GM-FREEIRELAND : NEWS





			NEWS ABOUT GM ISSUES • February 2010 2010: Jan 2009: Jan • Feb • Mar • Apr • May • Jun • Jul • Aug • Sep • Oct • Nov • Dec 2008: Jan • Feb • Mar • Apr • May • Jun • Jul • Aug • Sep • Oct • Nov • Dec 2007: Jan • Feb • Mar • Apr • May • Jun • Jul • Aug • 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. 8 February 2010 India to rule on future of aubergine as country's first genetically modified food • Minister to make key decision on major crop • Broad alliance takes on Monsanto subsidiary Jason Burke The Guardian [UK], 8 February 2010: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/08/india-gm-crops-aubergine A fierce row over the future of the humble aubergine, staple ingredient of fiery brinjal curries for tens of millions of Indians, will reach a climax on Wednesday with a key government decision on the possible future commercial cultivation of genetically-modified strains of the plant. If permission is given, the aubergine will become the first GM foodstuff to be grown in India. The decision will be taken by the environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, who pledged last year to end the heated argument over whether aubergines modified with a gene from the soil bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis should be distributed to Indian farmers. An alliance of voices ranging from environmentalists to leftwing politicians and Hindu extremists have called on Ramesh to deny permission for the commercial cultivation of the Bt Brinjal strain, named after the bacteria and the local word for aubergine. "It will open the gate," said Leo Saldanha, an environmental campaigner in the southern city of Bengalooru. "It raises huge legal and cultural issues." The decision Ramesh takes will reveal how far "India was willing to allow the farmer to be subordinated to corporate interests", he said. Ramesh told one of the many rowdy meetings he has attended as part of a public consultation exercise that trying to reconcile the opposing camps had "turned [his] hair grey". Aubergine is a major crop in India, where it has been cultivated for thousands of years. Though not native it is seen as an integral part of culture and diet, particularly of the poor. Backers claim the modified aubergines would cut crop losses due to insect damage by more than half and drastically reduce pesticide use. They argue also that extensive animal testing has shown that the bacterium introduced into the aubergine, though toxic to boring insects, would not be harmful to humans. Campaigners question the evidence, and argue that commercial interests have overly influenced the regulatory process. They say the 2,000-odd varieties of aubergine cultivated in India would be threatened if Bt Brinjal was introduced. "It is a hugely important decision, not just for India, for the whole world," said Dr Shiva Vandana, director of a network of groups campaigning against GM foods in India, and a key figure in the development of international biosafety treaties. "The question is whether or not public opinion will be listened to." The seeds have been developed by Indian scientists but will be marketed by the Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Company, an Indian firm partly owned by the US multinational Monsanto - the cause of much criticism and controversy. The southern state of Kerala, run by an alliance of opposition leftwing parties, has already banned GM crops on the grounds that they are a threat to biodiversity. Last week, the state's Marxist chief minister, VS Achuthanandan, claimed GM foods would lead to the "colonisation of the food sector. "We shouldn't be a part of a system that will destroy traditional seeds and crops and allow [multinational corporations] to infringe on the agriculture sector," he said. Hindu nationalists from the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) have also taken up the aubergine's cause. Mohan Bhagwat, a senior RSS official, told a public meeting in Bengalooru last weekend that Bt Brinjal was "untested" and "dangerous" and its introduction would only benefit "the multinationals". He likened the new aubergines to "terrorist infiltrators" sent by foreign powers to destabilise India. Government scientists have, however, told ministers that Bt Brinjal poses no threat. "Our experts examined the science behind Bt Brinjal and concluded that it is absolutely safe. The only thing that hasn't been done is human testing," Dr Maharaj Kishan Bhan, a senior research scientist at the ministry of science and technology said. "You can take a philosophical view that all GM foods are bad - but from a scientific point of view I would say it is fine." GM crops have a chequered history in India, alternately praised as yield-boosting or suicide-inducing. Trials of a Bt cotton found it needed 70% less pesticide and gave 87% more crop than traditional plants. It was made by Monsanto, who provoked uproar by taking a patent over nap hal, wheat particularly suited to chapatis, but saying it had no plans to exploit the patent. The bitterest row has involved the claim, by Prince Charles among others, that failing GM crops led to suicides among farmers. Analysis by the International Food Policy Research Institute found that, if anything, the reverse was true. By 2006, Bt cotton covered 39% of cotton area, with yield doubled. India is the world's second largest cotton producer. _______________________ Join the Non-GMO Uprising Hesh Goldstein, citizen journalist Natural News [USA], 8 February 2010: http://www.naturalnews.com/028115_GMOs_GM_foods.html For several years, The Institute for Responsible Technology has predicted that the US would soon experience a tipping point of consumer rejection against genetically modified foods. Now, in a December article in "Supermarket News", that prediction is supported and the non-GMO consciousness uprising is gaining momentum. Besides the Institute's new non-GMO website and non-GMO shopping guide, which was disclosed in a previous article, another Non-GMO project is being launched. The project would offer the country's first consensus-based guidelines to include third-party certification and a uniform seal for approved products. The organization would also require documented traceability and segregation to ensure the tested ingredients are what go into the final product. The "Supermarket News" article alerts supermarket executives to the fact that the growth of organic, local, and green product categories reflects a generation of consumers that could be less tolerant of genetic modification. In the past, health culprits like fats, refined carbs, salt and sugar were addressed, in that food companies offered options with, without, or with low levels of them. Now, the GMOs are coming to light. These executives are becoming aware that GMOs do not offer a single consumer benefit. They are finally learning that the five major GMOs, soy, corn, cottonseed, canola, and sugar beets, which are gene spliced to tolerate or produce poisonous insecticides, offer the consumer nothing. They are also learning that companies can eliminate GMOs without having to change recipes. When