control the fertility of plants difficult, according to Steve Strauss, a tree geneticist at Oregon State University who has also consulted with ArborGen.

ArborGen relies on what has been the most popular system for restricting plant pollen, which uses a bacterial gene to produce a toxic enzyme called barnase that slices apart genetic material in a cell, causing death. Through genetic trickery, the enzyme is only produced in the pollen-spreading parts of the tree, destroying its ability to reproduce -- at least most of the time.

Given the number of trees that will be produced, there will likely be enough genetic instability to allow a very small number of the freeze-tolerant eucalyptuses to reproduce, Strauss said. Rather than an absolute containment system, barnase should be thought of as a mitigation strategy, he added.

"It doesn't mean there are no pollen grains produced," Strauss said. "Almost nothing in biology is 100 percent."

A tiny number of seedlings are almost assured to escape from the eucalyptus plantations, Strauss said. But since the trees, in his evaluation, are unlikely to prove invasive, there should be little cause for alarm.

"When you talk about trees, storms happen, wind blows," he said. "The containment is not absolute. There is the chance of some spread. Is it likely to become an invasive weed? Seems unlikely to me."

Until now, only two of ArborGen's experimental eucalyptus stations have been allowed to flower, and the company has reported little in the way of pollen production in the trees. It is now seeking to greatly expand the number and location of trees allowed to flower to 28 sites totaling 330 acres scattered across seven states. The Agriculture Department issued a draft approval of the expansion, subject to public comment, earlier this month.

The modified eucalyptus trees are already planted at most of these sites, and as they approach sexual maturity, ArborGen has been forced to pluck the trees' flowers or cut them down completely, causing millions of dollars in lost research, said Nancy Hood, ArborGen's public affairs director.

This test acreage is fairly small, hardly the equivalent of a full-scale commercial planting, as some environmental groups have accused. (For comparison, there are more than 32 million acres of pine plantation in the South.) However, ArborGen has confessed that it hopes USDA will deregulate the trees by the time the cohort reaches harvest age -- around seven years or so -- allowing the resulting pulp to be sold.

Many biotech researchers are supportive of the expanded experimental permit, which will allow more complete studies of the fertility containment system. While ArborGen has released little in the way of peer-reviewed research so far, it will publish barnase results this year, said Maud Hinchee, ArborGen's chief technology officer.

Such data would be a welcome change. While barnase's mechanism is well documented -- and approved for use in domesticated crops like rapeseed -- its effectiveness has barely been studied, according to an analysis written by Strauss in 2007.

"There does not seem to have been any serious field studies, in any crop, sufficient to estimate the operational effectiveness of containment genes," Strauss wrote. "Until many such studies are published, it would be unwise to assume that genes can be fully and safely contained in the near future."

Decisions to deregulate any wild GM plant like the eucalyptus must take into account this lack of research, said Hong Luo, a molecular biologist at Clemson University who has developed a gene containment system for another wild plant, turfgrass. His team recently completed a one-year study of the system's effectiveness, he said, but more research is needed.

"There haven't been really too much studies of what would be impact of transgene escape from perennials," he said. "We will be cautious in this respect."

It remains to be seen how the public will react to the concept of GM forest trees. But as researchers point out, people have already embraced some engineered trees that have no pollen controls. Almost all of the papaya trees in Hawaii are genetically engineered to resist the devastating ringspot virus, and similar efforts are under way to save the American chestnut, which has been nearly eradicated by fungal disease.

However, the inability to promise 100 percent containment could delay the development of bioengineered plants that carry even slight risks of invasiveness. But such foolproof systems will come, Strauss predicted.

"I do believe we can produce absolute containment," he said. "We will be able to do that, I believe, in 10 years. But it's not proven yet."

Australian invaders

The unproven nature of ArborGen's fertility controls is concerning largely because they will be used to introduce a robust, foreign tree, conservation groups say. The timber industry has long dreamed of importing eucalyptus into the South, mimicking Brazil's success, where plantations transformed the country -- at some environmental toll -- from a timber importer to an exporter within decades.

Previous domestic efforts to establish the tree in the South, which came to a peak in the early 1980s, failed as winter freezes scythed dead swaths through experimental plantations. Only in Florida have the trees survived, though they have only been used in only limited ways, mostly for mulch. All efforts to move the tree into more temperate conditions have failed, until now.

Thanks to a plant gene that it licensed from Mendel Biotechnology, a prime R&D contractor with Monsanto Co., ArborGen's freeze-tolerant eucalyptuses have been grown in much colder conditions up into the Carolinas. (ArborGen has many connections to Monsanto, starting with its CEO, Barbara Wells, who worked at the seed giant for 18 years.) Mendel's regulatory gene controls the expression of other genes that influence cold resistance, and its use represents the state of the art in plant biotech.

But in opening the door to the plant's cultivation, far more scrutiny is needed as to how eucalyptus will behave when grown in bulk, said Doria Gordon, a senior ecologist at the Nature Conservancy.

"My concern is about invasiveness. Not that it is a GMO, per se," Gordon said. "The concern is, what threat is it to Florida's natural area and to the Southeast's natural areas?"

Last year, Gordon, who also works at the University of Florida, evaluated one of the two species used to breed ArborGen's hybrids, Eucalyptus grandis, also known as the rose gum. The tree had previously turned invasive in South Africa, Gordon found, which led her to conclude that the tree carried a risk of turning invasive in the South, as well.

Gordon serves on a panel that evaluates the invasive risk of plants in Florida, and last year, the panel classified the rose gum as a possible invader. Only a few variants of the tree can be grown, it said, and only with strict management practices, including harvesting within six months of the onset of flower production -- much sooner than a forest plantation would like.

Though the rose gum carries an invasive risk, ArborGen's trees are an unknown quantity, Gordon said. Given the uncertainty involved, however, the Nature Conservancy has recommended to USDA that ArborGen be allowed fewer acres and trees to flower, and none in Florida, she said. The draft permit approved by USDA would allow flowering in 10 sites across the state.

"We don't know if it could become more invasive over time," she said. And until then, "it would be logical to me to not do those trials in Florida."

It is not irrational to fear invasiveness in eucalyptus, said Dan Binkley, a forest ecologist at Colorado State University. However, the rose gum appears to take on weedy traits only in arid regions like South Africa, where it can leverage its tremendous water efficiency. The South is far moister by comparison.

Even in Florida, the eucalyptus has proved to be somewhat delicate, ArborGen's Pearson added.

The tree "does not exist outside of the planted environment," he said. And in the closed confines of a plantation, "you need to manage these things very carefully to let them survive and thrive."

'More Wood. Less Land'

While he would like to see more data on the water use and fire impacts of eucalyptus plantations, Binkley understands the tree's allure, he said.

Unlike the pine trees used in Southern plantations -- which have quietly helped displace tobacco in the region's economy -- eucalyptus can deploy a full canopy of leaves within a few years. It is greedy for carbon, and within 27 months can grow to 55 feet in height.

The ultimate benefit of eucalyptus plantations would be the ability to grow more wood on less land, ArborGen's Hinchee said. (Not coincidentally, the firm's motto is "More Wood. Less Land.") Forests are continuously lost to development in the South, and natural hardwood acres have become harder to harvest. Increased productivity would have benefits "through the whole economic chain," she said.

Similar claims have been made for the practice of forest plantations as a whole, which remains controversial despite its ubiquity in the South, and little data exists to verify the claims.

In the end, if the United States seriously pursues bioenergy from plants, the country will face a choice of drawing that power more from trees that are treated like crops, or from grasses, which can behave far more invasively, Strauss said.

"If we're going to rely on biofuels as a significant part of a diverse portfolio of renewable technology," then harvesting trees is the best way to go, he said. "There's a lot of marginal land that could be used."

Reprinted from Greenwire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500

Soya Dependence a Threat to EU Pigs and Poultry?

The Poultry Site [UK], 29 January 2010:
http://www.thepoultrysite.com/poultrynews/19397/soya-dependence-a-threat-to-eu-pigs-and-poultry

EU - The future of the European Union's pig and poultry industries is threatened by its heavy reliance on imported soyabeans and soyabean meal, a leading UK feed compounder said yesterday.

"We are far too dependant on soya. If we are not careful we are going to export our pig and poultry industries to other countries," Hugh Burton, raw material manager for pig and poultry feed compounder ABN, a unit of Associated British Foods Plc, told a conference on Thursday.

"I think we need to look very seriously at how can we develop our pulses and rapemeal to compete better with soya within feed rations," he said at a conference jointly organised by the Home-Grown Cereals Authority (HGCA) and Processors and Growers Research Organisation (PGRO).

Mr Burton said the EU grows only about 1 million tonnes of soya and imports about 13 million tonnes of whole soyabeans and a further 22.5 million tonnes of soyameal.

"How long is that supply going to be there?" he asked, saying key suppliers such as Brazil were expanding their pig and poultry sectors, lessening the availability of soya for export.

South American producers have taken a growing share of the global soyabean market over the last few years with Brazil accounting for 25 per cent of production in 2009 and Argentina 21 per cent, compared to 19 per cent and 10 per cent respectively in 1994, according to USDA data.

Brazil is also the key source of the non-GMO soybeans sought by some consumers in the European Union, according to Reuters.

Mr Burton saw soyabeans as the "king" of feed rations with protein levels significantly higher than competitors such as rapeseed, winter peas, sweet white lupins and faba beans.

He said the quality of the protein was also better with higher levels of key amino acid lysine.

Mr Burton said the slow approval for importation by the European Union of new genetically modified varieties of soybeans posed a further challenge.

"We come to a point where we potentially put the EU at a disadvantage here in terms of what we can use as a feed by the delays in the process," he said.

There is no blanket ban on imports of GMO soyabeans into the EU but each variety must be individually approved in what can be a lengthy process due to strong opposition from some members.

Biodiversity: EU Farmers Face Genetic Contamination of Seeds

Julio Godoy
IPS News, 29 January 2010:
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=50153

BERLIN - Biodiversity, already decaying fast as a result of climate change and intensive farming, is under further threat by genetic modification (GM) of seeds, says a leading German ecological activist.

Genetic modification of seeds is dangerous, "since it is at the beginning of the agricultural chain, and can spread all over," says Benedikt Haerlin, former campaign manager at the environmental organisation Greenpeace and former member of the European Parliament.

Haerlin now leads the global 'Save our Seeds' campaign in cooperation with some 300 environmental organisations across Europe.

The campaign is currently calling attention to plans by the European Commission (EC) to tolerate "accidental or technically unavoidable" contamination of conventional seed with GM varieties.

In September 2004, the EC sought to pass a directive allowing up to 0.7 percent of GM organisms (GMO) in maize and oilseed rape seed without being labelled.

But fierce protests by organic farmers and environmental organisations forced the EC to withdraw the proposal. Since then, EC has not submitted any new recommendations.

Some [E.U.] Commissioners, such as Stavros Dimas, who was in charge of Environment between 2004 and 2009, have even questioned whether thresholds are necessary. Although the mandate for the present EC ended last October, Dimas is still serving as Commissioner for Environment until a new Commission is approved and takes office.

"The official position of the EC remains, however, that a new proposal for the specification of threshold values for genetic contamination of seed is in the works," Haerlin told IPS.

Haerlin said that calling such contamination "accidental or technically unavoidable" with GMOs is misleading. "For fodder or even food, that genetic contamination under 0.9 percent is not declared can be acceptable," Haerlin explained. "At least, I can be sure that such contamination won't spread to other areas of life."

This is not the case with seeds, he said. "GM seeds can contaminate the fields of peasants and farmers who oppose them. After contamination, they would be forced to prove the origin of the pollution.

"Farmers using what they believe are organic seeds, but which have been genetically contaminated, would continue using part of the polluted crop as seeds for the next season, and multiply and spread the contamination," he said.

"The most important impact of GM agriculture is on the social and economic conditions of farmers," Haerlin told IPS. "In general, GM agriculture makes farmers dependent on the big agrochemical business, and also provokes conflicts between peasants and landowners."

Haerlin accused the agrochemical giants that control the market for GM seeds to use "back doors and bad legislation to put their seeds on the market. They know that otherwise they would not sell their seeds."

Haerlin warned that research and development in agriculture is taking place "more and more only in the chemistry labs, and not on the field, and are concentrated in only a handful of companies." Because of this, organic, traditional seeds are disappearing, he said.

"The environmental consequences are enormous and extremely dangerous, and, once they have happened, it will be too late to turn back the tide," Haerlin said.

According to environmental and agriculture experts, 25 years ago there were at least 7,000 seed growers worldwide, and none of them controlled more than one percent of the global market.

Today, after a takeover spree, ten major biochemical multinationals, including Monsanto, DuPont-Pioneer, Syngenta, Bayer Cropscience, BASF and Dow Agrosciences, control more than 50 percent of the seeds market.

"The goal of these companies is, of course, to make profits," Haerlin told IPS. "In order to improve their profits, they all apply one strategy to increase their control of the market: they impose upon farmers worldwide the so-called vertical integration of inputs, from seeds to fertilisers to pesticides, all from one brand."

Such "vertical integration of agricultural inputs" has transformed agriculture in developing countries into a two-class business, Angelika Hillbeck, researcher on bio-safety and agriculture at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, told IPS.

"In the developing countries there is a class of farmers with large plantations and enough money who can afford to buy all inputs from the major biochemical companies, from seeds and fertilisers to pesticides and conservatives,'' she said.

But there are small farmers for whom the biochemical markets are out of reach. Additionally GM seeds have crowded out organic seeds, reduced botanical diversity, especially in developing countries, and contributed to a further decimation of biodiversity.

All European Union (EU) member countries have joined the United Nations campaign declaring 2010 'The Year of Biodiversity' in an effort to emphasise the need to protect variety in flora and fauna. The U.N., which launched the campaign on Jan. 11 in Berlin, has recognised that the objective set in 2003 to stop the decimation of biodiversity by 2010 would not be reached.

This European engagement in favour of biodiversity appears to be only lip service to the environment cause since, in reality, European institutions support biochemical multinationals that are out to make genetic contamination legal.

Additionally, European institutions appear to have revolving doors connecting some of their leading officers to private biochemical and agribusiness companies - as the case of Suzy Renckens shows.

Renckens was until 2008 head of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)'s GMO Unit and coordinator of the European scientific expert panel dealing with GMOs. One month after she quit the EFSA, Renckens became head of Biotech Regulatory Affairs for Europe, Africa and Middle East at Syngenta, one of the largest European agribusiness companies.

In her own words, Renckens now lobbies on behalf of Syngenta to influence EU decision-making on genetically engineered organisms. This is the very same issue she was responsible for regulating while with the EFSA.

Haerlin said that 'Save our Seeds' has formulated a petition, addressed to the EC and other political authorities in Europe, calling for a ban of GMOs in seeds.

The petition, which has been so far signed by well over 200,000 citizens all over the EU, says that "the uncontrolled spread and propagation of GMOs is incompatible with the precautionary protection of the environment and human health."

The petition also says that "the purity of seeds has to be ensured by those who produce or wish to grow GMOs and not by those who wish to continue farming and consuming products without GMOs."

"Costs arising from this obligation must not be borne by consumers and certainly not by farmers," the petition adds. "Liabilities will have to be covered by the producers of GMOs. Such a guarantee may have to be ensured in other directives, regulations and legislation before the proposed directive enters into force."

The initiative 'Save our Seeds' is being coordinated by the Berlin-based Foundation on Future Farming, which primarily supports the development and breeding of organic seed.

Genetically modified seeds 'are everywhere'

Andy Coghlan
New Scientist [UK], 29 January 2010:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527453.800-genetically-modified-seeds-are-everywhere.html

GENETICALLY modified crops are everywhere, it seems - even in Europe. Strict laws designed to keep the European Union free of unauthorised GM crops and products are not working, and are posing problems for the EU's §150 billion livestock industry, according to farmers' representatives. They say that supplies of animal feed for poultry and pigs are being refused entry at European ports when found to contain even trace amounts of unauthorised GM material.

Under Europe's "zero-tolerance" laws on GM contamination, introduced in 2007, the presence of even a few seeds of unauthorised GM material will rule out an entire shipment. The animal feed industry says that the laws are unworkable because GM material is almost ubiquitous, given today's global supply chain.

"Though we understand the consumer concern in Europe, we don't understand zero tolerance because it closes down trade," says Pekka Pesonen, secretary general of Copa-Cogeca, a coalition of groups representing 15 million EU farmers in total. He claims that European pig and poultry farmers will go out of business unless the EU adopts a more pragmatic screening approach by setting a threshold - say 0.5 per cent - beneath which GM contamination is tolerated.

Pesonen says such "tolerances" operate for other contaminants, including pesticides and heavy metals. So why not for GM material, much of which has been cleared for human consumption elsewhere in the world?

Last year 200,000 tonnes of conventional animal feed - mainly soy and maize - were refused entry to the EU when they were found to contain small amounts of GM maize varieties. Then flax from Canada was found to contain traces of a GM variety named CDC Triffid that was withdrawn from commercial sale in 2001. Following a ban on flax more than 100 shipments were rejected, but trade is slowly resuming.

The rejected tonnage is only a fraction of the 32 million tonnes of feed imported each year. But it leads to delays to subsequent consignments, higher prices and a reluctance by importers to risk further shipments.

Prices will be higher still this year, says Pesonen owing to droughts in South America and a growing market for American farmers selling crops to China, which accepts mixed shipments.

Increasing numbers of GM crop varieties are on the way. At present, around 30 varieties are grown around the world, but that is predicted to quadruple by 2015, making screening trickier than ever.

A further complication arises because all the European commissioners are due to be replaced in February. A spokeswoman for the health commission, which introduced the zero-tolerance policy to satisfy widespread misgivings in Europe about the safety of GM crops, says that "intensive consultations" on feed imports have already taken place. "Once the new commission is established, it will have to consider how to proceed on this matter," she says.

MP against GM crops, says it's 'westernisation' of science

Milind Ghatwai
Indian Express (via CheckBiotech.org), 29 January 2010:
http://greenbio.checkbiotech.org/news/mp_against_gm_crops_says_its_westernisation_science

The BJP government in Madhya Pradesh has a new argument against genetically modified crops - "It is westernisation of agriculture science".

Farmers' Welfare and Agriculture Development Minister Dr Ramkrishna Kusmaria spelt out his government's stand while asking Union Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh not to allow commercial cultivation of Bt Brinjal. "Madhya Pradesh government strongly opposes westernisation of agriculture science and a narrow-minded approach," Dr Kusmaria wrote to Ramesh on Thursday. "The state government can't compromise on its policy of agriculture growth with organic farming."

The minister will attend a programme organised by Vishwa Yuvak Kendra in New Delhi on Friday and meet Ramesh who is due to take part along with farmers and scientists from across the country.

Dr Kusmaria said more than 250 varieties of brinjal are grown over 16,000 hectares in Madhya Pradesh, mostly by small and marginal farmers. The government won't allow its bioresources to be damaged, he said.

The state government said it would not let Bt Brinjal enter the state, saying the genetically modified crop could take a toll on the health of consumers. While the jury is still out on the technology, the state has already made up its mind. Immediately after the GEAC's nod to Bt Brinjal, the state had announced that it would ban the crop because "it's not in the interest of our farmers and land."

MEPs seek powers to force resignation of single commissioners
• The European Parliament has gained political clout over the last few years

Honor Mahony
EU Observer, 29 January 2010:
http://euobserver.com/9/29373/?rk=1

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - The European Parliament is set for new political powers allowing it to seek the resignation of an individual European Commissioner, following a working relations agreement sealed earlier this week by senior MEPs and commission chief Jose Manuel Barroso.

Due to be voted on 9 February, the draft power-sharing deal suggests that Mr Barroso must "seriously consider" whether to ask an individual commissioner to step down if parliament withdraws its confidence. If he chooses not to let the commissioner go he then has to explain his reasoning before MEPs.

Under EU treaty rules, MEPs can censure the commission as a whole but not individual members. This new inter-institutional arrangement, while not legally binding, will further increase the political clout of the EU assembly, a trend that has been growing steadily in recent years.

Its most obvious expression has been when it has sought, and obtained, changes to the commission line-up before it came into power - although legally it is not able to veto single would-be commissioners. Earlier this month, MEPs forced the resignation of Bulgarian commissioner designate Rumiana Jeleva, following through on political powers won in 2004.

The five-page agreement binds the two institutions more closely together in a series of informal ways. European Parliament President Jerzy Buzek will be allowed to attend the weekly meeting of commissioners when major laws are being proposed. The twice monthly meeting of political group leaders in the parliament will host Mr Barroso when legislative and budgetary matters are discussed.

Meanwhile, the monthly question-and-answer session between MEPs and Mr Barroso will be extended to include Catherine Ashton, the EU's top diplomat, and other commissioners.

The parliament has also been granted extra rights when it comes to international negotiations, particularly in the area of trade, where it shall have better access to information and will have attendance rights - although only with an observer status for the head of the relevant delegation.

In two major areas, MEPs were rebuffed however. They failed to secure agreement from Mr Barroso that there should be US-style hearing for senior appointees to the EU's future diplomatic service, something they had openly pushed for. Instead they received commitment that the ambassadors will be appointed in a transparent manner.

Mr Barroso also rejected an attempt by MEPs to oblige the commission to come forward with EU legislation if the chamber requested it, something the commission felt was stepping on its rights as sole initiator of EU legislation.

instead, the commission will respond to a legislation request by the parliament within three months and propose a law, if it decides to do so, within a year, and will give reasons to MEPs if it chooses not to legislate.

The deal, agreed on Wednesday and to be looked over by the assembly's political leaders on Thursday (4 February), means the way has been opened for the parliament to vote on the new commission on 9 February. Previously, some MEPs had suggested there would be no commission in view without an inter-institutional agreement first.

Milking the rabbit
• Herds of dairy rabbits. Eight-teat milking machines. High-tech rabbit farms. Apparently, this is close to becoming a reality.

FoodBev.com, 29 January 2010:
http://www.foodbev.com/opinion/milking-the-rabbit

There are already experiments in the Netherlands: the rabbits are genetically modified with a human gene to create a milk protein that helps prevent tissue damage for victims of car crashes, strokes and heart attacks.

Research has shown that a New Zealand white rabbit can produce 140ml of milk a day. The milk could be launched in Britain some time this year.

For more, see the original Sunday Times article http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/medicine/article6991031.ece

Johann Hari: This corruption in Washington is smothering America's future
• How do you regulate banks effectively, if the Senate is owned by Wall Street?

Johann Hari
The Independent [UK], 29 January 2010:
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/
johann-hari-this-corruption-in-washington-is-smothering-americas-future-1882349.html

This week, a disaster hit the United States, and the after-shocks will be shaking and breaking global politics for years. It did not grab the same press attention as the fall of liberal Kennedy-licking Massachusetts to a pick-up truck Republican, or President Obama's first State of the Union address, or the possible break-up of Brangelina and their United Nations of adopted infants. But it took the single biggest problem dragging American politics towards brutality and dysfunction - and made it much, much worse. Yet it also showed the only path that Obama can now take to salvage his Presidency.

For more than a century, the US has slowly put some limits - too few, too feeble - on how much corporations can bribe, bully or intimidate politicians. On Tuesday, they were burned away in one whoosh. The Supreme Court ruled that corporations can suddenly run political adverts during an election campaign - and there is absolutely no limit on how many, or how much they can spend. So if you anger the investment bankers by supporting legislation to break up the too-big-to-fail banks, you will smack into a wall of 24/7 ads exposing your every flaw. If you displease oil companies by supporting legislation to deal with global warming, you will now be hit by a tsunami of advertising saying you are opposed to jobs and the American Way. If you rile the defence contractors by opposing the gargantuan war budget, you will face a smear-campaign calling you Soft on Terror.

Representative Alan Grayson says: "It basically institutionalises and legalises bribery on the largest scale imaginable. Corporations will now be able to reward the politicians that play ball with them - and beat to death the politicians that don't... You won't even hear any more about the Senator from Kansas. It'll be the Senator from General Electric or the Senator from Microsoft."

To understand the impact this will have, you need to grasp how smaller sums of corporate money have already hijacked American democracy. Let's look at a case that is simple and immediate and every American can see in front of them: healthcare. The United States is the only major industrialised democracy that doesn't guarantee healthcare for all its citizens. The result is that, according to a detailed study by Harvard University, some 45,000 Americans die needlessly every year. That's equivalent to 15 9/11s every year, or two Haitian earthquakes every decade.

This isn't because the American people like it this way. Gallup has found in polls for a decade now that two-thirds believe the government should guarantee care for every American: they are as good and decent and concerned for each other as any European. No: it is because private insurance companies make a fortune today out of a system that doesn't cover the profit-less poor, and can turn away the sickest people as "uninsurable". So they pay for politicians to keep the system broken. They fund the election campaigns of politicians on both sides of the aisle and employ an army of lobbyists, and for their part those politicians veto any system that doesn't serve their paymasters.

Look for example at Joe Lieberman, the former Democratic candidate for Vice-President. He has taken $448,066 in campaign contributions from private healthcare companies while his wife raked in $2m as one of their chief lobbyists, and he has blocked any attempt in the Senate to break the stranglehold of the health insurance companies and broaden coverage.

The US political system now operates within a corporate cage. If you want to run for office, you have to take corporate cash - and so you have to serve corporate interests. Corporations are often blatant in their corruption: it's not unusual for them to give to both competing candidates in a Senate race, to ensure all sides are indebted to them. It has reached the point that lobbyists now often write the country's laws. Not metaphorically; literally. The former Republican congressman Walter Jones spoke out in disgust in 2006 when he found that drug company lobbyists were actually authoring the words of the Medicare prescription bill, and puppet-politicians were simply nodding it through.

But what happens if politicians are serving the short-term profit-hunger of corporations, and not the public interest? You only have to look at the shuttered shops outside your window for the answer. The banks were rapidly deregulated from the Eighties through the Noughties because their lobbyists paid politicians on all sides, and demanded their payback in rolled-back rules and tossed-away laws. As Senator Dick Durbin says simply: "The banks own the Senate," so they had to obey.

It is this corruption that has prevented Barack Obama from achieving anything substantial in his first year in office. How do you re-regulate the banks, if the Senate is owned by Wall Street? How do you launch a rapid transition away from oil and coal to wind and solar, if the fossil fuel industry owns Congress? How do you break with a grab-the-oil foreign policy if Big Oil provides the invitation that gets you into the party of American politics?

His attempt at healthcare reform is dying because he thought he could only get through the Senate a system that the giant healthcare corporations and drug companies pre-approved. So he promised to keep the ban on bringing cheap drugs down from Canada, he pledged not to bargain over prices, and he dumped the idea of having a public option that would make sure ordinary Americans could actually afford it. The result was a Quasimodo healthcare proposal so feeble and misshapen that even the people of Massachusetts turned away in disgust.

Yet the corporations that caused this crisis are now being given yet more power. Bizarrely, the Supreme Court has decided that corporations are "persons", so they have the "right" to speak during elections. But corporations are not people. Should they have the right to bear arms, or to vote? It would make as much sense. They are a legal fiction, invented by the state - and they can be fairly regulated to stop them devouring their creator. This is the same Supreme Court that ruled that the detainees at Guantanomo Bay are not "persons" under the constitution deserving basic protections. A court that says a living breathing human is less of a "persons" than Lockheed Martin has gone badly awry.

Obama now faces two paths - the Clinton road, or the FDR highway. After he lost his healthcare battle, Clinton decided to serve the corporate interests totally. He is the one who carried out the biggest roll-back of banking laws, and saw the largest explosion of inequality since the 1920s. Some of Obama's advisers are now nudging him down that path: the appalling anti-Keynesian pledge for a spending freeze on social programmes for the next three years to pay down the deficit is one of their triumphs.

But there is another way. Franklin Roosevelt began his Presidency trying to appease corporate interests - but he faced huge uproar and disgust at home when it became clear this left ordinary Americans stranded. He switched course. He turned his anger on "the malefactors of great wealth" and bragged: "I welcome the hatred... of the economic royalists." He put in place tough regulations that prevented economic disaster and spiralling inequality for three generations.

There were rare flashes of what Franklin Delano Obama would look like in his reaction to the Supreme Court decision. He said: "It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies, and other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americas." But he has spent far more time coddling those interests than taking them on. The great pressure of strikes and protests put on FDR hasn't yet arisen from a public dissipated into hopelessness by an appalling media that convinces them they are powerless and should wait passively for a Messiah.

Very little positive change can happen in the US until they clear out the temple of American democracy. In the State of the Union, Obama spent one minute on this problem, and proposed restrictions on lobbyists - but that's only the tiniest of baby steps. He evaded the bigger issue. If Americans want a democratic system, they have to pay for it - and that means fair state funding for political candidates. Candidates are essential for the system to work: you may as well begrudge paying for the polling booths, or the lever you pull. At the same time, the Supreme Court needs to be confronted: when the court tried to stymie the new deal, FDR tried to pack it with justices on the side of the people. Obama needs to be pressured by Americans to be as radical in democratising the Land of the Fee (CRCT).

None of the crises facing us all - from the global banking system to global warming - can be dealt with if a tiny number of super-rich corporations have a veto over every inch of progress. If Obama funks this challenge, he may as well put the US government on e-Bay - and sell it to the highest bidder. How would we spot the difference?

j.hari@independent.co.uk

28 January 2010

GMO release might be allowed in 30-km area around protected territories in Bulgaria

Galina Dimova
Focus News Agency [Bulgaria], 28 January 2010:
http://www.focus-fen.net/index.php?id=n208306

Sofia -- The release of genetically modified organisms (GMO) might be allowed in the 30-kilometer area around NATURA national environmental network, bio-farmer [i.e. organic farmer] Albena Simeonova, a member of the Bulgarian Association for Bio-Products, told FOCUS News Agency.

On Thursday afternoon the parliamentary committees for agriculture and environment held a joint meeting to discuss the amendments to the Genetically Modified Organisms Act. The bill of the Ministry of Environment and Water removes article 80, which bans the release of GMOs in the territories included in the national environmental network, as well as in their adjoining areas within a 30-kilometer zone. However, environmentalists and bio-farmers, as well as the members of the Association of Grain Producers, vigorously oppose the removal of the article. At the same time the Ministry of Environment and Water was resolute in its insistence to remove the restriction, said Albena Simeonova.

The 30-kilometer zone around the protected territories takes up 80% of Bulgaria's territory. Up to now the ban on growing GMOs there has halted the big companies that develop GMOs in the field of agriculture. Canceling the ban in Bulgaria will give the green light to the business in such crops, because there will be enough territories to grow them, said Simeonova. The Bulgarian Association for Bio-Products wants article 52 to remain. The article concerns the release of GMOs close to bio-fields. Farmers say the release should be at least 25 km away from the bio-fields so that the produce remains clean.

Article 79 also causes arguments, with the Ministry of Environment and Water insisting that it should be removed from the law currently in force. The article bans the release into the environment and availability on the market of the following GMOs: tobacco, vine, cotton, rosa damascena, wheat and all vegetables and fruit.

The Ministry of Environment and Water will rework the bill on Friday, taking into consideration the proposals of the NGOs. If the bill is not changed, most probably the civil organizations will stage a protest at the weekend, said Albena Simeonova.

Organic 'fraud': GMO lab clarifies position

Ecotextile News [UK], 28 January 2010:
http://www.ecotextile.com/headline_details.php?id=10090

PONTEFRACT - [28.01.10] There has been an enormous amount of controversy and rumour in the global textile sector after a recent FT report alleged that leading European brands sold organic clothing which was knowingly certified as organic but which contained traces of genetically modified (GM) cotton from India. GM cotton is outlawed under organic standards.

In one of the more remarkable claims of the report, it noted that the testing house Impetus in Germany said that "30% of the samples it has tested were positive for GMO." When we contacted Dr Lothar Kruse of Impetus, who was the source for the above quote, he told Ecotextile News, that it was "necessary to rectify some of the statements I have read in different media. Most of them have divorced facts from its context."

He went on to say that the laboratory had not been commissioned by the Financial Times Deutschland (FTD) to analyse cotton products from India, but instead spoke about the work the laboratory does on a daily basis. Most of its samples come from the textile industry and other labs which are not able to perform this analysis. "We do not know the origin or background of the samples," he said.

Dr Kruse did claim that approximately 30% of all samples "labelled as 'organic', 'green' or 'bio' Impetus had analysed within the last five years contained traces of genetic modifications. "But - and this is very important - I also made clear that probably most of these positive samples were 'suspected cases' and that this high rate does not reflect the reality," he said.

He also confirmed that the laboratory had tested around 500 samples in the last five years and that "the GMO level of approximately 80% of the positive samples was below 2%." It's likely that deliberate fraud would yield much higher content levels of GMO material.

Ken Ross, CEO of the US GM-testing lab the Global ID Group agrees, "The big question to ask is was 100% of the 30% GMO cotton or was the 30% contaminated with trace amounts of GMO material? If it was 30% contaminated with 0.1% GMO material, then this is generally accepted as okay under (NOP) organic standards."

There is a clause in NOP and EU legislation which says a certain level (0.9% for the EU) of 'adventitious contamination' with GMO is acceptable. Yet this definition is also very complex.

Post ginning

Interestingly, around half of the 500 cotton samples tested by Impetus were post-ginning. Kruse says his lab can accurately test certain cotton samples for GMO material. This is at a much later stage than some in the textile industry expected. "We are able to extract DNA from raw materials like cotton fibres (washed, combed, bleached), yarns and in a very few cases garments," he told Ecotextile News, but stressed that it is not simple to extract DNA from raw or slightly processed cotton fibres and that the extraction of DNA (or even the detection of genetic modifications) from fabrics is the exception rather than the rule.

"Since it is our daily job to deal with the problem of inhibitory substances co-extracted with DNA and we know that every processing step will reduce the quality and amount of 'suitable' DNA we recommend our customers to test samples as early as possible, i.e. at the beginning of the processing chain," said Kruse.

Heather Secrist, senior scientist at Global ID Group concurs,"We can detect GMO in cotton seed or in certain instances in cotton linters but generally there are no remnants of the cotton seeds ... where the genetic material is held. Once the fibres have been bleached, dyed and processed all traces of the genetic material from the seeds will be lost."

To test or not?

This was a view echoed by Lee Holdstock from the UK-based of the Soil Association. "GMO testing laboratories agree that processed fibres, particularly those subject to heat or chemical processes, no longer contain enough nucleic material for a reliable test result. The less processed a fibre is, the more chance there is of positively detecting GM. So if you must test for GM, the most effective method remains testing of the cotton seed."

Holdstock also questioned whether GM testing alone was even the right approach, "If organic cotton farmers are following organic practices and verifiably not using GM seed, then arguably seed testing regimes are an unnecessary burden to place on the system."

But he said that confidence in the producer and their control body does not however remove the potential for adventitious contamination. "GM cotton is now widespread and the risk of pollen drift is real. Potential for this form of contamination highlights how important it is that the organic movement clearly defines what constitutes a pertinent test and what level of positive result points to malpractice or fraud," he concluded.

One-day fast against Bt Brinjal across India

Indo Asian News Service (via Yahoo! News), 28 January 2010:
http://in.news.yahoo.com/43/20100128/812/tnl-one-day-fast-against-bt-brinjal-acro.html

Kolkata, Jan 28 (IANS) Some scientists, academics, members of civil society groups and farmers across India will observe a one-day fast Saturday to protest against the possible release of the genetically modified crop Bt Brinjal [aubergine] for commercial cultivation.

The central environment ministry is now holding public consultations in various Indian cities to decide if it will allow commercial release. Last October, the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee of the government had cleared it. But a member of the committee, Pushpa Bhargava, has alleged that all necessary tests were not carried out before the decision was taken.

As part of the protest, scientists and activists here will observe the fast at a stall at the ongoing Kolkata Book Fair, which began here Jan 25.

'We have decided to stage a token fast Jan 30, protesting against the introduction of Bt Brinjal. Organisations like Greenpeace International and Earthcare have already agreed to participate in the protest,' Development Research Communication and Services Centre (DRCSC) secretary Anshuman Das told IANS Thursday.

He said the protest programme would be carried out across India.

'We are also trying to bring some farmers from the rural parts of West Bengal who will participate in the day-long fast at the book fair stall Earthcare,' he said.

Hundreds of farmers and scientists protested against the introduction of Bt Brinjal during a public consultation held in January in Kolkata in the presence of central Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh.

Several scientists and green groups also raised the issue of bio-technology and environmental friendliness of this new agricultural produce, citing fears over health security.

'Most of the people have already rejected Bt Brinjal because of several reasons. Yesterday (Wednesday), a public consultation was held in Nagpur where almost 70 percent participants rejected the proposal of introducing this genetically modified crop cultivation,' Das said.

Zimbabwe: Govt Sticks to Guns Against GMO Imports

The Herald (Published by the Government of Zimbabwe), 28 January 2010:
http://allafrica.com/stories/201001280042.html

Harare - ZIMBABWEAN millers should support local agriculture instead of clamouring for the State to allow them to import genetically modified grain, a Government official has said.

This follows calls by the Grain Millers Association of Zimbabwe to allow the importation of GMOs into the country.

Agriculture Minister Joseph Made had already said Government could not permit the importation of environmentally harmful products.

Yesterday, a senior official in the ministry said the thrust should be to improve agriculture through schemes such as contract farming instead of "trying to support foreign businesses at our own expense".

The official said: "They should be capacitating local agriculture. Why do they want to support businesses run by white former commercial farmers and ex-Rhodesians in South Africa instead of supporting development of the agri-industry back home?

"The money spent on importing GMOs can easily be used to fund contract farming. Delta Beverages does it for its own production so why can't millers do the same?"

The official said the millers were not buying from the Grain Marketing Board.

"The money they want to use to import can be used to buy from the GMB and in the process support local industry and farmers."

On Monday Minister Made said: "We do not allow processed grain into the country because when they germinate they contaminate the environment."

He said millers were free to import genetically modified maize-meal though they would likely lose business because Zimbabweans generally shunned these products.

A number of African countries have been reviewing their policies on GMOs, with Zimbabwe being lauded for its strictness on the matter.

Zimbabwe, Malawi and Zambia are some of the countries that have generally barred the entry of GMOs.

Anti-GM lobbyists furious

Ray Chan
Farm Weekly [Australia], 28 January 2010:
http://fw.farmonline.com.au/news/state/
agribusiness-and-general/general/antigm-lobbyists-furious/1735789.aspx

NETWORK of Concerned Farmers president Julie Newman had two reasons to be furious at CBH's Metro Grains Centre this week.

Not only was she angry at the move to allow GM crops to be grown in WA, she was also denied access to the press conference at which Agriculture and Food Minister Terry Redman announced the decision.

"I can't believe it, I have been denied access to the press function," she said.

"Apparently the conference was a private event open only to those who were invited, who coincidentally were all pro-GM supporters."

Ms Newman was kept in check by a policeman and security officer, who she said told her they had to "protect the dignity of the Premier and Minister".

"The Premier and Minister have been deceptive by claiming segregation of GM canola is possible," she said.

"The trial assessment was done by the Agriculture and Food Department, which has a vested interest in GM crops, as does CBH, which had previously denied any interest in long-term segregation of this product."

Ms Newman was not the only person prevented from attending the conference; so too was GM-Free Consumers Network spokesperson Janet Grogan, who turned up with anti-GM protest signs.

"We are appalled that Mr Redman has ignored the need to introduce more certainty, transparency and public participation into the decison-making process relating to the granting of exemptions to allow the cultivation of GM crops," Ms Grogan said.

"This decision will be detrimental to the state and ignores the wishes of the majority of people and the 24 GM-free shires, five of which are in the minister's electorate, who would like to see WA remain GM-free."

27 January 2010

Gov bid to gag Teagasc raised in D·il

Fine Gael [Irish centre-right opposition party], 27 January 2010:
http://www.finegael.org/news/a/2164/article

Govt attempt to gag Teagasc raised in Dáil - Creed

Fine Gael Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Spokesperson Michael Creed TD has accused the Govt of refusing to answer questions about a reported reprimand sent to Teagasc [the Government's so-called "Agriculture and Food Authority] on the subject of Ireland's GM-free policy. Speaking during Dáil Questions today (Wednesday), Deputy Creed has demanded that the Government publish any such letter sent to the State's agri-food research body.

"The FF/Green Government likes to bang on ad nauseum about the 'smart' economy, but reports of this letter suggest it would rather its expert bodies were dumb.

"It appears a letter was sent from the Department of Agriculture criticising Teagasc researchers involved in a study on GM feed. This is a sinister development. What scientific research will the Agriculture Ministry seek to stifle next if it treads on Green toes? Which scientific body will be subjected to a Government gag next if its research happens to undermine the programme for government? The Minister has, in a most disingenuous fashion, refused to answer direct questions from me today when he should undertake to publish this letter in full.

"The study undertaken by Teagasc researchers concerned the impact of a GM feed ban on the Irish pig industry. The results suggest that replacing GM feed with non-GM feed would increase the production cost per pig by between €2.51 and €3.93 and cost the industry up to €13.8 million annually. The conclusion to be drawn is that the Irish pig industry would not survive in the GM-free environment envisaged in the programme for government and foisted upon us by the Greens' presence at the cabinet table.

"Instead of spending his time writing to criticise the experts at his disposal the Minister would do better to heed the warnings in this study and embrace scientific evidence to avoid the destruction of the pig meat sector."

---

Comment from GM-free Ireland

Is this misinformation the best that Fine Gael can do? Michael Creed's knee-jerk anti-Green stance and his support for GM food reveals his woeful ignorance of the facts.

The Programme for Government makes no mention whatsoever of any prohibition on GM feed. The policy promises to ban the cultivation of GM crops, and to introduce a GM-free label to enable farmers and producers who voluntarily remove GM feed from their supply chains to retain access to (and increase their fair share of) the rapidly growing international market for top quality, safe GM-free food - which the vast majority of EU and international consumers demand.

Creed's blind faith in Teagasc is worrying. 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, 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 infringment lawsuits, 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.

Teagasc's claim that using Non-GM feed will destroy pig farming is about as reliable as Monsanto's propaganda, and a waste of taxpayer's money.

The fact is that leading pig farmers across Europe are thriving on their GM-free supply chains. For example: the vice-chairman of the Irish Farmers Association's pig committe produces 8,000 GM-free pigs a year at no extra cost; 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. For details see our "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

Next week, the EU Committee of the Regions will host the 3rd World Conference on Non-GMO labels, Quality Production and European Regional Agriculture Strategies http://www.gmofree-euregions.net, attended by agri-food representatives from 53 EU Regions including high-level representatives of the GM-free Ireland Network and the Irish Cattle and Sheepfarmers Association. But the IFA, ICMSA, Irish Farmers Journal and Fine Gael aren't bothering to go, even though phasing out GM feed would provide the Irish agri-food sector with the most credible safe GM-free food brand in Europe.

If Fine Gael have their way, Irish pig farmers will only be able to produce the lowest quality GM-fed produce in Europe. Smart economy?

Major Victory Against Neo-colonial Patents

Open blog, 27 January 2010:
http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/2010/01/major-victory-against-neo-colonial.html

Patents are bad enough, because they enclose knowledge. But when they steal that knowledge from the lore of traditional medicine, it's a double crime - adding a dash of neo-colonialism to the mix. So here's some good news on that front:

The Opposition Division of the European Patent Office (EPO) has today revoked a patent granted to Dr. Willmar Schwabe (Schwabe) in its entirety. The patent was opposed by the African Centre for Biosafety (ACB) from South Africa acting on behalf of a rural community in Alice, in the Eastern Cape, in collaboration with the Swiss anti-biopiracy watchdog, the Berne Declaration.

The patent was in respect of a method for producing extracts of Pelargonium sidoides and Pelargonium reniforme to make Schwabe's blockbuster cough and colds syrup, Umckaloabo. It was revoked because the Opposition Division found that the patent did not satisfy the requirements of the European Patent Convention dealing with inventiveness.

What's remarkable here is that not only was the patent revoked, but that it was an African organsiation, acting on behalf of a rural community, that achieved it. Let's hope it's the first of many. (Via @GMWatch.)

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca.

Biotech wheat could slam U.S. wheat prices - report
• European Union and Japan opposed to biotech wheat
• Lost exports could send U.S. spring wheat down 40 pct

Carey Gillam
Reuters, 27 January 2010:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2713638120100127?type=marketsNews

CHICAGO - U.S. wheat prices could fall by 40 percent or more if industry efforts to develop a biotech wheat succeed, according to an industry report issued on Wednesday.

The report, issued by the Western Organization of Resource Councils, a farmer and rancher group, cited persistent opposition to genetically modified wheat in Europe, Japan, and other Asian countries. It said buyers in those countries probably would shift purchases away from the United States, if a biotech wheat was commercialized here.

The price of U.S. hard red spring wheat would fall 40 percent, the report predicted, and the price of durum wheat would drop 57 percent.

"Introduction of genetically modified wheat in the United States is a risky proposition," said the report's author, industry consultant Neal Blue, a former research economist at Ohio State University.

Any biotech wheat is still years from commercialization as companies like Monsanto Co (MON.N), Dow (DOW.N) AgroSciences, and others research various improvements to the crop through genetic modifications and other means.

Monsanto, a leading developer of corn and soybeans genetically altered to tolerate herbicide treatments and resist pests, backed off a plan to commercialize herbicide-tolerant "Roundup Ready" spring wheat in 2004. At the time, the industry feared the new wheat would hurt U.S. export business.

Monsanto said last year it was starting a new biotech effort focused on making wheat plants more drought tolerant, more efficient in the use of nitrogen and higher yielding.

U.S. wheat acres have been declining in recent years as farmers shift to more profitable crops. Several wheat industry groups have asked Monsanto and rival seed companies to develop better wheat seed.

Currently no biotech wheat is grown on a commercial scale anywhere in the world due to opposition from consumers and food industry players.

The report issued Wednesday said consumers in the European Union and Japan remained opposed to biotech wheat, and labeling and traceability requirements would make it difficult to sell genetically modified wheat there, the report said.

"Some in the wheat industry seem intent on pushing genetically modified wheat," said Todd Leake, a wheat farmer and member of the Dakota Resource Council. "This report strongly suggests they should be very cautious and listen to the customer."

U.S. Wheat Associates President Alan Tracy said the wheat industry was working to improve international acceptance of biotech wheat in advance of commercial introductions, which are still several years away.

"The U.S. wheat industry has pledged to our customers that we will continue to supply them with the products they need," said Tracy. "U.S. wheat growers generally recognize that, if our industry is to prosper, we need to take advantage of technological changes, and that to feed 9 billion people by mid-century, the farmers of the world need to do so as well."

(Reporting by Carey Gillam; Editing by David Gregorio and Walter Bagley)

Bharatiya Krishak Samaj protests against introduction of Bt brinjal, burns GEAC effigy

Anant Paliwal
My News [India], 27 January 2010:
http://www.mynews.in/News/Bharatiya_Krishak_Samaj_protests_against_introduction_of_Bt_brinjal,
_burns_GEAC_effigy_N36443.html#

Nagpur: Farmers under the leadership of the Maharshtra state unit of Bharatiya Krishak Samaj (Indian Farmers' Organisation) today intercepted the Union environment minister, Jairam Ramesh while he was on his way to preside over the public consultation on Bt brinjal [aubergine] and shouted slogans against the proposed introduction of Bt brinjal.

They burnt an effigy of the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) in the presence of the minister. According to them "the GEAC with some handpicked scientists and so-called experts was responsible for pushing the approval of Bt brinjal."

The farmers said that the Bt brinjal not only can create ecological problem on account of gene flow resulting in genetic contamination, but also can prove hazardous to human and animal health as revealed by series of studies by independent scientists. The GEAC has deliberately overlooked the safety aspects of Bt brinjal, bowing to the pressures from US seed multinational, Monsanto and the US Administration, they said.

The farmers shouted slogans against the corporate takeover of Indian agriculture and demanded that the seed multinationals should leave the country.

The national President of Bharatiya Krishak Samaj, Dr Krishan Bir Chaudhary in a statement lauded the farmers for demonstrating against the introduction of Bt brinjal. "The GEAC has committed a scientific fraud in approving Bt brinjal. Worlwide studies done by independent scientists have revealed health and ecological hazards of Bt brinjal," he said.

The local police arrested the President of the Maharshtra unit of Bharatiya Krishak Samaj, Sanjay Jadhav, the youth wing president of the Nasik unit of Bharatiya Krishak Samaj, Dr Pramod Bairagi, and three other members of the Bharatiya Krishak Samaj, namely, Dada Saheb Gaikwad, Ramesh Changle and Bala Saheb Mate. The farmer leaders were released after six hour detention.

European Commission JRC publishes 10 summary notifications (plants)

Seed Quest, 27 January 2010:
http://www.seedquest.com/news.php?type=news&id_article=13092&id_region=&id_category=&id_crop=

Click link above for details.

[Note: this provides details of notifications for 8 field trials of GM maize in Spain (mostly from Monsanto), 2 GM maizes in Slovakia, and 1 GM sugar beet in Sweden - all with a high risk of contaminating European conventional and organic varieties of maize in perpetuity. Shame on Spain, Slovakia and Sweden!].

Canada's Flax Industry threatened by Triffid Seed

Joan Delaney
Epoch Times [Canada], 27 January 2010:
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/28728/

A genetically modified seed that was ordered destroyed 10 years ago has caused the European Union, Canada's largest flax buyer, to turn away shipments of Canadian flax. The EU, which has a zero-tolerance policy regarding genetically modified organisms, made the move after traces of a strain of flax called Triffid were detected in shipments.

Officials say the contamination could jeopardize Canada's entire $320-million flax industry.

Triffid, named after the voracious plants in the 1951 novel "The Day of the Triffids," was developed at the University of Saskatchewan in the 1990s. After farmers raised concerns that the EU would reject it, the seed was ordered destroyed.

Although it was approved for human and animal consumption, it was never commercialized. Now the industry is scrambling to figure out how the modified seed wound up in commercial crops and find a way to remedy the situation.

"The message that we need to take to Europe and other marketplaces is that Canada has taken this very seriously and we're doing everything we possibly can to clean this up," Barry Hall, president of the Flax Council of Canada, told the Star Phoenix newspaper.

He said Canada's reputation as a provider of high-grade flax is taking a hit both domestically and internationally. "Everybody's beating on Canadian flax, [and] most of it, of course, is unjustified. The whole thing is unjustified because there is absolutely no safety issue here."

After the problem was discovered last September, Canadian flax exports to the EU were halted for a few months and resumed toward the end of the year under new restrictions.

Industry officials are hoping to convince the EU to increase its tolerance for genetically modified organisms from 0.01 parts per million-about one in every 10,000 flax seeds-to 0.1 parts per million.

Hall said it could reach the point that the industry would have to close down for three to five years to get rid of whatever modified seeds are already growing.

Terry Boehm, president of the National Farmers' Union, said he could see this coming. "Myself and others predicted this would happen and that's why we worked to get rid of [it] 10 years ago," he told CBC News. "If you're going to play around with [genetically modified] crops, once the genie's out of the bottle, once it's in the environment, you can't control it."

---

Comment from GM-free Ireland

The EU "zero tolerance" policy applies only to food and feed products containing and/or produced from GMOs that are not approved for placing on the market in the European Union - not to GMOs in general.

Cabinet Wants Rada To Cancel 'GMO Free' Marking

Ukrainian News Agency, 27 January 2010:
http://un.ua/eng/article/244346.html

The Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine wants the Verkhovna Rada to cancel marking of foodstuffs not containing genetically modified organisms with a label "GMO Free."

Economy Minister Bohdan Danylyshyn announced this to the press.

According to the minister, the Cabinet of Ministers has endorsed a draft law drawn up by the Economy Ministry.

He said the draft law concerns foodstuff that cannot contain genetically modified organisms even theoretically, including food not containing albumen.

As Ukrainian News earlier reported, the Economy Ministry has moved forward with an initiative to cancel marking of foodstuffs not containing genetically modified organisms with a label GMO Free.

On 29 December 2009, President Viktor Yuschenko has signed a law that provides for introducing mandatory marking of products containing genetically modified organisms.

Organic Exchange Responds to Organic Cotton Fraud Assertions from Financial Times of Germany Article

Earth Times [USA], 27 January 2010:
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/organic-exchange-responds-to-organic,1139566.shtml

According to Organic Exchange (OE), allegations in a recent article in the German edition of the Financial Times that major retailers are knowingly selling as organic cotton genetically modified (GMO) cotton from India are unfounded.

Lubbock, TX (Vocus) January 26, 2010 -- According to the non-profit organization Organic Exchange (OE), allegations in a recent article in the German edition of the Financial Times that major retailers are knowingly selling as organic cotton genetically modified (GMO) cotton from India are unfounded. The article, published on Friday January 22, 2010, stated "not every product that is labeled as organic cotton is truly organic." Printed under the banner headline of "Label Scandal," it claims that several European retailers sold India-sourced certified organic textiles "knowing that there were traces of GMO cotton in them." Organic Exchange believes those allegations to be without merit.

According to LaRhea Pepper, OE Senior Director and one of the world's organic cotton production experts, organic cotton production standards specifically prohibit the use of GMO material. When a crop is grown organically, it means that the farmer has followed all the principles and systems of organic farming. In some cases, a very small amount of contamination may occur due to factors outside of the farmer's control such as cross-pollination from GMO crops that may be growing in other fields away from organic cotton. Organic cotton certifiers conduct tests on plant, seed or soil to ensure that any pesticide residues and/or GMO's are below a fine "tolerance" level and do not indicate deliberate fraud or carelessness on the part of the farmer. If there is any contamination of GMO material in certified organic cotton, it would likely be the result of pollination from GMO cotton plants or contamination in the gins or mills where cotton products are produced.

"Organic farming brings many social and environmental benefits; eliminating the use of harmful and toxic chemicals, reducing the cycles of debt that farmers - particularly marginalized ones in countries such as India find themselves in - and contributing to healthy ecosystems that benefit farmers and their communities," says Pepper. "Consumers should continue to support the organic farmers working so hard worldwide to provide organic fiber and food."

Importantly, a number of retailers and NGOs interviewed for the Financial Times article say that they were misquoted, and therefore assert that many allegations made in the article are unfounded or unsubstantiated. While Organic Exchange was interviewed for the article, its responses were ignored. For example, the article cites a nonexistent "internal OE report" as stating that up to 30 percent of organic cotton is probably contaminated with GMO. No such report exists at Organic Exchange.

The FT article also infers that certain certifiers knowingly certified cotton as being organic, when they knew that GMO seed had been used. In fact, while APEDA, the organization that regulates organic production in India, sanctioned two certifiers for non-conformities in their certification processes, the companies immediately made the needed changes and the sanctions were subsequently lifted by APEDA.

"In all systems there is a set of checks and balances, and the fact that APEDA uncovered problems is as much an indication that the monitoring system is working as it is an indication of the problems themselves. It is important to support the continued improvement of regulations, certification, and enforcement, especially in such a young industry," noted Pepper.

Global retail sales of organic cotton apparel and home textile products reached an estimated $3.2 billion in 2008, according to OE's Organic Cotton Market Report 2007-2008. Farmers grew 145,872 metric tons (MT) (668,581 bales) of organic cotton on 161,000 hectares of organic cotton in 22 countries worldwide in 2007/08, according to the organization's Organic Cotton Farm and Fiber Report 2008, the most recent data available.

About Organic Exchange Founded in 2002, Organic Exchange facilitates expansion of the global organic cotton fiber supply by working closely with the entire value chain, from farmers to retailers, to help develop organic cotton programs and improve the sustainability of textiles. OE has hosted numerous organic cotton conferences and trainings in supply chain centers around the world, including Brazil, China, India, South Africa, Thailand, Turkey, Uganda, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Contact: LaRhea Pepper, 806-428-3411

LS9 Makes "Major Breakthrough" in Cellulosic-based Fuel Production

Justin Moresco
earth2tech.com, 27 January 2010:
http://earth2tech.com/2010/01/27/ls9-makes-%E2%80%9Cmajor-breakthrough
%E2%80%9D-in-cellulosic-based-fuel-production/?utm_source=feedburner
&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+gigaomnetwork+%28The+GigaOM+Network%29

Khosla Ventures-backed LS9, which is using a genetically modified version of e.coli bacteria to make diesel, announced Wednesday that it has made a "major breakthrough" in the production of biofuels and chemicals from cellulosic biomass. The company, working with researchers from the University of California at Berkeley and the Department of Energy's Joint BioEnergy Institute, said it has developed a microbe that can produce advanced biofuels directly from cellulosic biomass, such as woodchips, in a "one-step" fermentation process that eliminates the need for additional chemicals and industrial processes.

LS9 aims to produce biofuels and renewable chemicals to replace conventional petroleum-based products, and the company said this breakthrough will enable it to do this at lower costs. Biofuels ultimately will need to compete against conventional fuels on the open market, and any technological advancement that lowers production costs should make LS9 more competitive.

The startup currently operates a 1,000-liter pilot plant in South San Francisco, Calif., that produces vehicle-ready diesel from so-called first generation feedstock like sugarcane. But the long-term goal of LS9 is to produce biofuels and chemicals using cellulosic feedstock (energy crops, plant waste, etc), which the company says would reduce the total, life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of its products.

Last year, CEO Bill Haywood said LS9 has been in the process of building a demonstration plant that it aims to complete this year. Spokesman Jon Ballesteros told us today that the company is on track to have the demo facility up and running in the "earlier part of this year." Ballesteros wouldn't say how large that facility would be, but Haywood previously told Earth2Tech that it would have an annual capacity of 2.5 million gallons.

Last September, LS9 raised $25 million in a third round of funding from oil giant Chevron's venture capital arm and others, though the round was less than the $75 million-$100 million the company was asking for earlier in the year. But some critics have questioned the environmental benefits of biofuels that rely on any land-based plants, and recently venture capitalists have focused more on algae-based fuel startups such as Solazyme and Solix Biofuels.

26 January 2010

Monsanto rated the world's worst company by Global Ethical Rankings 2009

Covalence Ethical Quotation System, 26 January 2010:
http://www.covalence.ch/index.php/ethical-rankings/across-sectors/

Note: Monsanto Co. has been rated as the world's most unethical company in a global survey of 581 corporations carried out by the Covalence Ethical Quotation System. The table of results, published online at the link above, presents the ethical ranking of 581 multinational companies within 18 sectors and integrates data from 2002 to 31 December 2009.

Covalence tracks the ethical reputation of multinationals. Based in Geneva, Switzerland, the organisation monitors and aggregates online news, publishes ethical rankings and offers reputation management products to companies, investors, and non-profit organisations. It won the Canton of Geneva's Sustainable Development Prize in 2004, and was a finalist for Switzerland's Social Entrepreneur of the Year award in 2005.

The Seed Industry's Scary Consolidation

Andrew Price
Good is Good Blog, 26 January 2010:
http://www.good.is/post/the-seed-industry-s-scary-consolidation



This chart from Phil Howard http://www.msu.edu/~howardp/ at Michigan State University shows how three chemical giants, Monsanto, DuPont, and Syngenta, have come to dominate the agricultural seed industry in the last 10 years. Obviously, there are concerns about whether this market is fair http://www.grist.org/article/2009-12-15-seed-behemoth-monsanto-stumbles-into-antitrust-trouble/:

Monsanto supplies proprietary traits to 85 percent of corn planted in the United States, and 92 percent of soy. Corn and soy are the lifeblood of the U.S. food system. If you eat a standard diet, you're ingesting a Monsanto-originated product with just about every bite you take. Nor is the company a benign monopolist, the report shows. GMO corn seeds have jumped from $110 per unit in 1999 to upwards of $190 by 2008; for soy, prices soared from less than $25 to more than $40.

But this monopoly isn't just bad for farmers' livelihoods; it's bad for the resilience of our ecosystem. We have 71 percent of U.S. cropland being used for just three crops, and a small handful of companies supplying the seeds. That's a precarious situation, and it's why projects like the Seed Vault are important. There's a bigger version of the chart here https://www.msu.edu/~howardp/seedindustry.html.

Why Monsanto Might Be a Health Risk

Gina-Marie Cheeseman
Triple Pundit [USA], 26 January 2010:
http://www.triplepundit.com/2010/01/why-monsanto-might-be-a-health-risk/
?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=
Feed%3A+TriplePundit+%28Triple+Pundit%29

Monsanto claims genetically modified (GMO) food is safe for consumption. Of course, a company that controls 90 percent of the U.S. seed market for soybeans and 80 percent for corn and cotton is going to defend GMO food. Monsanto is developing soybeans with extra amounts of omega-3 oils with the Solae Company, according to its website. Research published in the International Journal of Biological Science suggests the GMO food causes damage to the heart, kidney, and liver. The study looked at consumption of Monsanto corn in lab rats' organs after 90 days. The pesticide residue, according to the study, is what causes damage.

Although the researchers admitted their study can't be applied to all GMO crops, a Fast Company article quoted a line from the study that is hard to forget:

"Our analysis highlights that [sic] the kidneys and liver as particularly important on which [sic] to focus such research as there was a clear negative impact on the function of these organs in rats consuming GM maize varieties for just 90 days."

The International Journal of Biological Science article pointed out an obvious fact for anyone concerned about food safety: Studies on the safety of GMO crops are crucial considerations, "since public health is concerned and their discussion may critically influence the decision to release in particular some agricultural GMOs or not, and also to another extent the economic feasibility of this kind of project."



The Fast Company article asks the following question: Is this the beginning of the end of Monsanto's hold over agriculture? The article concludes that it is "probably not," however, it suggests that the studies on GMO corn crops might give a "much needed boost" to local organic farms that "sell their wares for higher prices but can promise crops that won't kill your liver."

In the meantime, pushing the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to regulate GMO food is not a bad idea. Change.org has an online petition to the FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, urging the FDA to "immediately investigate and at least temporarily rescind approval for all three varieties of corn while research continues."

This is the fifth part in a series about Monsanto and other large agrichemical companies.

Is Monsanto Unstoppable?
http://www.triplepundit.com/2009/10/can-anyone-stop-monsanto/

The Monopoly Named Monsanto
http://www.triplepundit.com/2009/11/the-monopoly-named-monsanto/

Can A Company That Makes Roundup Be Sustainable?
http://www.triplepundit.com/2009/11/can-a-company-that-makes-roundup-be-sustainable/

Why Monsanto Might Be Worried
http://www.triplepundit.com/2010/01/why-monsanto-might-be-worried/

Genetically modified crops partly to blame for smaller Monarch butterfly colony, professor says

Today's Farmer [USA], 26 January 2010:
http://www.todaysfarmer.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2278140

The widespread use of genetically modified crops in Canada and the U.S. is being partly blamed for a smaller monarch butterfly colony in Mexico this winter.

The [Toronto] Globe and Mail reports that the annual monarch colony in Mexico is only 1.92 hectares this winter. Over the last 10 years, the colony's size has dropped from about nine hectares on average.

Biologists and butterfly watchers say the decline can be partly attributed to last year's weather, which included a mixture of drought and excessively high and low temperatures.

Spring temperatures in Texas, for example, were very high last year, which harmed monarch populations on the first leg of their northward migration. But the summer in Canada and elsewhere in the U.S. was too cool, which led to poor breeding rates.

Monarchs are found in many parts of Canada, but the largest populations are in the southern areas of Ontario and Quebec.

The Globe reports that the number of monarchs in the colonies has been estimated at up to 60 million per hectare, but butterfly experts fear that populations will crash to such low levels that it will eliminate the annual mass migration of tens of millions.

Genetically modified crops

Dr. Orley Taylor, professor of ecology at the University of Kansas and director of its Monarch Watch program, is quoted as saying that although weather can affect population numbers from year to year, one problem is the expansion in the amount of genetically modified corn and soybeans planted by farmers. These crops have led to an increase in herbicide use, which has eliminated milkweed plants that the butterfly larvae depend on for food, Taylor told the Globe and Mail.

Warning that exports could suffer through GM

ABC News [Australia], 26 January 2010:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/26/2801404.htm?section=business

A consumer group has expressed concern about the State Government's decision to lift the ban on genetically modified canola.

The Agriculture Minister Terry Redman made the announcement yesterday after declaring last year's commercial trials of GM canola a success.

Both Mr Redman and the WA Farmers Federation are confident there will be no cross contamination from GM to non-GM canola.

But, Sally Wylie from the Consumers for GM Free Food Organisation has warned canola exports may suffer.

"The Japanese market has indicated that, because I think they're becoming more aware, I mean the consumer groups from Japan have come to WA several times to warn us that they don't want GM canola and in fact they'll give up canola if they can't find non-GM," she said.

Opens the door

Ms Wylie says the impacts will be far reaching.

"Wherever you see vegetable oil, that could well be GM because they don't have to label it," she said.

"So it will be in a lot of things, I mean it's already in a lot of things but it just opens the door for it to be in even more if it's right on your door step."

The Greens have also criticised Mr Redman's decision to lift the ban on GM canola.

The Green's spokeswoman on Genetically Modified Organisms and Food, Lynn Maclaren, says the Agriculture Minister hasn't consulted in good faith.

Ms Maclaren says the decision will hurt farmers, rob consumers of choice and will eventually be the death of non-GM food.

Major Concern about the Appointment of GM Scientist as CEO of Rothamsted Research

Press release
GM Freeze [UK], 26 January 2010:
http://www.gmfreeze.org/page.asp?id=410&iType=

The appointment of a GM scientist to the post of Chief Executive of Rothamsted Research [1] has been heavily criticized for sending out "a very clear and unfortunate message as to which direction the BBSRC wishes to take agricultural research and development in the future".

The criticism of the appointment of Professor Maurice Moloney was made in correspondence to Professor Douglas Kells, the Chief Executive of the Biotechnology and Biological Scientific Research Council, and Defra Secretary of State Hilary Benn from GM Freeze (copies available on request). Professor Moloney has worked in biotechnology all his, career and his present position is head of a biotech firm in Canada which he founded. [2]

In their letter, GM Freeze point out major reports on agricultural research and development from the Royal Society [3] and the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD). [4] Both have both called for greater research and development into agroecological farming methods to allow farming to cope with and mitigate climate change, as well as to cut reliance on fossil-fuel based inputs such as artificial fertilizers and pesticides and scarce and expensive resources such as phosphates:

Royal Society:

•

RCUK should increase support for ecosystem-based approaches, agronomy and the related sciences that underpin improved crop and soil management.

•

Universities should work with funding bodies to reverse the decline in subjects relevant to a sustainable intensification of food crop production, such as agronomy, plant physiology, pathology and general botany, soil science, environmental microbiology, weed science and entomology.

IAASTD:

•

An increase and strengthening of AKST towards agroecological sciences will contribute to addressing environmental issues while maintaining and increasing productivity.

Rothamsted Research is already looking at agroecological solutions such as the Push-pull Project to deal with maize pests on Africa [5] and the use of decoy crops to deal with potato cyst nematode [4], both of which are also attracting considerable funding for GM research. [6] The Push-pull approach is already being practiced by poor farmers in Kenya where it offers an affordable and sustainable solutions to Striga (a weed in maize) and corn borer (a maize pest).

Both the Royal Society and IAASTD emphasised the failure of extension services in ensuring research findings reach farmers so that they can be applied by farmers. At present the UK is alone in the developed world in not having a free extension service. [7] Elsewhere free schemes have favoured richer farmers and high value crops. [8]

The UK endorsed the IAASTD report in June 2008, but there has been no official announcements since then as to how the UK research councils are intending to respond to the recommendations on agroecological sciences.

Explaining their concerns Pete Riley of GM Freeze said:

"The appointment of Professor Moloney to this important post suggests that the BBSRC is pushing on with the strategy of putting GM and biotechnology at the forefront of agricultural research. This would be a mistake as GM technology is expensive, unproven and risky. Agroecology is already delivering results for small farmers in the South. What is needed is more research and, critically, improved education services so that new agroecological techniques can be quickly applied by farmers over large areas. Rothamsted Research should place greater emphasis on agroecological research and development. They are in a great position to do so. We will be monitoring their research priorities and those of other BBSRC funded institutions to makes sure that agroecology gets a fair share of tax payers money."

ENDS

Calls to Pete Riley 07903 341065 or 0845 217 8992.

Notes

1. See http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/media/releases/2010/100114-new-director-for-rothamsted-research.html

2. See http://www.sembiosys.com/About/Bio.aspx?name=MMoloney

3.See http://royalsociety.org/Reapingthebenefits/

4. See page 6 http://www.agassessment.org/reports/IAASTD/EN/Agriculture%20at%20a%20Crossroads_
Global%20Summary%20for%20Decision%20Makers%20(English).pdf

5. See http://www.rothamsted.ac.uk/bch/CEGroup/ChemEcolGroupArea6.html

6. See kerryb et al, 2003. Investigation into potato cyst nematode control. Rothamsted Research Defra Contract hh3111TPO See http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=0&ProjectID=11962

7. The Agricultural Development Advisory Service was privatised and began charging for its services in 1987.

8. See http://www.brettonwoodsproject.org/art-558763

25 January 2010

Explanation demanded over lobbying by biotech firm

SP International, 25 January 2010:
http://www.international.sp.nl/bericht/40536/100125-explanation_demanded_over_lobbying_by_biotech_firm.html

The SP is supporting protests against the dishonest lobby practices of a manufacturer of genetically manipulated foodstuffs. Biotech giant Syngenta has hired the lobbying services of one Suzy Renckens. Until recently Renckens was employed as the head of the scientific panel researching into genetically modified organisms (GMOs) on behalf of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), an official EU body.

Conflict of interests

"Such a switch is unacceptable", in the view of SP Euro-MP Kartika Liotard. "It creates an extremely undesirable conflict of interests. It's bad for the credibility of the industry if officials and scientists can be bought and sold as if it were football transfers we were talking about. There should at least be a decent waiting time between the two, a sort of cooling-off period during which an official cannot make his or her expertise available in this way."

Explanation promised

Kartika Liotard is the MEP responsible for liaison between the European Parliament and EFSA. This morning she met with EFSA's management who, she says, promised her that she would receive a written explanation regarding this affair. "The worst aspect of this switch is of course its implication for EFSA itself. EFSA is our inspection service at European level. It's a matter of the safety of our food! This is the organisation that needs the confidence of the public and their political representatives. They must be able to offer independent advice about, for example, the safety of genetically modified seeds or the consequences of new food technologies." This independence is, in the SP's opinion, in jeopardy if firms such as Syngenta can simply pick up public officials and set them to work against the interests of the public sector. Liotard points to the fact, also, that EFSA officials have access not only to government information, but also to data from competitors of any potential private sector employer, including information regarding formulas or recipes, markets, finances and customers.

Revolving door for lobbyists

Activist organisations Corporate Europe Observatory, Friends of the Earth Europe, Lobbycontrol and Test Biotech have also this month demanded an explanation from the European Commission. Kartika Liotard supports the letter that the four groups have sent to European Commission President Jose Barroso, which states that EFSA did not behave correctly when Renckens transferred to Syngenta and that in addition, after this, they did not do enough to prevent any repeat of this revolving door. "Renckens left EFSA but immediately returned as a lobbyist for an interested party, a practice which is, according to some here in Brussels, completely normal, but one which the SP does not of course find so. The public and their representatives in the European Parliament are in need of reliable advisors. With any adviser who represents a commercial interest, you've always got to be on your guard."

Syngenta is a Swiss multinational which also has a branch in the Netherlands. 'Crop protection' is an important activity for Syngenta. The company also produces seeds which have been genetically modified. EFSA is the EU organisation responsible for helping to protect the consumer as well as animals, guaranteeing the safety of both human and animal food.

Mexico OKs Monsanto corn seeds

St. Louis Business Journal [USA], 25 January 2010:
http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2010/01/25/daily11.html

Three types of Monsanto Co.'s genetically modified corn seed traits have won regulatory approval for import in Mexico.

The approvals allow U.S. and Canadian farmers who plant these corn trait technologies to fully market their grain in 2010 in Mexico, a major importer of U.S. corn grain and dried distillers grains.

Genuity, SmartStax and Genuity VT Triple PRO have regulatory authorizations in the United States, Canada, Japan and Korea, among other countries.

Monsanto developed the corn seeds to boost crop yield and improve pest control.

The Creve Coeur, Mo.-based biotech company (NYSE: MON), led by Chairman, President and Chief Executive Hugh Grant, reported a $2.1 billion profit on record sales of $11.7 billion for fiscal 2009 ended Aug. 31. It is one of the largest employers in St. Louis with 4,000 local employees. It has 21,700 workers worldwide.

India's Supreme Court Asks for GM Protocol Clarity

Milling Journal [USA], 25 January 2010:
http://www.millingjournal.com/article.php?ID=88723

New Delhi, India (January 25) -- Application of transgenic technology in agriculture has become a controversial issue in the country. Though the regulator, Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) has approved commercialization of the country's first genetically modified (GM) food crop, Bt Brinjal, the Union minister for environment and forests, Jairam Ramesh has withheld the approval and has decided to seek public view on "this sensitive issue."

In the series of public consultations which has already begun, the minister is facing widespread public protests against the GEAC's approval of Bt brinjal. There were protests in Kolkata, Bhubaneswar and Ahmedabad.

The chief ministers of Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Orissa and some other states have given their views against the commercial release of this food crop, according to Ramesh.

Some geneticists like Dr Pushp M Bhargava have opposed the way the Bt brinjal was approved. Dr Bhargava was a special invitee to the GEAC meetings by the order of the Supreme Court of India. He is critical about the weak biosafety protocol for approval.

The Supreme Court which took up for hearing on Tuesday two public interest litigations filed against the introduction of GM crops - one filed by Aruna Rodrigues, PV Satheesh, Rajeev Baruah and the other by Gene Campaign convener Suman Sahai - asked the government to clarify on the issue of biosafety protocol and as to why largescale field trials could not be carried out in contained greenhouses as asked by the petitioners.

The special bench of the apex court consisting of Chief Justice KG Balakrishnan, Justice DS Chauhan and Justice JM Bansal took up the two PILs for hearing.

"The apex court has asked the government to clarify as to why largescale field trials cannot be conducted in contained greenhouses so as to avoid the possibility of genetic contamination. We had asked for such a provision," said the counsel for Aruna Rodrigues and others, Prashant Bhushan.

The counsel for Gene Campaign, Sanjay Parekh said "we had questioned the weak and inadequate safety protocols for the approval. The Rules of 1989 are inadequate to ensure any safety measures"

The minister for science and technology, Prithviraj Chavan when asked to comment on the proposed commercial release of Bt brinjal refused to give any categorical answer. He claimed the success of Bt cotton in the country. Chavan was addressing the conferences of editors on social sector issues here on Tuesday.

However, the secretary in the department of biotechnology, MK Bhan said that he was satisfied with the approval by GEAC. "The GEAC approval was on the basis of scientific evidences," he said.

Earlier on Monday the Union minister for environment and forests, Jairam Ramesh had said that he would take a final view by February 20 taking into consideration the inputs from public consultations.

WA becomes third state to approve GM canola

Warwick Stanley WA Today [Australia], 25 January 2010:
http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/
wa-becomes-third-state-to-approve-gm-canola-20100125-mu6t.html

Western Australia has become the third Australian state to allow farmers to grow genetically modified canola.

Agriculture and Food Minister Terry Redman today approved an exemption order under the Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003 to permit cultivation of the GM crop.

Premier Colin Barnett said the step fulfilled a key election promise to approve commercial-size trials of GM canola and brought WA into line with the other major grain-growing states, NSW and Victoria.

"WA farmers are some of the best in the world, but they need to have access to new technology like GM canola to remain competitive in the global marketplace," Mr Barnett said.

Mr Redman said commercial trials in WA last year had demonstrated successful cultivation and segregation of GM canola.

"The 17 commercial growers of GM canola throughout the agricultural areas were impressed with the performance of the GM technology package when compared with other varieties of canola," he said.

He said there had been 11 "minor events" during the delivery of more than 1200 tonnes of GM canola to receiving sites during the trials.

"All were managed appropriately and segregation from paddock to port was achieved," he said.

Mr Redman said GM canola yields were comparable to non-GM varieties.

Growers reported the GM technology allowed efficient weed control and ease of management, including the option to dry seed, he said.

"I do not expect GM canola to be suitable for all farming systems, but it provides an additional tool for WA growers. Growers continue to have the choice of growing non-GM varieties," Mr Redman said.

"WA is the major canola producing state in Australia, and in 2008-09 we exported $535 million worth of the crop ...

"Access to modern technology is important for WA agriculture to help growers improve profitability and maintain international competitiveness."

Opposition agriculture Minister Mick Murray said the decision would have negative long-term economic and social impacts on WA that could not be reversed.

"WA's green, GM-free image has been lost forever," Mr Murray said.

"This is an ill-conceived, reckless and unjustified decision made by a Government which has given no thought to the consequences," he said.

"The effects of this decision will be felt for generations to come."

Mr Murray said almost 90 per cent of submissions made to a review of the Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003 had opposed the introduction of GM crops.

More than half the shires in Mr Redman's electorate had declared themselves GM crop free, he said.

The WA Greens said Mr Redman had approached the issue with "a one-eyed view and listened to a one-sided argument".

Greens MP Lynn MacLaren said farmers and consumers would lose from the decision.

"He has given lip service only to genuine consultation and scientific trials," she said.

"The trial results and experience in the eastern states have proven it is not possible to segregate.

"Farmers will cop the brunt of this poor decision by having to pay to try to keep their non-GMO crops free from contamination.

"They face an economic loss. The farmers who experiment with GMO crops won't benefit either, because higher yields have not been widely realised.

"Consumers will also lose. The choice to buy non-GMO will eventually disappear. The future of safe food and consumer choice is in jeopardy."

'Organic' Cotton From India Contained GMOs in 2009

GreenBiz.com [USA], 25 January 2010:
http://greenbiz.com/news/2010/01/25/organic-cotton-india-contained-gmos-2009

Oakland, CA - Cotton marketed as organic, but containing traces of genetically modified material, was sold on a large-scale out of India last year, reported Financial Times Deutschland.

According to the paper, authorities in India found that some cotton being certified as organic actually contained genetically modified cotton around April 2009, which should have prevented the material from being called organic.

EcoCert and Control Union, the third party organizations that certified the cotton, were fined, but the action was not reported at the time.

Specific retailers like H&M, C&A and Tchibo were called out as possible carriers of contaminated organic cotton since they make purchases certified by the two organizations.

The paper said that H&M admitted it knew about the investigation into the genetically modified cotton last year and did not rule out the possibility that items in the company's organic collection might have contained the contaminated cotton.

On its website, though, H&M says, "There is no reason to believe that the organic cotton used for H&M's garments was grown using genetically modified seeds. However, H&M was aware that last year the Indian authority APEDA criticized Control Union for insufficient checks of farmers' control systems for seeds and sowing. As a consequence of the criticism, Control Union conducted unannounced audits of all organic cotton farms that they certify in India. None of the farms were found to use GM seeds, and all farms took the appropriate steps to ensure that GM seeds were not used."

A director of Impetus, an independent testing lab in Germany, told Financial Times Deutschland that about 30 percent of the cotton samples that they test contain genetically modified cotton. The lab tests samples submitted by small and medium-sized textile manufacturers.

GE Animals Case Heads Back To Court

Press release
GE Free NZ [New Zealand]:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC1001/S00032.htm

AgResearch and GE Free NZ in food and environment are set to go to the Court of Appeal in Wellington on Tuesday 26th January in Court Room 1.

GE Free NZ took High Court action after AgResearch made four applications seeking to develop, import and go into commercial production of products from genetically modified animals across 18 species, including nine species of farm animals (pigs, sheep, cows, alpacas, buffalo, deer, goats, horses and donkeys).

The generic applications sought approval at any location and for an indefinite period to allow commercial production of biopharmaceuticals, nutraceuticals and to produce diseased animals for research.

"These four generic applications sought the right to commercialise GE animals as bio factories anywhere, anytime, and in anyplace AgResearch chose. They were so lacking in vital information that it was impossible for submitters to know if and how their bio-security, economic wellbeing or community would be affected now or in the future," said Claire Bleakley president of GE Free NZ in food and environment.

"Previous applications for genetic modification had already pushed the statutory boundaries to the extreme, and these went even further. The international best-practice approach of case-by-case risk assessment was completely abandoned. Instead these applications were so broad there was no way to know what kind of risk may result," said Jon Carapiet, spokesperson for GE Free NZ in food and environment.

GE Free NZ believed that the information required by law was so deficient that no member of the public, independent scientific experts or ERMA could properly assess the risks to the community, animal welfare, bio-security or New Zealand's tourism and export-reliant economy.

"The carte blanche nature of what was being sought forced us to take the applications to the High Court. We were very pleased that Justice Clifford found in our favour, declaring the Applications to be invalid and setting them aside," said Claire Bleakley

This decision was appealed by AgResearch and the case is going to be heard in Court Room 1 in the Wellington Court of Appeal January 26th at 10am.