the major food companies notice even tiny losses in market share, their GMO clean out will be widespread. The large food companies will recognize that the same consumer trend that forced them to remove all GM ingredients in Europe and Japan is taking place in the US. Right now, about 28 million Americans regularly buy organic and about 87 million are opposed to GM foods and believe they are unsafe. And, 159 million say they would avoid GMOs if they were labeled. Imagine what people would say if they all learned that Monsanto paid off our elected officials to not require labeling of GMOs. You see, they knew full well that no one would buy their GMO garbage if it were labeled as such. In the past, the decade could be defined with regard to the "culprits". In the 80's, it was fat; in the 90's, it was carbs. Hopefully, we won't need this whole decade to send GMOs packing. And, God willing, by this time next year, Monsanto, the largest GMO producer in the world, will not be a "happy camper". Read labels. If soy (including soy lecithin), corn, cotton, canola and sugar do not say organic, do not buy it. Aloha! _______________________ 5 February 2010 Declaration of GM-free Regions' Network on Labels and GM-free Farming European GMO-free Regions Network, Brussels, 5 February 2010: Download as PDF: http://www.gmofree-euregions.net:8080/docs/ajax/ogm/Final%20Declaration_EN.pdf The GM-Free Regions' Network which gathers 51 regional governments of the European Union is proud of the great success of its initiative "3rd Conference Non-GM Labels, quality productions and European regional agricultures' strategy", taking place in Brussels on 3 and 4 February 2010 thanks to the support of the European Union's Committee of the Regions, the European Association of Geographical Indications (AREPO), Slow Food and the members of Greens groups � EFA, Social � Democrat and Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe. This conference, which welcomed several hundreds of participants from the United States, Brazil, the European Union, India, Norway, Switzerland and Ukraine, allowed showing the reality of a fully-committed non-GM labelled products' market gaining by a powerful consumer's movement. To that effect, we have to understand the establishment of national labelling policies in Austria, Germany, France and tomorrow, Ireland. To that effect too we have to understand the participation of about a hundred of food processing production and transformation businesses collecting their products among more than 700,000 farms. The network is proud of its concerns being heard beyond the Union's boarders. To answer to its call, Brazilian producers created in June 2008 the ABRANGE which federates the supply of GM-free soy. On 16 and 17 march 2010 in New Delhi will be held the first Indian conference on GM-free soy to which is invited the GM-free European Regions' Network. The Network is also proud of groups from the European Parliament having answered to its call and, on their own initiative, having organised for 5 November 2009 a meeting called "GM-free products an economic opportunity for European producers" strictly in accordance with the objectives defended by the regions. The GM-Free Regions' Network expresses its satisfaction before the progress achieved since its first mission in Brazil in 2005 and the organization of December 2007 1st Conference on GM-free soy. They note with keen interest:
•	That the producers of GM-free soy have organized themselves and that the spectre of a shortage of this raw material vital for a good many industries is removed.
•	That in Brazil but also in the United States, the number of lands dedicated to GM-free production stopped decreasing and that in some cases, they succeeded for the first time in reversing the trend. They are proud of GM soy's banning in India.
•	That in several countries of the EU national laws were set up to allow identification of meat and dairy products without resorting to GMOs in animal diet.
•	That many sectors are trying to reduce their dependence to imported vegetable proteins to commit themselves to a farming allowing a better bond with the soil, a bigger respect for human, environment, landscapes and climate.
•	That today and even more tomorrow, one of the conditions to conservation of competitiveness in European farming, within the framework of the CAP's revision, will lie in its capacity to maintain the authenticity, the tradition, and the bond to territory of its products for an open, healthy and fair commercial supply.
•	That the issue on genetically modified organisms' use in farming is a high importance strategic and trade issue both for production sectors and environment, economic, social and territorial sustainability of the European regional economies.
The GM-Free Regions' Network urges its institutional partners of the European Commission, the European Parliament, and the Committee of the Regions to consider the wishes expressed by the whole parties, production sectors, transformation sectors, distribution networks and regional institutions attending the conference:
•	The network requests that the European Commission and the European Parliament, taking advantage of the open debate by its various interventions, do their best to know exhaustively the real issues of making secure a GM-free animal diet.
	>	The network requests that a specific policy on needs detection be created considering all the interests of the sectors' contributors.
•	The network hopes that the consumer have access to a real openness from the pitchfork to the fork and among others that consideration be taken on the exact nature of the animal diet's composition part of the European livestock's intake for production of dietary goods.
	>	The network requests that the consumer have access to an educated-choice with Labels and quality distinction signs.
•	The network considers as vital to bring up again the question of the European Union's capacity to produce this type of raw materials.
	>	The network requests that a policy on GM-free vegetable proteins production be implemented over the European Union territory and that this chapter be recalled in a specific way in bilateral trade relations with the United States, India, China, Africa, and the MERCOSUR.
The network requests that these themes be considered in the next revision of the common agricultural policy in order that European agriculture represents an example of sustainable development for the whole planet, in order to break food shortage, development gaps and inequality in resources' access. The GM-Free Regions' Network undertakes to:
•	help making known the efforts of private and public labels in their wish to defend their products quality;
•	give substance to and reinforce the implementation of sustainable agriculture to reconcile producers and consumers and to protect the environment in which the next generations will live;
•	contribute to the work of national and European authorities over the issue because the regions, thanks to their institutional role and/or their closeness with civil society, are in the best position to provide the defence of their territory interests.