'Reject Bt brinjal as poison'

The Times of India, 25 January 2010:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/
chandigarh/Reject-Bt-brinjal-as-poison/articleshow/5496633.cms

CHANDIGARH: "Release of Bt Brinjal would be the beginning of the end of Indian agriculture." This voice against genetically-modified food got louder on Sunday with acclaimed scientist Shiv Chopra, who fought against bovine growth hormone in Canada and got it banned, supported the cause of rejecting "the poisoned food."

Speaking at a public seminar on the adverse impact of genetically modified food on health, Chopra said that a majority of people who will be eating Bt Brinjal would be oblivious of the fact that they are feeding on poison.

"Bt is toxic and there are serious questions being raised on the long term implications of genetically modified food products. The government is bowing to the pressure of foreign companies who are offering to set up base in the country and promising in return to feed poison to the masses," he said.

Trashing the claims of GM food as safe food, Chopra said, "The company Monsanto which is promoting Bt Brinjal has a history of bad ethics. The company has been fined several times in developed countries because of its practices but the Indian government is willing to give a red carpet welcome."

Chopra, who has lived in Canada since 1960, had refused to approve various harmful drugs intended for meat and milk production. Due to his work, bovine growth hormone was banned in Canada in 1999 and in the European Union.

He has a literary streak as well and has authored books like "Corrupt to the Core" which details a full account of how government corruption endangers public food supply.

Umendra Dutt, heading Kheti Virasat Mission, which has been waging a war against GM foods, said, "There is a very strong nexus among politicians, bureaucrats and market forces which are allowing the release of Bt Brinjal."

A resolution was mooted on the occasion by PUTA president, Mandeep Singh, who called upon state governments of Punjab, Himachal Pradesh and Haryana to ban BT Brinjal.

Already governments of Kerala, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Orissa, Bengal, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Chattisgarh have banned BT Brinjal due to serious health concerns.

WA sacrifices its GM-free competitive advantage

Media release
Gene Ethics [Australia], 25 January 2010:
http://www.geneethics.org

The Western Australian parliament must disallow the exemption from the law that would allow commercial Roundup tolerant genetically manipulated (GM) canola to be commercially grown. Gene Ethics is fully informing MPs with the data needed to reject the exemption order when it comes up for review.

"Redman and Barnett are sacrificing the state's unique competitive advantage and premium prices for GM-free foods available in global canola markets. WA, SA and Tasmania are the only reliable exporters of GM-free canola world-wide and we are reaping the rewards," says Gene Ethics Director Bob Phelps.

"The Premier and Minister are misusing their power and shirking their responsibility to declare GM and GM-free Zones over all or part of the state to protect and promote the markets for clean, green, GM-free WA foods.

"Gene Ethics calls on all Western Australian parliamentarians to vote to disallow this mad, bad decision when it comes before the parliament for review. The market and feral weed impacts of herbicide tolerant GM canola make rejecting the exemption the only sane decision.

"Redman's pro-GM decision is no surprise. As Minister, he has been courted in public and private by Monsanto executives, and funded a two hour GM promotional forum that cost taxpayers about $25,000. In contrast, he consistently ignores well-informed critics of GM crops," Bob Phelps says.

"Monsanto is the outright winner from this government's GM escapade. The world's biggest seed company always needs new places to peddle its patented GM seed and to hijack its GM-free competitors. The US government is investigating Monsanto's monopolistic behaviour that includes restricting access to non-GM seed, suing farmers who unwittingly grow GM because of contamination and suing companies that make GM-free claims on organic and other foods.

"Redman's claims of benefits from GM canola are as hollow as Monsanto's 'pot of gold at the end of the rainbow' ads published last week. Terry has now approved the GM equivalent of Windows '95, on the empty promises of better GM crops in the future. Monsanto's Roundup tolerant canola was launched in 1996 yet Australia is only the third country in the world to grow it - after Canada and the USA. The twenty other countries growing canola have just ignored GM varieties.

"Most Western Australian shoppers, and shoppers in our top five markets overseas - Netherlands, France, Pakistan, Japan and Belgium - want to stay GM-free. We should not side with our main GM competitor Canada against the wishes of our customers. It's just bad business.

We expect the parliament with listen to shoppers and food processors and over-rule the GM cowboys in government who would allow GM canola without restriction," Mr Phelps concludes.

Further information or interviews:

Bob Phelps, Gene Ethics director: (03) 9347 4500; 0449 769 066

WA farmers allowed to grow GM canola

AAP, January 25 2010 :
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/wa-farmers-allowed-to-grow-gm-canola/story-e6frfku0-1225823381481?from=public_rss

WESTERN Australia has become the third Australian state to allow farmers to grow genetically modified (GM) canola.

Agriculture and Food Minister Terry Redman today approved an exemption order under the Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003 to permit cultivation of the GM crop.

Premier Colin Barnett said the step fulfilled a key election promise to approve commercial-size trials of GM canola and brought WA into line with the other major grain-growing states, NSW and Victoria.

"WA farmers are some of the best in the world, but they need to have access to new technology like GM canola to remain competitive in the global marketplace," Mr Barnett said in making the announcement in Perth.

Mr Redman said commercial trials in WA last year had demonstrated successful cultivation and segregation of GM canola.

"The 17 commercial growers of GM canola throughout the agricultural areas were impressed with the performance of the GM technology package when compared with other varieties of canola," he said.

He said there had been 11 "minor events" during the delivery of more than 1200 tonnes of GM canola to receiving sites during the trials.

"All were managed appropriately and segregation from paddock to port was achieved," he said in a statement.

Mr Redman said GM canola yields were comparable to non-GM varieties.

Growers reported the GM technology allowed efficient weed control and ease of management, including the option to dry seed, he said.

"I do not expect GM canola to be suitable for all farming systems, but it provides an additional tool for WA growers. Growers continue to have the choice of growing non-GM varieties," Mr Redman said.

"WA is the major canola producing state in Australia, and in 2008-09 we exported $535 million worth of the crop ...

"Access to modern technology is important for WA agriculture to help growers improve profitability and maintain international competitiveness."

Opposition Agriculture Minister Mick Murray said the decision would have negative long-term economic and social impacts on WA that could not be reversed.

"WA's green, GM-free image has been lost forever,'' Mr Murray said.

"This is an ill-conceived, reckless and unjustified decision made by a Government which has given no thought to the consequences," he said in a statement.

"The effects of this decision will be felt for generations to come."

Mr Murray said almost 90 per cent of submissions made to a review of the Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003 had opposed the introduction of GM crops.

More than half the shires in Mr Redman's electorate had declared themselves GM crop free, he said.

24 January 2010

Govt Must Lift GMO Grain Ban to Avert Shortage -- Millers

Bernard Mpofu
Individual.com (source: Zimbabwe Independent/All Africa Global Media via COMTEX), 24 January 2010:
http://www.individual.com/story.php?story=113461725

The Grain Millers Association of Zimbabwe has advised government to lift a ban on genetically-modified grain amid a looming shortage. The projected low grain yield has over the past few weeks seen Agriculture minister Joseph Made blaming treasury for poor planning for the 2009/10 agricultural season.

Tafadzwa Musarara, chairman of the millers' organisation, yesterday told the Zimbabwe Independent that the dry spell and lack of fertilisers threatening the cropping season required government to make a policy shift on genetically-modified grain to boost the country's grain reserves.

Government, according to Musarara, bars importers from buying genetically modified grain.

He said a "skewed policy" on imported genetically-modified grain exposes local producers to "unfair competition" from cheap imported products.

"Government and private sector should engage each other and come up with a plan to boost grain reserves this season," Musarara said

"We have a skewed GMO policy in this country. They (government) allow imported maize meal in this country yet GMO grain is not allowed. That has to be harmonised."

Government is expected to announce maize projections for the current season next March but hopes of meeting the 1,8 million metric tonnes required annually appear slim despite an increased hectarage under the maize crop.

Official figures state that farmers grew one million ha of maize compared to 900 000 ha planted last year that produced for 500 000 metric tonnes.

The Zimbabwe Farmers Union fears that the inconsistent rainfall affecting the southern parts of the country could result in a 60% loss in planted crop. The ZFU also said farmers had limited chances of improving their crop through replanting.

The union said farmers, however, could still grow small grain crops such as soya beans and sunflower.

With the Grain Marketing Board selling a tonne of maize at US$300, Musarara said millers were likely to import from South Africa, which is expecting a higher yield and selling at US$280 per tonne.

"We are not saying we will have a poor season as such but we are making frantic efforts to import grain under the collateral management agreement," Musarara said.

23 January 2010

GM food can damage liver and kidneys

Mail Today Science Bureau
India Today, 23 January 2010:
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story/80590/India/GM+food+can+damage+liver+and+kidneys.html

A new study raises questions about the safety of genetically modified crops for human consumption, saying it could cause liver and kidney damage.

According to the study, animals fed on three strains of genetically modified maize created by the US biotech firm Monsanto suffered signs of organ damage after just three months.

This assumes significance as the technology for Bt brinjal--cleared by Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), India's biotech regulatory body for human consumption--has also been supplied by Monsanto. The fate of the new brinjal variety will be known only after the current round of public consultations gets over. Environment minister Jairam Ramesh is holding the consultation process, as he feels that the clearance involved "crucial issues of human safety". The findings only came to light after Monsanto was forced to publish its raw data on safety tests by anti- GM campaigners. They add to the evidence that GM crops may damage health as well as be harmful to the environment. The figures released by Monsanto were examined by Gilles-Eric Seralini of the University of Caen.

Seralini is professor of chemistry and molecular biology at the French university.

Seralini has called for more studies to check for long-term organ damage. "What we've shown is clearly not proof of toxicity, but signs of toxicity," he told New Scientist magazine.

"I'm sure there's no acute toxicity but who's to say there are no chronic effects?" The experiments were carried out by Monsanto researchers on three strains of GM maize.

Two of the varieties contained genes for the Bt protein while a third was genetically modified to be resistant to the weedkiller glyphosate.

Monsanto only released the raw data after a legal challenge from Greenpeace. Seralini concluded that rats which ate the GM maize had "statistically significant" signs of liver and kidney damage as compared to rats given a non-GM diet.

Female rats fed one of the strains also had higher blood sugar levels and raised levels of fatty substances caused triglycerides, Seralini reported in the International Journal of Microbiology. The analysis concluded, "These substances have never before been an integral part of the human or animal diet and therefore their health consequences for those who consume them, especially over long time periods are currently unknown." Monsanto claimed the analysis of its data was "based on faulty analytical methods and reasoning, and does not call into question the safety findings for these products." Similar fears have been raised about human safety and the environmental fallout of Bt brinjal, promoted by Monsanto and the Maharashtra-based Mahyco, which contains genes of the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). The bacterium produces certain proteins that kill insect larvae of bollworm, a major cotton pest, and other insects.

The Bt genes responsible for the toxic protein can be transferred into cotton, soya, corn or brinjal--making them produce their own natural pesticides.

Several genetically modified food crops are awaiting test reports and approval in India.

Several Indian states have already rejected the new crops and decided to go GM- free. The latest to join this list is Karnataka.

While rejecting the new variety, chief minister B.S. Yeddyurappa pointed out that "the state is the fifth largest producer of brinjal in the country. We are growing more than 40 varieties of the vegetable. We will not allow anything that may put our farmers in a difficult spot". He acknowledged the concerns of the farmers and consumers and said he would have a discussion with experts and farmers community in this regard.

The issue has also divided the central government. Science minister Prithviraj Chavan has said the genetically altered brinjal--which contains an antibiotic gene--was safe for human consumption. Agriculture minister Sharad Pawar feels the decision of the GEAC is final, while Ramesh says the final decision on the approval given by the genetic engineering regulatory body lies with the government.

While genetically modified corn--which has been found to be toxic--may not have reached Indian shores, many Indians may already be eating the controversial corn through a variety of imported products made out of GM corn. Chips made out of corn are being imported regularly into India by American manufactures via dealers in Singapore and Taiwan.

In June last year, the GEAC was accused of allowing the sale of imported chips with suspect GM material without any testing.

An import consignment of Doritos, a chips brand owned by PepsiCo, was detained by Customs authorities at Nhava Sheva port in Mumbai as it was found to contain genetically modified corn in 2008 as well. Following this, the importer wrote to the GEAC seeking a 'no objection certificate'. The GEAC cleared the consignment based on an undertaking given by the company that the chips did not contain GM corn.

Instead of getting the chips samples tested or going by results of earlier testing, the GEAC merely decided "to convey 'no objection' for release of the consignment subject to the condition that if it is later found to contain genetically modified material, the importer is liable for prosecution under the relevant law". The GEAC merely advised Customs officials at the port to retain two packets of each flavour on a random sampling basis for further verification, if necessary. The Mumbai firm had imported Doritos Chips in three flavours--Nacho, Taco and BBQ--from Brilliant Market Private Limited in Singapore. But the company claims the chips were produced in Taiwan from locally grown corn.

Greenpeace has been highlighting the presence of illegal GM food in India. According to Greenpeace, the organisation in May 2008 had provided scientific evidence that Doritos corn chips contained at least two different traces of GM corn varieties, MON 863 and NK 603.

A similar variety of the corn NK 603 was found to cause reproductive disorders by Austrian government scientists in November 2008.

Is genetically modified corn toxic?

Michael Reilly, Discovery News [USA], 23 January 2010:
http://news.discovery.com/earth/is-genetically-modified-corn-toxic.html

In the United States, we grow and eat corn whose genes have been tweaked to make the plants more resistant to pests and pesticides. Most European countries don't, largely because the citizenry fears it isn't safe. But try as scientists might, they haven't been able to find any good reason why we shouldn't eat genetically modified (GM) food.

Until now. Maybe. A new analysis of data released by Monsanto pried from Monsanto's lawyers' cold dead hands by a tag-team of legal experts at Greenpeace and other groups suggests there may be something to the idea that we shouldn't be eating maize that's had its DNA messed with.

The study found that three strains of modded crops -- MON 810 and MON 863, which are resistant to pests, and NK 603, which is foritified to withstand weed killer -- significantly disrupted the blood chemistry of rats who ate them. According to an article in New Scientist:

With each of the three strains of maize, researchers say they found unusual concentrations of hormones and other compounds in the blood and urine of the tested rats, suggesting each strain impaired kidney and liver function. By the end of the trials, the female rats that were fed MON 863 had elevated blood-sugar levels and raised concentrations of fatty substances called triglycerides. Both are potential precursors of diabetes, according to [lead author Gilles-Eric SÈralini of the University of Caen in France].

...

"What we've shown is clearly not proof of toxicity, but signs of toxicity," says Seralini. "I'm sure there's no acute toxicity, but who's to say there are no chronic effects?"

The researchers are suggesting that if the GM corn has the same affect in humans that is does in rats, we're unknowingly taxing our kidneys and livers, and probably raising the risk of damaging those organs.

But as is often the case in these type of reports, the conclusions aren't terribly convincing. For one, the effects are barely statistically significant, and the article goes on to say that independent toxicologists who saw the paper said Seralini was reading too much into the results.

So we're left with ambiguity. Terrific.

There's just one thing I want to know: why do activist groups have to team up to force Monsanto to release tests showing whether or not GM food is toxic? Shouldn't food have to be demonstrably NON-poisonous before anyone is allow to start feeding it to people??

Source: New Scientist

22 January 2010

NYU researchers find that genetically engineered corn releases insecticidal toxin into soil

Bio-Medicine [USA], 22 January 2010:
http://news.bio-medicine.org/biology-news-2/NYU-researchers-find-that-genetically-engineered-corn-
releases-insecticidal-toxin-into-soil-12143-1/

Researchers at New York University have found that insect-killing toxin from Bt corn is released into soil from the roots. The scientists say more research is needed to determine whether this exuded toxin has a good, bad, or neutral effect on organisms in soil.

The research was conducted by NYU biology professor Guenther Stotzky, NYU research scientist Deepak Saxena, and Saul Flores of the Venezuelan Scientific Research Institute. The team's findings were published in the December 2nd issue of Nature in a brief communication entitled, "Insecticidal toxin in root exudates from Bt corn."

Bt corn is corn that has been genetically modified to produce an insecticidal toxin derived from the bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). The toxin is present in the plant's tissues and kills the larvae of caterpillars that attack the plant. It was previously believed that the Bt toxin molecule was too large to be released through the plant's root system. Recently it was shown that the toxin is also present in the pollen of Bt corn and that when the pollen was placed on the leaves of milkweed, it killed monarch butterflies that ate the contaminated leaves.

Professor Stotzky said, "We have no indication of how soil communities might be affected by the Bt toxin that these plants exude. It might improve control of insect pests. It might enhance the rate at which insect pests become resistant to the toxin. It might negatively impact beneficial insects. These are troubling questions, and we don't know the answers yet."

About 15 million acres of Bt corn were planted the U.S. in 1998, which was just under 20% of the nation's total corn acreage.

The researchers grew Bt corn in a plant-growth room and then collected samples of root exudates from the roots and from nearby soil. They found that active Bt toxin was exuded by the roots throughout the growth of the plants, and that the toxin, which binds on soil, retained the ability to kill insect larvae. Previous studies with purified toxin showed that it retained insecticidal activity for 234 days, the longest time studied.

Guenther Stotzky is a professor of biology at New York University. He is the director of NYU's Laboratory of Microbial Ecology. He received his Ph.D. from The Ohio State University.

Contact: Josh Plaut
JOSH.PLAUT@NYU.EDU
212-998-6797
New York University
12-Dec-1999

ASA raises concerns about post-patent registration of AG biotech traits

Agri Marketing [USA], 22 January 2010:
http://www.agrimarketing.com/show_story.php?id=58482

American Soybean Association (ASA) reports:

The American Soybean Association (ASA) participated in a meeting of the AgBiotech Planning Committee (ABPC) in Washington, D.C. and raised its concerns about the status of international registrations of ag biotech traits after their patents expire.

The patent for Roundup Ready soybeans is due to expire in 2014, and patents for soybean, corn, and other commodity biotech traits will expire over subsequent years.

Unless countries that require periodic re-registrations, including China and the European Union, adopt commercially viable thresholds for the presence of deregistered traits, U.S. shipments of soybeans and other crops would face possible rejection if registrations are not maintained.

At the ABPC meeting, ASA proposed establishment of a working group to develop recommendations for how to address this potential problem. Representatives of other farm organizations, the grain trade, and seed/tech companies indicated support for this initiative.

The meeting also included discussion of concerns being raised by organic farming interests over how to manage the "coexistence" of organic and biotech crops. Some organic supporters want to certify their products as "GM-free," as opposed to meeting the current 5 percent tolerance under the Organic Standards Act.

ASA and other ABPC members plan to meet with U.S. Department of Agriculture officials in the near future to discuss the direction of their review of the "coexistence" policy.

Bt Brinjal: Greenpeace condemns government's double talk

NetIndia1123.com, 22 January 2010:
http://www.netindia123.com/showdetails.asp?id=1430423&cat=Health&head=Bt+Brinjal%3A+Greenpeace+condemns+government%27s+double+talk

Global environmental activist group Greenpeace Friday slammed the government's ambiguity on the commercial release of Bt Brinjal, adding that a clear stand was the need of the hour.

A day after Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh wrote to Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar disagreeing with the latter's statement endorsing the cultivation of the the genetically modified crop, the NGO said that "battle on Bt Brinjal had reached new heights".

"It is shocking to see that on the one hand experts and public are raising concerns on Bt Brinjal in the public consultations being held by the Ramesh and on the other hand other union ministers are taking the side of seed industry and promoting Bt Brinjal.

"It's high time the government came out in one voice and clarify whose side they are on," said Rajesh Krishnan, sustainable agriculture campaigner from Greenpeace India.

In October last year, the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) which is the government's biotech regulator approved the commercialisation of the genetically modified crop. Now the environment ministry has to decide if Bt Brinjal will be allowed for commercial use. On Jan 13 the ministry started a series of public consultations on the issue.

The environment minister has now put the process on hold after major brinjal producing states that account for over 60 percent of the produce refused to endorse the product.

Greenpeace stated: "At least eight state governments have openly declared that they do not want Bt Brinjal to be approved. The latest was Karnataka (Wednesday) which joined states like Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal, Orissa, Chhattisgarh, Kerala and Andhra Pradesh."

The past few days has seen other ministries coming out in support of Bt Brinjal. While Science and Technology Minister Prithviraj Chauhan said he supported the clearance of the biotech regulator, Minister of State for Health Dinesh Trivedi said his ministry would look into the issue with "a cautious approach".

EFSA GMO regulatory chief takes EU 'secrets' to biotech industry
• With new evidence of GM harm emerging, ANH asks: 'who do EU regulators really serve?'

Alliance for Natural Health [UK], 22 January 2010:
http://www.anhcampaign.org/news/efsa-gmo-regulatory-chief-takes-eu-
%E2%80%98secrets%E2%80%99-to-biotech-industry

Once again, we find that the 'independence' of a European regulatory body is being called into question http://www.anhcampaign.org/news/three-eu-drug-regulators-found-with-unacceptable-conflicts-of-interest, this time the European Food Safety Authority http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/AboutEfsa/WhoWeAre/efsa_locale-1178620753812_DeclarationsInterest.htm (EFSA).

It transpires that the former head of the GMO panel http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/panels.htm at EFSA, Suzy Renckens, has been allowed by the food safety authority to move directly to a job in the genetic engineering industry. Such a move is not permitted according to EFSA's own procedures, which are designed to prevent 'conflict of interest'.

The Testbiotech Institute http://www.testbiotech.org/en/testbiotech, Germany, who promote independent research and public debate on the impacts of biotechnology, made the information about the move public http://www.testbiotech.org/en/node/260, and have reported http://www.testbiotech.org/en/node/312 that, only at that point, did the EFSA executive management acknowledge and communicate about the controversial move.

Scathing criticism of EFSA

The Executive Director of Testbiotech has been scathing in his criticism of EFSA: "The executive management of the authority has been negligent in its duty of care. Mrs Renckens' direct move into industry should not have been approved. The EFSA executive management apparently lacks sufficient awareness of the problem. The procedure is portrayed by the authority as completely normal."

Testbiotech is demanding that EFSA face 'consequences', and is calling for its reorganisation. Testbiotech have also said they are referring the matter to the EU Commission.

This revelation about EFSA's 'revolving door with the GM industry' is all very ironic considering that the EFSA Management Board, in 2004, issued a Press Release http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/mb041220.htm reiterating its "confidence in the independence and commitment to transparency of its Scientific Panels".

New study shows rapid liver and kidney damage from 3 types of GM corn

A new French study http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm published in the International Journal of Biological Science, and led by JS Vendomois, compares the effects of three GM corn varieties through feeding them to rats. The researchers found that all three varieties of GM corn (NK 603, MON 810, MON 8630, all currently consumed in food and feed) had a 'clear negative impact' on liver and kidney function in just 90 days, although the condition of the rats was also carefully studied after 14 weeks of feeding.

Other harmful effects on organs were also noticed, and there were different effects for the different varieties. The authors believe that the observed signs of liver and kidney toxicity were "possibly due to the new pesticides specific to each GM corn", although they were unable to rule out that the "mutagenic properties of the GM transformation process" were responsible for some of the metabolic effects.

The authors strongly recommend further long term (up to 2 years), multi-generational animal feeding studies to determine "true scientifically valid data on the acute and chronic toxic effects of GM crops, feed and foods".

These concerns have been widely reported in the press:

•

UK Mail Online
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1244824/
Fears-grow-study-shows-genetically-modified-crops-cause-liver-kidney-damage.htm

•

The Huffington Post
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/12/monsantos-gmo-corn-linked_n_420365.html

•

Food Freedom
http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2010/01/01/three-approved-gmos-linked-to-organ-damage/

•

Natural Foods Merchandiser
http://www.naturalfoodsmerchandiser.com/tabId/119/itemId/4409/GM-corn-causes-organ-damage.aspx

UK chief scientist calls for 'green revolution' embracing GM technology

Meanwhile, the big push for GM, by certain governments, continues....

Professor John Beddington, Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK Government, recently delivered a speech at the annual UK Oxford Farming Conference http://www.ofc.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12&Itemid=26 entitled: "The key issues for agricultural science" http://www.ofc.org.uk/images/stories/File/Beddington%202010_Key%20issues%20Ag%20science.pdf. He spoke about the 'food security' challenges of the 21st century, including climate change, population growth, and the need for sustainable management of resources. He announced: "We need a new and "greener revolution", improving production and efficiency through the food chain within environmental and other constraints. Techniques and technologies from many disciplines, ranging from biotechnology and engineering to newer fields such as nanotechnology, will be needed".

So there we have it: the UK Government's big plan to embrace GM, neatly disguised as 'green', and slipped in as a 'sustainable' solution to the global problems! Well it won't be fooling those among us who have their eyes open, and who don't have the interests of the biotech industry as their driving force.

This announcement by the UK Government has been widely reported in the press, and roundly condemned by various organisations such as the Soil Association http://www.soilassociation.org/News/NewsItem/tabid/91/smid/463/ArticleID/254/reftab/258/t/Today-s-news/Default.aspx.

Who do EU regulators and their 'gold-plating' governments really serve?

Last March, the Council of the European Union rejected http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/en/envir/106430.pdf EU Commission proposals aimed at lifting "provisional prohibitions of genetically modified maize in Hungary and Austria".

With the integrity and independence of EFSA now being seriously questioned over links with the biotech industry, and added to the list of suspect EU regulators with links to big pharma http://www.anhcampaign.org/news/three-eu-drug-regulators-found-with-unacceptable-conflicts-of-interest, together with the huge push for GM http://www.ofc.org.uk/images/stories/File/Beddington%202010_Key%20issues%20Ag%20science.pdf by governments such as the UK, along with the EU-wide bans http://www.anhcampaign.org/news/anh-press-release-food-supplement-ban-in-2010-may-contravene-eu-law and further threats to natural products, it all makes us wonder who the EU regulators and their 'gold-plating' governments such as the UK, and their related agencies such as EFSA are really 'serving': EU Member States' citizens or big industry? Do let us know what you think!

To Say NO to GM http://www.anhcampaign.org/campaigns/say-no-to-gm

To Homepage http://www.anhcampaign.org/

One quarter of US grain crops fed to cars - not people, new figures show
• New analysis of 2009 US Department of Agriculture figures suggests biofuel revolution is impacting on world food supplies

John Vidal, environment editor
The Guardian [UK], 22 January 2010:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/22/quarter-us-grain-biofuels-food

[Photo caption: A grain elevator in Illinois. In 2009, 107m tonnes of grain was grown by US farmers to be blended with petrol. Photograph: AP Photo/Monty Davis]

One-quarter of all the maize and other grain crops grown in the US now ends up as biofuel in cars rather than being used to feed people, according to new analysis which suggests that the biofuel revolution launched by former President George Bush in 2007 is impacting on world food supplies.

The 2009 figures from the US Department of Agriculture shows ethanol production rising to record levels driven by farm subsidies and laws which require vehicles to use increasing amounts of biofuels.

"The grain grown to produce fuel in the US [in 2009] was enough to feed 330 million people for one year at average world consumption levels," said Lester Brown, the director of the Earth Policy Institute, a Washington thinktank ithat conducted the analysis.

Last year 107m tonnes of grain, mostly corn, was grown by US farmers to be blended with petrol. This was nearly twice as much as in 2007, when Bush challenged farmers to increase production by 500% by 2017 to save cut oil imports and reduce carbon emissions.

More than 80 new ethanol plants have been built since then, with more expected by 2015, by which time the US will need to produce a further 5bn gallons of ethanol if it is to meet its renewable fuel standard.

According to Brown, the growing demand for US ethanol derived from grains helped to push world grain prices to record highs between late 2006 and 2008. In 2008, the Guardian revealed a secret World Bank report that concluded that the drive for biofuels by American and European governments had pushed up food prices by 75%, in stark contrast to US claims that prices had risen only 2-3% as a result.

Since then, the number of hungry people in the world has increased to over 1 billion people, according to the UN's World Food programme.

"Continuing to divert more food to fuel, as is now mandated by the US federal government in its renewable fuel standard, will likely only reinforce the disturbing rise in world hunger. By subsidising the production of ethanol to the tune of some $6bn each year, US taxpayers are in effect subsidising rising food bills at home and around the world," said Brown.

"The worst economic crisis since the great depression has recently brought food prices down from their peak, but they still remain well above their long-term average levels."

The US is by far the world's leading grain exporter, exporting more than Argentina, Australia, Canada, and Russia combined. In 2008, the UN called for a comprehensive review of biofuel production from food crops.

"There is a direct link between biofuels and food prices. The needs of the hungry must come before the needs of cars," said Meredith Alexander, biofuels campaigner at ActionAid in London. As well as the effect on food, campaigners also argue that many scientists question whether biofuels made from food crops actually save any greenhouse gas emissions.

But ethanol producers deny that their record production means less food. "Continued innovation in ethanol production and agricultural technology means that we don't have to make a false choice between food and fuel. We can more than meet the demand for food and livestock feed while reducing our dependence on foreign oil through the production of homegrown renewable ethanol," said Tom Buis, the chief executive of industry group Growth Energy.

Engineered maize toxicity claims roundly rebuffed

Andy Coghlan
New Scientist [UK], 22 January 2010:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527444.000-engineered-maize-toxicity-claims-roundly-rebuffed.html

MONSANTO, the giant of genetically modified crops, has for the first time been forced to release raw data from toxicology studies it carried out on three strains of its modified maize. An external analysis of the data claims it shows that eating the maize could result in damage to the liver and kidneys, but this has been dismissed as unsupportable by a government agency and independent toxicologists.

With legal help from Greenpeace and the Swedish Board of Agriculture, researchers at the Committee of Research and Information on Genetic Engineering [http://www.criigen.org/images/stories/pressrelease-3ogm-ijbs_1209.pdf], a French anti-GM lobby group, forced Monsanto to release the data from studies in which rats were fed with the three varieties of maize for three months.

Two of the maize varieties, MON 810 and MON 863, contain genes for the bacterial Bt protein, which protects against corn borer larvae. The third, NK 603, is resistant to the weedkiller glyphosate. All are widely grown in the US, while MON 810 is the only GM crop grown in Europe, mainly in Spain.

The re-analysis of the data, led by Gilles-Eric Séralini at the University of Caen in France, concludes that the rats showed statistically significant signs of liver and kidney toxicity (International Journal of Biological Sciences, vol 5, p 706) [http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm].

With each of the three strains of maize, researchers say they found unusual concentrations of hormones and other compounds in the blood and urine of the tested rats, suggesting each strain impaired kidney and liver function. By the end of the trials, the female rats that were fed MON 863 had elevated blood-sugar levels and raised concentrations of fatty substances called triglycerides. Both are potential precursors of diabetes, according to Séralini. And there were further signs that the kidneys of rats fed NK 603 were impaired, he says.

"What we've shown is clearly not proof of toxicity, but signs of toxicity," says Séralini. "I'm sure there's no acute toxicity, but who's to say there are no chronic effects?" He wants longer studies on more species to check for such effects.

Unsurprisingly, Monsanto has refuted the findings, saying they do not demonstrate that there is any risk to the consumer. France's High Council of Biotechnology, too, has said that the study provides no new evidence of toxicity from the three maizes. Independent toxicologists contacted by New Scientist said Séralini's analysis overplays the importance of minor variations that most experienced toxicologists would consider to be random background noise.

The study did not address the environmental concerns associated with GM crops, which have led six European countries to ban MON 810.

Anti-GM lobby anger at new Rothamsted director

Alistair Driver
Farmers Guardian [UK], 22 January 2010:
http://www.farmersguardian.com/news/arable/arable-news/anti-gm-lobby-anger-at-new-rothamstead-director/29932.article

THE appointment of a leading biotech scientist as head of the UK's biggest agricultural research body has angered the anti-GM movement.

GM pioneer Professor Maurice Moloney's was unveiled as the new director and chief executive of Rothamsted Research, by the institute's governing body, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), last Friday.

Originally from Ireland, Pof Moloney led the Californian-based group that developed the world's first transgenic oilseeds, which resulted in RoundUp Ready Canola and other novel crops.

He holds over 300 patents in plant biotechnology worldwide He is currently chief scientific officer of biotech specialists, SemBioSys Genetics, a company based in Calgary, Canada, he founded in 1994. He also has a successful academic career at the city's university.

Prof Moloney said it would be a 'great privilege' to lead future scientific developments at 'one of the most powerful engines for agricultural research in the world'.

BBSRC chief executive, Professor Douglas Kell said his experience would help Rothamsted to 'capitalise fully on its scientific strengths and play its full role in delivering the UK's R&D priorities in food security and sustainable bioenergy'.

But Soil Association policy manager Emma Hockridge said the appointment would be 'bad news for UK agriculture' if, Prof Maloney focuses Rothamsted's research on GM.

She highlighted the recent IAASTD report, produced by over 400 scientists from across the globe, which concluded that GM had little to offer in meeting the major global food and farming challenges. "What Rothamsted needs is someone who will cover the research agenda of agro-ecological farming, as identified by IAASTD," she said.

GMWatch described the appointment as "nothing short of a declaration of war on both public concern over GM crops and the conclusions of the IAASTD report".

But BBSRC spokesman Matt Goode said Prof Moloney was 'fully committed to leading the Institute's broad research programme, which includes insect ecology, grassland ecosystems science and soil science'.

"While we believe that is important to fully investigate GM approaches we need to consider all ways of sustainably increasing food production and GM will not be the best technique in some circumstances," he said.

He will take up post at the Hertfordshire-based research centre in April, succeeding Professor Ian Crute, who retired from the institute in 2009.

King throws out challenge over GM crops

The Scotsman [UK], 22 January 2010:
http://business.scotsman.com/fooddrinkagriculture/King-throws-out-challenge-over.6004631.jp

A CHALLENGE was thrown out this week by Sir David King, former chief scientific advisor to the UK government, to those who do not want to see the production of genetically modified food.

He wanted those who opposed the introduction of gene splicing to state how many people had suffered as a result of eating genetically modified food. His riposte would be pointing to millions who had died from hunger and starvation through not being able to benefit from crops grown with the technology.

"A lot of people have lost their lives because gene splicing has not been acceptable," he stated. This was particularly true in developing and less well off countries. "People have picked up the message from Europe that GM is unacceptable."

Speaking in the Guildhall in London this week, King based his statement on the large numbers of people who had either suffered or died as a result of the sharp rise in food prices in 2007.

He claimed part of that price rise was due to large areas of rice being flooded. If plant breeders in rice growing areas had been allowed to use gene splicing technology, he claimed they would have been able to insert a gene that would have allowed plants to be flooded for a period yet still survive.

In addressing the issue of feeding a world population predicted to hit the nine billion mark by 2050, King said: "There is a desperate need for biotechnology if we are to feed the 50 per cent increase in the population."

But he admitted the public needed to be convinced on the good that the technology could bring through disease resistance, more assured production and more efficient use of resources.

He told his audience that increasing food production in the coming decades was part of a complex equation with other diverse but linked issues such as water management and terrorism and food security.

Again referring to the big spike in food prices in 2007, he claimed that much of that had been created in the USA through their massive shift rapid shift from food production into biofuels. This transfer of food resources into fuel did not solve any problem, he stated.

He was also highly critical of the current UK government's approach to tackling the spreading problem of bovine tuberculosis where some 40,000 cattle are now slaughtered annually in England and Wales.

"Nothing we are doing is slowing down the spread of this disease."

Referring to the badger population who can be infected with the same TB bacillus, he stated that as long as there is a residue in the wild, he did not believe the problem could be managed.

He was not implying that badgers were the sole cause of the disease spread but they were generally linked to breakdowns in the transfer of the disease into dairy cattle He viewed the future pessimistically when considering the control of TB. "I wonder if Britain will continue to be a dairy farming country if this continues." The only way forward he believed was to work with the public to help them understand the problem.

---

Comment by GM Watch:

This article provides more detail on David King's claim that people have died because of opposition to GM. It seems - in accord with his dire record of fabrication on this topic (http://bit.ly/7Y6ScL) Sir David put a figure on it

As Sir David's so keen on speculation, perhaps he'd like to tell us how many people have suffered harm, or even lost their lives, because of the hyping of expensive GM seeds to debt-burdened farmers in the South, or because of the aggressive expansion of pesticide-drenched GM monocultures in countries like Paraguay and Argentina. http://bit.ly/8qIom5

And how many more have suffered because the kind of often simple, practical means of improving nutrition and food production and distribution in the South, pointed to by the likes of the IAASTD report and the FAO, have been sidelined by the attention- and resource-grabbing promotion of GM techno-fixes that have failed to deliver - or in most cases even failed to arrive! http://www.bangmfood.org/feed-the-world

Sir David refers, for example, to "the good that the technology could bring through disease resistance". But where after all these years are the GM disease resistant crops? They're almost non-existent.

This lack of supporting evidence for GM crops is why poor Sir David has to keep inventing them - see 'The many lies of David King': http://bit.ly/7Y6ScL

And no wonder there are so many hungry when Sir David and Co. can only offer them GM fairytales. http://www.gmwatch.org/gm-myths

21 January 2010

Obama USDA Poised to Take Away Our Right to GMO-Free Food

Ronnie Cummins
Founder and Director, Organic Consumers Association Huffington Post [USA], 21 January 2010:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ronnie-cummins/obama-usda-poised-to-take_b_432185.html

[Note: original text includes many hyperlinks not shown here]

Don't believe Monsanto's green-washing. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs), aren't meant to feed the world or survive the evermore frequent droughts and floods brought on by global warming - they're designed to sell Monsanto's herbicide Roundup and the patented "Roundup Ready" genes now spliced into millions of acres of corn, cotton, soy, canola, sugar beets and alfalfa. A 2009 study showed that, in 13 years, Roundup Ready crops increased herbicide use by 383 million pounds.

During the Bush administration, the movement to stop GMOs was making progress. Reflecting public concern over GMOs, in 2007, a Federal court ruled that the Bush USDA's approval of Roundup Ready alfalfa violated the law because it failed to analyze risks such as the contamination of conventional and organic alfalfa and the development of "super-weeds." The court banned the planting of GM alfalfa until USDA completed a rigorous analysis of these impacts. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals twice affirmed the national ban on Roundup Ready alfalfa planting, but Monsanto is appealing. They're taking organic alfalfa farmers all the way to the Supreme Court!

Barack Obama, despite promising us "change we can believe in," is unfortunately turning out to be just as pro-GMO as the preceding Bush and Clinton administrations, packing the USDA and other government bureaucracies with Monsanto men and biotech cheerleaders such as former Iowa Governor, Tom Vilsack, named "Biotech Governor of the Year" in 2001, now serving as USDA Secretary. Vilsack, notorious for flying around in a Monsanto company jet during one of his previous election campaigns, is now busy trying to get the court-ordered ban on Roundup Ready alfalfa lifted by issuing a new draft environmental impact statement (EIS) that denies or downplays the obvious environmental and human health hazards of GM alfalfa.

Alfalfa is the fourth most widely grown crop in the U.S. and a key source of dairy forage and hay. The first perennial crop to be genetically engineered, GM alfalfa can regenerate itself from its root-stock. It is open-pollinated by bees, which can cross-pollinate at distances of several miles, spreading Monsanto's patented, foreign DNA to non-GMO and organic crops. Widespread GMO-contamination of organic alfalfa is inevitable if the Obama Administration successfully distorts science and ignores public opinion and allows Monsanto's GM Roundup Ready alfalfa to be planted across the U.S.

Mounting evidence shows damage to animals and humans from unlabeled and untested Frankenfoods. Consumers who ingest GM alfalfa are likely risking their health; since even the USDA's EIS admits that, "acute toxicity in mice was observed."

According to the EIS, consumers who ingest foods with residues of Monsanto's Roundup herbicide may experience "general and non-specific signs of toxicity from subchronic and chronic exposure to glyphosate includ[ing] changes in liver weight, blood chemistry (may suggest mild liver toxicity), liver pathology, and weight of the pituitary gland."

The EIS warns that, "Based on upper estimates of exposure ... infants consuming fruit and all age groups consuming vegetables may be at risk of adverse effects associated with acute exposure to glyphosate [the active ingredient in Roundup] residues."

Consuming milk and meat from animals fed crops that are genetically engineered is also risky. In Europe, where farmer and consumer rejection has kept GMO crop acreage to a bare minimum, massive quantities of GMO-tainted animal feed is imported from the U.S. and a survey of 60 samples of 12 different milk brands sold in stores in Italy demonstrated the presence of GM maize sequences in 15 (25%) and of GM soybean sequences in 7 samples (11.7%).