_______________________ Pentagon Looks to Breed Immortal 'Synthetic Organisms,' Molecular Kill-Switch Included Kate Drummond Danger room: What's next in national security Wired [USA], 5 February 2010: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/02/pentagon-looks-to-breed-immortal-synthetic-organisms-molecular-kill-switch-included/ The Pentagon's mad science arm may have come up with its most radical project yet. Darpa is looking to re-write the laws of evolution to the military's advantage, creating "synthetic organisms" that can live forever - or can be killed with the flick of a molecular switch. As part of its budget for the next year [http://www.darpa.mil/Docs/FY2011PresBudget28Jan10%20Final.pdf], Darpa is investing $6 million into a project called BioDesign, with the goal of eliminating "the randomness of natural evolutionary advancement." The plan would assemble the latest bio-tech knowledge to come up with living, breathing creatures that are genetically engineered to "produce the intended biological effect." Darpa wants the organisms to be fortified with molecules that bolster cell resistance to death, so that the lab-monsters can "ultimately be programmed to live indefinitely." Of course, Darpa's got to prevent the super-species from being swayed to do enemy work - so they'll encode loyalty right into DNA, by developing genetically programmed locks to create "tamper proof" cells. Plus, the synthetic organism will be traceable, using some kind of DNA manipulation, "similar to a serial number on a handgun." And if that doesn't work, don't worry. In case Darpa's plan somehow goes horribly awry, they're also tossing in a last-resort, genetically-coded kill switch:
	Develop strategies to create a synthetic organism "self-destruct" option to be implemented upon nefarious removal of organism.
The project comes as Darpa also plans to throw $20 million into a new synthetic biology program, and $7.5 million into "increasing by several decades the speed with which we sequence, analyze and functionally edit cellular genomes." Of course, Darpa's up against some vexing, fundamental laws of nature - not to mention bioethics - as they embark on the lab beast program. First, they might want to rethink the idea of evolution as a random series of events, says NYU biology professor David Fitch. "Evolution by selection is not a random process at all, and is actually a hugely efficient design algorithm used extensively in computation and engineering," he e-mails Danger Room. Even if Darpa manages to overcome the inherent intelligence of evolutionary processes, overcoming inevitable death can be tricky. Just ask all the other research teams who've made stabs at it, trying everything from cell starvation to hormone treatments. Gene therapy, where artificial genes are inserted into an organism to boost cell life, are the latest and greatest in life-extension science, but they've only been proven to extend lifespan [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2723912/] by 20 percent in rats. But suppose gene therapy makes major strides, and Darpa does manage to get the evolutionary science right. They'll also have a major ethical hurdle to jump. Synthetic biology researchers are already facing the same questions, as a 2009 summary [http://www.synbioproject.org/library/publications/archive/synbio3/] from the Synthetic Biology Project reports:
	The concern that humans might be overreaching when we create organisms that never before existed can be a safety concern, but it also returns us to disagreements about what is our proper role in the natural world (a debate largely about non-physical harms or harms to well-being).
Even expert molecular geneticists don't know what to make of the project. Either that, or they're scared Darpa might sic a bio-bot on them. "I would love to comment, but unfortunately Darpa has installed a kill switch in me," one unnamed expert tells Danger Room. _______________________ Five-year ban on GM foods proposed in Bulgaria Sofia Echo [Bulgaria], 5 February 2010: http://www.sofiaecho.com/2010/02/05/853432_five-year-ban-on-gm-foods-proposed-in-bulgaria Following the wave of protests against a bill of amendments that would allow genetically-modified organisms (GMO) to be grown in Bulgaria, the country's ruling party will now propose a five-year ban on all genetically-modified cultures in the country, it emerged on February 5 2010. The ban would affect all crops and the entire country, Environment Minister Nona Karadjova said. Now, there is a ban on some crops in parts of the country, she said. The measure was a compromise, Karadjova said, between the strong public opposition to GMOs and the European Union regulations, which preclude an outright ban on laboratory and commercial cultivation. The initial amendments, which were passed at first reading by Parliament, allowed cultivation of genetically-modified tobacco, vines, cotton, rose, wheat and vegetables. The bill did not allow cultivation in areas protected under the EU's Natura 2000 programme, but lowered the minimum distance from protected areas at which such crops could be cultivated. About 300 people protested in the centre of Sofia against proposed amendments to the Genetically Modified Foods Act (GMFA) on January 31 2010. Protests were held in front of the National Library, under the motto "Clean food, a healthy earth! Bulgaria GM foods free." Later, protesters marched to the buildings of Bulgarian National Television and the Bulgarian Parliament. The protesters demanded any decision on loosening GM foods restrictions to be postponed until a wider public debate on the topic had been held. _______________________ 'Frankenstein'-food fears keep GMOs out of Europe Reuters Global News Journal, 5 February 2010: http://blogs.reuters.com/global/2010/02/05/frankenstein-food-fears-keep-gmos-out-of-europe/ As the new European Union executive prepares to debate fresh policy proposals which might unblock the stalemate over approving genetically modified crops for feed, processing or cultivation, there are few signs that Europe's fears over what some have termed "Frankenstein foods" are easing. On Friday Bulgaria's ruling GERB party proposed a five-year moratorium on the production of genetically modified (GM) crops for scientific and commercial reasons following public outcry over a new legislation. Bulgaria follows in the footsteps of Austria, Germany, Hungary and France, all of whom have banned the commercial cultivation of the only GM crop (Monsanto's MON 810 maize type) allowed to be grown in the European Union. Why, despite all the assurances from the scientific community and food safety authorities, do so many remain so adverse to GMOs? The answer you often get from consumers when you ask why they don't like GMOs is: "You just never know" - suggesting they think there are still dangers lurking out there. The last survey conducted by the European Union on public acceptance of GMOs, in 2006, showed that while many had faith in biotechnology, few had an appetite for food made from genetically modified organisms. For Europeans, the perceived risk still seems to outweigh the demonstrated benefits in terms of higher crop yields and less use of pesticides. Recent events suggest European opinion has altered little since 2006, suggesting it could be a long time still before Europe embraces a GMO-world. _______________________ Bayer to pay $1.5 mln in 2nd lawsuit over GM rice • Second ruling of about 500 similar cases pending • Company says will consider legal options Reuters, 5 February 2010: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE61421W20100205 FRANKFURT - Germany's Bayer (BAYGn.DE) was ordered by a jury in the United States to pay $1.5 million in damages to three farmers for losses they incurred because of contaminations of Bayer's genetically modified rice, the second in about 500 similar cases pending. The jury's ruling in a St. Louis court against Bayer's CropScience division follows a related case in December, in which Bayer was ordered to pay $2 million, the chemicals- and drugmaker said on Friday after the close of trading in Germany. "The company will assess this ruling thoroughly and consider its options," a Bayer spokesman in Germany said. "Bayer CropScience is standing by its view that the company has handled its biotech rice responsibly and appropriately at all times," he added. A rice variety whose genetic code had been modified by a Bayer subsidiary for research purposes and which was not approved for commercial cultivation was found in the food supply chain in August 2006 after it had been tested by a U.S. university. As a result, Japan and the European Union restricted U.S. rice from crossing their borders, leading to a plunge in rice prices, a drop in exports and extensive losses incurred by U.S. rice farmers. "Since the amounts claimed differ considerably from case to case, the rulings so far do not allow for conclusions regarding the outcome of the remaining cases pending," Bayer said. The long-grain rice in question had a protein known as Liberty Link, which allows the crop to withstand applications of a certain weed killer. The U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration said at the time there was no public health or environmental risk associated with the rice variety. (Reporting by Ludwig Burger; Editing by Rupert Winchester) _______________________ Second Bayer 'Bellweather' trial results In another verdict for plaintiffs: $1.5 million award to rice farmers in Arkansas and Mississippi, USA Media release via TGI Marketing Communications [USA] on behalf of farmers' attorneys: http://www.tgidirect.com A St. Louis, Mo. jury today found Germany-based Bayer Cropscience AG and several of its affiliates negligent in the second of several "bellwether trials" scheduled for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, and awarded a total of $1.5 million to two Arkansas long-grain rice farmers and one in Mississippi whose crops and their livelihood, the jury determined, were harmed by Bayer's genetically modified rice. Joe and Jim Penn, of Portia, Ark., were awarded $480,692 in compensatory damages and fellow Arkansas rice farmer Jerry Catt, of Corning, Ark., was awarded $96,996 in compensatory damages. Black Dog Planting Co., of Lyon, Miss., represented by partner Gary Goode, was awarded $923,154 in compensatory damages. The suit was brought on behalf of the rice farmers based on economic damages they suffered from contamination of their crops by an unapproved genetically modified strain of rice seed produced by Bayer. Discovery of the contamination led to a dramatic drop in U.S. rice prices, as the European Union stopped purchasing the U.S. rice. The farmers suffered economic loss due to the much lower demand for their rice since 2006, when the contaminated rice was discovered. This trial, which began January 11, is the second of five scheduled "bellwether" � or test - trials scheduled by U.S. District Court Judge Catherine Perry that involves rice farmers in Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. These trials represent the first step Perry ordered in hearing the multi-district litigation involving some 6,000 rice producers in those five states. St. Louis attorney Don Downing, of the firm Gray, Ritter & Graham, was the plaintiffs' lead attorney in the first two cases and is co-lead counsel of the multi-district litigation. "We're pleased that another jury returned verdicts in favor of our clients and their family farming operations. A second consecutive verdict against Bayer should send a clear and strong message to the company about its negligent conduct and the damages that conduct actually caused to American rice farmers, not only in this case but in the other matters that are scheduled for trial," Downing said. The jury used the same formula in awarding compensatory damages due to the price drop for all plaintiffs. The awards varied because they were based on the number of acres each farmer planted and the impact of the contamination on their land. More test trials involving Bayer and rice farmers are scheduled for this summer in the same federal courtroom and will include farmers from Louisiana and Texas. _______________________ Who Is Brazil Catering to in Approving Bayer's New Controversial Rice? Verena Glass Brazzil (magazine), February 2010: http://www.brazzil.com/component/content/article/215-february-2010/10350-who-is-brazil-catering-to-in-approving-bayers-new-controversial-rice.html It is possible that Brazil may win a sad new title in 2010: the first country in the world to license the commercial planting of a new variety of genetically-modified rice, Bayer's LL62. If CTNBio (National Technical Commission on Biosecurity) approves the proposal at a meeting later this month, the rice will be the 20th genetically-modified product grown commercially in the country. CTNBio has maintained a steady flow of approval of GMO (genetically-modified organisms) licensing requests over the last years. Between 2005 and 2009, CTNBio gave licensing for two varieties of soy, eleven varieties of corn and six of cotton. There seems to be little doubt that the commission will continue this trend and approve the rice, except for one thing: this time there is a generalized opposition to the rice from various sectors. Opponents include researchers, consumer groups, environmental groups, and even groups that have traditionally been pro-transgenic, such as Embrapa (Brazilian Agricultural Research Company, a public entity which has supported GMOs), Farsul (Agricultural Federation of Rio Grande do Sul), and Federarroz (Federation of Rice Grower Associations of Rio Grande do Sul). According to Embrapa and Southern rice farmers, the major threat of Bayer's rice is the possible transference of a genetic mutation of red rice, which is considered the most invasive plant of irrigated rice farming. With contamination, this plant, which already causes damages to productivity and quality of the rice in areas which are highly infested, will become resistant to chemical control. In other words, according to Embrapa, if transgenic rice is licensed, it will be a threat to food security, capable of contaminating other varieties of rice in the country. Thus, if researchers (concerned with scientific evaluations), producers (concerned with economic questions), and consumers (concerned with what they eat - Greenpeace has already gathered 20,000 signatures against the transgenic rice) are opposed to the proposal, then one could ask the question, To whom is the CTNBio catering if it votes in favor of Bayer's rice? Perhaps it would be imprudent to suggest that the sales of multinational transgenic companies is related to the licensing of GMOs in Brazil. But the fact is, according to Exame magazine, Monsanto, which has had nine varieties of GMOs approved, earned in sales US$ 783.9 million in 2006, US$ 899.2 million in 2007, and US$ 954.8 million in 2008. According to the Law of Biosecurity, the commission, created in 2005, was to "give technical and consultative support to the federal government in formulating, updating, and implementing the National Policy of Biosecurity, relative to GMOs, such as the establishment of technical norms and technical partners in regard to the protection of human health. "Such protection also extended to other organisms and the environment, and activities which involve the construction, experimentation, farming, manipulation, transportation, commercialization, stocking, consuming, licensing and disposal of GMOs and their derivatives." In order for a GMO to obtain commercial licensing, fourteen of the 27 members of the commission must approve the product. According to entities of civil society who have watched over the work of CTNBio, many of the technical analyses in the processes of licensing GMOs have lacked scientific rigor and have not followed the principles of caution as outlined in the Protocol of Cartagena regarding Biosecurity. In addition these processes have lacked research on national soil that proves the security of the commercial planting of the varieties that were licensed. On the contrary, a strong characteristic of the majority of the commission's members is that they favor GMO technology. In 2003, eight of the current members of CTNBio wrote an open letter in which they affirmed that "Brazil cannot let go of transgenic technology" as it is "essential for sustainability and keeps agribusiness and small family farms competitive, and brings innumerous social and economic benefits to the country." Among current members, there are various who have or have had some personal relation with biotech companies or with the pro-transgenic lobby groups of Basf, Bayer, Cargill, Dow, Dupont, Monsanto, Pioneer, Syngenta, and others. Regarding observance of adequate scientific criteria in the process of licensing GMOs, or in the establishment of security norms for protection against contamination of non-transgenic fields by GMOs, CTNBio has been repeatedly challenged by diverse institutions. In 2007, the licensing of Bayer's transgenic corn Liberty Link and Monsanto's MON 810 (outlawed in France, Austria, Greece, Luxemburg, Hungary, Italy, Poland and Germany) was questioned by Anvisa (National Sanitation Agency) and Ibama (Brazilian Institute for the Environment and Natural Resources). Both entities pointed out errors in the technical reports which were fundamental in the licensing. In the case of Bayer's corn, Anvisa pointed out the insufficient data around proof of the security of transgenic corn for human consumption. According to Ibama, CTNBio ignored the inexistence of environmental impact studies and an analysis of risk. The Minister of the Environment also pointed out the absence of "studies or literature which prove the absence of environment damage, something alone which should have impeded the licensing." Shortly after these charges were made, entities filed a civil suit which forced the Justice Department to demand of CTNBio the creation of norms which would in theory protect non-GMO corn fields from contamination. In this case, minimal distances were established to protect non-GMO corn fields from transgenic corn - 20 to 100 meters depending on different types of barriers. But over the past three years, various entities have reported the contamination of non-GMO corn fields. The Department of Inspection and Agriculture Defense officially confirmed these accusations in 2009, proving that the CTNBio's norms are inadequate. "The preliminary reports indicate that under the present norms it is impossible to secure the coexistence of GMO fields, conventional fields, and organic fields, as at the present moment all areas monitored show cross-pollination at a distance much greater than the current norm provides," affirmed the Secretary of Agriculture. Given this information, at the end of October 2009, various organizations of civil society promoted a civil law suit that ask for the suspension of the licensing for commercially planted transgenic corn until an adequate norm can be established. The suit currently is awaiting a decision from a judge in Paran�. In response to this issue, a representative of the Science and Technology Ministry, Luiz Antonio Barreto de Castro, acknowledged the contamination of non-GMO corn, but stated, "the norms of CTNBio were established taking into consideration that not always would the contamination result in damage for the farmers who produce varieties called heirlooms...even if contamination occurs, it will be to the advantage of the farmer." But contrary to Castro's assertion, damages caused by contamination from GMO fields are recurrent in Brazil and in the rest of the world. In 2004, for example, Eco Brazil Organics Ltda in the state of Paran� had its production paralyzed after their fields were contaminated - three million