Most consumers, especially organic consumers, are determined to avoid Roundup Ready alfalfa, and meat and dairy products derived from animals ingesting Roundup Ready alfalfa, but according to the EIS, we don't have that right because, "At the present time, there is no policy regarding the unintended presence of GE (genetically engineered) material in organic products or food, consistent with the fact that the NOP (National Organic Program) is a process-based program for certifying a farm or production system as organic, and not a product-based program that tests or certifies individual products as organic."

We must stop the Obama administration from taking away our right to grow and consume organic and GMO-free food. The "change we believe in" is a healthy and sustainable future based upon organic food and farming and a green economy.

Turkey says "not to allow" GMO import below EU standards

World Bulletin [Turkey], 21 January 2010:
http://www.worldbulletin.net/news_detail.php?id=52958

Turkish Agriculture & Rural Affairs Ministry stated on Wednesday that it would "not allow" import of any genetically modified organisms which were not appropriate to EU standards.

The ministry recalled that a regulation on import, processing, export, control and supervision of genetically modified organisms was put into effect on October 26, 2009.

"The regulation caused debates and was not understood clearly in media, non-governmental organizations and science world in Turkey as of the enforcement of the regulation, and thus, several articles of the regulations were changed on November 20, 2009," noted the ministry.

Following legal process, final change on the regulation was made on January 20, 2010, and accordingly, import of genetically modified organisms which were not appropriate to EU standards would "not be allowed", added the ministry.

Genetically modified foods are foods derived from genetically modified organisms. Genetically modified organisms have had specific changes introduced into their DNA by genetic engineering, using a process of either Cisgenesis or Transgenesis. Critics have objected to GM foods on several grounds, including safety issues, ecological concerns, and economic concerns raised by the fact that these organisms are subject to intellectual property law.

Close EFSA's open doors to industry!
• Joint letter sent by NGOs to alert the EU Commission

Press release
Testbiotech e.V. Institute for Independent Impact Assessment in Biotechnology, 21 January 2010:
http://www.testbiotech.org/en/node/316

Munich / Brussels - Four NGOs, Testbiotech, Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO Brussels), Friends of the Earth (FOE Brussels), and Lobbycontrol are now jointly addressing the EU Commission about a scandal involving a leading member of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) who moved directly into the agribusiness company Syngenta. They are calling for a thorough investigation of the circumstances and urging the commission to take immediate action.

"So far no appropriate action has been taken by the EFSA", says Christoph Then from Testbiotech. "The Commission must react to this new case of an EU official going through revolving doors. There is a clear conflict with the legitimate interests of the EFSA".

It was recently made public that the former head of the EFSA's GMO panel, Suzy Renckens, had become Head of Biotech Regulatory Affairs for Europe, Africa and Middle East (EAME) at Syngenta just one month after she quit the EFSA. In her own words, Ms Renckens now lobbies for Syngenta to influence EU decision-making on genetically engineered organisms. This is the very same issue she was responsible for regulating with the EFSA.

"In cases like this, a tightly enforced cooling-off period is essential for several reasons. Former staff members and especially decision makers from EU authorities can exploit their previous status to unduly influence their former colleagues. However the EFSA did not raise any objections or impose any obligations in relation to this direct move into industry of one of its leading staff members," explains Nina Katzemich from Lobbycontrol.

Members of EU public services are supposed to ask for approval from their institutions for any new post within a period of two years of leaving. The EFSA only appeared to act on this conflict after it was highlighted by the NGO Testbiotech. EFSA sent several e-mails to Ms Renckens at the end of 2009 reminding her of her obligations - long after she was informed about the new situation. Ms Renckens had already informed EFSA in May 2008 that she had started work at Syngenta.

Link to the letter to the EU Commission:
http://www.testbiotech.org/sites/default/files/letter%20commission%204%20ngos_EFSA.pdf

More information about the case of Suzy Renckens: http://www.testbiotech.org

For further information please contact:

Christoph Then, executive director, Tel.: +49 (0)151 54 63 80 40 and

Nina Katzemich, Lobbycontrol, Tel.: +49 (0)221 169 65 07 or +49 (0)179 509 30 22 nina.katzemich@lobbycontrol.de

Andrea Reiche, press officer, Tel +49 (0)89 35 89 92 76

20 January 2010

'Fair Milk' on the shelves as of today
• Dairy farmers to receive 40 cents per liter

AgraHeute.com [Germany], 20 January 2010:
http://agrarheute.com/milch_und_rind/milchproduktion/milchlieferanten_erhalten_
40_cent_pro_liter.html?redid=326289

[Translation and highlighting courtesy of TraceConsult]

Freising, 20 January 2010 - 40 cents per liter: A price that has been demanded for a long time has become reality for some producers. As of today, consumers will find "Fair Milk" on the shelves.

"Fair milk", available as of today in about 1,200 Rewe and 300 Tegut stores in Bavaria, Baden-Wuerttemberg and Hesse, will cost between 89 and 99 cents per liter. Currently about 120 dairy farmers that are independent of a dairy processor supply to the market. Consumers can buy UHT milk with 1.8 and 3.8 percent fat.

The Federal Association of Dairy Cow Keepers (BDM) had the "Fair Milk" idea that is now marketed by Freising-based Milchvermarktungs-GmbH (MVS). MVS is paid for its services by the dairy farmers who determine the production and the marketing themselves - and receive 40 cents (EU) per liter. "Having a unique product is particularly important", explains Karl Karrer from the advisory board of MVS GmbH. It was for this reason that they decided to focus on special services to nature and to the consumer.

Produced GMO-free

All 120 dairy farmers supplying so far have committed themselves to be responsible for an environmental project. This may be to keep the animals on pasture land, but also the preservation of a meadow of wildflowers.

Part of the special services is that "Fair Milk" is produced GMO-free. This means the animals are not given any feed that is from GMO plants. The animals eat primarily forage from pastures close to the farms. "Fair milk" is one of the first milk brands carrying the official "ohne Gentechnik" seal of the Federal Ministry for Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection.

Minimizing transport distances

One more attribute of "Fair Milk" its regional origin. In order to reduce transport distances to a minimum, milk sold originates exclusively from farms in the given state. Consumers wanting to get to know the sub-contractor better may do so at http://www.die-faire-milch.de *). Every dairy farm presents itself with a short statement. (ez)

*) Visit this site if interested, click on "Unsere Milchbauern" and then on the contours of one of the three states: You will find all the farmers on their property with pretty photographs.

---

Comment by TraceConsult&trade:

It is certainly not the 2010 International Green Week in Berlin that is responsible for some excitement around the topic of biotechnology that could be observed last week within German agricultural circles.

At first, German discount retailer Lidl sets of for claimed milk "ohne Gentechnik" (GMO-free - see our earlier report http://www.traceconsult.ch/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=151%3Agerman-discounter-lidl-sells-gmo-free-milk&catid=47%3Anewsticker&Itemid=50&lang=en), then the Bavarian milk marketer MVS announces on 20 January in Freising that they will supply "fair milk" to hundreds of supermarkets of the Rewe and tegut ... retail chains in three southern German states. This milk not only guarantees 40 (EU) cents per liter to the dairy farmer, but it also reaches the shelves showing the official seal "ohne Gentechnik" because it is produced with GMO-free animal feed.

With a certain predictability, less than 24 hours later, during an event on the International Green Week (IGW), Gerd Sonnleitner, President of the German Farmers Association, addresses the public with the remark http://www.bauernverband.de/?redid=152813&mid=326420 that he considers the "ohne Gentechnik" claim a "rather dishonest solution". He thus joins the chorus of voices who have shed crocodile tears for some years in regards to this type of claim. In essence, they do not want to bring out the truth about enzymes that are exempt from labeling anyway but they dread the foundation for consumer choice printed on all packaging.

This information on product labels such as milk, but also poultry as well as many other animal and vegetable food products, should reach a lot more German consumers in the near future. After months of joint pondering and balancing the founding of an industry association for GMO-free food is now imminent. At an IGW reception last week, German agricultural minister Ilse Aigner was absolutely clear about how much she would welcome such an association. One of its most important tasks will be to administer the use of the "ohne Gentechnik" seal as well as to represent the interests of food manufacturers of these very products.

The consumer benefit will be to receive clear information from a competent source.

NSF grant to launch world's first open-source genetic parts production facility

Press Release
University of California - Berkeley [USA]:
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2010/01/20_biofab_synthetic_biology.shtml

BERKELEY - With seed money from the National Science Foundation (NSF), bioengineers from the University of California, Berkeley, and Stanford University are ramping up efforts to characterize the thousands of control elements critical to the engineering of microbes so that eventually, researchers can mix and match these "DNA parts" in synthetic organisms to produce new drugs, fuels or chemicals.

Today, a single designer microbe can take years to create and cost tens of millions of dollars, since each control element - a promoter or transcription factor - has to be identified, characterized and tweaked in order to be reused. One UC Berkeley project to engineer microbes to produce the anti-malarial drug artemisinin took 10 years to get out of the lab into small-scale production, at a cost of $25 million.

The new effort, called the BIOFAB: International Open Facility Advancing Biotechnology (BIOFAB), aims to produce thousands of free, standardized DNA parts to shorten the development time and lower the cost of synthetic biology for academic or biotech laboratories. The BIOFAB has received two years of funding from the NSF and matching support from founding partners Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) and the BioBricks Foundation (BBF), a non-profit organization that supports and promotes the use of synthetic biology.

"Synthetic biology has the potential to make the engineering of biology much easier and more affordable. Via the BIOFAB, we will help ensure that the public's investments and interests in the next generation of biotechnology return the greatest benefits," said founding BIOFAB director Drew Endy, an assistant professor in Stanford's Bioengineering Department and president of the BioBricks Foundation.

"This is an opportunity to build a framework that will allow us to set open standards for how we do biological design in the future, so that biological parts work reliably in everyone's hands," said BIOFAB co-director Adam Arkin, UC Berkeley professor of bioengineering and head of Synthetic Biology for LBNL's Physical Biosciences Division.

The BIOFAB takes its name from the fabrication, or Fab, that service laboratories established in the early semiconductor industry to make it easier for academic and small industrial labs to design and manufacture small quantities of custom chips. With computer-aided design (CAD) software, rapid-prototyping equipment and clean labs, Fab Labs could quickly produce innovative devices not yet ready for mass production.

"The professionally-staffed BIOFAB production facility will provide an essential resource that will allow many academic researchers and others to rapidly prototype, test and translate their foundational discoveries and ideas into practice," said Jay Keasling, UC Berkeley professor of chemical engineering and of bioengineering and senior faculty scientist and acting deputy director of LBNL. "By enabling everyone to better work together, the BIOFAB will make the engineering of biology easier and more predictable."

Keasling, who chairs the BIOFAB executive committee, led the project to biosynthesize artemisinin. He is now director in Emeryville, Calif., of the Department of Energy's Joint BioEnergy Institute (JBEI), which focuses on developing commercially viable biofuels.

Endy and Arkin proposed a similar Fab Lab for biology more than 10 years ago, but only now, Endy said, is the time ripe for an open and cooperative full-scale production facility.

"Besides Tom Knight (of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology), very few people were talking about standard biological parts 10 years ago," said Endy, while today, such parts are widely used by college students as part of the International Genetically Engineered Machine competition (iGEM), catalogued by institutions such as MIT and JBEI, and used daily in synthetic biology labs around the world.

Nevertheless, of the estimated 3,500 critical control elements in an E. coli bacterium, fewer than 100 have been seriously studied and characterized. Of the 500-plus promoters listed in current registries, for example, fewer than 50 have been measured, Endy said.

"What exists today is not a professional parts catalog," Arkin said. "But the parts we have, while not perfect, are better than nothing, and they are helping researchers all over the world."

"We now need to move beyond Lego™ metaphors and genetic toys to professional technologies," Endy added.

Operating in partnership with the UC Berkeley-led, NSF-supported Synthetic Biology Engineering Research Center (SynBERC) directed by Keasling, the BIOFAB is raising additional funds to hire 29 full-time staff who will systematically refine, standardize and characterize the activity of each genetic control element in E. coli, so that large-scale collections of genetic parts can be treated more like standardized components. What the researchers learn will be applied to parts collections in other microbes and used to assemble engineered biological systems.

"Even though we will be building parts and making systems, we are still in the foundational research stage," Arkin cautioned. "But in starting BIOFAB, we will accumulate the specialized know-how and the community of researchers necessary to become a resource for production and training in synthetic biology."

The BIOFAB also will promulgate standards for technical and professional practice through application of resources such as the BioBrick Public Agreement, a new legal framework supporting open technology platforms in genetic engineering.

"The BIOFAB promises not just to deliver needed foundational technologies, but do so in support of open innovation and collaboration in biotechnology," said David Grewal, a Harvard Fellow and BioBricks director.

To best accomplish its goals, the BIOFAB is also fully integrating ethics research within its production planning and operations.

"Our task is to generate resources and help make decisions regarding ethical issues, including safety, security and communities in genetic engineering, so that we can lead the development of open technology platforms in biotechnology that increase capacities and support human flourishing," noted Gaymon Bennett, doctor of theology and head of BIOFAB Human Practices.

More information and announcements of open positions are available via the BIOFAB Web site.

Fall of the 'crunchy cons'
• Why are libertarian right wingers defending a dysfunctional, state-engineered food system?

Tom Philpott
Grist magazine [USA], 20 January 2010:
http://www.grist.org/article/2010-01-20-forbes-liberatrian-right-wingers-food-system/

Back in 2002, in the right-wing National Review, Rod Dreher declared the rise of the "crunchy cons"-political conservatives who had come to value alternative food systems and reject the dreck served up by corporate giants.

Dreher's epiphany came when he got hold of a lefty Brooklyn neighbor's weekly CSA share one day.

Who knew cauliflower had so much taste? It was the freshness of the produce, not its organic status (of dubious nutritional advantage), that we were responding to. But you can't get produce that delicious in grocery stores here, so when this summer rolled around, we signed up enthusiastically. Now, Julie picks up our weekly delivery in her National Review tote bag.

Dreher reported at the time that his conversion to locavorism struck a chord among readers, hundreds of whom emailed to say that they loved Rush and loved real food, too.

The development seemed to hold great promise for food-system reform. Here was a food regime, propped up by government subsidies and one-size-fits-all regulations, that failed just about everybody, save for shareholders in a few corporations. The food being churned out by our factory system delivered sorry flavor and dubious nutritional value-and its environmental impact even spooked "creation care" types.

Meanwhile, libertarians had thundered for years against commodity subsidies and the crony capitalism practiced by agribusiness giants and their kept politicians. Significantly, the best thing ever written about how Archer Daniels Midland fattens itself on taxpayer cash is probably this 1995 exposé from the libertarian Cato Institute.

So why not a right-left coalition against Big Food and in favor of alternative food networks?

Sadly, such a coalition has never really gained traction-at least not in any way that's evident to me. And the right-wing media machine has been revving up in delibfense of Big Food and Big Ag.

Last summer, The American, an American Enterprise Institute-funded journal influential among conservative intellectuals, ran a long attack on the sustainable-food movement entitled "Against the Agri-Intellectuals." (I responded here.)

Meanwhile, the Cato Institute may deplore Archer Daniels Midland's political influence and ability to raid the Treasury; but it lionizes Norman Borluag, intellectual father of industrial food.

And Forbes Magazine, play toy of conservative icon Steve Forbes, has been cranking out ringing defenses of the agri-food industry. Recently, Forbes declared agrichemical and GMO seed giant Monsanto "company of the year," echoing company talking points in a fawning profile.

And now Forbes has a column essentially refrying the above-mentioned American piece, complete with denunciations of "agri-intellectuals."

These articles tend to fetishize corporate food and acknowledge none of its faults. Most absurdly, they contradict libertarian ideology by completely ignoring the federal government's central role in developing and maintaining the industrial food system, ably documented by Atul Gawande in The New Yorker.

Currently, Congress is preparing to consider school-lunch reauthorization; and in just a couple of years, it will be time to revisit the Farm Bill. Both pieces of legislation will have a dramatic effect on the kind of food Americans eat over the next generation. Will conservatives follow the path of the "crunchy cons" and fight for new food systems-or the path of Forbes and fight to prop up the old one?

Triffid seed threatens flax industry

CBC News [Canada] 20 January 2010:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2010/01/20/mb-flax-triffid-manitoba.html

Canadian flax seed has been shut out of its largest market after traces of Triffid - a genetically modified form of the crop ordered destroyed 10 years ago - was found in shipments.

The European Union, which buys 70 per cent of Canada's flax, has a zero-tolerance policy regarding genetically modified organisms and has been turning away shipments.

Officials say Canada's entire $320-million industry is threatened.

But efforts to correct the situation are being thwarted because it's not clear where the genetically modified flax is coming from. An industry-wide scramble has been on to weed out the offending seed since the problem was discovered in September.

But when only about one in every 10,000 flax seeds are affected, the Canadian Grain Commission, as well as farmers and members of the Flax Council of Canada, admit they have their work cut out for them trying to track down the source of the problem.

Sifting grain, DNA Tests

At the CGC's headquarters in Winnipeg, grain inspectors have been sifting through samples of flax, and scientists have been testing for the DNA footprint of the genetically modified strain of flax called Triffid.

Triffid was developed in the 1990s at the University of Saskatchewan and named after the flesh-eating plants featured in John Wyndham's 1951 novel, The Day of the Triffids.

The modified seed was deregistered and ordered destroyed 10 years ago after concerns arose from farmers that the EU would reject it.

Mysteriously, Triffid has reappeared in commercial crops.

The flax was genetically engineered to contain genes from a weed added to it, allowing it to grow in soil contaminated by herbicides.

"It's a situation no one could have foreseen and it's taken everyone by surprise," said CGC spokesman Remi Gosselin. "The CGC got written assurances in the late '90s that Triffid had been cleared from the system."

Two more of the 10 flax varieties handled by the University of Saskatchewan's Crop Development Centre have shown genetic contamination, managing director Dorothy Murrell told CBC News.

"We're puzzled, but regardless of that, we're taking action and trying to do our part to remove the problem as much as we can," she said. "I'm quite confident that we can remove these two varieties at the pedigree-seed level from the market."

Problem may be bigger than thought

But the Flax Council of Canada, based in Winnipeg, said the country's genetically modified seed problem might run deeper than the strains the university has identified.

"I'm quite certain as we start to test the certified seed, there will be other varieties that will show contamination," said Barry Hall, the council's president. "There's no question this will change the industry forever."

The industry is responding by implementing a three-stage testing regime, Hall said.

"The farm samples are tested. The rail cars are tested. And then, as the vessel is loaded, samples are drawn and tested by the Canadian Grain Commission," he said.

But aggressive testing isn't a silver bullet to round up all the genetically modified flax seed, Hall admits.

"It doesn't mean the Europeans can't test further and it will turn up positive there. Canada is doing everything it can to clean this up."

The worst-case scenario for flax producers is that the industry will shut down for three to five years to purge whatever seed is already growing, Hall said. Eventually, he added, all contaminated seeds will be taken off the market and destroyed.

Farmer's union 'predicted' problems

But Hall's assurance hasn't convinced the National Farmers' Union.

Its president said the removal of Triffid from the market a decade years ago was supposed to happen, but didn't.

"Myself and others predicted this would happen and that's why we worked to get rid of [it] 10 years ago," said Terry Boehm. "If you're going to play around with [genetically modified] crops, once the genie's out of the bottle, once it's in the environment, you can't control it," Boehm said.

Federal officials are in talks with the EU in hopes of raising its tolerance for genetically modified organisms, but Hall said he believes lobby groups have European politicians weary of change.

18 January 2010

Grain companies exploit flax situation to tighten vise on farmer seed saving

Press release
National Farmers Union [Canada], 18 January 2010:
http://bit.ly/9lHGIy

SASKATOON, SK - Grain company Viterra wants to force all farmers wishing to grow flax in 2010 to purchase certified seed. A Viterra spokesman delivered that message in a presentation on January 11 at the Crop Production Show in Saskatoon.

Viterra and others are pushing the requirement for certified seed as a purported solution to the problem of the Triffid contamination in flax shipments to Europe. Triffid is a genetically modified variety not approved in Europe. But the NFU believes that the proposed certified seed cure is the wrong one, and that there will be long-lasting and negative side effects.

"The best solution is to test the seed supply, both farm-saved seed and certified seed," said NFU President and flax producer Terry Boehm. He continued: "It is false to simply assume that certified seed is safer than farm-saved. For one thing, it is almost certain that the certified seed system is the source of the Triffid contamination farmers are now facing. Furthermore, it has now been determined that two varieties of flax are contaminated with Triffid at the breeder seed level (varieties Normandy and Mons)."

Boehm said a real concern is that companies will exploit the critical problem with flax to force a long-term requirement for mandatory purchases of certified seed, a requirement that could quickly spread to other crops. "Our seed industry is in year 7 of a concerted push to curtail seed saving and force more seed purchases. We cannot let companies act opportunistically to leverage this flax sector problem into an opportunity to boost the price of flax seed and force farmers to buy all their seed." Traditionally farmers buy certified seed of new varieties from time to time in small lots and multiply it for their own use for future years.

Boehm also said that Viterra and other powerful grain companies must not be allowed to dictate seed policies. "Under the Canada Grains Act, Viterra cannot refuse grain deliveries if they have space. Thus, Viterra cannot unilaterally declare that all production must be from certified seed," said Boehm.

He concluded: "Farm-saved seed can be just as safe as certified. All seed needs to be tested, and test results need to be provided at delivery. The Canadian Grain Commission must be the final arbiter in this issue. Grain companies are over-reaching, trying to dictatorially impose their will. The same grain companies that market seeds are trying to make those seeds mandatory. Only the CGC has the power and authority to block this power grab. We need to take all steps necessary to restore markets for flax, but we have to ensure we take only necessary steps. And we have to ensure that key tools for farmers, such as seed saving, are not trampled as we move forward. Testing at all stages will be the key to resolving this problem. It is high time that the Minister of Agriculture stepped up to the plate and offered to pay for the costs of testing, at a minimum."

For More Information:

Terry Boehm, NFU President: 011-33-1-44-84-72-50

Darrin Qualman, Director of Research: (306) 652-9465

Italy is 'weak point' of EU's anti-GM defences

Agrimoney.com [UK], 18 January 2010:
http://www.agrimoney.com/news/italy-is-weak-point-of-europes-anti-gm-defences--1227.html

Italy is the Achilles heel of the campaign to maintain Europe's defences against genetically modified crops, a US report has said, adding that the region's consumers are not as opposed to the technology as is portrayed.

With 65% of Italians supporting biotechnology, and the Vatican a "vocal advocate" of GM crops as a way of easing hunger in Africa, the country was a "good place to start" a campaign to "educate" Europeans about GM crops.

"Italy may present uniquely valuable opportunity for improving public opinion about biotechnology in the EU," her report said.

Engaging Italy's consumers in the biotechnology debate could help battle the "minority composed of fringe groups and government officials [which] are responsible for Italy's ban on biotech crops and food", Cynthia Barmore, US Department of Agriculture attaché in Rome, said.

'Misperception'

Indeed, Europeans as a whole "may not be as intractably negative as it is often portrayed" about GM foods, the briefing added, quoting 2005 research.

"In fact, public opinion is fairly divided," Ms Barmore said.

"Part of the misperception about European public opinion is the disproportionate attention paid to fringe activists who are not representative of the general public.

"Most Europeans have heard of biotechnology, but they are not activists and their opinions are not very strong."

Price factor

The task of winning government consents to at least sell GM foods in retailers, rested in part on the battleground chosen, with arguments on environmental and pesticide considerations more likely to bear fruit than those based on value for money.

"When price becomes the salient factor, Europeans may believe the price comes at the expense of quality or safety," the report said.

Doctors and academics may prove more effective advocates than government or industry figures.

America is home to some of the world's biggest GM seeds group, including Dow Chemical, DuPont and Monsanto. European rivals include Germany's Bayer and, outside the EU, Switzerland's Syngenta.

---

Comment from GM-free Ireland:

This article refers to a report published last week by the US Department of Agriculture attaché in Rome, Cynthia Barmore, with the revealing title "How to Influence Public Opinion about Agricultural Biotechnology" [1].

Insult to European democracy

The report is an insult to Italian democracy, and to European farmers, food producers, retailers and consumers. It is also riddled with misinformation which AgriMoney.com failed to correct.

The USDA describes Italians who oppose GMOs as a "minority composed of fringe groups" and talks of the need for the US to "educate" Italian consumers about food!

The anti-GM "fringe groups" which the USDA hopes to educate include:

•

The Italian Government, whose Minister for Agriculture, Luca Zaia [2] said "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." [3]

•

16 of Italy's 20 Regional Governments - together with 41 provinces and 2,446 municipalities - that have declared themselves as GMO-free zones; [4]

•

Italy's main farming union Coldiretti, with 18 regional federations for 98 provinces, 765 area offices, 9,812 sections, and over 568,000 farms; [5]

•

Italy's biggest retailer, CoopItalia; [6]

•

leading Italian food brands that have adopted GM-free supply chains such as the giant meat and poultry producer BovinMarche [7], Amadori (one of Europe's biggest producers of chicken and turkey) [8], and the poultry producer Fileni; [9]

•

the national multi-stakeholder initiative ItaliaEuropa Liberi da OGM [10] involving 28 organisations representing farmers, large distribution, small and medium sized businesses, consumer, environmental, scientific, cultural and international cooperation interest groups opposed to GM food and farming. During two months in 2007, ItaliaEuropa organised a National Consultation on GMOs which collected 3 million votes against GMOs; [11]

•

the University of Gastronomic Sciences [12], a government-backed international research and education centre for the renewal of farming methods, the protection of biodiversity, and the development of an organic relationship between gastronomy and agricultural science;

•

Slow Food International [13], the Italian-based globally influential eco-gastronomic network which campaigns for good, clean, fair and GM-free food and farming with 100,000 members in 132 countries - whose founder Carlo Petrini was described by the UK's Guardian newspaper as one of the "50 people who could save the planet."

USDA wrong about the facts

The USDA report describes a Eurobarometer survey from 2005 as "the most recent data" on EU public opinion towards agricultural biotechnology, and claims that 65% of Italians "support biotechnology".

In reality, Eurobarometer's most recent survey on GMOs was published in 2008: it found that 58% of Europeans - incuding 55% of Italians - are "personally opposed" to GM food and farming, while only 21% support their use [14]. 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. [14]

The report's claim that most Italians "support biotechnology" is also misleading, because the vast majority of Europeans have no objection to non-GM biotechnology applications such as Marker Assisted Selection (MAS) of beneficial crop traits, and the production of insulin and other medicines from the contained use of GM bacteria in sealed vats in biosecure laboratories. No objection to these forms of biotech does not indicate support for GM crops!

Vatican not in favour of GMOs

The USDA's claim that the Vatican is a "'vocal advocate' of GM crops as a way of easing hunger in Africa" is sheer propaganda that was first disseminated after GM industry-funded scientists infiltrated an organisation called the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in a failed attempt to convice the Vatican to endorse GM farming in 2009. [15]

Unless its diplomats are utter idiots, the USDA and the US embassy in Rome must surely know that the Pontifical Academy does not represent the views of the Vatican. Vatican policy can only be declared by the Pope, the Secretary of State, or the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, and none of these bodies have ever given the Vatican's endorsement to GM food and farming.

Far from endorsing GMO's, Pope Benedict XVI has stated "The campaign to promote GM sowing, that pretends to grant food security [...] risks to ruin small farmers and to suppress their traditional crops, making them dependent on GM production companies" [16]. The Pope reiterated this view on 1 January 2010 when he expressed his support for "suitable strategies for rural development centred on small farmers and their families" [17]. The official Instrumentum Laboris (agenda) of the Synod of Bishops' Second Special Assembly for Africa held on 3-4 October 2009 makes this opposition to GM crops explicit:

"Farm workers, on whom a great part of the African economy depends, are victims of injustice in marketing their products. They are often paid a very low price for their goods. Paradoxically, in some parts of Africa, the cost is even set by the buyers themselves. Populations already suffering from a disadvantage are thereby further impoverished. The seeding campaign of proponents of Genetically Modified Food, which purports to give assurances for food safety, should not overlook the true problems of agriculture in Africa: the lack of cultivatable land, water, energy, access to credit, agricultural training, local markets, road infrastructures, etc. This campaign runs the risk of ruining small landholders, abolishing traditional methods of seeding and making farmers dependent on the production companies of OGM [i.e. GMOs]". [18]

Scientific evidence of GM health risks

The claim that "Doctors and academics may prove more effective advocates [for GMOs] than government or industry figures" reflects the US Government's ignorance of science.

Medical and scientific groups and NGOs which have raised the alarm over the health dangers of GM feed and food include the Committee for Independent Research and Information on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN), Consumers International, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the International Commission on the Future of Food and Agriculture, the Independent Science Panel on GM, the African Centre for Biosafety, the Indian Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology, the US Centre for Food Safety, the Canadian ETC Group, the British Institute of Science in Society, the German Foundation on Future Farming, the Norwegian Institute of Gene Ecology, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, GeneWatch, GM Watch, GM Free Cymru, GM-free Ireland, numerous other NGOs and university scientists around the world.

Despite suppression of scientific research and cover-ups by Monsanto and other agribiotech companies [19], at least 50 scientific papers have already reported on the health dangers of GM animal feed and food [20], including the hidden use of GM feed for the production of meat, poultry, eggs, fish and dairy produce that is still sold in the EU without a GM label to inform consumer choice [21]. As Prof Gilles-Eric Séralini of CRIIGEN points out, if the industry's secret risk assessment data on the health dangers of GMOs held by the European Food Safety Authority were made available for scientific peer review, all GM feed and food would be withdrawn from the market immediately. [22]

Timing

Why did the US Embassy release the USDA document at this time? Probably because the Italian Government is due to announce draft regulations to comply with a non-binding European Commission Recommendation on the so-called "co-existence" of GM crops at a State-Region conference in Rome on 28 January. According to an article published in La Stampa on 17 January [23], these regulations would allow the cultivation of GM crops in theory, subject to a host of conditions designed to discourage anyone from doing so in practice - including fines of up to €60,000 for illegal cultivation, and fines of up to €15,000 for anyone who fails to comply with the relevant guidelines, agreed "buffer zones", and the right to keep local areas of ecological and economic significance off-limits to GMOs. If the strategy goes ahead as planned, the regulations would require prior approval by the EC followed by ratification via Italy's 20 Regional Governments before coming into effect in 2011 or 2012.

But Italian farming, environment, and consumer groups who don't want any risk of GM contamination are already preparing a counter-attack.

References

1. "How to Influence Public Opinion about Agricultural Biotechnology", USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, GAIN report number IT1003, prepared by Cynthia Barmore, Rome Italy: http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/How%20to%20Influence%20EU%20
Public%20Opinion%20about%20Agricultural%20Biotechnology_Rome_Italy_1-11-2010.pdf

2. See Luca Zaia's profile on Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luca_Zaia and his website at http://www.lucazaia.it/en/.

Zaia refuses to allow GM field trials of GM crops in Italy. He has strongly criticised the EU Commission's recent approval of Syngenta's new GM maize, and stated that GMOs are "not the solution" to world hunger at the recent FAO summit http://www.lucazaia.it/en/index.php?newsId=c4b7dc8a178bf07e992f312628a3487c&page=1. The author of the USDA report, Ms. Blackmore, can not have been unaware of Minister Zaia's anti-GM policy, since it was reported by her own USDA Foreign Agricultural Service GAIN report "Agricultural News for Italy and the EU" of 12 January 2010: http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Agricultural%20News%20for%20Italy
%20and%20the%20EU%20-%20December%202009_Rome_Italy_1-12-2010.pdf.

3. "Waiting for G8: Farmers union, Zaia to speculators: keep your hands off agriculture", 19 March 2009: http://www.lucazaia.it/en/index.php?newsId=2575f31deee3042f5d3cdf0b46166de1&page=2

4. For details of GM free zones in Italy, see http://www.gmo-free-regions.org/gmo-free-regions/italy.html

5. Coldiretti http://www.coldiretti.it

6. CoopItalia http://www.e-coop.it adopted a GM-free policy in 1997 and uses its own "NO OGM" GM-free label. Its policy "OGM in agricoltura. Le ragioni di chi dice NO. (GMOs in agriculture : Reason says NO) states that CoopItalia banned GMOs from its own-brand products in 1998, and monitors its GM-free guarantee via two independent certification bodies.

7. BovinMarche http://www.bovinmarche.it

8. Amadori http://www.amadori.it/_vti_g2_home.asp?rpstry=14

9. Fileni http://www.fileni.it The company's policy states: "Our label clarifies one of the issues that most preoccupies consumers: None of our chickens or turkeys was fed on GM feedstuffs."

10. ItaliaEuropa Liberi da OGM http://www.liberidaogm.org. Members include Acli, Adiconsum, Adoc, Adusbef, Agci Agrital, Aiab, Alpa, Assocap, Avis, Cia, Cic, Città del Vino, Cna, Codacons, Coldiretti, Confartigianato, Consorzio del Parmigiano Reggiano, Coop, Copagri, Fedagri, Federconsumatori, Focsiv, Fondazione Diritti Genetici, Greenpeace, Legacoop Agroalimentare, Legambiente, Libera, Res Tipica, Slow Food Italia, Unci, Vas, and WWF.

ItaliaEuropa leaflet (in English):
http://www.gmo-free-regions.org/fileadmin/files/gmo-free-regions/italia_europa_leaflet.pdf

11. Description of the National Consultation:
http://www.gmo-free-regions.org/fileadmin/_temp_/italia_europa_description.pdf

Responsible Science for Sustainable Food appeal:
http://www.gmo-free-regions.org/fileadmin/files/gmo-free-regions/italia_europe_science_appeal.pdf

12. "I valori dell'agroalimentare italiano", (Values of Italian agri-food sector), report on a survey of 1,600 Italian households in October 2009: http://multimedia.coldiretti.it/Raccolta%20Documenti%20Forum%20Cernobbio%202009/Rapporto%20Coldiretti-Swg2009.ppt, PowerPoint presentation by Coldiretti at the VIII International Forum of agriculture and feeding, 16-17 October 2009, Villa D'Este, Cernobbio, Italy http://multimedia.coldiretti.it/Lists/Cernobbio/AllItems.aspx

12. The University of Gastronomic Sciences http://www.unisg.it/welcome_eng.lasso was founded in 2004 by Slow Food (see below) in cooperation with the Italian regions of Piedmonte and Emilia-Romagna. It is a ministerially recognized, private non-profit international research and education centre for those working on renewing farming methods, protecting biodiversity, and building an organic relationship between gastronomy and agricultural science.

13. Slow Food International http://www.slowfood.com/ is also the organiser of the Terra Madre Network http://www.terramadre.info which comprises 250 universities and research centres, including 450 individual academics throughout the world collaborating to protect and support small food producers, and to change the systems that put them in danger by bringing together those players with decision-making power: consumers, educational institutions, chefs and cooks, agricultural research entities, NGOs, etc.

14: "Special Eurobarometer 295: Attitudes of European Citizens toward the Environment" (published in March 2008): http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_295_en.pdf. Extract: "The majority of Europeans declare that they are opposed to the use of GMOs (58%) while around a fifth (21%) supports their use. A further 9% say they have never heard of GMOs. At country level we see that the absolute majority in most countries are opposed to the use of GMOs. This is particularly the case in Slovenia (82%) and Cyprus (81%). Respondents in Malta, Portugal and Spain hold the mildest opinions in this respect which is mainly explained by the high share of respondents in these countries spontaneously admitting that they have never heard of the concept or do not form an opinion for or against."

15. As the US National Catholic Reporter points out, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences is "a think tank that does not issue authoritative church teaching" http://ncronline.org/news/ecology/vatican-studies-genetically-modified-crops. In May 2009, the Academy organised a study week in the Vatican on the theme "Transgenic Plants for Food Security in the Context of Development." According to the UK watchdog group Spinwatch, the event was a "charade by vested interests" and a total farce", whose speakers are "all GMO supporters, with many well known for their extreme pro-GMO views or having vested interests in GMO adoption." A May 13 release from the group asserts that several speakers have financial ties to Monsanto, an American agricultural company that is the world's largest producer of genetically engineered seed: http://www.spinwatch.org/-articles-by-category-mainmenu-8/46-gm-industry/5283-spinwatch-condemns-vatican-gm-event-as-a-charade-by-vested-interests

16. Statement by Pope Benedict XVII in "Instrumentum Laboris", quoted in "When biotech business undermines science: the case of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences", press release by Guido Pollice, President of Verdi Ambiente e Società, and Fabrizia Pratesi, coordinator of Comitato Scientifico Equivita, 13 May 2009: http://www.antivivisezione.it/Academy_ignores_message_of_Pope.htm

17. "Message of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI for the Celebration of the World Day of Peace, 1 January 2010": http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/peace/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20091208_xliii-world-day-peace_en.html

18. "Agenda (Instrumentum Laboris) for the Second Special Assembly for Africa of the Synod of Bishops", 3-4 October 2009: http://www.jctr.org.zm/downloads/2ndsynodInstrumentum%20Laboris.pdf

19. "Do Seed Companies Control GM Crop Research? Scientists must ask corporations for permission before publishing independent research on genetically modified crops. That restriction must end". Scientific American, Editorial, August 2009 edition, published 21 July 2009: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research

20. A useful check-list of scientific papers on the health dangers of GM feed and food can be found at http://www.gmfreeireland.org/health/studies.php

"Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods" by Jeffrey M. Smith Publisher: Yes! Books; hardcover; 336 pages;; available by mailorder from http://www.GeneticRoulette.com.

"Effects of GMOs and pesticides systematically underestimated CRIIGEN appeal to public authorities, July 2009" Committee for Independent Research and Genetic Engineering: http://www.criigen.org/images/stories/pressrelease-ijbs_080709.pdf

21. For info on the hidden use and dangers of GM animal feed, see the following:

Leaked memo from the US Deparment of Health & Human Services revealing concerns by the US Food and Drug Administration's Center for Veterinary Medicine that toxins from GM foods might bioaccumulate in farm animals, and the related lawsuit that forced the FDA to disclose some of its secret documents on the dangers of GMOs: http://biointegrity.org/list.html.

"Detection of Transgenic and Endogenous Plant DNA in Digesta and Tissues of Sheep and Pigs Fed Roundup Ready Canola Meal", Sharma, R. et al., J. Agric. Food Chem., Vol. 54, No. 5, 2006, pp. 1699-1709;

"Assessing the transfer of genetically modified DNA from feed to animal tissues", Mazza, R. et al., Transgenic Res., Vol. 14, No. 5, 2005, pp. 775-784.

"Detection of genetically modified DNA sequences in milk from the Italian market", Agodi, A., et al., Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health, Vol. 209, 2006, pp. 81-88 .

22. "Three Major GMOs Approved for Food and Feed Found Unsafe". Press release, CRIIGEN - Committee of Research and Information on Genetic Engineering [France], 11 December 2009: http://www.criigen.org/images/stories/pressrelease-3ogm-ijbs_1209.pdf

"A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health", Int J Biol Sci 2009; 5(7), 706-726: http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.pdf

"New Report highlights Monsanto's corrupt science in GM canola [oilseed rape] assessment", Dr Brian John, GM Free Cymru [Wales, UK], 14 January 2010: http://www.gmfreecymru.org/pivotal_papers/canola.html

23. "L'Italia sdogana gli Ogm - Stato e Regioni verso l'ok alle coltivazioni di mais modificato - Consumatori all'attacco: ci mobiliremo per fermare l'intesa; by Luca Fornovo, La Stampa, 17 January 2010. You can download the article in Italian from http://www.gmfreeireland.org/coexistence/italy/lastampa-7gen2010-coesistenza.pdf

Monsanto-Funded Research Echoes Organic Center's "Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use..." Report, Concluding that Glyphosate-Resistant Weeds Threaten Future of Herbicide-Tolerant, Genetically Engineered Crops

The Organic Center [USA], 18 January 2010:
http://www.organic-center.org/news.pr.php?action=detail&pressrelease_id=30

BOULDER, CO - A new study entitled "Gene amplification confers glyphosate resistance in Amaranthus palmeri" from a research team including Monsanto scientists Dafu Wang and Douglas Sammons echoes conclusions from The Organic Center (TOC) report "Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use in the United States: The First Thirteen Years". Published in Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) in December 2009, the Monsanto-funded research states that "evolution of resistance to the widely used, nonselective herbicide glyphosate in weedy species endangers the continued success of transgenic glyphosate-resistant crops and the sustainability of glyphosate as the world's most important herbicide."