dollars worth of damage. In 2006, Bayer's experimental fields for transgenic rice contaminated conventional fields and caused damages of one billion dollars around the world, according to a report issued by Greenpeace International. CTNBio's generosity towards transgenic has already had its collateral effects. Biotech companies originally argued that their technology would mean less use of chemicals and pesticides. Yet one study shows that the use of herbicides on soy, for example, has actually increased. In 2004, 129.6 thousand tons of herbicides were poured into soy fields. In 2008 the volume was raised to 192 thousand tons. It is important to remember here that Brazil has become the biggest world consumer of agricultural chemicals, using nearly 673,890 tons per year. The collateral effects of this: 6.3 thousand cases of human intoxication in 2007 resulting in 162 deaths. Verena Glass writes for Revista Sem Terra and Agência Carta Maior. _______________________ Bulgaria: Government Proposes 5-Year Ban on GM Crop Trials Novinite [Bulgaria], 5 February 2010: http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=112836 Environment Minister, Nona Karadzhova, concluded that the ban, that will mean a ban on any cultivation of all GM crops in the country, was a good compromise and stressed that the change in policy was due to the Bulgarian public's negative opinion on GMOs. The center-right governing GERB party has proposed that all cultivation of GM crops should be banned for 5-years, in a change to the new GMO Act. After a meeting of the Parliamentary Group of the center-right governing GERB party, Group Co-Chair, Iskra Fidosova, announced that GM crop trials should be banned for 5 years on the territory of Bulgaria. Fidosova added that the decision would mean that the controversial changes to the GMO act would have to be altered before their second hearing next week. The original changes which were passes at their 1st parliament hearing in January, were made to bring Bulgaria in-line with European legislation. They allowed for GM crop trials immediately of many crops and laboratory testing of GMO cultures. Fidosova explained "next week's second reading will have to include a change in the number of texts and will require drafting amendments to the bill on GMOs, whilst ensuring compliance with the European directive on the matter." GERB also announced that, through their MEPs, they will try to push for the introduction of an EU ban on GM crop trials and commercial growing. Environment Minister, Nona Karadzhova, concluded that the ban, that will mean a ban on any cultivation of all GM crops in the country, was a good compromise and stressed that the change in policy was due to the Bulgarian public's negative opinion on GMOs. Note from GM Watch: This comes after recent demonstrations in Bulgaria. Bulgaria is following in the footsteps of Austria, Germany, Hungary and France, who have all banned the commercial cultivation of the only GM crop (Monsanto's MON 810 maize) allowed to be grown in the European Union. Whether Bulgaria has gone further and banned all GM crop trials as well, as this article states, remains unclear. _______________________ Irishman scotches ban on GM crops Andrew Arbuckle The Scotsman [UK], 5 February 2010: http://business.scotsman.com/business/Irishman-scotches-ban-on-GM.6045941.jp AN IRISH businessman claims he can grow malting-quality barley in Argentina and get it to port for £50 a tonne and still make a profit - not a message that Scottish growers want to hear. Jim McCarthy's speech at a conference in Carnoustie, Angus, set the audience of mainly arable farmers back on its heels. He also hit out at European governments for ruling out GM technology. McCarthy has interests in land worldwide, and one of these businesses, Agro Terra, owns about 11,000 hectares of top-quality land in the South American country. Currently, it is growing maize and soya, but he produced figures showing costs that would work out at about £35 per tonne, leaving £15 per tonne for profit and haulage to the nearest port. He gave one example of how he was able to keep his costs low. For sowing his grain, he uses an 8m-wide drill and two tractormen each do an eight-hour shift, sleeping in a caravan next to the field. They do this seven days a week until the work is complete. He admitted afterwards that the prospect of South American grain going into Scotch whisky might be a shock to those who live in this country. But he stuck to his guns, saying that Scotch was an international drink and "the man in Shanghai" may like Scottish whisky, but he would not be too concerned about where the grain making the drink came from. "The point I want to make is that food and drink are international commodities and that suppliers with low costs of production are better placed to remain in business." His crops in Argentina, mainly soya and maize, are all genetically modified and he declared himself an enthusiastic supporter of this new science. He was also heavily critical of the attitude of governments in this country and in Europe for turning their backs on GM technology, saying he believed that European farmers were now being placed at a disadvantage in world markets because of this stance. Although he farms land in Latvia and other Baltic states, he said he was unlikely to increase his interests in Europe, as he feared becoming "Europeanised", which he later explained was tied into too many regulations. In South America, his pesticide costs are now very low, with GM varieties controlling most of the pests that attacked conventionally bred cultivars. NFU Scotland president Jim McLaren, who was in the audience for McCarthy's speech, admitted that "my mailbox is filled everyday with people who are anti-GM", and he wanted to know how consumers could be assured of the safety of new GM varieties? McCarthy was in no doubt that the testing regime for these was strict and that there was no problem for those eating the produce from the 500 million acres of GM crops grown last year. During his talk, McCarthy referred to the increasing population of the world and the responsibility that would fall on farmers to feed the extra mouths. It was not just a case of more people looking for food; he also predicted increased demand for a wider range of food as societies developed. Another angle on the GM debate emerged at the conference when plant scientist Dr Mark Taylor, from the Scottish Crop Research Institute at Invergowrie, revealed that a GM potato cultivar created at SCRI would be field-tested in Israel, because it was not allowed in the UK. The cultivar being