Similarly, TOC's report demonstrates compelling evidence linking the increase in herbicide use on GE, herbicide-tolerant (HT) crops to the emergence and spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds including Amaranthus palmeri. Based upon data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), report author Dr. Charles Benbrook shows that glyphosate-based, HT corn, soybeans and cotton have increased herbicide use by 383 million pounds in the U.S. from 1996 to 2008 with 46 percent of the total increase occurring in 2007 and 2008.

"This unequivocal admission of serious problems with glyphosate-based HT cropping systems will hopefully accelerate major changes in where and how HT technology is deployed," said Dr. Charles Benbrook, chief scientist of The Organic Center. "Such changes are needed to slow the increase in cash expenditures by farmers on herbicides and public health and environmental problems triggered by increased use of herbicides on GE crops."

In statements to the media in reaction to TOC's "Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use in the U.S." report, Monsanto representatives have disputed the severity of the resistance-driven crisis facing glyphosate-based HT crops. In an article appearing in Peoria's Journal Star titled "Attack of the Superweeds," Monsanto spokesperson Darren Wallis was quoted as saying, "We've identified only a small number of Roundup Ready resistant weeds - 12. Roundup has been around for many decades and still controls over 300 weeds."

To view a full version of The Organic Center's "Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use in the United States: The First Thirteen Years", visit http://www.organic-center.org/science.pest.php?action=view&report_id=159.

To view a full version of "Gene amplification confers glyphosate resistance in Amaranthus palmeri", visit http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/12/10/0906649107

About The Organic Center

The Organic Center's unique mission is to advance scientific research on the health and environmental benefits of organic foods, and to communicate those benefits to the public. As an independent nonprofit 501(c)(3) research and education organization, we envision improved health for the earth and its inhabitants through conversion of agriculture to organic methods. All of The Organic Center's research reports, publications, consumer guides and videos are available free of charge on our website, www.organic-center.org.

For more information contact:

Dr. Charles Benbrook
cbenbrook@organic-center.org
Phone: 541.828.7918

Mia Herron
mia@neighboragency.com
Phone: 310.526.1340

17 January 2010

Hop over here, Flopsy Bunny, stroke victims need your milk

Lois Rogers
The Times [UK], 17 January 2010:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/medicine/article6991031.ece

[Photo caption: The rabbits have been genetically modified to include a human gene]

SCIENTISTS are creating herds of dairy rabbits to exploit the medical benefits of their milk. The first commercial milking of rabbits, using specially adapted eight-teat machines, is already taking place at a farm in Holland.

The rabbits have been genetically modified to include a human gene, which means their milk contains a protein called C1 inhibitor. C1 helps control inflammation in the body, and a lack of it can be highly damaging.

The milk protein is intended to prevent the rejection of transplant organs and tissue damage in survivors of strokes and heart attacks, as well as helping car crash victims who have suffered traumatic bruising to internal organs.

C1 can be harvested from human blood and other animal sources, but is expensive to obtain and carries the risk of contamination and infection with viruses such as Aids or CJD, the human version of "mad cow disease". Such issues do not arise with milk from the high-tech rabbit farm.

The milk could also help to treat the hereditary immune disorder angioedema. The condition, partly caused by a lack of C1, affects 2,000 people in Britain. So far 200 patients have taken part in trials for Rhucin, a treatment derived from the rabbit milk. It is awaiting approval from European drug regulators and will be launched in the UK later this year.

Hilary Longhurst, an immunologist at Barts hospital in London, said: "I am really excited. This therapy will transform the lives of sufferers."

Further farms are expected to open to meet demand.

Sijmen de Vries, the chief executive of Pharming, the biotech company behind the project, said: "There is a great unmet need for this product. We have the capacity to produce it cheaply in unlimited quantities." A contented New Zealand white rabbit can produce 140ml a day.

"The rabbits are highly productive and reproductive," added de Vries.

Geoghegan-Quinn's 'confident' policy views lead to coalition tension

Niamh Connolly Political Correspondent
Sunday Business Post [Ireland], 17 January 2010:
http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2010/01/17/story46809.asp

Tensions have arisen between the Green Party and [the centre-right] Fianna Fáil following the confirmation hearings for Ireland's new EU commissioner, Máire Geoghegan Quinn, at which she endorsed practices such as nuclear research and genetically modified crops.

Geoghegan-Quinn's performance at the hearings last Wednesday was described as "confident" by MEPs, but her policy positions have clashed with some Green Party views. A spokesman for Geoghegan Quinn, who is to take up the research and innovation portfolio in the commission, said: "There are no ifs or buts when it comes to the specific research policies that will be pursued over the next five years by commissioner-designate Máire Geoghegan Quinn, in both the nuclear and the biotechnological sectors in Europe.

"Let me be very clear and unequivocal about the policy position that will be pursued:

she will fully implement the existing European policy that deals with nuclear research.

"She also supports the EU policy to invest in research issues concerning nuclear fusion, which is not yet developed in the world as a possible future energy source."

The spokesman said that "boosting the biotechnological sector will be a central component" of Geoghegan-Quinn's work to improve Europe's competitiveness in relation to global players such as China and India. "Commissioner designate Máire Geoghegan Quinn fully supports strengthening the biotechnology sector in Europe," he said.

The Green Party is opposed to biotechnology research into genetically modified crops and has called for a GM-free Europe. The differing views could raise questions about whether there will be a role for Green Party senator Déirdre de Búrca in Geoghegan Quinn's cabinet.

Geoghegan-Quinn is not due to announce her cabinet until after the parliament votes on the new commissioners on January 26. De Búrca declined to comment on speculation about a post.

---

Comment from GM-free Ireland:

If Geoghegan-Quinn supports GM food and farming, rather than other applications of biotechnology as implied in the above article, she is in clear violation of the GM-free policy agreed by Fianna Fáil and the Green Party, as stated 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_Government,_October_2009.pdf).

The policy clearly states that the Government will "Declare the Republic of Ireland a GM-Free 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."

There is big trouble ahead!

American Feast Founder Calls for Labeling of GM Foods

Earth Times [USA], 17 January 2010:
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/american-feast-founder-calls-
for-labeling-of-gm-foods,1122898.shtml

In a statement released today, the founder of AmericanFeast.com, a leading food web site, called for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to require the labeling of genetically-modified foods so American consumers can make informed choices at the market.

NEW YORK -- "When polled, consumers have made it clear that they want GM (genetically-modified) foods labeled as such. It's time for the government they elected to listen to them," said Jeff Deasy, founder and president of American Feast.

The company's opposition to GM foods is nothing new. In February of 2009, American Feast joined with OrganicValley and more than 70 companies in pledging not to use or sell genetically modified beet sugar. In September, a federal judge ruled that the government failed to adequately assess the environmental impacts of genetically engineered sugar beets before approving the crop for cultivation in the U.S.

In May of 2009, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine called on "Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM (genetically modified) foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks."

Doctors are already prescribing GM-free diets. Dr. Amy Dean, a Michigan internal medicine specialist, and board member of AAEM says, "I strongly recommend patients eat strictly non-genetically modified foods." Ohio allergist Dr. John Boyles says "I used to test for soy allergies all the time, but now that soy is genetically engineered, it is so dangerous that I tell people never to eat it."

Deasy explained, "As a business, we believe being advocates for a healthier and more sustainable food supply makes us a better company. We think consumers should get to decide whether or not to eat genetically-modified food, and they have good reason to question whether the safety of GM foods has been adequately tested."

Dr. John Salerno and Linda West Eckhardt, the James Beard Award winning cookbook author, who co-authored "The Silver Cloud Diet e-book," added, "The need for labeling is overdue. Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food and people need the labels to avoid eating them."

Elise Pearlstein, producer of the documentary film "Food Inc.", has said, "It's outrageous that genetically modified foods don't need to be labeled... Whatever your position, you should have the right to make informed choices, and we don't."

As for the claim that GM foods are needed to feed a hungry world, Doug Gurian-Sherman, a senior scientist in the Union of Concerned Scientists Food and Environment Program has concluded "...that GE (genetic engineering) has done little to increase overall crop yields." And a major study conducted at the University of Kansas has found that the controversial technology actually reduces crop yields.

"By speaking up, we are hoping others will feel empowered to speak their minds and the FDA will be compelled to act," said Deasy.

With the leading sustainable food site on the web, American Feast offers some of America's finest specialty foods, and informative and entertaining content. It combines those elements with advocacy for a healthier and more sustainable food system.

Website: http://www.americanfeast.com/home.php

16 January 2010

A matter of survival
• Pioneering ecologist Stewart Brand tells Suzanne Harrington why we need to embrace nuclear power and genetically modified food as a means of saving humanity from destruction

Irish Examiner (Weekend), 16 January 2010:
http://www.irishexaminer.com

[Excerpt]

Genetic engineering

And then there's the food question. That environmentalists have traditionally been against genetic modification angers Brand. "The environmental movement has done more harm with its opposition to genetic engineering than with any other thing we've been wrong about," he says. "We've starved people, hindered science, hurt that natural environment and denied our own practitioners a crucial tool." He compares it to the nuclear debate, in which those who know the most are the least frightened.

He dismisses claims that transgenic crops and plants 'meddle' with nature, citing agriculture - that is turning areas of biodiversity into man-made rectangles producing acres of identical crops - as the most meddlesome of all. "To an ecologist, agricuture is a disaster. The less of it the better," he says.

Our fear of genetic engineering is entrenched. Brand likens our cultural dismissal of 'Frankenfood' to the original Frankenstein, whom he says was "a misunderstood good guy, wrongly vilified by a fearful populace".

"The great ecological win with GE herbicide-tolerant crops is that they encourage no-till agriculture," says Brand. Farmers don't have to plow, which means last year's crop stubble turns to compost, rather than eroding away. "The result is a high yield crop and intact soil that grows in richness from year to year, full of life," he says.

"There are also major climate benefits. Soil holds more carbon that all living vegetation and the atmosphere put together. Tilling releases that carbon. Ploughed land is the source of gigatons of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but sustained no-till farming can bring the carbon content back to a level the equal of wildland soil. More and more GE agriculture is shifting to no-till." And it also saves the farmer time, money and fuel.

---

Comment from GM-free Ireland:

Brand is obviously clue-less about GM farming. His Note from GM Watch:

Biotech and nuclear lobbyists have latched on to the ageing hippie technophile Stewart Brand, one time editor of the Whole Earth Catalog, as their perfect spokesperson. And currently Brand's getting a slew of publicity with the publication of his new book Whole Earth Discipline.

Brand has never been short on hubris. "We are as gods", he wrote in the first Whole Earth Catalog, "and might as well get good at it." Even in those days Brand was pushing space colonies, and he claims that if he'd known about GMOs then, he'd have been more than in favour: "30 to 40 years ago I think I would have said to all the genetic engineering stuff - hot dog!" http://blog.cleantechies.com/2009/12/26/book-stewart-brand-whole-earth-nuclear-power/

These days getting good at being "gods" means not just GMOs, but nuclear power, geo-engineering and all the other quick techno-fixes that Brand vigorously promotes as the solutions to the climate, energy, and water crises. Brand also favours mass urbanization, glorifying the squalour of third-world squatter slums as the solution to poverty in the South.

Brand even seems comfortable with political dictatorship, if it's a question of a suitably informed elite holding the reins of power. Liberal democracy can not deliver the kind of future Brand considers necessary. He's a little coy about what should replace it but as Toronto Star journalist Cathal Kelly notes [in a related article], "I put it to Brand that he's advocating some sort of environmental dictatorship. 'China's headed in that direction,' he says approvingly."

When it comes to scepticism about GM, Brand claims, "We've starved people, hindered science, hurt the natural environment and denied our own practitioners a crucial tool." Brand by contrast, "gushes about the technology in a way that might raise a blush even in a spokesman for Monsanto," according to the science editor of the Financial Times. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/3719b9bc-0161-11df-8c54-00144feabdc0.html

Brand even thinks patents are no problem with GMOs, nor a factor in their rejection. He suggests instead that European opposition stems from French protectionism - a claim that may be music to the ears of North American agribiz lobbyists but appears laughable on this side of the Atlantic. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/652828ec-fbe0-11de-9c29-00144feab49a.html

Ironically, when it comes to promoting genetic revolutions, Brand himself is not without vested interests - his wife, Ryan Phelan, is founder and CEO of DNA Direct, a company working in the controversial area of marketing DNA tests to consumers.

Nano? No, no, no! A leading expert on organic farming warns against 'grey goo' technology

Peter Melchett, Policy Director of the Soil Association
Daily Mail [UK], 16 January 2010:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1243717/
Nano-No-no-A-leading-expert-organic-farming-warns-grey-goo-technology.html

Listening to Lord Krebs speak of 'low-calorie chocolate and beer that would never go flat' last week, one could be forgiven for feeling a sense of déjà vu.

These were just some of the wonders that the former head of the Food Standards Agency informed us one could look forward to with the 'explosive growth' of the use of nanotechnology - dubbed 'grey goo' when it was first condemned by Prince Charles - in our food industry.

Not that the average consumer will be aware of the presence of these nanoparticles. Delivering the House of Lords' Select Committee on Science and Technology's report on nanotechnology, Lord Krebs said he and other peers see no requirement for products containing these microscopic compounds to be labelled.

Nanotechnology involves whittling common materials down to the size of microscopic particles, allowing them to acquire unusual properties. Nanofood is food in which nanotechnology is used during its cultivation, production, processing or packaging. The techniques can be employed to reduce fat, salt or sugar levels, enrich food with supplements or sometimes extend a product's shelf-life.

We have stood on the brink of this 'brave new world' of food technology before, when turkey twizzlers seemed the last word in sophistication and the future was full of the endless, still unfulfilled promises of the GM industry.

And it is a vision that has been rejected - vociferously - before, not least by leading scientists who advised the Government that the release of nanoparticles should be, 'avoided as far as possible'.

As consumers we have already made our feelings known. Thanks in part to this paper's campaigning, GM has been kept out of British food. As a nation, our whole approach to food has moved steadily away from the laboratory to the allotment.

There is growing support for local and seasonal food; food with no, or fewer, pesticides and additives; a desire to know who produced our food, how it was grown or reared and what, if anything, artificial it contains through clear labelling.

Yet still Lord Krebs believes that nanotech has a vital role to play in making our food 'healthier and tastier' and that the food industry's job is to make sure the public accepts a 'technology that is coming down the tracks'.

The truth is that there is little scientific understanding about how these substances affect living organisms, and initial studies show negative effects. Which is precisely why the select committee's report must be used as a chance to review what we do, and what we do not, know about it.

That alone should be enough to convince most people that there is no place for nanoparticles in health and beauty products or food.

Giving evidence to the Lords committee, Vyvyan Howard, Professor of Bio-imaging at the University of Ulster, said that when materials are converted into artificially-small, mobile nanoparticles, they become more mobile within the body. Nanoparticles can get through cell walls in the same way viruses do.

Most worryingly, research has demonstrated that if you expose animals or humans to nanoparticles, the particles can travel through the body, crossing things such as the blood-brain barrier which has evolved to keep molecules that we do not want out of our brains. In this way, Professor Howard says, nanoparticles can act as a Trojan horse, allowing potentially damaging chemicals into vulnerable areas of our bodies.

It is not too alarmist to suggest that the consequences could be fatal. There is a series of diseases called 'protein misfolding diseases', mostly occurring in the central nervous system, including Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and spongiform encephalopathy.

If we are exposed to large doses of nanomaterials, and they are able to get into areas like the brain, Prof Howard believes they might be able to increase the rate of protein misfolding diseases.

There is now, he says, 'firm evidence that some engineered nanoparticles entering intravenously or via lungs can reach the brains of small animals'. That alone should be enough to convince us that there is no place for nanoparticles in health and beauty products or food.

Indeed, last year we learned that nanoparticles added to sun creams are being investigated for just such links. Of the £5.5billion invested in nanotechnology globally each year, much goes into the development of cosmetics and health products.

In spite of this danger, we are being asked to accept their use in our foods. It should be quite clear, as Prof Howard stated, that 'when something is brand new. . . like some of the chemicals that we have created that bio-accumulate and persist and that have hormone-disrupting capabilities - you have to take a precautionary stance'.

The Government's failure to follow scientific advice and regulate nanotech products is inexcusably negligent.

While the UK Government turns a blind eye to the risks, the European Commission is reviewing EU laws that control the use of nanoparticles to ensure regulations are strong enough to cope with their unusual properties.

But although the risks are known, and have been widely acknowledged by the most eminent scientific bodies, the Washington-based Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies has found that there are currently 84 foods or food-related products that use nanotechnology.

The food industry says none is manufactured in the UK, but with no labelling required, we simply cannot know. We may already be eating them - as the Lords committee admits, 'we are not clear what is out there in use at the moment'.

Five years ago, when top scientists advised in the strongest possible terms to avoid the use of nanoparticles, the Government acknowledged the risk but took no action.

Two years ago, the Soil Association banned the use of man-made nanomaterials from all our certified organic health and beauty products and textiles, as well as organic food. We are the first organisation in the world to take this action to safeguard public health.

I am well aware that the usual reaction to pleas for caution, for putting public safety first, is that public interest groups are anti-technology Luddites. But it isn't progress that we are against, nor science. The very basis for our opposition is science.

It is the continued drive towards nanotechnology that is outdated. Scientists working for big food companies started developing their nanotech ideas many years ago. Then it was still possible to believe that the future of food would be high-tech, that fast food would soon simply involve swallowing a little pink pill.

Nanotech food was part of a nightmarish vision for the future of global farming and food. Some thought that GM and nanotechnology were the keys to overcoming the multiple problems of falling yields from artificial fertiliser and pesticide-laden crops, continuing hunger and starvation, obesity and an increasing scarcity of the raw materials, such as oil, on which nonorganic food depends.

Food would be brewed in vast vats using GM ingredients, with added nanotech nutrients and vitamins. Scientists believed that the world could continue dramatic increases in dairy and meat consumption, even if the milk and steaks of the future actually came from laboratories, not cows.

Indeed, this vision relies on the greatest possible disconnection between farming and the public. That is why GM companies like Monsanto consistently oppose labelling of GM food, and why the Lords' report says that while consumers can expect to have access to information about the food they eat, 'blanket labelling of nanomaterials on packages is not, in our view, the right approach to providing information about the application of nanotechnologies'.

Thankfully, over the 20 years in which nanotech food has been on the drawing board, our food culture has started to change. No one wants a pharmaceutical approach to meals; that has been replaced by a desire for Fairtrade coffee, cereal and toast for breakfast. Most people value food that we grow or buy fresh, prepare ourselves and take time to eat with our friends of family. Nanotechnology is no longer a bold step forward, it is entirely retrograde.

The Soil Association is proud of its record for speaking up for the public good. We banned feeding cows' brains to other cows because it felt wrong to us, even though there was no scientific evidence to back our concern at the time. Many years later Mad Cow Disease was identified. We banned GM because of clear scientific uncertainties and risks and because it conflicts with organic values. All the recent evidence shows that there is a much greater health risk with GM foods than some scientist originally claimed.

We already know that this is the case with nanotechnology. In this the public's gut instincts are right and should be heeded.

15 January 2010

Are Genetically Modified Foods Safe?

Sylvia Booth Hubbard
NewsMaxHealth.com, 15 January 2010:
http://www.newsmaxhealth.com/headline_health/genetically_modified_food/
2010/01/15/308880.html?s=al&promo_code=9566-1

Genetically modified foods have come to your local supermarket, even though most Americans don't want them and many believe they're dangerous. A CBS poll found that 53 percent of Americans wouldn't buy food they knew had been genetically modified. But here's the rub - there's no easy way to know which foods contain genetically modified ingredients.

Genetically modified foods are made by inserting genes from another species into a food's DNA. About 60 to 70 percent of products on grocery store shelves contain at least one genetically engineered element. These foods include corn, strawberries, tomatoes, lettuce, potatoes, soybean, and canola.

The public is generally unaware when they purchase genetically modified foods (called GM or GMO, short for genetically modified organism) since manufacturers and producers aren't required to disclose the information on labels. The European Union, Japan, China, Korea, Australia, and New Zealand require GMO foods to be labeled. And despite a CBS News poll that showed a majority of Americans want labeling, no such laws exist.

Many experts as well as concerned customers want to know if GMO foods are safe. A few troubling reports have been released. A study published in the International Journal of Biological Sciences revealed the parameters of 60 different biochemicals in rats. Rats fed genetically modified corn were compared to their parents who had been fed non-GM corn. The results clearly showed a difference between the two groups. Rats fed GM food had signs of liver and kidney problems. Effects were also found on the heart, adrenal glands, and spleen.

According to PhysOrg.com, a Russian study found that 55.6 percent of the newborns of female rats fed genetically engineered soy flour before, during, and after pregnancy, died within three weeks. Only 9 percent of the offspring of rats fed non-GM soy died. In addition, 36 percent of the rats in the GM-fed group were underweight, compared with only 6.7 percent of the control group. In another study, groups of rats were fed GM tomatoes for 28 days. Seven of 20 developed bleeding stomachs, and seven out of a group of 40 rats died within two weeks.

Opponents fear GM foods could:

•

Trigger the emergence of new diseases due to the use of viruses and bacteria to modify some GM foods. These new diseases could be resistant to antibiotics.

•

Raise the risk of developing cancer

•

Trigger food allergies as a result of a food that causes allergies in some people being placed in another organism

•

Harm the ecosystem by removing a pest that could be an important source of food for another animal

•

Be toxic to an organism and lead to its extinction

Proponents of GM foods say benefits include:

•

Higher crop yields to feed a hungry world

•

Higher profits because GM foods need fewer herbicides and insecticides

•

Longer shelf life

•

The ability to withstand wider fluctuations in climate

•

Overall higher levels of nutrients as well as the ability to be created with higher contents of specific nutrients

Another Option

•

If you'd rather not eat genetically modified foods, you can take the following steps to avoid them:

•

Look for foods labeled "100 percent organic."

•

Read fruit and vegetable numbers on the produce sticker. Five-digit numbers beginning with an eight mean it is a GM food. Five-digit numbers beginning with a nine indicate organic foods. Conventionally produced foods have numbers containing four digits.

•

Hunt for products that are labeled GM-free.

•

Buy from small, local farmers. Most GM foods come from large commercial farms.

•

Avoid processed foods

Comment from TraceConsult™

This is a conservative mainstream source talking to mainstream America - and this time we are convinced Monsanto will be concerned that this may lead to something more serious!

In our December 15 Comment on an investigation conducted recently by the Associated Press we felt that in the end Monsanto would not have to be overly concerned about the antitrust violations the company is accused of lately. In this case, however, we see things differently. If this conservative online magazine with millions of readers that has "become the 'most influential Republican-leaning media outlet' in the nation", according to a prominent political analyst, raises the central GMO question totally unabashed whether GM food is safe then a major watershed has been crossed in this issue.

GMO opponents and proponents are each granted five arguments and practical ways to avoid GM food are included. Even some special links are thrown in at the bottom. Our highlighting in the article below may make you wonder whether American consumers are supposed to get beamed onto the level of their European counterparts literally overnight.

If this isn't a way to make U.S. consumers become aware of the issue they have been skillfully shielded from for the past 14 years then we don't know what is! Our readers may wish to Google for founders, supporters and well-speakers of Newsmax.com. Should conservative America have begun to choke on GM food???

Let's keep on the lookout for the backlash from the world's leading life science company.

A Troubling Scientific Finding Targets Top Holding in Agribusiness ETF

SeekingAlpha.com [USA], 15 January 2010:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/
182812-a-troubling-scientific-finding-targets-top-holding-in-agribusiness-etf

The troubling results found in a new scientific paper may send the Market Vectors Agribusiness ETF (MOO) down a rocky ride in the near future.

This week a report by three French scientists, published in the International Journal of Biological Sciences, came to light, highlighting serious health risks associated with the consumption of Monsanto's (MON) genetically engineered corn. In the study, the researchers found that the modified crop was linked to organ damage in rats.

Monsanto is the third largest holding in MOO, accounting for nearly 8% of the total portfolio.

Monsanto immediately offered a rebuttal on its website, discounting the quality of the study's methods. During Wednesday trading, when the news was announced, the firm's shares gained 0.4%.

Although the disturbing news appeared to center only on Monsanto's corn, there is a possibility that other firms may soon come under the microscope. While unearthing the risks of genetically modified foods is ultimately beneficial for the health of the consumer, firms responsible for producing any products found dangerous will likely take a hit.

Other top holdings in MOO include Wilmar International, Mosaic (MOS), Syngenta (SYT) Potash of Saskatchewan (POT), and Deere (DE).

While the odds are slim that this scandal will escalate into something that harms MON to the extent that MOO is harmed also, investors should be aware of this risk. As an alternative to investing in agribusiness via MOO, investors that anticipate a rise in agricultural commodity prices should consider PowerShares DB Agriculture Fund (DBA).

This fund tracks an index of some of the most widely traded agricultural commodities such as sugar, corn, wheat, soybeans, and live cattle.

Supreme Cout to Hear First Genetically Engineered Crop Case
• Monsanto Takes Center for Food Safety Legal Victory to Highest Court

Center for Food Safety [USA], 15 January 2010:
http://truefoodnow.org/2010/01/15/supreme-court-to-hear-first-genetically-engineered-crop-case/#more-849

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to hear a first-time case about the risks of genetically engineered crops. Named Monsanto v. Geertson Seed Farms, No. 09-475, the case before the high court will be yet another step in an ongoing battle waged by the Center for Food Safety to protect consumers and the environment from potentially harmful effects of genetically engineered (GE) crops.

The modified alfalfa seed at the heart of the dispute has been engineered to be immune to Monsanto's flagship herbicide Roundup. Monsanto intervened in a 2007 federal district court ruling that the Department of Agriculture's approval of GE alfalfa was illegal. The Center for Food Safety (CFS) filed a 2006 lawsuit on behalf of a coalition of non-profits and farmers who wished to retain the choice to plant non-GE alfalfa. CFS was victorious in this case - in addition CFS has won two appeals by Monsanto in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: in 2008 and again in 2009. Now, upon Monsanto's insistence, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case.

"This is truly a 'David versus Goliath' struggle, between public interest non-profits and a corporation bent on nothing less than domination of our food system," said Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety. "That Monsanto has pushed this case all the way to the Supreme Court, even though USDA's court-ordered analysis is now complete, and the U.S. government actively opposed further litigation in this matter, underscores the great lengths that Monsanto will go to further its mission of patent control of our food system and selling more pesticides."

The federal district court required the Department of Agriculture to undertake an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) assessing the impacts of the crop on the environment and on farmers; the first time the U.S. government had ever undertaken such analysis for any GE crop. The court permitted farmers that had already planted to continue, but halted any further planting pending the agency's re-assessment. That the EIS was required is not in dispute; the legal issue is only the scope of relief while USDA analyzed the impacts of the crop for the first time.

In October 2009 Monsanto asked the Supreme Court to hear further arguments. In response, the Center and the U.S. government separately opposed that request the following December. USDA completed the first draft of the EIS in December 2009.

"Although we believe a further hearing is unnecessary, we are confident we will again prevail, as the lower courts have already three times determined," continued Kimbrell. "We hope that this grand stage will further inform the public, policymakers and the media about the significant risks of genetically engineered crops and the vital need to protect farmers and the environment."

Alfalfa is the fourth most widely grown crop in the U.S. and a key source of dairy forage. It is the first perennial crop to be genetically engineered. It is open-pollinated by bees, which can cross-pollinate at distances of several miles, spreading the patented, foreign DNA to conventional and organic crops. Such biological contamination threatens the livelihood of organic farmers and dairies, since the U.S. Organic standard prohibits genetic engineering, and alfalfa exporters, since most overseas governments also reject GE-contaminated crops.

"We trust the Supreme Court will uphold farmers right to choose their crop of choice and protect us from the constant fear of contamination from GE crops," said Phil Geertson, an alfalfa farmer based in Idaho.

Related:

A 2009 study [http://truefoodnow.org/2009/11/17/new-report-reveals-dramatic-rise-in-pesticide-use-on-genetically-engineered-ge-crops-due-to-the-spread-of-resistant-weeds/] showed that the use of genetically modified crops, the vast majority Monsanto's "roundup ready" crops, has caused over the last 13 years a dramatic increase in herbicide use, by 383 million pounds, and concomitant harms to the environment and human health.

The U.S. Department of Justice has undertaken an investigation [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/08/business/main5372772.shtml] of Monsanto regarding violations of anti-trust and monopoly laws and is set to hold public hearings in spring 2010.

Another 2009 study [http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/science/failure-to-yield.html] showed that, despite decades of promises and hype, GE crops do not increase yields.

EU's agriculture nominee: no more concessions on Doha round

Earth Times [USA], 15 January 2010:
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/303915,eus-agriculture-nominee-no-more-concessions-on-doha-round.html

Brussels - The EU's prospective agriculture commissioner said on Friday that the bloc is not prepared to give further concessions in negotiations over a new world trade deal, part of the so-called Doha Round. "I will be very tough on this (...) we can't go any further than we have gone," said Romania's Dacian Ciolos during a confirmation hearing in the European Parliament in Brussels.

The EU is often accused by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) of pricing out agri-food products from developing nations by subsidizing its own farmers with its Common Agriculture Policy (CAP).

The CAP is a system of agricultural subsidies and programmes that combines direct payments to farmers, price support mechanisms, import tariffs and quotas on certain goods from outside the EU.

Ciolos claimed that the bloc has done enough to address these concerns by offering better access to its internal market for developing nations' agriculture products. "Now we have to wait and see what our partners come up with," he added.

The reform of the CAP, which expires in 2013 in its current form, will be one of Ciolos' main tasks in his five years in office. If confirmed by the parliament, he promised to publish a paper on it "by the end of the year."

Ciolos was also questioned about genetically modified foods (GMOs), which some European governments have banned. "It's essential to give customers the choice if they want products with GMOs or not," he said, striking a neutral line.

He was also careful on the issue of whether the EU should ban the import of animal feeds with GMO content, simply claiming that "a solution will have to be found."

Ciolos, a conservative, was Romania's minister of agriculture from 2007 to 2008. Since his nomination as commissioner, he has been criticized for the mismanagement of EU agriculture funds that took place while he was in office.

He was not directly challenged over the issue in the initial part of his hearing, but in his introductory statement he did acknowledge that he was a minister "at a difficult time," and claimed to have "employed and expected professionalism and accountability in all the measures I took."

Under EU rules, each of the 26 designated commissioners has to attend a hearing before the parliament takes a vote of confidence in the whole body. Legislators cannot block single candidates, but they can threaten to veto the entire group unless certain nominees are replaced.

The parliament is expected to cast its vote on January 26, in order to allow the commission to take office on February 1. However, a row over the candidates put forward by Bulgaria and Slovakia risks delaying the procedure.

John DALLI European Parliament Hearing Report

New Europe, 15 January 2010:
http://www.neurope.eu/articles/John-DALLI--European-Parliament-Hearing-Report/98495.php

John Dalli
Health and Consumer Policy

Dalli clearly impressed MEP's, many of whom were waiting for someone to turn up with a clear vision and agenda. He made it clear that his priorities were the interests of citizens and he showed that he had the toughness required to tackle both industry and criminals. He said that his aim is to "empower the consumer" saying that "must be informed, so they can decide for themselves what is good or bad for them". He was pragmatic on how to achieve his ambitions. On the pharma package, he wanted to move very quickly on the non-controversial parts of the pharmaceutical package, including the proposals on falsified medicinal products and pharmacovigilance. He said counterfeit medicines are "not only a danger to consumers but also to innovation," adding that he will "work hard to make sure that the same controls which apply to the offline world also apply to the online one." The controversial part of the package, on information to patients, would have to be reassessed to "bring more patient perspective in the proposal". He did promised a reassessment of the draft directive, noting "there might be a harder demarcation between industry and advertising", something MEP's feel very strongly about.

On the cross-border healthcare, he would meet the Spanish health minister to "chart out a way on which understanding can be reached". Questioned on the suspected fragmentation of consumer protection rights in the new portfolios, Dalli pledged that "I am the consumer's guardian in the college". Dagmar Roth-Berendt (S&D) asked him to take up the fight against the member states that are reluctant to have an EU law on cross-border health care, asking, "Will you force them and kick them when this is needed?" Dalli replied, "I will be strong".

He had also briefed himself on the more controversial aspects of his job, but didn't want to announce anything specific on contentious areas like cloning, where he said hoped "that within one year we can come up with a report on how to tackle the cloning issue", which he would present to parliament. GMO's were another touchy issue, and he was cautious, stating that "the basis of our decisions is science", but that it would be "extra important to ensure that the advice given is independent". However, he was clear on animal hormones, stating that "Animals treated with hormones are not allowed to be imported to the EU" and he "would defend this position internationally".

He also pledged action on health determinants, such as obesity alcohol abuse and smoking and he thought the answer was in education, "Five years from here, I want to be remembered as the commissioner who brought the debate on a healthy lifestyle to the schools." He also said that education should start at the earliest possible age. By the end of the meeting Dalli had charmed the meeting and showed that a small island could produce politicians who could fill a large role in European politics and he won plaudits from MEP's across the political spectrum. l

World's largest agricultural exhibition begins amid controversy

The Local [Germany], 15 January 2010:
http://www.thelocal.de/national/20100115-24607.html

German Agriculture Minister Ilse Aigner and Berlin Mayor Klaus Wowereit on Friday opened the 75th International Green Week food and farming trade fair amid protests against genetically modified crops.

Almost 1,600 exhibitors from 56 countries are presenting their products and services at the 75th International Green Week, or Grüne Woche, where for ten days visitors can take a culinary world tour inside exhibition halls and sample some 100,000 specialities from five continents.

Aigner, who donned a dirndl, or a southern German folk dress, for the occasion, and praised the "sublime range" of food, flora and fauna on display.

But the tour of the grounds was interrupted by fresh protests from Greenpeace activists against genetically modified foods. A young man protesting the farming of genetically modified potatoes at Poland's exhibition stall was overpowered by fairground security and banned from the premises. The day before Greenpeace activists emptied two baskets of potatoes at Aigner's feet in response to the EU's decision to permit cultivation of the genetically modified potato variety, Amflora. The new government coalition agreement plans to put the cultivation of Amflora in Germany to a parliamentary vote.

As the festival opened, president of the National Union of Farmers (DBV) Gerd Sonnleitner also criticized the renewed price cuts in grocery retailers, calling it a "provocation," and alleging that "retailers are sinning against the common good."

Sonnleitner went on to say that while consumers benefit in the short-run, they can only expect negative consequences from the low prices in the long term. Productivity will decrease and dependence on exports will grow, he said.

Meanwhile Aigner appealed to consumers to be mindful of quality as well as prices. Groceries aren't just any product, she said, "but the means to sustain life."

Until the show ends on January 24, animal lovers will be able to view more than 11,000 domestic animals across the exhibition grounds. For a behind-the-scenes glimpse into the world of modern agricultural production, the "experience farm" returns this year as a major attraction. Organizers expect over 400,000 visitors.

U.S. Opens Inquiry Into Monsanto • Antitrust Enforcers Probe Business Practices Surrounding Biotech Soybean Seed

Scott Kilman and Thomas Catan
The Wall Street Journal [USA], 15 January 2010:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704363504575002742582725272.html?mod=WSJ_business_whatsNews

The U.S. Justice Department has opened a formal antitrust investigation into crop-biotechnology giant Monsanto Co. as it contends with the loss of patent protection on its blockbuster soybean in 2014.

Monsanto on Thursday received a formal demand from the Justice Department for information about the St. Louis company's business practices surrounding its Roundup Ready soybean, the nation's most popular genetically-modified crop.

Roughly 90% of all the soybeans grown in the U.S. contain a Monsanto gene that helps the plant survive dousing by Monsanto's Roundup weedkiller. Introduced in 1996, the Roundup Ready soybean ...

[Subscription only]

Justice Department turns up heat on Monsanto

Jeffrey Tomich
St. Louis Post-Dispatch [USA], 15 January 2010:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/business/stories.nsf/story/0AB12E29554D041C862576AC0006F910?OpenDocument

Antitrust enforcers have intensified their probe of Monsanto Co.'s dominance in genetically modified seeds, ordering the company to turn over information related to its Roundup Ready genetic trait in soybeans.

Monsanto disclosed Thursday that the Department of Justice issued a civil investigative demand, a formal request for information, which follows an informal probe begun by government lawyers last year. Company spokeswoman Kelli Powers declined to specify what information is being sought.

Creve Coeur-based Monsanto, the world's largest seed company, said it has provided access to millions of pages of documents and will continue to cooperate with the government.

"We believe our business practices are fair, pro-competitive and in compliance with the law," Monsanto Chief Deputy Counsel Scott Partridge said in a statement.

The Justice Department's probe of Monsanto coincides with claims by the company's chief rival, Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc., and other critics who say Monsanto's leading position in the multibillion-dollar biotech seed market and business practices are stifling innovation that could benefit farmers.

The Justice Department has shown an increasing interest in the genetically modified seed business, leading to this week's demand to Monsanto for additional information.

Thomas L. Greaney, a law professor at St. Louis University, said civil investigative demands like those received by Monsanto represent the second step in an antitrust investigation and are used by government lawyers to obtain specific documents, depositions and internal memoranda that the company wouldn't voluntarily hand over and that could be useful in preparing an antitrust case.

"They don't do it lightly," said Greaney, who spent 10 years at the Justice Department, including a stint as assistant chief in charge of antitrust matters in health care.

It does not suggest, however, that such a lawsuit is imminent, he said.

Thursday marked the first time the Justice Department has confirmed an investigation of possible anti-competitive practices in the seed industry. Department spokeswoman Gina Talamona declined to be more specific about the scope of the investigation or to name the companies involved.

However, Pioneer's parent, DuPont, acknowledged that it received a civil investigative demand from the Justice Department, spokesman Dan Turner said.

And two other big seed companies, Dow AgroSciences and Syngenta, have also spoken with the department regarding the probe, spokesmen said.

Peter Carstensen, a University of Wisconsin law professor who previously worked as a staff attorney at the Justice Department's Antitrust Division, said the government's demand for information is a sign that it has "ratcheted up its investigation" of Monsanto.

Carstensen is an expert witness for a farmer being sued by Monsanto and believes there's a valid antitrust argument to be made against the seed giant.

Still, the intersection of intellectual property rights and antitrust law makes any case a complex one that could be difficult for the government to prove in court.

"There are going to be some very hard legal questions with respect to how much right does Monsanto have to use its patent rights in a way that is exempt from antitrust review," he said.

Allegations by Monsanto's critics focus mainly on the company's biotech soybeans, which are genetically modified to resist Roundup and other glyphosate-based weed killers. The technology allows farmers to spray entire fields with herbicide without killing crops.

Today, the Roundup Ready genetic trait is found in more than 90 percent of the U.S. soybean crop, including seeds sold by DuPont's Pioneer unit and other competitors. Monsanto collects a technology fee for licensing the trait.

DuPont has complained to the government that its agricultural subsidiary Pioneer is not being allowed to develop seeds that combine Monsanto's patented Roundup Ready genetic trait with a separate Pioneer-developed trait for herbicide resistance.

"The ag biotech trait market is firmly in the grip of a single supplier, acting as a bottleneck to competition and choice," DuPont said in formal comments submitted Friday to the Justice Department.

The companies have waged a legal battle since last spring when Monsanto sued DuPont for patent infringement related to their licensing agreement. DuPont countersued weeks later, claiming that Monsanto is using anti-competitive tactics to preserve its market share. The case is pending in U.S. District Court in St. Louis.

Monsanto is currently trying to persuade seed companies to switch to its new, higher priced biotech soybean called Roundup Ready 2 Yield.

DuPont has alleged that Monsanto is trying to force independent seed companies and farmers to make the switch to eliminate the potential for competition from a generic alternative.

To diffuse criticism, Monsanto sent farm groups and seed companies a letter on Dec. 15 stating that farmers would be allowed to continue growing first-generation Roundup Ready soybeans after the herbicide resistance trait patent expires in 2014.

Monsanto said the Justice Department's demand for information seeks confirmation that it will follow through on that promise.

The Monsanto investigation is part of a broad look at the state of competition in agriculture by President Barack Obama's administration.

The Justice Department and Department of Agriculture last year announced a nationwide series of workshops in 2010 to hear farmers concerns.

The first session will be held in Iowa on March 12 and focus on issues related to row crops, including biotech seed.