put on trial is a mix of the tuberosum and phureja potato genes, and the scientists believe that they have combined to create a much more flavoursome tattie. --- Comment from GM-free Ireland: Jim McCarthy is a prominent member of the Irish Farmers Association who farms a 42,000 acre GMO soya ranch in Argentina and 2,000 acres in Kildare. He has described the 80% of EU consumers who reject GM food as a "vocal minority", farmers who refuse patented GM seeds and crops as "eco-fundamentalists", and said that farming is "all about profit, the rest is commentary". Now he wants Scotland to produce GM whisky! Like other members of the pro-GM brigade in the IFA, McCarthy ignores the mountain of scientific evidence of the health and environmental dangers of GM crops. His fondness for money also disregards the devastating social and economic impacts of GM farming which led the Swiss-based Covalence Ethical Quotation System to rate Monsanto as the world's most unethical company in 2009: http://www.covalence.ch/index.php/ethical-rankings/across-sectors/ _______________________ 4 February 2010 Nielsen: GMO-Free Is Fastest-Growing Corporate-Brand Claim Supermarket News [USA], 4 February 2010: http://supermarketnews.com/news/nielson_gmofree_0204/?cid=upd SCHAUMBURG, Ill. - Store brands comprise almost 40% of items making health and wellness claims related to preservative; one in four organic product sales; and nearly one in five items making natural and fat claims in food, drug and mass channels, according to the Nielsen Co. It found that GMO-free claims are the fastest growing among store brands. Sales of these items increased 67% in 2009 to $60.2 million, followed in popularity by gluten free (62%), absence of specific fat (53%) and lowers cholesterol (45%) store brands. Private-label marketers are steering clear of other health and wellness claims for the time being, according to Tom Pirovano, director of industry insights at Nielsen. "Store-brand development lags with respect to the products with newer claims such as high fructose corn syrup free, with many retailers adopting a wait-and-see attitude to determine if a claim has 'legs' or is merely the latest blip on the consumer trend screen," he said in a blog post. _______________________ Brinjal [aubergine] a political hot potato in India Neeta Lal Asia Times [Hong Kong, China], 4 February 2010: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/LB04Df03.html NEW DELHI - The fronts in India's brinjal war are sharply drawn between opponents of the commercial launch of the nation's first genetically modified (GM) vegetable and those who see it as a new avatar for the crop, which is commonly known as eggplant or aubergine. The biotech industry and some government ministers, say Bt Brinjal, as the GM version of the vegetable is known, is "safe for human consumption'', won't hurt the environment and can reduce dependence on pesticides. Critics point to gaps in India's regulatory process, a lack of a labeling regime for consumers, and the imminent toxic effects of the foreign genes in the modified crop. "The case of Bt Brinjal in India has now become symbolic because it will impact the future of several other edible crops which are now in various stages of genetic modification waiting to flood our markets," says Dr Vandana Shiva, an environmental scientist who opposes GM crops in India. The government, which says it will decide this month whether to allow introduction of the crop, has so far stumbled between the lines, only considering the merits of public debate when the controversy threatened to grow into a crisis of confidence for Indian consumers. Half a dozen Indian state governments recently decided to keep the new variety - and possibly all GM crops - out of their fields, due to lack of clarity on the issue. Such are the perceived dangers from Bt Brinjal in India that the Warangal incident is often quoted to support a ban. It was in this district in India's southern state of Andhra Pradesh in 2006 where over 2,000 sheep died after grazing in a field of Bt Cotton for seven days. Indian activists aren't the only ones demanding GM products don't make it to dinner. Hungary banned the planting of US-based global seed giant's GM maize in January 2005. French President Nicolas Sarkozy has similarly invoked EU safeguards to suspend the marketing and cultivation of GM crops. Jairam Ramesh, the Minister for Environment, has said a final decision on the commercial introduction of Bt Brinjal will be taken after February 10. Union Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar has stood firm in his resolve to go ahead with Bt Brinjal, saying that "initially there maybe constraints but in the long run such crops will only prove to be an advantage for India". Bt Brinjal has the Cry1Ac gene from Bacillus Thuringiensis (Bt) which is supposed to make the plant resistant to the Shoot and Fruit Borer insect that attacks it throughout its lifecycle. GM activists assert that Bt crops could pose serious health risks and hurt the agricultural industry. Opponents of GM crops also point out that the introduction of Bt Brinjal would adversely affect biodiversity and companies would have a monopoly over the seed varieties, which will have a multiplier effect on increasing their prices. "The traditional brinjal crop - of which we have over 2,000 varieties today - will vanish if the genetically modified variety is allowed," explains Shiva. Monsanto is promoting GM crops in India through Mahyco-Monsanto Biotech, its joint venture with Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company (Mahyco). "We look forward to a positive decision because it will help millions of our brinjal farmers who have been suffering from the havoc caused by the Brinjal Fruit and Shoot Borer (BFSB),'' Raju Barwale, Mahyco's managing director, said in October. "Bt brinjal will help them tackle this pest in an environment-friendly manner and increase yields and farm income." Monsanto has been saying that GM activists are irrationally opposing new technology. Normal farmer sprays pesticide at least 50 to 80 times in the whole lifecycle of a brinjal crop, which does far more damage as GM technology isn't harmful to humans, it argues. However, GM opponents aren't convinced. "The Bt toxin gene produces poison and when it can harm pests, where's the proof that it won't be harmful to humans?" Shiva asked. "The GM agenda is dictated by the profitability for multinational and Indian seed companies and not by concerns relating to food productivity, security or public safety." Concerns about the impact of Bt Brinjal are vital for India as