Germany - Fear mongering and food marketing

Meat Trade News Daily [UK], 15 January 2010:
http://www.meattradenewsdaily.co.uk/news/150110/
germany___fear_mongering_and_food_marketing_.aspx

Lidl became the first major German supermarket chain which starts to sell a new GM-free dairy range under its own brand "Ein gutes Stück Heimat" "A good piece of home".

According to German media reports, all the products are produced from the Bavarian milk while the whole range consisted of fresh milk, butter, yogurts and cream. Greenpeace has already welcomed the decision of the German chain.

The company has said that the range will be expanded and implemented nationwide in the coming months.

The new products are manufactured exclusively from GM-free milk which processed in the Bavarian dairies. The company has already warned farmers who produce milk for the Lidl products not to use genetically modified feed and, according to preliminary, estimates nearly 250 producers will supply its milk to the chain.

Meanwhile the environmental group Greenpeace praised the Lidl's step and called to other retailers to follow the example of the German company and to stop using GM-components in their products.

Lidl is planning to roll out the range across Germany, as well as to further product categories outside dairy.

14 January 2010

Biofuel crops: Europe calls for urgent screening
• 'Invasive' biofuel crops require mitigation and buffer zones

Howard Hudson
New Science Journalism, 14 January 2010:
http://www.newsciencejournalism.net/index.php?news_articles/view/biofuel_crops_europe_calls_for_urgent_screening/

Biofuel crops will impact on biodiversity and natural ecosystems unless tightly controlled, says a panel of European experts.

In late 2009, the 'Standing Committee of the Council of Europe Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats' (known as the Bern Convention) made a recommendation on potentially invasive alien plants being used as biofuel crops (Recommendation 141, 2009). They warn that biofuel crops are able to escape as pests, and in so doing impact on native biodiversity. As rural communities plan to grow more biofuel crops, the likelihood of new and harmful 'invasions' will increase apace.

Therefore the Council of Europe made four recommendations, which are legally binding on member states:

1.

Avoid the use of biofuel crops already recognised as invasive;

2.

Carry out risk assessments for new species and genotypes;

3.

Monitor the spread of biofuel crops into natural habitats and their effects on native species;

4.

Mitigate the spread and impact on native biodiversity wherever biofuel crops escape cultivation.

These measures were prompted by a report submitted by ISPRA (the Italian Institute for Environmental Protection and Research, an agency of the Italian Ministry for the Environment). While recognising the growth in energy demand, linked to rising populations and the economic and environmental costs of fossil fuels, the report made a compelling case to farm biofuel crops in an environmentally sustainable manner. The case for controls

Several biofuel species share common traits with invasive, aggressive species, selected inter alia for their rapid growth, high seed production, and resistance to pests and diseases. The evidence is clear. Without these measures, escaped biofuel crops cause loss of native biodiversity and farmland functionality, with knock on effects on yield.

In addition, the current state of many farmlands facilitates the invasions. Changes to water and fire regimes, and abandonment of arable lands provide ideal 'vacant niches', especially where located beside massive quantities of vigorous biofuel crops. Screening, mitigation and buffer zones

It is therefore important, say the experts, to introduce pre-cultivation screening for each proposed genotype and region. Cultivation criteria to limit the dispersal and recruitment capacity of the invasive crops need to be introduced. Biological buffer zones between crop fields and natural vegetation are also key to limiting invasions. The more invasive the crop, the bigger the buffer zone.

In the long-term, biofuel crops with invasive traits need to be limited in number and scope, even if this affects the agronomic efficiency and financial bottom line. Complying with these Bern Convention recommendations will conserve Europe's wild flora and fauna and their natural habitats, while producing sustainable and renewable sources of energy.

World's biggest agricultural fair opens with protests

The Independent [UK], 14 December 2010:
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/worlds-biggest-agricultural-fair-opens-with-protests-1868360.html

The world's largest agricultural fair, Berlin's "Green Week", kicked off Thursday with Greenpeace activists heckling the German agriculture minister, calling for a ban on genetically modified potatoes.

The fair, now in its 75th year, is expected to attract some 400,000 visitors over the next 10 days, as well as 1,600 exhibitors from 56 countries, with Hungary this year's guest of honour.

The two female activists, dressed in traditional Bavarian garb, were escorted out by security personnel before they could unfurl a banner.

The minister, Ilse Aigner, refused to halt her speech and continued through the protest.

The fair opens to the public on Friday and runs until January 24.

UK Shops Won't Take NZ animal-product Fed GM Grass

Press release
GM-free New Zealand (via Scoop.Co.NZ), 14 January 2010:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU1001/S00168.htm

Major supermarkets overseas, including British chains Marks and Spencer's and Sainsbury's, would shun New Zealand products made using Genetically Modified grass being developed by AgResearch.

AgResearch's development of GM grass puts New Zealand food exporters on a collision course with leading supermarkets and consumers around the world, instead of investing in other approaches to reducing New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions.

UK chain Marks and Spencer's says "since spring 2002, we've been producing all our fresh meat and poultry, salmon, shell eggs and fresh milk from animals fed on a diet based on non-GM cereals and soya".

"By carefully checking all our manufacturers' factory processes, we prevent our food mixing with any GM materials," says Karen Hahm Jones, M&S Customer Services.

Sainsbury's Customer Manager Alan Hurd says "we don't allow the use of GM crops, ingredients, additives or derivatives in our own-brand food, drink, pet food, dietary supplements and floral products."

"GM-grass is an economic dead-end, certainly for a brand like New Zealand where quality, naturalness and ethical production really matter,"says Jon Carapiet spokesman for GE Free NZ (in food and environment).

"The threat to our food exports across Asia, Europe, as well UK supermarkets is real", he says. "This is the wrong way to be using gene science in New Zealand, and shows the government urgently needs to intervene on the country's biotechnology strategy to prevent such mistakes."

AgResearch is set to apply for trials of GM grass later this year. AgResearch's other applications to ERMA for a wide range of GM animals closed for public submissions in December.

References

- GM grass trial aims to cut cows' gas - Friday Nov 06, 2009 By Eloise Gibson
www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10607618

- Karen Hahm Jones, Marks & Spencer Customer Services:

"We also work with a number of laboratories specialising in GM testing. They analyse the ingredients used in Marks & Spencer products and animal feeds, and check our food is non-GM before it goes out on the shelf."

- Alan Hurd Sainsbury's Customer Manager:

"Sainsbury's stock a choice of meat and dairy products sourced from livestock which have been fed a diet of non-GM soya and maize proteins. These include all our Sainsbury's SO Organic products, farmed salmon, fresh outdoor reared pork and 21-day matured beef from our Taste the Difference range, traditional beef, outdoor reared bacon, all our fresh and frozen chicken and all our eggs from non-caged hens. Our Farm Promise milk is from dairy cattle fed a non-GM diet".

www.j-sainsbury.co.uk

Allons, citoyens de l'Europe
• Yet another dubious provision in the Lisbon treaty: citizens' initiatives

The Economist [UK], 14 January 2010:
http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15269065

GIVEN the chance, would European Union voters ban minarets on mosques, copying the recent popular vote in Switzerland? Invite citizens to draft new EU legislation, and would they demand new rights for the disabled, cleaner rivers and more aid for the developing world? Or are Europeans in a sour, recession-struck mood: would they seek tighter curbs on immigration, protectionist tariffs on Chinese imports, or new hurdles to EU enlargement (bye-bye, Turkey)?

The guessing will soon be over. Thanks to a barely debated clause in the Lisbon treaty, the EU is about to embark on an experiment in direct democracy. Within a year, the European Citizens' Initiative will come into effect. One million EU citizens from a "significant number" of countries will be able to ask the European Commission to put forward new draft laws.

As with so many bits of the Lisbon treaty, which came into force in December, it is not clear how the citizens' initiative will work in practice, or even if it is a good idea. Euro-cheerleaders spent years banging on about the need for Lisbon, saying its new rules would make Europe simpler, more efficient and more democratic. Now they have the treaty, many of the same people are muttering and wailing about unresolved problems hidden in its leaden prose. Interview senior Brussels types about Lisbon, and the same phrases come up again and again: "we have no idea how this bit will work" and "of course, national leaders had no real idea what they were signing."

So it is with the citizens' initiative, an idea adopted in the final days of a grandiose convention drawing up what was then called an EU constitution (becoming the Lisbon treaty after many misadventures). It was embraced without enthusiasm by ministers, national parliamentarians and members of the European Parliament, as the third choice of direct-democracy advocates. Their real dreams were binding, EU-wide referendums or, failing that, Californian-style popular initiatives that could lead to binding referendums, recalls Alain Lamassoure, a French MEP behind the plans. The convention rejected the first two options out of hand-"it was a sort of corporatist reaction, as we would say in France. Members of parliaments don't like direct democracy," says Mr Lamassoure. The initiative seemed harmless: it can only place an idea on the agenda, not actually oblige the commission to do anything (nothing came from a million-plus signatures on a petition calling for an end to the parliament's monthly meandering from Brussels to Strasbourg).

National governments and the European Parliament must now draw up rules that will decide if an initiative is easy or hard to pull off. One million is about 0.2% of the EU population. That is a low bar by European standards. In Switzerland federal initiatives need about 2% of the population to trigger a national vote. In Austria and Spain some 1.2% of the population must support a successful initiative. They must also decide how quickly signatures must be collected (time limits range from 30 days in Latvia to 18 months in Switzerland), and how-in town halls, or online?

Publicly, Eurocrats are keen on the citizens' initiative, hailing it as a way of injecting more democracy into the EU. Their private views are more pungent. Some senior commission officials fret about a ticking time-bomb of populism, waiting to be triggered by special-interest groups. Such sceptical euro-mandarins favour rules demanding that at least 0.2% of voters in any given country back an initiative, in at least a third of the EU's members (ie, nine countries). Some governments see the citizens' initiative as a gussied-up form of petition, and favour loose rules. Britain's Europe minister, Chris Bryant, compares it to the petitions that can now be posted on the Downing Street website (these include petitions about British military post offices and child-care vouchers). Mr Bryant says the government disagrees with many Downing Street e-petitions (such as, presumably, one last year that called for Gordon Brown to resign), but those in power should "grow up" and be prepared to defend their arguments.

From acorn to oak?

Not for the first time, supporters of deeper EU integration hope that governments have unwittingly agreed to something that is potentially revolutionary. They hail the citizens' initiative as a step towards creating a "European demos", or a democratic debate that crosses borders. Such integrationists think the European Parliament has failed to solve the EU's democratic deficit because national parties still control it. For them, the real goal is pan-European parties mounting pan-European election campaigns, in which voters choose not just MEPs but also the commission's president (with each big political group nominating a candidate to run the commission ahead of the elections). As a first step, the citizens' initiative carries risks of populism, concedes Mr Lamassoure, but it is worth having if it "helps with the birth of true European political networks".

What next? A lot of ideas will go nowhere, not least because initiatives can ask the commission to legislate only if the EU has the legal right to act. It has no powers to ban minarets, for example. Nor will it become the next California, voting for budget-busting tax cuts: the union has only marginal powers over indirect tax rates. But many populist initiatives will fall within the commission's legal powers: caps on legal migration, for example, or a ban on genetically modified organisms (a prime candidate for an early initiative). If the commission thinks such initiatives are dangerous, it may decline to act, though then it will have to explain why it has ignored a million signatures. Moreover, even if the commission says yes, national governments and the European Parliament might say no, leaving citizens fuming.

It could get messy, in short. But then democracy is messy.

European Commission Parliamentary hearing
Maltese candidate shows his muscle

Jennifer Rankin
European Voice, 14 January 2010:
http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/2010/01/maltese-candidate-shows-his-muscle/66894.aspx

John Dalli emphasised decades of ministerial experience in his parliamentary hearing.

Malta's candidate for a post in the European Commission, John Dalli, gave a solid, if unexciting, performance when he sought the European Parliament's approval today.

It was a performance that exuded the experience of 23 years as a minister, and he implied that such a history - he has held the portfolios of industry, economy, finance, foreign affairs and, latterly, social policy - would stand him in good stead when the time came to stand up to member states' ministers in the Council of Ministers.

"I will be strong," he told one MEP, who had asked whether he would "force and kick" governments resisting EU law on health. "Making enemies comes with the job, so it is not something that is going to frighten me," he added later.

Dalli, an accountant by training and long-standing Maltese MP, sounded sure of himself. Indeed so sure, that at times he forgot the polite fiction that his job is still unconfirmed, talking about "when" he becomes commissioner, rather than 'if'.

He had evidently done his homework on the stickiest dossiers. On cross-border healthcare, currently in limbo in the Council, he said he would meet the Spanish health minister to "chart out a way on which understanding can be reached". (Spain is not only the EU's rotating presidency, but also played a key role in blocking agreement on this directive last year.)

Turning to another problem proposal, information to patients, he promised a reassessment of the draft directive, signalling that "there might be a harder demarcation between industry and advertising", words that surely soothed MEPs, who fear current plans would open the door to advertising to patients by the pharmaceutical industry.

On most subjects he played safe. It is not clear what Dalli thinks about genetically modified organisms, other than a preference for "science-based information and advice". But when the EU's food-safety agency came under fire from French Liberal MEP Corrine Lepage for alleged bias, he did not rush to the defence of its scientists, instead promising "regular reviews on the independence question in various agencies".

He also trod carefully on cloning. The Commission would publish a report on cloning within a year, he said, a useful way to avoid taking a position. At one point he appeared to suggest this paper would be a legal proposal, but finally settled on "something for discussion".

However, caution did not equate to pandering. When one MEP asked him which diseases he would prioritise, it would have been easy to reel off a list. Instead, he replied that he would "rather concentrate on health determinants than specific diseases".

But MEPs are unlikely to quibble. More than most commissioner jobs, the mettle of the commissioner for health and consumers is only really tested in a food-safety scare or a flu epidemic. Dalli gave MEPs no reason not to back him.

Feds Step up Antitrust Investigation Into Monsanto
• Justice Dept. steps up antitrust probe of Monsanto, demands documents on biotech seed business

Christopher Leonard, AP Agribusiness Writer
ABC News / Money [USA], 14 January 2010:
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=9559967

St. Louis - The Justice Department has intensified its antitrust investigation into Monsanto Co., demanding internal documents that outline marketing tactics of the world's biggest seed company.

The demand, disclosed Thursday by Monsanto, formalizes a months long investigation into possible antitrust violations at the company, which has gained unprecedented power in the multibillion market for biotech seeds. It has already provided millions of pages of documents to the department and is cooperating with the agency's civil probe, spokesman Lee Quarles said Thursday.

The government asked this week for information on Monsanto's biotech soybean business, Quarles said. Monsanto's patented genes are inserted into roughly 95 percent of all soybeans and 80 percent of all corn grown in the U.S.

The government is examining whether farmers and seed companies will have access to Monsanto's popular Roundup Ready soybeans after the seeds' patent expires in 2014. The company is trying to shift customers to the next generation of patented soybeans, but said in a statement it will grant full access to the current variety even after the patent expires.

Justice Department spokeswoman Gina Talamona would not comment on the matter, but confirmed for the first time the department is "investigating the possibility of anticompetitive practices in the seed industry."

Last month, an Associated Press investigation uncovered contracts showing that Monsanto's business practices squeeze competitors, control smaller seed companies and protect its dominance over the genetically altered crops market.

One contract clause, for example, bans independent companies from breeding plants that contain both Monsanto's genes and the genes of any of its competitors, unless Monsanto gives prior written permission. That could let Monsanto effectively lock out competitors from inserting their patented traits into the vast share of U.S. crops that already contain Monsanto's genes.

Scott Partridge, Monsanto's deputy general counsel, said the company has done nothing wrong.

"Monsanto continues to cooperate with the U.S. Department of Justice inquiries, just as we have over the last several months," Partridge said in a statement Thursday. "We respect the thorough regulatory process. We believe our business practices are fair, pro-competitive and in compliance with the law."

Monsanto shares fell $1.22, or 1.5 percent, to $82.73 in afternoon trading Thursday.

Morgan Stanley analyst Vincent Andrews said antitrust troubles would likely fade with time and not have a significant impact on Monsanto's business. Because the department asked about access to Roundup Ready products after the patent expired, it is likely not interested in other issues around Monsanto's practices, Andrews said in a report Thursday.

"We expect this to be the sole focus of the Department of Justice's inquiry into Monsanto, and that a formal lawsuit will not be filed," Andrews said in the report.

Monsanto, which is based near St. Louis, introduced its first commercial strain of genetically engineered soybeans in 1996. The Roundup Ready plants were resistant to the herbicide, allowing farmers to spray Roundup whenever they wanted rather than wait until the soybeans had grown enough to withstand the chemical.

The company gained broad market reach over the last decade by letting competitors and independent seed companies sign licensing agreements allowing them to insert Monsanto's patented genes into their own strains of corn, soybeans and other crops.

Monsanto has the right to control how its genes are used because they are patented. Competitors worry that Monsanto could prolong its dominance for years if customers aren't allowed to use Roundup Ready seeds after the patent expires in 2014.

Monsanto said in a Dec. 15 letter to the American Soybean Association that seed companies and farmers will have access to the Roundup ready trait after its patent expires.

The company's business practices also are at the center of civil antitrust suits filed against Monsanto by its competitors, including a 2004 suit filed by Syngenta AG, that was settled with an agreement, and ongoing litigation filed this summer by DuPont in response to a Monsanto lawsuit.

New Report highlights Monsanto's corrupt science in GM canola assessment

Dr Brian John
GM Free Cymru [Wales, UK], 14 January 2010:
http://www.gmfreecymru.org/pivotal_papers/canola.html

In a new Report (1) written by Madeleine Love (Researcher for MADGE Australia Inc) and submitted to the elected politicians of Western Australia and South Australia, it has been revealed that "evidence" based on corrupt science has been accepted at face value by regulators across the globe prior to the issuing of consents for RR canola [oilseed rape] commercialization and feed and food use.

RR canola (oilseed rape) has consent for cultivation in Australia, United States, Japan and Canada: http://www.agbios.com/dbase.php?action=ShowProd&data=GT73,%20RT73 It is allowed in Europe for processing and feed use, but not for cultivation. In its assessment of GT73, EFSA reported: "....... the GMO Panel has considered all the evidence provided and is of the opinion that GT73 oilseed rape is as safe as conventional oilseed rape and therefore the placing on the market of GT73 oilseed rape for processing and feed use is unlikely to have an adverse effect on human or animal health or, in the context of its proposed use, on the environment." (17 August 2004)

Love has now pointed out that the studies on which these consents were based were highly defective and probably fraudulent. Also, none of the studies were true health / safety studies. As is often the case with feeding studies contained within "approval dossiers", the emphasis is not on the health or physiology of the animals involved, but upon "nutritional equivalence" and '"performance" parameters such as animal weight, growth rates etc. Animal welfare and wellbeing figures hardly at all in the studies, and animal deaths, replacements and ailments are hardly ever recorded -- and yet the regulators (including EFSA) blithely accept that all is well, without asking any serious questions about the validity of the research which passes under their noses. Is that down to incompetence, negligence, or a deliberate policy of "don't look, don't see"?

To quote the author:

"............. there have been reports on four animal production studies using GM RR canola. Two were done by Monsanto (trout & chickens), one by collaborating bodies in Canada on lambs using GM and non-GM feed prepared and provided by Monsanto, and there is an abstract report of a similar study done in Canada on pigs. Where the Monsanto data was explicitly available we can read that the feeds were contaminated and differentially prepared at Monsanto's will. Monsanto failed to provide full information on deaths and removals from the studies. There is no information that can be learnt from the studies, except that farmers should not feed their animals on feed prepared by Monsanto! However, the material provides clear evidence on the lengths to which Monsanto has gone to prevent information about the feed value of their GM RR canola crop emerging, and their preparedness to use corrupt feed and practices, and to report on it."

The Trout feeding trials (2) (3)

"Information on the growing of the seed, and on the processing of the seed into meal for the feeding study is in a 440 page pdf document supplied by FSANZ. The manner in which the canola meal was produced for this trial was outrageous. It is not the place to detail this astonishing record here. In short, the different GM and non-GM varieties were grown side by side in plots at a number of sites in Canada. The feed used in the trials was grossly contaminated, so much so that the trials had to be repeated. The seed was reported to have been 'mixed'. Protocols had been specially changed for the processing of the seed into meal, leading to the toasting of meal at greater levels of heat "at the option of the Sponsor" (Monsanto)."

"Additionally, these GM plots were not sprayed with Roundup, which means that the seed used in the trout trials didn't contain Roundup residues. This may have given a further positive bias, and does not represent the nature of the material that would be fed to animals in Australia - the point of the crop to farmers is that it can be sprayed with Roundup to eliminate weed competition."

"On another matter, 20% of the feed used in the trials was derived from soy. Was this GM soy, capable of masking the results? It was reported neither as GM nor non-GM. This is a common problem faced in reviewing animal trials."

"The published study went through the motions, carefully describing all the differences noted between the different feeding groups, and then in the discussion said "However, because of a mixing error that occurred prior to the first study, samples of seed labeled GT200 and GT73 were essentially equivalent in composition". That is, the results are meaningless."

"...........FSANZ relied 100% on this material for human health and safety assessment. There was no independent alternative - we don't understand why a body charged with food safety didn't immediately reject the material. The OGTR relied on the material for safety for agricultural workers and for approval for use as an animal feed, despite the clear and documented lack of integrity of the company involved. Both FSANZ and the OGTR referred to this study as evidence. We haven't seen any evidence to say they read into the material any further than the abstract. Each body had the right to commission its own research, but chose not to."

The Chicken Study (4)

"Monsanto conducted this study. Monsanto prepared the canola meal for the GM variety and its (reportedly) non-GM counterpart. Based on their conduct in the trout trials Monsanto could've done anything in the growing of the seed or the preparation of the meal ............ For comparison, Monsanto also brought in six additional commercially produced canola meals. The Monsanto data we obtained through the OGTR reported that all of these lines were GM contaminated for the Monsanto GM genes being trialled!! Monsanto wrote that it was to be expected because GM canola had been grown in Canada for a few years and naturally there'd be contamination. For all we know these commercial feeds may have been full strength Bayer GM Liberty Link canola, stacked by contamination with Monsanto genes - Monsanto didn't report testing for this. So we're not really comparing GM vs non-GM feed, but Monsanto prepared feed versus commercially prepared feed. The trial is useless."

"The profound initial difference between the non-GM counterpart and the commercially produced meals can be read in the online published study. It appears that the non-GM and GM seed or meals had been considerably overcooked, as for the trout study. Moisture levels were very low, probably explaining higher apparent protein and fat levels in the GM and non-GM counterpart varieties prepared by Monsanto.

The different preparation may be able to account for the dramatic difference in deaths between the chickens fed the commercial meal and the chickens fed the Monsanto prepared meals. The study acknowledged: "The differences in mortality between commercial reference diets and test and nontransgenic control diets may be attributable to differences in processing at the 2 facilities." Monsanto reported in their data that the deaths were "slightly higher than expected". In fact, female chickens reared on Monsanto prepared feed died at 3x the rate of females fed on commercial feed, and male chickens died at twice the rate. As a result of the very high number of deaths, the breast weight per pen and the breast weight/feed intake was significantly lower for the Monsanto processed feeds, but these results were not presented in the study - they had to be deduced from the other data, accounting also for gender differences and concomitant body size in the death rates."

"The results presented by Monsanto were expressed in terms of the chickens that actually survived and appeared healthy at slaughter time - they did not account for the lost production as a result of the very high number of deaths. This is not a fair presentation for farmers concerned at economic levels. There were deaths, and there were animals killed due to their unhealthy condition. Animals were also described as having been 'removed'.

"We also don't know how this trial may have been rigged to produce the results it did. In the data provided to the OGTR, Monsanto failed to report the details of 83 of the chickens removed from the study!!! They could take out skinny chickens, or fat chickens, and alter results".

"As a study on the effect of genetically engineered feed it can't be viewed with any credibility. The difference between the Monsanto produced non-GM feed and the commercially produced non-GM feeds indicates strongly that something was wrong, and that whatever produced this effect may have overridden any GM effects that may have otherwise been observed. Furthermore, the animals were fed very large amounts of both corn and soy without mention of whether these were GM varieties, containing the same GM genes as the GM RR canola."

The Lamb / Sheep Study (5)

"There was no information to indicate whether the commercial canola meals were full strength Bayer GM canola meals, for example. Contamination is to be expected.

Again, the lambs fed on the Monsanto-prepared meal had significantly disadvantageous results. The clearest result is that the carcass yield grades were significantly reduced for these groups.

This study did not look at any variables that could be related to human health..... This was a food production study. It was not a human health safety study."

The pig study (6)

"A full-text version of this study does not appear to have been written up as a study for peer review, but the authors of the study came from one of the Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada research centres and the University of Alberta, Edmonton Canada.

MADGE has asked the authors for full study detail but has received nothing. We are only able to report from an abstract. The same feed groups applied as for the lamb study, and we expect that the feed provided by Monsanto was identical to that provided for the lambs, and that the commercial feeds were GM contaminated. No data was given for moisture content or protein and fat levels.

As for the chicken and lamb studies there were significant differences between the pigs fed on the commercially prepared canola meals, and those fed on the Monsanto-prepared meals.

"Average daily gains, daily feed intakes, and feed conversion efficiencies were similar when feeding the PAR and RRC diets, but some differences from the COM diets were notes (P>= 0.05)." The abstract didn't report the direction of difference. As for the lamb study there were differences in the carcass and meat quality evaluations, but didn't say what they were.

This was another food production study."

Five other studies using GM RR Canola (7)

"The studies were conducted in series, with the general intent being to identify the true fate of GM DNA in animals, and to determine whether it would be taken up by body tissues or by bacteria (and other microflora) in the digestive tract.

The series did not make any findings that the GM DNA had been taken up by digestive microflora, but the final study found that GM DNA was present in digestive tissues in sheep and pigs, and in the liver and kidney of pigs."

There was a heavy Monsanto involvement in these studies, and the implications of the findings have been widely discussed, for example by Werner Mueller: http://www.attac.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Gruppen/Wuppertal/agrar/ 21112007-dateien/EFSA_misleads_EC_final-27112008.doc and Jack Heinemann: http://www.biosafety-info.net/file_dir/16329274254b0b792716b0f.pdf Report on animals exposed to GM ingredients in animal feed

Heinemann concluded: "The cumulative strength of the positive detections reviewed above leave me no reasonable uncertainty that GM plant material can transfer to animals exposed to GM feed in their diets or environment, and that there can be a residual difference in animals or animal-products as a result of exposure to GM feed."

Finally it should be pointed out that the Sharma et al 2006 study deserved to be much more widely cited. The muscle of the trialled animals (ie the meat likely to be consumed by humans) wasn't tested for plant DNA at all, GM or otherwise. (We can assume that this would not have been permitted by Monsanto as a condition of use of the feed.) But high copy rubisco DNA was found everywhere the researchers looked, and they concluded that GM DNA would be found wherever ordinary plant DNA would be found. This is a very powerful finding, since ordinary plant DNA has been found in all animal products tested. The authors said that they may have found GM DNA, where many other researchers had not, for a number of reasons, including their use of a substantially greater sample size.

Notes

(1) Summary and Guide to animal feeding studies reporting to use products of Monsanto's GM RR canola (line GT73). Prepared by Madeleine Love of MADGE Australia Inc for Katie Ford, GM Advisor to the Hon Tony Burke, Federal Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries: 22 December 2009

(2) MSL No.:17538; Stanisiewski et al 2001; Monsanto Company, Product Safety Centre, Biotechnology Regulatory Sciences.

(3) Brown PB, Wilson KA, Jonker Y, Nickson TE. (2003) Glyphosate tolerant canola meal is equivalent to the parental line in diets fed to rainbow trout. J Agric Food Chem. 51:4268-72 http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf034018f MSL-13063; Evaluation of Glyphosate Tolerant Canola as a Feed for Rainbow Trout; Brown PB, Wilson KA, Nickson TE Evaluation of Glyphosate-tolerant Canola Lines from the 1992 Canadian Field Trials; Nickson TE et al, Monsanto; Attachment #3: Protocol #92-02-30-01 for Experiment #92-447-702 "Processing Roundup-Tolerant Canola (RTC) and Control Westar Seed from the 1992 Canadian Field Tests."

(4) Taylor ML, Stanisiewski EP, Riordan SG, Nemeth MA, George B, Hartnell GF (2004) Comparison of broiler performance when fed diets containing roundup ready (Event RT73), nontransgenic control, or commerical canola meal (vol 83, pg 456, 2004). Poultry Science 83:1758 http://ps.fass.org/cgi/reprint/83/3/456 MSL No.:17538; Stanisiewski et al 2001; Monsanto Company, Product Safety Centre, Biotechnology Regulatory Sciences. Sponsor Summary of Report for Study #00-01-43-10; Comparison of Broiler Performance When Fed Diets Containing Roundup Ready (Event RT73), Parental or Commercial Canola Meal

(5) K. Stanford1, J. L. Aalhus2, M. E. R. Dugan2, G. L.Wallins1, R. Sharma3, and T. A. McAllister3 ;Effects of feeding transgenic canola on apparent digestibility, growth performance and carcass characteristics of lambs; Can. J. Anim. Sci. 2003 83: 299-305; http://pubs.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/aic-journals/2003ab/cjas03/jun03/cjas02-056.html

(6) J. L. Aalhus*1, M. E. R. Dugan1, K. A. Lien2, I. L. Larsen1, F. Costello1, D. C. Rolland1, D. R. Best1, and R. D. Thacker1Effects of feeding glyphosate-tolerant canola meal on swine growth, carcass composition and meat quality. ; J. Anim. Sci. 2003. 81:3267; http://jas.fass.org/cgi/content/full/81/12/3267

(7) Alexander TW, Sharma R, Okine EK, Dixon WT, Forster RJ, Stanford K, McAllister TA.Impact of feed processing and mixed ruminal culture on the fate of recombinant EPSP synthase and endogenous canola plant DNA. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2002 Sep 10;214(2):263-9; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12351241?ordinalpos=8&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Sharma R, Alexander TW, John SJ, Forster RJ, McAllister TA. Relative stability of transgene DNA fragments from GM rapeseed in mixed ruminal cultures. Br J Nutr. 2004 May;91(5):673-81. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15137918?ordinalpos=7&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Alexander TW, Sharma R, Deng MY, Whetsell AJ, Jennings JC, Wang YX, Okine E, Damgaard D, McAllister TA (2004) Use of quantitative real-time and conventional PCR to assess the stability of the cp4 epsps transgene from Roundup Ready (R) canola in the intestinal, ruminal, and fecal contents of sheep. Journal of Biotechnology 112:255-266 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15313003?ordinalpos=6&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Alexander TW, Reuter T, Okine E, Sharma R, McAllister TA.Conventional and real-time polymerase chain reaction assessment of the fate of transgenic DNA in sheep fed Roundup Ready rapeseed meal. Br J Nutr. 2006 Dec;96(6):997-1005. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17181873?ordinalpos=4&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Sharma R, Damgaard D, Alexander TW, Dugan ME, Aalhus JL, Stanford K, McAllister TA. Detection of transgenic and endogenous plant DNA in digesta and tissues of sheep and pigs fed Roundup Ready canola meal. J Agric Food Chem. 2006 Mar 8;54(5):1699-709 http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf052459o

New FDA deputy to lead food-safety mandate

Lyndsey Layton, Staff Writer
Washington Post [USA], 14 January 2009:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/13/AR2010011304402.html?hpid=sec-health

A year ago, Michael Taylor was sitting in his office at George Washington University, considering a basic mission of the federal government: making sure food is safe. He'd devoted his career to food safety, working in and out of government, and he was finally in academia where he could think deeply about what was wrong and how to fix it.

And then the call came.

The Obama administration wanted Taylor to implement the solutions he had been designing. A string of food poisoning outbreaks nationally had sickened thousands and killed dozens. Both parties in Congress were calling for tough new laws. The president promised the public that he would strengthen food safety.

In July, Taylor became an adviser to Margaret Hamburg, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, and Wednesday he was named deputy commissioner for foods, a new position that elevates food in an agency long criticized for placing greater emphasis on drugs and medical devices.

Congress is moving ahead with legislation to grant vast new authority to the FDA to ensure food safety -- the House passed a bill last year and the Senate is expected to take up its version soon -- and Taylor will be responsible for implementing new laws aimed at preventing outbreaks instead of merely reacting after they occur.

"We are at an historic tipping point -- a moment when the forces have aligned like never before; the president, Congress, industry and the public have stepped up their support for our mission," Taylor told a gathering of FDA staff members last month.

Taylor is a familiar figure at the FDA. He began his career as a staff attorney at the agency in 1976. Then he worked for a decade at King & Spaulding, which represented Monsanto Corp., the agribusiness giant that developed genetically engineered corn, soybeans and bovine growth hormone.

He returned to the FDA in 1991 as deputy commissioner for policy and pushed through requirements that producers of seafood and juices adopt measures to prevent bacterial contamination. During the same period, the FDA approved Monsanto's bovine growth hormone, and Taylor was partly responsible for a controversial policy that said milk from BGH-treated cows did not have to be labeled as such.

In 1994, Taylor went to the U.S. Agriculture Department to run its food-safety program. He required meat and poultry producers to take measures to prevent bacterial contamination, despite strong opposition from those industries. Observers expect Taylor to impose those same kinds of preventive controls on all the foods regulated by the FDA.

After the USDA, Taylor went to work for Monsanto as a vice president for public policy. He moved on to a think tank and then a teaching stint at GWU.

"He is the quintessential revolving door," said Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University. Taylor's support for BGH and Monsanto's other genetically modified products at the FDA was "questionable," she said. "On the other hand, when he went to USDA, what he did there was absolutely heroic. He's been very strong on food safety."

It's one thing to recognize the weak spots and craft a strategy for change; it's another to make it happen and persuade 3,000 FDA employees who work on food issues to follow suit.

"This is really about building a new system," he said. "It's about rethinking how we do everything -- from inspections to rulemaking -- so that we're acting in real time in a way that is preventive."

To that end, Taylor has been bringing together divisions to make the agency more nimble. Food regulation is split among the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, where much of the scientific research takes place; the Center for Veterinary Medicine, which regulates the manufacture and sale of food additives and drugs for animals; and the Office of Regulatory Affairs, which handles inspections of domestic and imported products and works with state and local officials.

Traditionally, the three sections were managed separately. Any proposed policy change had to be approved by each division and then was sent for review by the general counsel in the commissioner's office. It took years to get anything done, Taylor said.

Now, Taylor has pulled together a senior leadership team that cuts across the three divisions and has created similar cross-sectional teams to work on core issues. "The idea is to get the best thinking on the table early," he said.

Taylor has already taken some steps that suggest a new, more muscular approach to regulation. The agency has been cracking down on nutrition claims on processed foods, saying that some food makers have overstated the health benefits of their products.

In the first real political test of the new leadership, Taylor tried to ban the sale of raw oysters harvested from the Gulf Coast between April and October unless they are treated to kill a potentially lethal bacterium. Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and others vigorously protested the move. The FDA agreed to put off action to study the issue. Taylor said the agency is not backing down, just regrouping.

Head of department moves from European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to biotech company within two months
• Authorities react only after Testbiotech disclosures

Press release
Testbiotech [Germany], 14 January 2010:
http://www.testbiotech.org/en/node/312

Munich / Parma - The former head of the GMO-panel at the European Food Safety Authority EFSA, Suzy Renckens, has moved directly into the genetic engineering industry without any objections or restrictions being imposed by the authority. This was revealed in documents sent by the EFSA upon request to the group of experts at Testbiotech, Germany.

The move to the company Syngenta, took place in May 2008 although Mrs Renckens only terminated her employment contract with the EFSA at the end of March. After Testbiotech made this information public, the EFSA executive management responded in December 2009. According to EU staff regulations former members of EU public services have to ask for approval from their institutions for new positions. This has to be done within a period of two years after leaving the institution. In Mrs Renckens' case the authority had neither raised any objections whatsoever nor had it imposed any conditions.

Christoph Then, executive director of Testbiotech e.V., said, "The executive management of the authority has been negligent in its duty of care. Mrs Renckens' direct move into industry should not have been approved. The EFSA executive management apparently lacks sufficient awareness of the problem. The procedure is portrayed by the authority as completely normal."

Testbiotech reported on this problem for the first time on 10 November 2009 and sent an official letter of enquiry to the EFSA. A reply arrived on 11 January 2009, clearly exceeding the permissible period of time for a reply. Together with its reply, the EFSA sent a number of different emails which had been exchanged between Mrs Renckens and the authority. According to these Mrs Renckens worked for the EFSA from 1 April 2003 until 31 March 2008, and on19 May 2008 told her former work colleagues in an email that she now had an executive position at Syngenta. In her own words she said that in future she would also be approaching the authority personally in regard to marketing approval for genetically engineered plants. In her previous position at the EFSA she had been in charge of precisely this group of experts dealing with such applications.

"With such proximity to industry, the question is naturally just how independently can the authority act in making decisions on the licensing of genetically engineered organisms," said Christoph Then. "The EU commission should make its stance clear on this issue."

It was not until December 2009, after Testbiotech had made its report and journalists began questioning the authority, that the executive management of the EFSA contacted Mrs Renckens and pointed out that her work was subject to approval for up to two years after her resignation. Mrs Renckens replied that the EFSA already knew about her work. In her new capacity she had, amongst other things, taken part in a meeting between the authority and the EU Commission in March 2009.

Testbiotech demands that the EFSA has to face consequences and should be reorganised. Testbiotech will also be contacting the EU Commission on the matter.

More information:

First press release in the case of Suzy Renckens:
http://www.testbiotech.org/node/259

On the work of EFSA:
http://www.testbiotech.org/efsa/newsletter

Letter of EFSA to Testbiotech:
http://www.testbiotech.org/sites/default/files/EFSARef.4499402_0.pdf

For further information please contact:

Christoph Then, executive director, Tel 0151 54 63 80 40 or

Andrea Reiche, press officer, Tel +49 (0)89 35 89 92 76

A declaration of war

GM Watch [UK], 14 January 2010:
http://www.gmwatch.eu/latest-listing/1-news-items/11846-gm-scientist-new-ceo-of-rothamstead

The Government's heavily industrially aligned public funding body, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) has just appointed Professor Maurice Moloney as the Director and Chief Executive of Rothamsted Research, the UK's leading agricultural research centre.

Who he? He's the Chief Scientific Officer of SemBioSys Genetics Inc. - a plant biotech company well known for its controversial work on pharma crops (eg producing insulin from safflower seeds) - http://www.sembiosys.com. A GM pharma specialist, Moloney has also worked on deriving a blood anti-coagulant from canola. http://bit.ly/4EbmjK

Previously, Moloney led the Cell Biology group at Calgene, acquired by Monsanto in 1997, where he developed "the world's first transgenic oilseeds, which resulted in RoundUp Ready Canola and other novel crops." (see below) Moloney's GM Roundup Ready canola has, of course, lead to conflicts like the Percy Schmeiser case and to the end of organic canola growing in parts of Canada due to GM contamination. http://www.saskorganic.com/oapf/legal.html

If this seems to bode less than well for the future of British agriculture, then consider Moloney's sensitivity to the concerns over GM crops as reflected in comments such as, "Much effort has been wasted on the criticism of biotechnology using arguments that come from narrow philosophical belief systems such as creationism, left or right-wing politics or aesthetic rather than rational views of nature." http://people.ucalgary.ca/~pubconf/Education/moloney.htm

Professor Moloney is quoted as saying: "Rothamsted Research is one of the most powerful engines for agricultural research in the world" and that he will lead it in deploying its science in relation to both food and biofuels. "I also welcome the opportunity to build on Rothamsted's strong reputation for training the next generation of skilled researchers in agricultural bioscience."

The appointment of Moloney is nothing short of a declaration of war on both public concern over GM crops and the conclusions of the IAASTD report on the future of agriculture that the UK Government signed onto, which concluded GM has little to offer in meeting the major global food and farming challenges of the 21st century.

For more on the BBSRC:
http://www.spinprofiles.org/index.php/Biotechnology_and_Biological_Sciences_Research_Council

For more on Rothamsted Research:
http://www.spinprofiles.org/index.php/Rothamsted_Research

New Director for Rothamsted Research

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [UK], 14 January 2010:
http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/media/releases/2010/100114-new-director-for-rothamsted-research.html

The Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), the Governing Body of Rothamsted Research and the Trustees of the Lawes Agricultural Trust are pleased to announce the appointment of Professor Maurice Moloney as Director and Chief Executive of Rothamsted Research. He will assume the full duties of his post from 15 April 2010.

Rothamsted Research is one of the Institutes of BBSRC and, established over 160 years ago, is almost certainly the oldest agricultural research centre in the world. It has research campuses at Harpenden in Hertfordshire, North Wyke in Devon and Broom's Barn, Suffolk.

Professor Moloney is currently Chief Scientific Officer of SemBioSys Genetics Inc, based in Calgary, Canada. He founded the company in 1994 and has maintained this role alongside a successful academic career at the University of Calgary, where he serves as NSERC/Dow AgroSciences Industrial Research Professor of Plant Biotechnology.

Professor Moloney has authored over 80 scientific papers in high profile international journals and holds over 300 patents in plant biotechnology worldwide. He is a leading authority on plant cell biology, especially seed biology and its biotechnological applications in crop improvement and in using plants to produce high value proteins such as therapeutics and novel high-value lipids. Professor Moloney also has significant experience of research policymaking having served on the National Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada 2002-2008 (a Privy Council appointment).

Before moving to Calgary, Professor Moloney led the Cell Biology group at Calgene Inc. in Davis, California, developing the world's first transgenic oilseeds, which resulted in RoundUp Ready® Canola and other novel crops. He was previously a Royal Society European Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of Lausanne, Switzerland.

BBSRC Chief Executive, Professor Douglas Kell said: "Maurice Moloney brings a unique combination of skills and experience that combines top class plant cell science with effective translation of research into successful business activity. His experience of leadership in academic, commercial and policy arenas will help Rothamsted Research to capitalise fully on its scientific strengths and play its full role working closely with other UK and international partners, in delivering the UK's R&D priorities in food security and sustainable bioenergy."

Professor Moloney said: "Rothamsted Research is one of the most powerful engines for agricultural research in the world. It will be a great privilege to lead future scientific developments at the Institute and to deploy its science in meeting the challenges of sustainable food supply, bio-based energy and mitigation of agriculture's carbon footprint for the benefit of both UK and global agriculture. I also welcome the opportunity to build on Rothamsted's strong reputation for training the next generation of skilled researchers in agricultural bioscience."

Acting Director at Rothamsted Research, Professor Peter Shewry welcomed the news: "Maurice's leadership will not only ensure our research is of the highest international quality, but also build on our strength in ensuring it is translated into useful outcomes for the industry and the public."

Professor Nick Talbot, Chair of the Rothamsted Board of Directors welcomed the appointment saying: "Maurice Moloney will bring new ideas and leadership to Rothamsted. He has an excellent track record of making fundamental scientific discoveries and applying these to produce new crops and tools for farmers. I look forward to working with him in the future."

Originally from Carrickmacross, Co. Monaghan in Ireland, Prof Moloney, 57, returns to Europe to take up the post in April 2010. After studying chemistry at Imperial College, London, he was awarded a PhD in Plant Biology at Leicester Polytechnic (now De Montfort University) in 1979. As a postgraduate student, Prof Moloney won a Wain Fellowship from the Agricultural Research Council, a forerunner of BBSRC, which he used to join the laboratory of Professor Robert Cleland at the University of Washington in Seattle, WA, USA. The results of the Wain Fellowship were published in top-tier journals and became a significant foundation for Prof Moloney's research career.

Prof Moloney will be the 12th Director at Rothamsted since 1843 He succeeds Professor Ian Crute CBE, who retired from the institute in 2009 and is now Chief Scientist at the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board.

Brazil is next up to order mandatory tests for Canadian flax
Flax Output Seen Down On Further GM Issues

AG Canada, 14 January 2010:
http://www.agcanada.com/Article.aspx?ID=16651

Canadian flaxseed production in the upcoming 2010-11 crop year will be significantly lower than during 2009-10 if Canada's ability to export it remains impeded in Europe, Japan and now Brazil, according to industry sources.

"The concern that buyer after buyer would become concerned with importing GMO-contaminated flaxseed from Canada is slowly becoming a reality," said Mike Jubinville, an analyst with ProFarmer Canada in Winnipeg.

That concern was seen causing greater difficulties in Canada unloading the product on to the world market and, in turn, causing Canadian producers to seek out alternative crops, he said.

His comments follow news from the Flax Council of Canada that the government of Brazil has now ordered the mandatory testing of all flaxseed shipments entering the country from Canada.

The council said the government of Canada has engaged Brazilian authorities with hopes of determining the basis for the action and that no action will be taken against the imported products that test positive for containing trace amounts of the genetically modified (GM) variety, dubbed CDC Triffid.

While Canada may not ship huge amounts of flaxseed to Brazil, it was hoped that the country may develop into a bigger market, given that Europe has stopped importing the commodity, Jubinville said.

Data from Statistics Canada show Canadian flaxseed exports to Brazil during the 2006-07 crop year totalled only 23 tonnes. In 2007-08, 1,039 tonnes of Canadian flaxseed were exported to Brazil while in 2008-09, 990 tonnes were shipped.

During the first three months of the 2009-10 crop year, Canada had already exported 1,791 tonnes of flaxseed.

"Protection Mode"

"Brazil may only be a small importer, but the fact customers are in full protection mode does not bode well for Canada's flaxseed sector," Jubinville said.

In November, Japan also initiated testing of all Canadian flaxseed entering the country after the discovery of GMO contamination.

The GMO material in the Canadian flaxseed was the same material that has been found in shipments to the European Union. Because of the GM discovery, the EU has since suspended all Canadian imports of the commodity.

Glenn Lennox, an oilseed analyst with the market analysis division of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada in Winnipeg, said the area seeded to Canadian flaxseed in the spring of 2010 is already anticipated to be down from the 2009 level, given the large supply situation of the crop.

However, with the continued inability to export to Europe and other potential customers, the area base may decline by an even larger amount.

Based on early and rough projections, Lennox said his initial estimate had flaxseed area in Canada dropping to around the 1.483-million-acre level, but with the added export problems and the resulting weak new-crop bids for the crop, the planted area could now be in the 1.235 million-acre range or possibly even lower.

"Nowhere Else"

The lowest area base for Canadian flaxseed was seen during the 1992-93 season, when seeded area to the crop totalled only about 741,000 acres. Seeded area in 2007-08 was only 1.305 million acres while in 2008-09 seeded area to flaxseed totalled 1.709 million.

"With current cash bids for flaxseed currently in the $8.30-a-bushel area, which is already low, the few new-crop bids in the $6.90 area will not be enough to entice producers to plant the crop," Lennox said.

"Unless we can get a change in policy in Europe, there is just nowhere else Canada can move significant amounts of flaxseed," Jubinville said.

He forecast that producers in Canada would seed only 1.3 million to 1.4 million acres to flax in the spring of 2010.

"To tell you the truth, producers may not grow any flaxseed at all, given the current exporting problems and alternative cropping options," Jubinville said.

Meanwhile, efforts to send some test ships of Canadian flaxseed to Europe remain inconclusive.

Export sources noted that two cargoes of Canadian flaxseed were loaded onto vessels destined for Europe in December, one with 7,500 tonnes and the second 19,000 tonnes. The sources said neither ship received final clearance for Europe and the whereabouts of the vessels was currently unknown.

Officials from the Flax Council of Canada were not available for comment.

India Holds Public Meetings on GM Food Crop

Ranjit Devraj
Inter Press Service [IPS], 14 January 2010:
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=49974

NEW DELHI - As India's central government begins a series of public meetings across the country this month on the commercial release of genetically modified (GM) brinjal - or eggplant - in this country, activists and farmers' groups are mobilising to oppose such a plan.

The meetings are a response by Union Minister for Environment Jairam Ramesh to a storm of protests generated by the approval issued by the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) in October last year for the commercial cultivation of the genetically modified 'brinjal' - also called 'aubergine' - to resist pests with a gene from the soil bacteria 'Bacillus thuringiensis' (Bt brinjal).

The environment ministry's first hearing, held Wednesday in the eastern city of Kolkata, ended up in a shouting match between Ramesh and the scientists, activists and local citizens present, who were opposed to the introduction of Bt brinjal.

While Bt brinjal is the first GM food crop to be introduced in India, the South Asian country already grows GM cotton spliced with insect-resistant genes form the same Bt bacterium, which has been blamed for serious crop failures and mass suicides by farmers in the cotton-growing belts of Vidarbha (Maharashtra state) and Andhra Pradesh.

Leading the resistance to the introduction of Bt brinjal is international food security campaigner Vandana Shiva, a biosafety expert who helped develop the Biosafety Protocol, an international treaty that became operative in September 2003 under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity.

Shiva told IPS that the GEAC approval was based on a "scientifically unsound report at the level of food and agricultural systems" presented to it by the Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Company (MAHYCO), a subsidiary of the United States-based agribusiness giant Monsanto, and its partners at the University of Agricultural Sciences in Dharwad, Karnataka state and the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University at Coimbatore district in the state of Tamil Nadu.

The GEAC, which is under the environment ministry, is tasked to regulate research, testing and commercial release of GM crops, foods and organisms.

"The GEAC panel did not address the real alternatve to chemical agriculture, which is biodiverse organic farming, which controls pests at the systems level by enhancing pest-predator balance and by growing crops with pest and disease resilience," Shiva said.

"Bt crops are a continuation of a non-sustainable strategy for pest control, which, instead of controlling pests, creates new pests and super pests. With Bt cotton a proliferation of aphids, jassids, army bug and mealy bug has resulted in a 13-fold increase in the use of pesticides in the Vidarbha region," Shiva explained.

Studies conducted by the non-government organisation Navdanya in Maharashtra - which, among others, promotes awareness of the hazards of genetic engineering - have shown that where 92 crores (20 million U.S. dollars) worth of pesticides were used in 2004, by 2007 farmers were spending 1,326 crores (71 million dollars) annually on pesticides.

There were many inconsistencies in the MAHYCO/Monsanto's presentations, said Shiva. "When the company wants to avoid risk assessment and liability, the argument is that the GM plant is 'substantially equivalent to the non-engineered parent organism'. But when it comes to claiming novelty to gain intellectual property rights and patents, the argument turns to 'substantially inequivalent' to the parent organism," Shiva argued.

Other known risks posed by Bt brinjal range from genetic pollution and contamination through cross-pollination in the fields to the possibility of allergies developing among consumers.

Indian farmers are typically smallholders and there is very little chance of them being able to protect their fields from cross-pollination. "Liability systems need to be evolved first to make GM crop companies pay for economic damages caused, especially to organic farmers," Shiva said.

The next scheduled public hearing on the controversial BT brinjal will be held in Bhubaneshwar, Orissa state on Jan. 16 and a third in Ahmedabad, Gujarat on Jan. 19. Similar meetings will be held in Hyderabad on Jan. 22, in Bangalore on Jan. 23, in Nagpur on Jan. 27 and in Chandigarh on Jan. 30.

Opposition to Bt brinjal and other GM crops is already growing among farmers' groups, the Union Health Ministry and even state governments such as Kerala's.

Already, mass petitions have begun to pour into Ramesh's office. One of them, from the village of Chengua in Orissa, declares: "We reject the approval of Bt brinjal. It does not have the approval of our Jaiv Panchayat ('living democracy' movements, a community-level institution), and it will not be allowed to enter our fields and kitchens. We traditionally save our own seeds and consider the same as sacred."

Kerala, run by an opposition Marxist government, has already banned all GM crops in the state on the grounds that it could cause erosion of biodiversity and endanger the diversity of crops, for some of which India is the centre of origin. Brinjal is among food crops considered native to India.

Cited in the Kerala ban are "irreversible and deleterious human health effects from GM crops/foods and adverse effects on other living organisms" and "the possibility of systematic monopolisation of seed and other resources by a handful of large corporate bodies, to the extent that even future public research is jeopardized and farmers' a priori rights are completely violated."

Opposition is also coming in from doctors' groups under a network called 'Doctors for Food and Biosafety', which, in a statement released Monday, said that "the obsolete technology used in Bt brinjal incorporating antibiotic resistant markers is likely to have disastrous implications for developing countries like India which are struggling with communicable disease burden."

The doctors have suggested that the introduction of Bt brinjal could jeopardise national health programmes against drug-resistant tuberculosis.

An independent analysis of the Indian situation by Dr Judy Carman, director of the Institute of Health and Environmental Research in Australia, which will be submitted to the Indian Supreme Court, shows that "if GM brinjal comes into the Indian food supply, then every Indian will be eating it, resulting in 1.15 billion being Indians exposed to the GM brinjal. Because of the number of people exposed, if GM brinjal is later found to cause illness, it could cause significant economic and social problems for India."

India is among the world's largest vegetable growers, with an annual production of 87.53 million tonnes, representing a 14.4 percent share of the world's output.

Declared Shiva: "2010 is the year of biodiversity and we are celebrating it by protecting our indigenous vegetable biodiversity and protecting our organic vegetable growers."

Lundberg Now 'Non-GMO Verified'

California Farmer [USA], 14 January 2010:
http://mobile.californiafarmer.com/index.aspx?ascxid=cmsNewsStory&rmid=0&rascxid=&args=&rargs=9&dt=633989977548037500&lid=
=a8yebu2d9qxnz7lo&adms=633989977546006250Xda95bb5fcf&cmsSid=34642&cmsScid=9

Lundberg Family Farms, Richvale has announced that 66 of their products are among the first products to be officially "Non-GMO Verified" by the Non-GMO Project. The "Non-GMO Verified" seal means that verified Lundberg products have been produced according to rigorous best practices for GMO avoidance, which includes testing of risk ingredients.

The Non-GMO Project is based in Upland, Calif. and has an enrollment of near 3,000 products. The Non-GMO Project is a non-profit organization, created by leaders representing all sectors of the organic and natural products industry in the U.S. and Canada, to offer consumers a consistent non-GMO choice for organic and natural products that are produced without genetic engineering or recombinant DNA technologies. More is at www.nongmoproject.org or call (901) 626-0809.

"It is very important for the consumer to have an educated choice between food containing GMO's and those that are Non-GMO," says Grant Lundberg, CEO of Lundberg Family Farms. "It has been my pleasure to work with the Non-GMO Project and like minded members of the natural foods community to draft the first comprehensive Non-GMO standards in the United States. I could not be prouder that Lundberg Family Farms is among the first companies to have our products officially verified."

Grant Lundberg serves as one of eleven governing members of the Non-GMO Project's board of directors that has been involved in initiating, funding, and writing standards for the Non-GMO Project since its inception.

Visit http://www.lundberg.com to view a list of Lundberg Family Farms products that have been Non-GMO Verified.

13 January 2010

Monsanto options volatile after GMO research report

MONSANTO/STUDY
• Monsanto put option volume swells early
• Research report says organ damage in rats
• Monsanto says products safe, touts new offerings
• Shares fall as much as 3.4 pct. Shares now up 0.31 pct

Carey Gillam
Reuters (via ForexYard), 13 January 2010:
http://www.forexyard.com/en/news/Monsanto-options-volatile-after-GMO-research-report-2010-01-13T180105Z

KANSAS CITY - Monsanto Co was the subject of active market moves on Wednesday because of research that showed organ damage in animals that ate its biotech corn, juxtaposed with the company's new biotech products aimed at bringing in billions in new sales.

Monsanto shares fell as low as $80.50 early in the day, and were down 18 cents at $83.13 at midmorning. They recovered their losses and even rose slightly later in the day, heartened by the company's research and development efforts in agricultural seed technology.

Options volume also surged amid the dueling views of the world's largest biotech seed company.

Monsanto's option volume was double the recent average daily turnover with about 31,000 puts and 19,000 calls traded, according to option analytics firm Trade Alert.

"There was a lot of put activity this morning in Monsanto," said WhatsTrading.com option strategist Frederic Ruffy, who cited the GMO research report as a key factor.

"Some investors were buying the January $80 puts in reaction to the morning drop in Monsanto shares expecting further declines while other investors were looking at the April $75 puts to hedge possible share price losses in the months ahead," Ruffy said.

January options expire on Friday after the close.

St. Louis, Mo.-based Monsanto is a darling of Wall Street for its strong growth patterns and its dominance of the lucrative agricultural seed market. But questions about the safety of the company's genetic tinkering with key food crops such as corn and soybeans persist.

The research paper drawing attention this week was published by the International Journal of Biological Sciences and authored by a group of European scientists who said they found signs of organ damage in rats fed three genetically modified corn types consumed by people and animals worldwide.

The biotech corn types have been genetically altered to make tolerant dousings of Monsanto's weedkilling Roundup and to develop their own insecticides to ward off pests.

Signs of toxicity appeared in rats' kidneys, livers, hearts, adrenal glands and spleens, according to the report.

The researchers said there was a "clear negative impact" in the rats that ate GM corn varieties for just 90 days, and they said additional long-term (up to two years) animal feeding studies should be performed.

"Our data strongly suggests that these GM maize varieties induce a state of hepatorenal toxicity... These substances have never before been an integral part of the human or animal diet and therefore their health consequences for those who consume them, especially over long time periods are currently unknown."

Monsanto called the results faulty. It said several studies show its biotech corn to be safe and said the new report has "unsubstantiated conclusions."

"Statistical fluctuations occur commonly in any large study with many endpoints, and statistical significance alone does not determine when an observation can be translated into evidence of risk," said Dan Goldstein, Monsanto's director of medical sciences and outreach.

Monsanto has spent the last week touting what it says is an accelerated research and development effort in agricultural seed technology with a focus on 11 key biotech seed projects that offer $8 billion of gross revenue opportunity by 2020.

The company is rolling out new biotech corn and soybean seeds for planting in the United States this spring, and says early demand has been strong. (Additional Reporting by Doris Frankel in Chicago. Reporting by Carey Gillam. Editing by Robert MacMillan)

Genetically engineered foods: science and nature don't necessarily mix

Bio-Medicine [USA], 13 January 2010:
http://news.bio-medicine.org/biology-news-2/Genetically-engineered-foods-3A-science-and-nature-dont-necessarily-mix-11549-1/

ARLINGTON, VA -- Many genetically-engineered (GE) foods are released onto the market before adequate studies are done to test their risks to humans, according to the May 2000 issue of the Journal of the American Chiropractic Association (JACA). Alarmingly, scientists warn that the long-term health impacts of the novel genes introduced into these foods are impossible to predict, because they contain blueprints for proteins never previously consumed by humans in the quantities produced in GE crops, according to the article.

"According to most estimates, 60 to 70 percent of all processed foods contain genetically modified ingredients, including proteins previously absent from human diets," write Shirley Watson, DC, director of education for the American Chiropractic Association's (ACA) Council on Nutrition, and Barbara Keeler, a journalist and health and nutrition expert, in the JACA article. "Some hazards from the GE process could directly impact patients who ingest the food. Other hazards are indirect, operating through pollution of other food species or through unintended effects on local and global ecosystems."

Genetically engineered foods were quietly introduced into the marketplace in 1996. In the past four years, they have spread rapidly. Three varieties of soy, ten varieties of corn, papaya, yellow neck squash, canola, potatoes, tomatoes, dairy and animal products are already on the tables of most consumers - with more than a hundred expected soon.

Among the hazards of genetically engineered foods revealed in the article:

•

Toxin producers: The article quotes FDA documents that state, "Corn and potatoes engineered to produce toxins that kill insects are now classified by the Environmental Protection Agency as pesticides, rather than vegetables." These vegetables produce toxins designed to kill harmful insects, but "non-target" insects and mammals have also been affected.

•

Herbicide-resistant genes: Seventy-one percent of last year's genetically altered crops carried genes designed to tolerate a specific herbicide made by the company engineering the seed. This guarantees that humans who ingest the foods will be exposed to herbicides "with a litany of adverse health effects," the article explains.

•

Allergens: "Genetic engineering may transfer new and unidentified proteins from one food into another, triggering allergic reactions. Millions of Americans who are sensitive to allergens will have no way of identifying or protecting themselves from offending foods," according to FDA documents quoted in the JACA article.

•

A Host of Unintended Side Effects: Impaired sense of smell and shortened lifespan in bees consuming pollen from GE plants; changed hormone levels and altered milk content in cows eating GE soybeans; sickness in cattle given bovine growth hormone; and toxicity moving up the food chain, causing death or impaired health in non-target species consuming insects that fed on crops with bacillicus thuringiensis (Bt) toxins.

Brinjal fire fries minister
• Protests against genetically modified crop in city

The Telegraph, January 13 2009:
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1100114/jsp/bengal/story_11982382.jsp

Calcutta - Bengal's advantage will fade away if genetically modified - better known as BT (bacillus thuringiensis) - brinjals [aubergines] are allowed, green activists and agricultural scientists said today while pleading with Union environment minister Jairam Ramesh to scrap the plan.

"There are several reasons to oppose commercial cultivation of the BT brinjal. Not only will it harm the environment, it will also rob the farmers of their livelihood as they will have to depend on seeds imported by multinational companies," agricultural scientist Anupam Pal said during an interaction at the Bose Institute.

Before taking a final call on commercial cultivation of BT brinjals, the environment ministry plans to hold consultative meetings across seven cities, the first of which was held in Calcutta today.

Data suggest that the impact on farmers in Bengal will be the highest as the state contributes around 30 per cent to the country's annual brinjal production of over 9 million tonnes. In the past three years, brinjal production in Bengal has grown by over 20 per cent and over 90 per cent of vegetable farmers in the state depend on the brinjal for livelihood.

"After potatoes, brinjal is the most grown and most consumed vegetable in the state," said Ardhendu Sekhar Chatterjee of the Development Research Communication Services Centre, an NGO.

The minister clarified that the Centre did not want to rush through the process. "That is why we have come here," Ramesh told a gathering of over 400 people - scientists, farm experts, farmers' bodies, consumer groups and NGOs.

More than 200 people, who were not allowed inside the venue, continued with their protests outside.

The supporters of BT brinjal argue that the genetically modified variety will make the produce resistant to a pest known as Fruit and Shoot Borer by introducing the pesticide within the plant itself.

"But there are 15 other types of pests," said a state agriculture department official.

The Genetic Engineering Approval Committee, a wing of the environment ministry, had cleared commercial cultivation of BT brinjals. The decision kicked up a storm as green activists argued that it would threaten bio-diversity, destabilise ecosystems and make farmers dependent on multinationals.

Tempers ran high during the three-hour meeting as groups opposed to BT brinjals accused the Centre of playing to the hands of multinationals.

As noisy protests by the green lobby and NGOs came in the way of discussions, the minister threatened to leave the hall several times.

"I expect to be through with my public consultation in seven cities by February 15, after which I will submit my recommendations to the Prime Minister," the minister said.

The year to challenge corporate control in agriculture

Ben Lilliston
Daily Planet [USA], 13 January 2010:
http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/blog/iatp/year-challenge-corporate-control-agriculture

After yet another decade of accelerated market concentration [http://www.nfu.org/wp-content/2007-heffernanreport.pdf], there are fewer companies controlling our food system than at any time in history. The groundswell of energy and excitement for local foods and "growing our own" has been inspiring, but excess corporate control of our food system limits how much this movement can grow. This year, we'll have a chance to tell government regulators what we think.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture and Department of Justice are holding a series of workshops [http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/workshops/ag2010/index.htm#dates] around the country on concentration in agriculture. The first workshop will be in Iowa on March 12 and will focus on the seed industry and other issues of concern for farmers. Other workshops will cover the poultry, dairy and livestock industries as well as margins (the difference between what farmers are paid and what consumers pay in the supermarket).

The workshops have already stirred things up in the seed industry. In an 18 page report [http://www.pioneer.com/CMRoot/Pioneer/media_room/DuPont_DOJ_USDA_Comments.pdf] submitted to the USDA, DuPont/Pioneer charged that Monsanto has monopoly control over the sector. Monsanto responds to the general allegations here [http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto_today/for_the_record/innovation_and_the_competitive_seed_market.asp?WT.svl=2]. Firing back, IATP submitted comments [http://www.agobservatory.org/library.cfm?refid=107077] to the USDA and Department of Justice outlining key points we hope the workshops will consider, including the role of trade policies in driving corporate concentration. We also signed onto a comment [http://www.agobservatory.org/library.cfm?refid=107105] by over 25 farm and food organizations focusing in on the problems of corporate control in the poultry sector.

A year-long series of workshops doesn't oblige the government to act. It's going to take a ton of political pressure to give government the backbone to take on the Monsanto, Cargill, ADM and others. But the workshops are an opportunity to start building the political momentum necessary for a better food system that fairly rewards farmers and workers, protects the environment and provides enough healthy food for all.

Study Finds Genetically Modified Corn Causing Organ Damage To Rats

Vincent Fernando
The Business Insider [USA], 13 January 2010:
http://www.businessinsider.com/genetically-modified-corn-accused-of-causing-organ-damage-2010-1

A new study concludes that some varieties of genetically modified corn may cause organ damage.

Regardless of which specific varieties of genemtic modification might be dangerous, if serious health risks were proven for any genetically modified type of food, it could hit all types since the level of regulatory scrutiny would likely increase ten-fold.

It would most certainly be bad news for Monsanto (MON).

Journal of Biological Sciences: We therefore conclude that our data strongly suggests that these GM maize varieties induce a state of hepatorenal toxicity. This can be due to the new pesticides (herbicide or insecticide) present specifically in each type of GM maize, although unintended metabolic effects due to the mutagenic properties of the GM transformation process cannot be excluded [42]. All three GM maize varieties contain a distinctly different pesticide residue associated with their particular GM event (glyphosate and AMPA in NK 603, modified Cry1Ab in MON 810, modified Cry3Bb1 in MON 863). These substances have never before been an integral part of the human or animal diet and therefore their health consequences for those who consume them, especially over long time periods are currently unknown.

...

In conclusion, our data presented here strongly recommend that additional long-term (up to 2 years) animal feeding studies be performed in at least three species, preferably also multi-generational, to provide true scientifically valid data on the acute and chronic toxic effects of GM crops, feed and foods.

Read more here > http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm#headingA11

We'd be curious to see how this pans out, it seems to be far from a done deal given that they recommend doing further study in order to achieve 'true scientifically valid data'. It also seems that the problem may have had more to do with the pesticides involved rather than the actual act of modifying genes.

As always, one needs to balance the benefits vs. the cost of any technology. We're reminded of how food preservatives came under fire as unhealthy additives, without regard to the fact that large amounts of people used to die on a regular basis from food poisoning before their broad usage. Still, if the danger is real, it should obviously be investigated. Hopefully, for the sake of agricultural productivity, there aren't any major health risks.

(Via Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/12/monsantos-gmo-corn-linked_n_420365.html and Naked Capitalism http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2010/01/monsanto-gm-corn-linked-to-organ-damage-in-animals.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NakedCapitalism+%28naked+capitalism%29&utm_content=Google+Reader)

Organic farmers must embrace GM crops if we are to feed the world, says scientist

Mark Henderson, Science Editor
The Times [UK], 13 January 2010:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/earth-environment/article6985295.ece

The organic movement should overcome its hostility to genetically modified crops and embrace the contribution that they can make to sustainable farming, one of the world's leading agricultural scientists has told The Times.

Although organic farmers are among the most implacable opponents of genetic engineering, it should be accepted as legitimate, according to Gordon Conway, Professor of International Development at Imperial College London and a former government adviser.

In an interview with The Times, he said that the ban on organic farmers using GM crops was based on an excessively rigid rejection of synthetic approaches to farming and a misconception that natural ways were safer and more environment- friendly than man-made ones.

Farmers, he said, should use the best aspects of organic methods and GM technology to maximise yields while limiting damage to ecosystems. He accepted that organic lobbyists would regard the idea as heresy, but said that genetic engineering could create better organic crops than those grown today with further environmental benefits.

"What frustrates me is there is a real potential for combining GM technology and organic approaches," said Professor Conway, who stepped down last year as chief scientific adviser to the Department for International Development. "To say that is probably heretical, but there would be real benefits if we got over this notion that GM is somehow not organic."

His comments come amid increasing pressure from scientists for greater use of GM crops to ensure food security for a global population that will reach nine billion by 2050, while minimising environmental damage. Professor John Beddington, the Government's chief scientific adviser, said this week that the world could not afford to ignore the potential of genetic engineering to improve agriculture. GM technology is rejected by lobbyists such as the Soil Association, which regards it as unnatural and hazardous.

Professor Conway said that conventional farming had a lot to learn from organic agriculture, as inorganic fertilisers, pesticides and herbicides had been overused, causing environmental damage.

GM crops, he said, were compatible with the organic movement's goal of making farming more sustainable, but fell foul of its strict but misguided notion that natural methods were always best. "A lot of the world view is that nature is always benign and that whatever we do is not benign, and that is pure rubbish," he said. "Nature is full of very poisonous things indeed. You have got these rigid rules, which are reinforced by a number of misconceptions, putting it mildly."

While the processes used to create GM crops are unnatural, so too is the conventional breeding that has created today's non-GM varieties. Both methods involve genes that are natural in origin, but genetic engineering can create crops with significant advantages.

The rigidity of organic certification rules can thus work against sustainability by blocking the use of helpful technologies, Professor Conway said.

Herbicide-tolerant GM crops, for example, can encourage "no-till" farming that reduces carbon emissions. "You can genetically engineer crops to be better organic crops. At the moment, I don't think many people would accept that, but I think eventually they will," he said.

Instead of concentrating on natural, farmers should pick and choose the most sustainable options regardless of their origin. "If we are going to get a sustainable, resilient world, we need appropriate technologies and we should not go in with a rigid set of preconceptions," he said. "I think we are going to end up in a very interesting hybrid world in which we choose the technology because it is appropriate, not because of where it has come from. And 2050 will be like that: it will not be completely high-technology, and it will not be a completely back-tonature world."

Africa's Green Revolution Drought Tolerant Maize Scam

African Centre for Biosafety [South Africa], 13 January 2010:
http://www.biosafetyafrica.net/index.html/index.php/20100113255/Africa-s-Green-Revolution-Drought-Tolerant-Maize-Scam/menu-id-100025.html

Biosafety in Africa - Briefing Papers
http://www.biosafetyafrica.net/index.html/index.php/Briefing-Papers/menu-id-100025.html

Prediction of exacerbated drought in Africa due to climate change is apparently the driving force behind the establishment of the Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA) initiative, another prong of the so-called "New Green Revolution for Africa". WEMA seeks to develop drought tolerant maize varieties through a program which is being presented as a panacea for solving issues of hunger on the continent using marker assisted breeding and genetic engineering. That this is being done under the guise of philanthropy sidesteps questions about the real causes of hunger, disregards issues of imbalanced global distribution of food and underplays the financial benefits to be derived by the various proponents of the scheme. The possible risks to small-scale farmers, whom WEMA targets, include loss of biodiversity through gene flow, a dependence on expensive inputs into farming, possible exposure to intellectual and property rights claims and impacts on their food security. The most effective ways of supporting small-scale farmers is through agro-ecological approaches to farming. These focus on small-scale sustainable agriculture; locally adapted seed and ecological farming that better addresses the complexities of climate change, hunger, poverty and productive demands on agriculture in the developing world.

[pdf] Download (216.12 Kb):

http://www.biosafetyafrica.net/index.html/images/stories/dmdocuments/ACB-Africa-Drought-Tolerant-Maize-2010.pdf

South Africa - Greenpeace get wrong again

Meat Trade News Daily [UK], 13 January 2010:
http://www.meattradenewsdaily.co.uk/news/130110/south_africa___greenpeace_get_wrong_again.aspx

Greenpeace has for the second time in eight years backed down on opposing the development of Golden Rice. Kumi Naidoo of Durban , the South African born newly appointed executive director of Greenpeace International, in an interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel, on the question of Golden Rice, said:

"In view of developments like Golden Rice, Greenpeace must reconsider its position with regard to GMOs. We must make sure not to dismiss new and important developments."

"This is a very welcome approach to the acceptance of GMOs in general and not only concerns Golden Rice. It will undoubtedly boost Africa's endeavours to speed up the development of GM crops to alleviate hunger and poverty," says Professor Jocelyn Webster, executive director of AfricaBio , South Africa , a biotechnology stakeholders' organisation. "It is an encouraging move away from the usual radical view of activists to a more open approach where things can be discussed, which is a boon to GMO acceptance worldwide in general," says Professor Webster.

This is the second positive statement from Greenpeace on Golden Rice, Prof Webster emphasised. She pointed out that in February 2001 at the BioVision Conference in Lyon , France , Benedict Haerlin, genetic engineering coordinator of Greenpeace, also backed down from the stand against GM crops. He admitted that Greenpeace would not oppose field trials of Golden Rice being developed to combat blindness in the Third World . (Daily Telegraph, London , 10 February 2001)

Golden Rice was developed to combat Vitamin A Deficiency (VAD) which kills 6000 people daily and causes blindness in 500 000 children annually. (UNICEF 2007)

"A single month of delay in the marketing Golden Rice would cause 50 000 children to go blind. This is the price to pay for opposing the development of this unique scientific breakthrough in human food. At last it seems that Greenpeace is seeing the light that could save the loss of sight of 500 000 children annually in the developing world."

"I'm sure that South African born Naidoo is encouraged by the success of GM crop production in South Africa over the past eleven years. There have been no adverse effects on human and animal health nor the environment. Main beneficiaries have undoubtedly been the thousands of smallholder farmers who have increased their yields by up to 30%, providing them with a sustainable food supply," according to Prof Webster.

Commenting on Naidoo's remarks, Professor Klaus Ammann, eminent Swiss scientist said: "Greenpeace's aggressiveness towards Golden Rice and Naidoo's encouraging stance will soon turn into a major success like Bt rice in China. China is the world's largest producer and consumer of rice and has just approved the production of GM rice promising a yield increase of 8% and an 80% decrease in insecticides."

Golden Rice is scheduled to be launched in 2011/12.

truthabouttrade.org

Source: newsroom - meattradenewsdaily.co.uk

12 January 2010

We're not backing down on genetic engineering

Greenpeace International, 12 January 2010:
http://weblog.greenpeace.org/makingwaves/archives/2010/01/were_not_backing_down_on_genet.html

Not many things are certain but in the media you can be sure that things you say will often get distorted so much so - that after a while they bear little or no resemblance to what you actually said - especially when the industry you oppose gets a hold if it. Back in November our Executive Director, Kumi Naidoo, did an interview with German magazine Der Spiegel.

Spiegel asked:

"Genetic technology has come forth with Golden rice, which can provide undernourished children with vitamin A and protect them from blindness. What would an African head of Greenpeace have against this?"

Kumi's response was:

"I don't have a scientific background and for this reason I'd like to have another look at all of our scientific positions. We must be certain that we are not passing up any new, good developments." And that's exactly what they printed but here's what their website quoted him as saying:

"In view of developments like Golden Rice, Greenpeace must reconsider its position with regard to GMOs. We must make sure not to dismiss new and important developments."

As you can see for yourself - it's completely different to what he actually said. As a result of this error - Der Spiegel's online readers were left with the completely wrong impression of our current opposition to genetically engineered (GE) organisms.

To add insult to injury - this misquote took off with a life of it's own - being reported with headlines like "Greenpeace Backing Down on GMOs" by the agri-chemical industry. And of course they were delighted - pushing headlines around like this as if Christmas had come early...

Meanwhile a correction was made by Der Spiegel. But the story is still showing up on a few blogs and confusing a lot of people.

To be completely clear here - on our own blog - we remain firmly in opposition to genetically engineered (GE) crops. These crops can inter-breed with closely related plants thereby contaminating non GE crops and environments in unforeseeable and uncontrollable ways. The release of GE crops into the environment is "genetic pollution" and as such a major threat both to the environment and to the livelihood of farmers globally.

When I spoke to Kumi about this earlier today - he was concerned about the latest confusion surrounding our position and made the following statement.

"The fight against poverty and malnutrition is one I feel very strongly about and which I have been involved in my entire adult life. Our planet is fully capable of producing enough food for all of us, if only we would overcome the social, political, economic and environmental problems - the manmade problems - that stand in the way. In the meantime, we should not waste time and money with genetic engineering, which at best is only a dangerous and costly distraction."

Yellow Rice, if introduced on a large scale, could actually exacerbate malnutrition and undermine food security because it encourages a diet based on a single industrial staple food rather than increase access to the many vitamin-rich food plants with high nutritional value.

The fact that the GE industry has grabbed hold of this misquote and fabricated the story even further is a telling sign that they are failing to make any significant progress towards getting their risky products on the market. They are acting like a sinking ship - desperately trying to stay afloat. What they fail to realise is that they have already hit rock bottom because their "solution" to food security is full of so many holes!

For more information about our position on GE crops including Yellow (Golden) Rice: Visit our pages on sustainable agriculture: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/genetic-engineering

Monsanto's GMO Corn Linked To Organ Failure, Study Reveals

Katherine Goldstein/Gazelle Emami
Huffington Post [USA], 12 January 2010:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/12/monsantos-gmo-corn-linked_n_420365.html

In a study released by the International Journal of Biological Sciences, analyzing the effects of genetically modified foods on mammalian health, researchers found that agricultural giant Monsanto's GM corn is linked to organ damage in rats.

According to the study, which was summarized by Adam Shake at Twilight Earth, "Three varieties of Monsanto's GM corn - Mon 863, insecticide-producing Mon 810, and Roundup® herbicide-absorbing NK 603 - were approved for consumption by US, European and several other national food safety authorities."

Monsanto gathered its own crude statistical data after conducting a 90-day study, even though chronic problems can rarely be found after 90 days, and concluded that the corn was safe for consumption. The stamp of approval may have been premature, however.

In the conclusion of the IJBS study, researchers wrote:

"Effects were mostly concentrated in kidney and liver function, the two major diet detoxification organs, but in detail differed with each GM type. In addition, some effects on heart, adrenal, spleen and blood cells were also frequently noted. As there normally exists sex differences in liver and kidney metabolism, the highly statistically significant disturbances in the function of these organs, seen between male and female rats, cannot be dismissed as biologically insignificant as has been proposed by others. We therefore conclude that our data strongly suggests that these GM maize varieties induce a state of hepatorenal toxicity....These substances have never before been an integral part of the human or animal diet and therefore their health consequences for those who consume them, especially over long time periods are currently unknown."

Monsanto has immediately responded to the study, stating that the research is "based on faulty analytical methods and reasoning and do not call into question the safety findings for these products."

The IJBS study's author Gilles-Eric Séralini responded to the Monsanto statement on the blog, Food Freedom, "Our study contradicts Monsanto conclusions because Monsanto systematically neglects significant health effects in mammals that are different in males and females eating GMOs, or not proportional to the dose. This is a very serious mistake, dramatic for public health. This is the major conclusion revealed by our work, the only careful reanalysis of Monsanto crude statistical data."

Get Organ-Damaging Monsanto Corn off the Market

Change.org [USA], 12 January 2009:
http://www.change.org/actions/view/get_organ-damaging_monsanto_corn_off_the_market

Targeting: Margaret Hamburg (FDA Commissioner)

Started by: Change.org

The first-ever public study of the health effects of genetically modified corn shows that three patented crops developed and owned by agriculture giant Monsanto cause liver, kidney and heart damage in mammals.

The FDA has approved all three varieties for sale and consumption in the U.S. and all three are in our food supply right now.

More shocking, the raw data used in the study was from Monsanto's own testing -- the company simply ignored clear indications that their genetically modified corn was causing organ damage.

According to the study's author, the company's own data "clearly underlines adverse impacts on kidneys and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs, as well as different levels of damages to heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system."

The FDA should immediately investigate and at least temporarily rescind approval for all three varieties of corn while research continues. By allowing Monsanto to sell its proprietary but dangerous corn, the FDA is failing to protect the public from needless risk.

Tell the FDA to halt the sale of all three crops and re-investigate their health effects immediately.

Sign the letter

Genetically Modified Corn Causes Organ Damage

Dear Commissioner Hamburg

I am writing today to ask that you immediately halt the sale of three varieties of genetically modified corn in the United States, which have been found to cause organ damage in mammals. Mon 810, Mon 863 and NK 603 were all approved for consumption but a new analysis of feeding trial data reveals that consumption of all three are linked to liver, kidney and heart damage, among other negative effects.

Further, the recent study -- published in the International Journal of Biological Sciences --alarmed its authors to such a degree that they have urged "an immediate ban on the import and cultivation of these GMOs and strongly recommend additional long-term (up to two years) and multi-generational animal feeding studies on at least three species to provide true scientifically valid data on the acute and chronic toxic effects of GM crops, feed and foods."

Please, don't put our population at needless risk. These crops are potentially dangerous and it is your job to keep all of us safe from foods that can cause such severe damage.

I look forward to your prompt action and response.

Thank you,

[Sign online at http://www.change.org/actions/view/get_organ-damaging_monsanto_corn_off_the_market

Monsanto GMO Ignites Big Seed War

Frank Morris, National Public Radio [USA], 12 January 2010:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122498255

Listen to the Story (All Things Considered):
javascript:NPR.Player.openPlayer(122498255,%20122498219,%20null,
%20NPR.Player.Action.PLAY_NOW,%20NPR.Player.Type.STORY,%20'0')

Even though deep snowdrifts cover his fields in eastern Kansas, Luke Ulrich, a corn and soybean farmer here, is thinking about spring. It's time to buy seed again, but hundreds of seed companies have gone under in the past two decades.

Ulrich remembers the days before genetically modified seeds upended the industry. Critics of the big agriculture biotech company Monsanto say its popular Roundup Ready technology is to blame for that. Roundup Ready is a line of gene-modified seeds that inoculate plants against a herbicide, Roundup, also made by Monsanto, that kills just about everything else.

"Ever since they've come out with the Roundup Ready trait and that became popular and basically took over farming, we've seen significant increases every single year," Ulrich says.

Ulrich says his seed costs shot up almost 50 percent last year. That's because farmers are contractually prohibited from saving seeds and planting them the following year.

Farmers face lawsuits if they try to save and replant the genetically modified seed because they don't own the technology. While they bristle at that, they love the Roundup Ready seed.

"There's nothing like Roundup. A monkey could farm with it," Ulrich says.

'Amazing Amount Of Leverage'

More than 9 out of 10 soybean seeds carry the Roundup Ready trait. It's about the same for cotton and just a little lower for corn.

"Farmers will not buy soybeans without Roundup Ready in it. So, that gives Monsanto an amazing amount of leverage," says Jim Denvir, a lawyer working for DuPont. DuPont owns Pioneer, a competing seed company.

Pioneer licenses the Roundup Ready trait from Monsanto, as do about 150 other seed companies. Those agreements control which other genetics competing companies can mix with the Roundup Ready trait. Last year, Monsanto sued to stop Pioneer from "stacking" Roundup Ready with another trait. Denvir says Pioneer complained to the Justice Department.

"A seed company can't stay in business without offering seeds with Roundup Ready in it, so if they want to stay in that business, essentially they have to do what Monsanto tells them to do," Denvir says.

Monsanto's critics say it used this "platform monopoly" to crush many competitors. Chris Holman, a patent lawyer who teaches at the University of Missouri, Kansas City, likens it to Microsoft and its dominant Windows operating system.

"Because of the structure of the industry, they are able to really drive participants in the industry into using their technology," Holman says.

Monsanto spokesman Lee Quarles says those allegations are unfair, though he concedes they're coming at the company fast and furious.

"We're actively working to address questions from regulators, both the Department of Justice and state attorneys general as well as other parties in the industry, to address any questions they have about our business," Quarles says.

But Monsanto is pushing ahead. It will soon market a soybean seed combining eight separate genetically engineered traits.

Roundup Ready 2 Yield

Roundup Ready technology was developed at Monsanto's world headquarters in St. Louis. Jim Tobin of Monsanto says it sells itself. "Farmers get to vote every year before they plant, and it's that vote each year that determines who has the largest market share or volume," Tobin says.

Monsanto spent huge amounts of money and took big risks to develop the Roundup Ready trait. Tobin says it has revolutionized agriculture. But now, "Well, we've invented something new," he says.

It's called Roundup Ready 2 Yield. It uses the gene as the original, just placed in a different spot in the genome. Monsanto says that boosts yield.

Interesting timing: Monsanto's patent on Roundup Ready 1 expires in 2014 and with it, a revenue stream of maybe half a billion dollars a year in royalties. That's unless it can switch farmers over to Roundup Ready 2.

"We'd like to have everyone in the soybean business, seed business using the trait," Tobin says.

Monsanto's putting the new trait in all its best soybean seeds. And Paul Schickler, president of Pioneer, says Monsanto is forcing its licensees to do the same. He charges that Monsanto is trying to make Roundup Ready 1 disappear.

"That's our concern: bridging or switching from one patented product, Roundup Ready 1, to the next-generation Roundup Ready 2 Yield, doesn't allow competition for the original technology," Schickler says.

Unlike in many other industries, there's no clear path for a genetically modified crop to go generic. As it stands, generic providers would probably still need access to Monsanto's proprietary data to get federal approval to sell the Roundup Ready trait.

They'd also need closely held technical data to update licenses that keep the trait legal in big, important markets like China and the EU.

Meanwhile, the end of the Roundup Ready patent will very likely give farmers a chance to do something they haven't for years: plant the seed they've harvested. Luke Ulrich is ready.

"I don't care how good Roundup Ready 2 is; if you tell me I can save back my own seed, I'm going to plant my own seed," Ulrich says.

The problem for guys like Ulrich will be finding seed that has just the Roundup Ready gene alone, one not stacked with other patented traits. After all, if he can't find the seed in the first place, he can't grow it.

US GM food giant Monsanto and Limerick-based Stokes Bio agree license agreement for gene analysis plant breeding technology

Finfacts Ireland, 12 January 2010:
http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1018801.shtml

Monsanto, the US company that has been the pioneer in developing genetically modified (GM) seeds and Limerick-based biotechnology firm, Stokes Bio Limited, announced today that they have entered into a licensing agreement and R&D collaboration, which is expected to help accelerate the pace of new advancements in plant breeding.

Last October, the Irish Government under pressure from anti-science Green Party members, agreed to declare Ireland a GM-free zone. It may have just been cheap political posturing or maybe not.

Finfacts article, Oct 2009: Global Irish Economic Forum and branding Ireland: Green Party minister Eamon Ryan is both for and against science [http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1018210.shtml]

Under the agreement, announced today, Monsanto has exclusive rights to Stokes Bio's patented technology for use in agriculture.

In plant breeding, genotyping or gene analysis is used to identify the seeds or plants with the most desirable characteristics, such as better yield or disease resistance. Currently, gene analysis is limited by the number of samples that can be processed at one time and the turnaround time per sample.

Stokes Bio's system utilises microfluidic technology that can provide the same evaluations using much smaller sample sizes - as little as 1/1000th of what is currently required - which continually flow through the system in nanoliter-size droplets.

The instrument can evaluate up to 100,000 data points per hour, making it more efficient than any currently-used methods of gene analysis. It is capable of generating more data in less time, using less sample and reagent, and at a lower cost than existing technologies.

Stokes Bio will deliver a number of these next-generation genotyping instruments to Monsanto this year.

"Monsanto's strength lies in our robust discovery engine which fuels our industry-leading R&D pipeline" said Bob Reiter, vice president of breeding technology for Monsanto. "We are constantly looking for opportunities to collaborate with other companies and adopt new technologies that could help speed up the rate of scientific discovery. More efficient gene analysis means we can leverage this knowledge in our technology pipeline and be able to offer our farmer customers innovative products that boost productivity on the farm, faster than ever."

Stokes Bio was established in 2005 by Mark Davies and Tara Dalton, with financing from Kernel Capital, as a spin-off company from the Stokes Institute at University of Limerick. In addition to Kernel Capital, the University of Limerick and Enterprise Ireland also are shareholders in the company.

---

Comment from GM-free Ireland:

Finfacts (which claims to be "Ireland's top business website") describes the Green Party's GM-free policy as "anti-science" in the above article about Monsanto's latest Irish venture.

This is outrageous, since there is irrefutable scientific evidence of the health and environmental dangers of GM food and farming, not to mention the economic reality that Ireland's competitive advantage clearly lies in capturing the rapidly growing EU and US markets for GM-free meat, fish and dairy produce.

Last year, Finfacts founder and editor Michael Hennigan accused Eamon Ryan of being "both for and against science given his support for pandering to ignorance by seeking to have Ireland declared a country where all food items linked to genetic modification (GM) will be banned." He also wrote "Declaring Ireland a GM-free zone is pandering to ignorance." [see "Global Irish Economic Forum and branding Ireland: Green Party minister Eamon Ryan is both for and against science", http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1018210.shtml]

Does Finfacts take funding from Monsanto, like the Irish Farmers Journal?

On his website, Michael Hennigan claims "Finfacts is independent of vested interests" and "When spin has primacy over substance in public announcements, encouraged by a receptive audience, Finfacts is often alone in providing the reality check."

Would the Green Party please provide Finfacts with a reality check on this?

Biotech's perfect spokesperson - Stewart Brand

GM Watch, 12 January 2009:
http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/11843-biotechs-perfect-spokesperson-stewart-brand

NOTE: Biotech and nuclear lobbyists have latched on to the ageing hippie technophile Stewart Brand, one time editor of the Whole Earth Catalog, as their perfect spokesperson. And currently Brand's getting a slew of publicity with the publication of his new book Whole Earth Discipline.

Stewart Brand has never been short of hubris. "We are as gods", he wrote in the first Whole Earth Catalog, "and might as well get good at it." And even in those days Brand was pushing space colonies. He claims that if he'd known about GNOs then, he'd have been in favour: "30 to 40 years ago I think I would have said to all the genetic engineering stuff - hot dog!" http://blog.cleantechies.com/2009/12/26/book-stewart-brand-whole-earth-nuclear-power/

These days getting good at being "gods" means not just GMOs, but nuclear power, geo-engineering and other quick techno-fixes that Brand vigorously promotes as the solutions to the climate, energy, and water crises. Brand also favours mass urbanization, glorifying the squalour of third-world urbanization as the solution to poverty in the South.

With GMOs, Brand appears to think patents aren't a problem, nor a factor in their rejection. He suggests that European opposition really stems from no more than French protectionism - a claim that may be music to the ears of North American agribiz lobbyists but appears risible on this side of the Atlantic. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/652828ec-fbe0-11de-9c29-00144feab49a.html

Ironically, when it comes to promoting genetic revolutions, Brand himself is not without vested interests - his wife, Ryan Phelan, is founder and CEO of DNA Direct a company working in the often controversial area of marketing DNA testing to consumers.

Why greens need to grow up if they want to save the planet

Cathal Kelly Feature Writer Toronto Star [Canada], Oct 10 2009: http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/707699--why-greens-need-to-grow-up-if-they-want-to-save-the-planet

* The grandfather of the modern eco-movement says environmentalism needs to be taken out of the hands of environmentalists. Where should we look for leadership? East

[image caption: Protesters sing a song as they sit in the entrance of the "Climate Camp," in southeast London. Hundreds of environmentalists gathered on the field for a week-long protest against climate change on Aug. 27, 2009. Leferteris Pitarakis / AP PHOTO]

Modern environmentalism began in 1948 with the publication of Our Plundered Planet, by Fairfield Osborn, a New Yorker who founded the Bronx Zoo.

Its objectives seeped into general consciousness on the initial Earth Day in 1970 and during the oil crisis that followed.

In between, there was Stewart Brand. During the late '60s, Brand toured the west coast in a 1963 Dodge he called the Whole Earth Truck Store. It was a travelling fair and supply depot. In those days, Brand was a SoCal trippy hippie.

In 1968, Brand released the Whole Earth Catalog, an encyclopedic how-to for the embryonic environmental movement. Apple founder Steve Jobs later likened this DIY bible to "Google in paperback form."

In the four decades since, the founding ideals that Brand helped shape - self-sufficiency, pastoralism and suspicion of The Man - haven't changed much. Brand has.

He still wants to save us from ourselves. But now he wants to do it with nuclear power and planet-altering infrastructure projects

"(Environmentalists) are viewing what I'm saying more in sorrow than in anger," Brand says. "They're saying, 'Too bad this nice, old fellow used to be one of us. He's obviously lost his mind.'"

Brand, 70, lives in a modified tugboat in San Francisco Bay. Cheap rent. Plus, he's set if climate change sends the West Antarctic Ice Sheet sliding into the Amundsen Sea, raising the world's oceans five metres overnight. He's the sort of guy who builds the Ark before it rains.

That's led him to his new manifesto, Whole Earth Discipline. Unlike many screeds on climate change, Brand's book is a prescription as well as an eco-horror story.

Brand advises us to replace dirty coal with clean nuclear. Storage problems? Brand waves those off. Anti-nuclear activists worry that radioactive waste will plague us in 1,000 years. Brand wonders if this civilization will exist in 100.

He embraces urbanization and its attendant poverty. He rhapsodizes about the vibrancy of slums in Lagos and Dhaka. These are hives of small-scale entrepreneurial activity and a boon to women seeking independence. He really gets going in his chapters on GE (genetically engineered) crops. Brand lampoons the activist fiction of "natural" foods. "Agriculture is one vast catastrophe," Brand writes. "The less of it, the better."

Argue "unnaturalness" with Brand and you are an unhealthy sentimentalist, and possibly a dangerous crank. "I've always had a problem with the (environmentalists') romanticism and the anti-science stuff, back to 30 and 40 years ago," Brand says.

A symptom of that romanticism might be the continuing onus on individual habits. How much faith does Brand have in those sorts of voluntary appeals to responsible living?

"None. I think it's really important that people engage these issues, but they don't scale. It doesn't add up to nearly enough," Brand says. "One of the changes for me from the relatively libertarian Whole Earth Catalog to the very government-oriented Whole Earth Discipline is the realization that some of these matters are government scale."

Environmentalism, in other words, needs to be taken out of the hands of environmentalists. It requires top-down action. But from whom?

In a chapter on geo-engineering - planet-altering projects like sowing the oceans with iron and dispersing sulfates into the atmosphere to slow carbon release - Brand gives a clue.

"The climate will keep changing as it is without governance," Brand writes. "To change the climate - the world - in the direction that we want requires forms of governance we do not yet have."

He doesn't describe these new "forms." But it's apparently not the form we already have - liberal democracy. I put it to Brand that he's advocating some sort of environmental dictatorship.

"China's headed in that direction," he says approvingly. "They're the only nation we've got that can turn on a dime ... because it's a nation run by engineers. They're used to getting their way. And they are surprisingly adaptive. If something goes against Communism, but it works anyway, they don't care."

The tone of all of this is remarkably light. Brand laughs a lot. He remains hopeful, but in the measured way of a man who knows too much.

"Politically, it's clearly impossible to turn things around," Brand says. "But technically, industrially, it is possible. So ..."

He leaves the thought lying. How likely is it that we're still here in 100 years? "I don't think there are any annihilation scenarios. The dark view? We go down to (a population of) 1 billion, 1 billion and a half," Brand says. "But one can always be amazed at the kind of thriving that comes out of catastrophic loss."

British researchers develop GM potato

William Surman
Farmers Guardian [UK], 12 January 2010:
http://www.farmersguardian.com/news/arable/british-researchers-develop-gm-potato/29742.article

A TRIAL to develop genetically modified potatoes that would save British growers more than £40 million a year has been successful, initial results have revealed.

Researchers at Leeds University said the trial to develop cyst nematode resistant potatoes had made 'great progress' despite attempts from activists to destroy it.

Dr Peter Urwin, of the Faculty of Biological Sciences at the University of Leeds, said:

"So far it looks as though the transgenic technology has done its job and protected the plant against the pest. The results are very promising."

The trial into pest resistant spuds began in 2008 but vandals destroyed it three weeks later.

In 2009 the potatoes were replanted under greatly enhanced security - including fencing, CCTV and full-time security guards - and while the analysis is ongoing, early results have been promising.

Buoyed by the success and encouraged by last week's call from the Government's chief scientist Professor Beddington to develop more innovative crop technologies, Dr Urwin has now applied to Defra for a license to conduct a new potato trial this year.

"An application has been sent to Defra but we have to wait for an answer. If we get consent then we will carry out a similar GM potato trial starting this year and finishing in 2012," he said.

But even if the trial does get approval, its survival is still not certain because EU law requires all GM trial locations to be publicly disclosed.

Of more than 50 GM crop trials approved by Defra since 2000, only a handful have survived the hands of vandals, making the Leeds potato trial a rare breed.

The story is repeated across Europe where vandalism has forced companies to conduct their research elsewhere. Between 2006 and 2008, 75 per cent of field trials conducted by European Union firms took place outside of Europe.

Dr Urwin said the attack on GM trials was counter-productive.

"Our job is to do blue sky research and develop innovative technology," he said.

"Cyst nematodes are a great problem for potato growers and new European regulation to remove certain crop protection chemicals from the market has made it even harder. We are simply trying to come up with a solution.

"We are entirely publicly funded and have no influence from multi-national companies."

But the Soil Association, the organic lobbyists, said the Government had no need to pursue GM technology.

"We need far-reaching changes to our food and farming systems, rather than GM technology, which, despite millions in public and private research expenditure, has consistently failed to deliver food benefits," said a Soil Association spokesman.

11 January 2010

Genetically modified salmon condemned

Silvina Corniola
Fish Information & Services (FIS), 11 January 2010:
http://www.fis.com/fis/worldnews/worldnews.asp?l=e&ndb=1&id=35111

PANAMA - A commission of the Authority on Aquatic Resources of Panama (ARAP) ratified the order to destroy the genetically modified salmon stocks produced by the company Aqua Bounty Technologies, in order to comply with the country's international commitments.

Panama is a signatory of the Cartagena Protocol, which establishes that the activity of genetic manipulation is exclusively for research ends in a confined space. The agreement prohibits as much the release of modified fish in natural environments, as the commercialisation of the same.

The "supersalmon" that is produced in the facilities of the Lamasur company, in Chiriqui, can reach sizes of 750 grams, whereas the fish that are not manipulated genetically do not quite reach 150 grams in weight.

ARAP administrator Diana Arauz explained that it is still being decided if the destruction of the stock will be made immediately or next May, when the study is finalised, La Estrella reports.

Arauz denied, in addition, that Panama is going to export genetically modified salmon, thus refuting reports that had been published.

Meanwhile, biologist Ana Luisa Garcia, ARAP's research director, warned that if these fish are accidentally released into a natural habitat, like the stream that runs near the area where the pools lie, it would cause a natural disaster, by and large for other species, due to the predatory nature of the salmon.

The Canadian company boasts about 40,000 salmon in the Panamanian Atlantic, of which 30,000 have been modified genetically, according to the Panamanian press.

By Silvina Corniola
editorial@fis.com
www.fis.com

Non-GMO label getting a local push by Lundberg Family Farms

Heather Hacking, Staff Writer
ChicoER.com [USA], 11 January 2010:
http://www.chicoer.com/news/ci_14163467

RICHVALE -- Lundberg Family Farms is among the leaders in a trend to label foods as non-GMO.

GMO stands for genetically modified organisms, which are created through transferring genes from one organism to another.

Most Americans consume genetically modified foods every day. The majority of soy, cotton, corn and canola grown in the United States contains genetically modified crops, most of which have been altered to resist pests and weeds.

Other genetically modified foods may contain higher nutrients, are more tolerant to adverse growing conditions or produce higher yields.

Previously there has been no organized system in the United States for people to know whether the foods they buy contain GMOs.

Over the past two years, Lundberg Family Farms, which produces organic rice products, and others in the organic industry have created a new labeling system and verification process to label foods as "non-GMO."

The group is a nonprofit organization called the Non-GMO project.

Grant Lundberg, chief executive officer of his family's business in Richvale, said Lundberg Family Farms has long been opposed to genetically modified foods, created through biotechnology.

Some genetically modified crops, such as corn and soybeans, spread pollen easily and can cross-pollinate with other crops, Lundberg explained.

"There is the potential to lose a lot of genetic history because when a product is released, it is very hard to keep it contained," Lundberg said.

Some food consumers have also had difficulty if they want to buy foods that do not contain genetic modifications.

About two years ago, the company that specializes in organic rice products joined other natural food companies to develop a nonprofit group to label non-GMO products, "to give the consumers an informed choice about what they are eating," Lundberg said.

The program has set up a "supply chain from seed breeders all the way through to retailers and consumers," he continued.

The program includes a third-party verification process, followed by inclusion of the non-GMO label.

"We know our customers have those concerns," Lundberg said. "The person who goes into the natural food store has certain expectations of their food. Our hope for the project is that we're creating a standard."

Other companies that helped fund the labeling project include Whole Foods Market, Eden Organic, Nature's Path and United Natural Foods.

Lundberg said many foreign countries, including Japan, Australia and the European Union, require labeling if products contain genetically modified foods, which creates a trade barrier for some U.S. products.

"The general U.S. ag policy has been pro-GMO," Lundberg said.

Currently, 50 brands in the United States and Canada have signed up for the new non-GMO project, he said, accounting for about 3,000 products.

Part of the labeling criteria includes a protocol to trace, test and segregate foods used, said Megan Westgate, executive director for the Non-GMO Project, based in Southern California.

The standard chosen by the group is 0.9 percent or less GMOs in foods - the same standards used in the European Union, Westgate explained.

The goal of the program is to make testing very efficient, so companies that do not use genetically modified foods don't end up spending a lot of money on testing.

For example, Westgate said, 91 percent of soy grown in the United States is genetically modified. If a company uses soy oil, testing each truckload could cost up to $16,000 a year.

But if the soy oil is tested further up the supply chain, the cost for testing is greatly reduced, she said.

"We're creating a structure in making non-GMO an affordable and practical thing.

"The most efficient place to test is when a crop is processed," Westgate said.

In the next couple of months, companies will be using up the remainder of their packaging material and rolling out with the redesigned containers that include the non-GMO seal.

She said the hope is that people will see the labels and become more informed about GMOs.

Staff writer Heather Hacking can be reached at 896-7758 or hhacking@chicoer.com.

EU, Argentina take more time in GMO case

Ian Eliott
Feedstuffs [USA], 11 January 2010:
http://www.feedstuffs.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?...


Ambassadors to the WTO from the EU and Argentina notified the WTO that they have agreed to extend until the end of January the period of time for the European Union to comply with the panel's ruling in the GMO case -- DS293/38 - 'European Communities - Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products.'

"Argentina and the European Union have mutually agreed to modify the 'reasonable period of time' for implementation of the recommendations and rulings of the Dispute Settlement Body, which was originally established pursuant to Article 21.3(b) of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes, so as to expire on 31 January 2010," the two ambassadors wrote in a January 6 note.

Argentina was one of three complainants which opened disputes before the WTO with the EU over its biotechnology approval system. Canada has settled its case with the EU. The US has yet to.

It is unclear how close Argentina and the European Commission are to reaching a settlement.

Was 2009 the year the world turned against GM?

Claire Robinson and Jonathan Matthews
The Ecologist [UK], 11 January 2010:
http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/other_comments/395845/was_2009_the_year_the_world_turned_against_gm.html

Despite promising the world in 2009, biotech corporations have increasingly raised the hackles of scientists and citizens worldwide

2009 was a year in which the biotech industry, Gates and their US Administration allies did everything in their power to drive the world down the GM road, but it was also a year marked by remarkable global resistance.

It was a year too in which the truth emerged more clearly than ever about not just the severe limitations and risks of GM crops, but the viability of the many positive alternatives to GMOs alternatives from which the profit-driven GM-fixation diverts much needed attention and resources.

The scene had been set in 2008 with the IAASTD report, produced by 400 scientific experts and signed up to by some 60 governments. That made it clear that after more than 10 years of commercialisation, GM crops had done nothing to help with the eradication of hunger or poverty, or the reversal of the environmental degradation caused by agriculture.

The IAASTD instead championed as the way forward: agro-ecological farming; and research conducted by the UN Environment Programme also suggested organic, small-scale farming could deliver increased yields without the accompanying environmental and social damage of industrial farming. The UNEP's analysis of 114 projects in 24 African countries found that yields had more than doubled where organic, or near-organic practices had been used. In 2009 the contribution of such sustainable approaches to cooling the planet was also widely acknowledged while news of Monsanto's attempts to dress up environmentally destructive GM monocultures as climate friendly earned it a worst lobbying award.

Mainstream criticism

But what was most remarkable in 2009 was the way in which criticism of the biotech industry went mainstream. Alarmingly for the industry, some of the hardest hitting criticism it faced was to be found in editorials and investigative articles that appeared in the likes of Scientific American, the New York Times, the Associated Press and, most astonishingly of all perhaps, the staunchly pro-GM journal Nature Biotechnology.

And in different ways they were all making the same fundamental point - the GM industry has been allowed to gain an unprecedented stranglehold over the use of seeds. An editorial in Scientific American, for instance, complained that 'it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised. That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers'.

The editorial went on to note that, 'food safety and environmental protection depend on making plant products available to regular scientific scrutiny', and Scientific American called on the industry to 'immediately remove the restriction on research from their end-user agreements. Going forward, the EPA should also require, as a condition of approving the sale of new seeds, that independent researchers have unfettered access to all products currently on the market'.

Et tu, Brute?

A correspondent for an agricultural trade publication noted that nobody in the biotech industry could provide him with a single example of any other kind of product on the market that was protected in the way GM seeds were from scientific scrutiny.

And the science correspondent of the Financial Times - another solidly pro-GM publication - complained, 'Imagine pharmaceutical companies trying to prevent medical researchers comparing patented drugs or investigating their side-effects - it is unthinkable. Yet scientists cannot independently examine raw materials in the food supply or investigate plants that cover a lot of rural America'.

An article in Nature Biotechnology noted how even when research critical of GM did get published it was met by a wall of apparently orchestrated, ad hominem and unfounded attacks by GM proponents who, in the words of an editor for the Entomological Society of America, 'denigrate research by other legitimate scientists in a knee-jerk, partisan, emotional way that is not helpful in advancing knowledge and is outside the ideals of scientific inquiry'.

And it wasn't just scientific enquiry that Monsanto was exposed as strangling. An Associated Press investigation reported on confidential Monsanto contracts showing how the world's biggest seed developer is squeezing competitors, controlling smaller seed companies and aggressively protecting its multibillion-dollar market dominance.

Farmers hit

Meanwhile disenchanted farmers pointed to how the GM giant is using its market power to raise prices for farmers and limit their access to non-GM seeds. And another new report showed GM seed prices increasing so dramatically that they have already cut average farm incomes for US farmers.

So in 2010 amidst the inevitable deluge of vacuous hype about GM being vital to deal with hunger, poverty and the impact of climate change, population growth, fuel scarcity and every other concern known to humankind, nobody should be in any doubt as to what's really at stake: control over science, nature, food and farming.

And over that kind of stranglehold, it can only be a fight to the death.

Claire Robinson and Jonathan Matthews are co-editors of GMWatch.

New wave of GM crop trials set for UK

Caroline Stocks Farmers Weekly Interactive [UK], 11 January 2009:
http://www.fwi.co.uk/Articles/2010/01/11/119462/New-wave-of-GM-crop-trials-s et-for-UK.htm

A new wave of genetically-modified crop trials will be carried out this year after scientists successfully grew GM potatoes in the UK.

Scientists at Leeds University, who carried out the trial, are set to apply for a licence to plant more modified potatoes following similar tests in 2009.

Dr Peter Unwin, of the university's Faculty of Biological Sciences, said a second variety of nematode-resistant potatoes could also be trialled in the spring if scientists were given the go-ahead.

A few hundred potatoes would be planted at a secure site in Tadcaster, North Yorkshire.

"It is disappointing that we have to secure things behind fences and have security patrols," said Dr Urwin told the Daily Telegraph.

"But, as a country, if we are to go forward in food security and agriculture then we have to look at these things."

Meanwhile the National Institute of Agricultural Botany (NIAB) has also announced plans to plant GM crops on a demonstration farm.

Innovation Farm in Cambridgeshire will begin operating this year and is expected to include new breeds of wheat and potatoes.

NIAB's Lydia Smith said the trial would be used to improve understanding of plant breeding among farmers, the media and the public.

The drive towards developing GM comes after government chief scientist John Beddington said the UK should carry out more research into modified crops to find ways to produce more food with less land.

Speaking at the Oxford Farming Conference, Prof Beddington said: "We need a greener revolution, improving production and efficiency through the food chain within environmental and other constraints.

"Techniques and technologies from many disciplines, ranging from biotechnology and engineering to newer fields such as nanotechnology, will be needed."

DEFRA secretary Hilary Benn has repeatedly said he would welcome more GM trials if scientists applied to carry them out.

So far he has only licensed the one field trial in Leeds.

---

Comment from John Turner at Farm - The Independent Voice in Farming [www.farm.org.uk]:

The "demonstration farm" appears to be a new twist by the scientific community - the reference to wheat is particularly significant.

10 January 2010

New Regional Products
Lidl sells milk GMO-free

Der Spiegel [Germany], 10 January 2010:
http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/0,1518,670912,00.html

More business by regional affiliation: From Monday on Lidl will market in Bavaria for the first time dairy products with a regional label. What the discounter conceals: It also commits its farmers to do without genetic engineering - and is thus an industry pioneer.

Hamburg - It is a quality offensive hitherto not known from discount retailers: From Monday on, Lidl shelves in Bavaria will have dairy products of regional origin. Under the label "Ein gutes Stück Heimat" (A Good Piece of Home), the retail giant sells, for the first time, milk, yoghurt and butter from "guaranteed Bavarian milk". This makes Lidl the first discounter to bet on regional products - a business the large retailers such as Edeka and Rewe are already conducting very successfully. By launching this home brand, the company implements "consistently the consumer preference for good products of regional origin and production", according to an internal letter made available to SPIEGEL ONLINE. During the next year, the range of goods is to be expanded by further food products of regional production and made available nationally. A plausible step because more and more consumers keep asking for food produced in their own region.

Lidl demands GMO-free animal feed from its farmers

It is surprising what Lidl is NOT writing on its new milk and butter packaging: That the products are GMO-free. For the dairy farmers producing for Lidl had to commit themselves that from January 2010 they feed "only animal feed not genetically modified" to their cows. This is part of a formal obligation made available to SPIEGEL ONLINE. In addition, Lidl insists on uninterrupted documentation and inspection of all waybills regarding purchased feedstuffs "so that proper evidence can be furnished on the feeding of GMO-free feedstuffs."

Lidl itself remains silent on the question why they do not advertise openly that the offer GMO-free products. "Our new 'Ein gutes Stück Heimat' home brand places regionally certified premium quality into the foreground", according to a company statement. Production plants fulfil clearly defined quality criteria that are to be expanded. The company works intensively so "that in the future, milk can be produced exclusively with GMO-free feedstuffs."

It is indeed surprising why the discount retailer will not advertise this openly for the vast majority of consumers reject genetic engineering. "That is exactly why Lidl would do itself a disservice now it they were to stack their shelves with milk claiming 'Ohne Gentechnik' next to 'normal' milk", says Heike Moldenhauer, genetic engineering expert with Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland (BUND) [= Friends of the Earth Germany]. "Consumers would start to ask immediately what the matter is with the other milk - and stop buying it."

"At some point, consumers want all food products without genetic engineering"

Furthermore, the entire industry is afraid to extend a little finger to consumers for fear of awakening an expectation that can be met only step by step. "Once milk and yoghurt is available that can be claimed GMO-free consumers will want, at one point, all other food products to be without genetic engineering, too", says Moldenhauer. This is why currently no major retailer or manufacturer dares open advertising - although many already produce GMO-free. "Particularly large players such as Lidl, Aldi or Edeka have the market power to demand this type of production from their producers with blanket coverage," adds Moldenhauer.

The Lidl advance shows at least one thing: The group, otherwise rather making the headlines for its harsh dealings with employees, has read the sign of the times. For, practically, very little has changed in the attitudes of German consumers towards genetic engineering since the first approvals in 1996; the vast majority still rejects it. Therefore, even large food manufacturers such as Kraft or Nestlé back away from an implementation of GM products in Europe.

"Especially because the food market in Germany is so highly competitive, manufacturers are looking for a competitive edge - and 'Ohne Gentechnik' could become one," says Moldenhauer. That the concept works has been demonstrated by Campina, one of the largest European dairy companies. In 2008, they switched milk of the "Landliebe" brand completely to GMO-free, marketed it aggressively - and recorded a significant rise in sales.

---

Comment from TraceConsult™

It should be relatively clear now to industry insiders what the continuously expanding discount retailer is planning. The company focuses on the Bavarian market as a trial market serving its clientele at first - without making the "Ohne Gentechnik" claim - the two criteria of regional origin and premium quality as already submitted to trial by competition retailers.

Lidl will have to wait on for three months with the actual claim "Ohne Gentechnik" (GMO-free) because this is the qualifying period prescribed for "milk producing animals" by the pertinent regulation. This leaves Lidl enough time to set up the technical aspects and to fathom the consumer's appreciation for regional origin - at first without being officially told about the absence of biotechnology.

But then, from April, things should become exciting: Will Lidl claim their milk "Ohne Gentechnik" and expand the program beyond the Bavarian state borders? Will the company make "Ohne Gentechnik" claims in further product segments? After all, Lidl is, like all German retailers, also a customer of poultry producer STOLLE who already produces "Ohne Gentechnik".

At any rate, in April not only the retailer competition, who - except for regionally active Tegut ... - have artfully abstained so far from any GMO-free claims, should come under a certain pressure to act. Brand manufacturer FrieslandCampina and bits LANDLIEBE is unlikely to be caught up with: Sales have increased noticeably and otherwise the company has simply stepped around the exasperating topic of soy meal as a protein source. That will be hard to match by competitors.

9 January 2010

Let policy be guided by the facts

Matt Dempsey Irish Farmers Journal, 9 January 2009:
http://www.farmersjournal.ie/2010/0109/news/currentedition/editorial.shtml

Let policy be guided by the facts

Already, 2010 is shaping up to be different - on several counts.

The most noticeable change is the direction milk prices are taking. The recent auction prices in Northern Ireland are equivalent to a producer price of approximately 31c per litre - roughly the same price as is now being paid by The Netherlands and the top tier of European purchasers. This price is badly lagged by the Irish industry at this stage. But, it gives plenty of scope for increases for Irish milk when the 2010 production season begins this year. As Stan McCarthy said, speaking at Britain's Oxford farming conference this week, the last two years have been a rollercoaster, and there is no point discussing milk prices when there is no milk being produced.

Already, 2010 seems to be shaping up as the year when the current WTO Doha proposals are finally buried. Again speaking at Oxford, former Dutch Agricultural Minister and President of Wageningen University, Professor Cees Veerman, said that the Doha WTO round will not be successful, and that after the financial crisis, the Washington free trade consensus is gone. He also added that the WTO negotiations should be seen for what they were - an attempt by Brazil and the US to gain new export markets. The first instalment of that process - the reform of the sugar regime - has been a disaster, he said. Not just for Europe, but also for developing countries in Africa whom the reforms were theoretically meant to help. In fact, Brazil has been the only real beneficiary.

A third area of perceptible change is the increasing demand for animal protein, whether it's pigmeat and whole milk powder in China, or extra beef consumption in Brazil. Extra animal protein consumption is directly linked to income growth, and these two major blocks have been effectively immune from the recession that has gripped other major economies. The developments in both regions can only benefit Ireland.

For Irish and European policymakers, a number of issues must be faced - most urgent is our attitude to GM technology. We are rapidly heading down a cul-de-sac. This issue is not about concentrating on whether Monsanto, with its Round-up resistant technology, is going to hold the world to ransom. It is about facing up to a few stark realities. The ability exists to grow wheat with Nitrogen fixing rhizomes, as is natural in clover. Should we aim to save some of the present fertilizer costs? Cotton, which used receive 18 to 20 insecticide sprays a year, now receives none due to the application of specialist GM technology.

The recent swine flu vaccine was a GM engineered product, but rightly there was not a whisper of complaint. Yet still, Ireland persists as a country which imports practically all its animal protein needs as we continue to block meal from specific varieties of soya. The proposal to have a national programme to develop a badly needed septoria resistant wheat would not be considered.

As the rest of the world strengthens its ability to produce regular high yields of crops through minimum tillage and scientific advance, Ireland's competitive position in cropping is being dangerously compromised. If Government needs one suggestion for a New Year's resolution, it is to let policy be guided by facts rather than prejudice.

We wish all our readers a happy and prosperous 2010.

---

Comment from GM-free Ireland

GM cotton may not require pesticide spraying, because it is itself a pesticide, with unnatural forms of Bt toxin being produced in every cell of the plant.

9 January 2010

Nature fights back against GM crop technology - study explains development of superweeds

Press release
MADGE [Australia], 7 January 2010:
http://www.madge.org.au/Docs/MR-Jan072010.pdf

Nature has found a new way to fight back against GM crop technology, according to a recent study1. The study looked at the new superweeds growing in GM crops2 to find out how they were resisting the herbicide Roundup (active ingredient glyphosate).

Glyphosate works by preventing the action of a natural plant protein, resulting in death of the plant. But many GM crops have been manipulated to produce an additional mutated bacterial protein that can carry out the necessary action in place of the natural protein. This means that farmers can spray Roundup over GM crops, killing only the weeds.

But the superweeds have adapted and the study, in December, found they have a greatly increased number of genes in their DNA to code for the natural protein (5 to 160 times). They have dramatically increased production of the natural protein to a point where they could survive heavy doses of glyphosate.

The study concluded "This occurrence of gene-amplification [...] is particularly significant because it could threaten the sustainable use of glyphosate-resistant crop technology."

MADGE Australia researcher Madeleine Love said "GM crops, designed to be sprayed with glyphosate (Roundup), are making that herbicide useless for both GM and conventional farmers."

"Farmers have been previously blamed for causing weed resistance. There are claims that they have sprayed too much, too little, haven't followed a crop management plan or haven't allowed enough diversity in crops or herbicide use on their farm. However this research shows that nature is more than a match for GM crop systems."

"The current strategy seems to be to spray more concentrated doses of Roundup to knock out weeds in new GM crop plantings, but the downside is increased residues in food, feed and environment. GM systems have been shown to increase pesticide use."

"Australian cropping systems seem vulnerable because weedy ryegrass has already developed two other means of resistance to glyphosate - one that reduces movement of the glyphosate through the plant, and the other being a slight change in the natural protein to make it less susceptible.

"Monsanto may make a short term financial gain by the introduction of their GM technology in Australia, but farmers, environment, human health and economy will endure a long term loss."

---

MADGE is a voluntary group of concerned individuals.

Contacts:

Madeleine Love 0447 762 284

Frances Murrell 0401 407 944

Notes

1. Gene amplification confers glyphosate resistance in Amaranthus palmeri; Gaines TA et al; www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0906649107 ; http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/12/10/0906649107.full.pdf+html free download of full text

2. After years of GM crops the US is now suffering an outbreak of un-poisonable pigweed. The weeds are affecting nearly a million acres of soy and cotton crops. This almost unbelievable TV news clip http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=8767877 shows some farmers in the US can no longer use their combines or cotton pickers. The pigweed, which has stems as thick as a baseball bat, also breaks hand tools. The cotton crop may have to be picked by hand.

---

Comment from Fran Murell of MADGE:

The Will Ockenden article on the GM superweeds (GM cotton crops in US useless: http://bit.ly/5Pr8VA) arose from this MADGE media release (above).

There are 2 links as references at the bottom. The first is a link to the study the second is to a US newsreport that is well worth watching. http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=8767877

It shows the GM weeds and interviews farmers and researchers and shows the weed breaking hand tools as machines are useless against it. It also has Monsanto blaming the farmers and saying they will have new herbicide resistant crops in 2015. It looks as if they will be Dicamba resistant.

I think it shows very succinctly that what critics have said about GM and weeds is real.

1 January 2010

Monsanto GMOs linked to organ damage

Rady Ananda
The Global Report, 1 January 2010:
http://theglobalreport.org/print.php?news_id=10272

In what is being described as the first ever and most comprehensive study of the effects of genetically modified foods on mammalian health, researchers have linked organ damage with consumption of Monsanto's GM maize.

[Watch the video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qpq6C4VND0A&feature=player_embedded#]

Three varieties of Monsanto's GM corn, Mon 810, Mon 863 and NK 603, were approved for consumption by US, European and several other national food safety authorities. Made public by a European court in 2005, Monsanto's confidential raw data of its 2002 feeding trials on rats that these researchers analyzed is the same data, ironically, that was used to approve them in different parts of the world.

The Committee of Research and Information on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN) and Universities of Caen and Rouen studied Monsanto's 90-day feeding trials data of insecticide producing Mon 810, Mon 863 and RoundupÆ herbicide absorbing NK 603 varieties of GM maize.

The data "clearly underlines adverse impacts on kidneys and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs, as well as different levels of damages to heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system," reported Gilles-Eric SÈralini, a molecular biologist at the University of Caen.

Read the rest here http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2010/01/01/three-approved-gmos-linked-to-organ-damage/

Source: Food Freedom

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

Sponsored by Global Vision Consulting Ltd

© 2003 - 2010 Global Vision Consulting Ltd • updated 9 February 2010
Privacy policy
For enquiries contact mail@gmfreeireland.org
URL of this page: www.gmfreeireland.org/news/2010/jan.php