brinjal is used extensively in ayurvedic medicines. Bt brinjal would also have a significant negative economic impact on farmers, observers say. They point to Vidarbha region in India's western state of Maharashtra, where farmer suicides showed a dramatic upward spiral from 2,000 to 4,000 within a span of few years after the introduction of Bt cotton. Due diligence is critical here as other genetically modified food crops are awaiting approval. Ramesh, the environment minister, voiced apprehension about the crop last year and set up an expert panel (Genetic Engineering Approval Committee) to regulate research, testing and commercial release of GM crops, foods and organisms. But the outfit was accused of bypassing safety and environmental concerns and working "to promote the interests of the international biotech industry". Ramesh even went on record to state that the "expert panel [Genetic Engineering Approval Committee] may well be a statutory body but when critical issues of human safety are involved, the government has every right and in fact, has basic responsibility to take the final decision based on the panel's suggestions." Fingers were also pointed at the composition and functioning of the 16-member expert committee that granted approval to Bt Brinjal. Professor Arjula Reddy, who chairs the Committee, was reportedly under tremendous pressure to clear Bt Brinjal. Another committee member, Dr K K Tripathy, was under investigation by the Central Vigilance Commission for alleged abuse of power to promote interests of certain companies. Dr Mathura Rai of the Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI) was reportedly a Bt Brinjal developer-turned-committee member. Governmental consultations and conclusions ought to have transpired before and not after 2006 when Mahyco got permission to carry out field trials for Bt Brinjal in India. Besides, India, as a signatory to the Convention on Biodiversity - and having ratified the Cartagena Protocol (CP) - is committed to the safe handling of genetically modified organisms. Brinjal is a traditional crop in India, and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety has provisions that discourage genetic modification of crops in their land of origin. GM crops in India also have pending PILs (public interest litigation) to contend with. In 2008, the Supreme Court issued a notice to the Union government on a PIL seeking annulment of the government's order that exempts GM foods and crops from mandatory laboratory tests. The bench recommended that the state allay "fears of the petitioner that the government might be playing into the hands of multinationals". Shiva asserts that India also lacks a crucial labeling regime which means that once Bt Brinjal inundates local markets, there is no way of distinguishing it from the ordinary variety, thus compromising consumer choice. "Moreover, all research on GM crops is funded by private companies and then presented to the regulators for clearance, casting doubt on its scientific integrity, Shiva said. "It is vital that research done on edible crops be transparent and publicly-funded." Food scientists add that GM food labeling requires a stronger laboratory and regulatory framework than India currently possesses. Testing of contamination to non-GM crops is neither easy nor cheap. While procedures to guard against it are in place, implementation of these procedures in the farms and fields across swathes of the Indian countryside is a tough proposition. Neeta Lal is a widely published writer/commentator who contributes to many reputed national and international print and Internet publications. --- *Comment by TraceConsult™* This probably marks the first time that there are major public protests in India on behalf of the prevention of endangering brinjal (eggplant / aubergine), a plant commonly used in Ayurvedic medicine, India's ancient traditional medical system. It is once again our favorite life science player Monsanto Company, recently awarded both Company of the Year as well as Least Ethical Corporation, who, under the name of its Indian subsidiary Mahyco, is causing all the trouble. _______________________ 2 February 2010 Fine Gael's genetically modified Creed • Opposition party and Teagasc led by GM industry spin doctors Media release GM-free Ireland Network, 2 February 2010: http://www.gmfreireland.org/press/GMFI47.pdf DUBLIN - In 2008, the Irish Times reported on a leaked email [1] from Fine Gael [Ireland's main centre-right opposition party] which revealed that its pro-GM food and farming policy was produced by a Canadian Government spin doctor who has been internationally condemned for scientific fraud [2]. Fine Gael has now made a fool of itself again when the party's agriculture spokesperson Michael Creed accused the Government of trying to stifle a study [3] by Teagasc [Ireland's Agriculture and Food Authority] which falsely suggested that the Government intends to ban GM animal feed, and that doing so would terminate the Irish pig industry [4]. Creed - whose opinions on GM food and farming sound like they were drafted by Monsanto's PR department - made his latest gaffe during Dail Questions last week. The misinformation has since been disseminated by the Fine Gael web site [5], GM industry front groups [6], and the Irish Farmers Journal [7]. But Creed got it wrong on three counts. First off, the Department of Agriculture did not reprimand Teagasc for its pig study, but for expressing a related political opinion (which state bodies are not allowed to do, particularly when Teagasc is funded by and reports to the Dept. of Ag). Teagasc Director Prof. Gerry Boyle has since admitted the mistake in a letter to the Minister of Agriculture. Second, the Programme for Government [8] makes no mention whatsoever of any ban on GM feed. The Government's GM-free Ireland policy aims to prohibit field trials and cultivation of GM crops, and to introduce a voluntary GM-free label for farmers and producers who choose to remove GM feed from their supply chains. This will enable agri-food operators to retain access to - and compete in - the rapidly growing international market for top quality, safe GM-free food which the vast majority of EU and international consumers demand, and which Irish grass-based cattle and dairy farmers can produce more cost-effectively than farmers in competing countries [9]. Fine Gael's perpetuation of the myth of a nonexistent government ban on GM feed imports to scare-monger the farming community only serves the interests of the giant biotech and commodity trade corporations which are desperate to get the world's farmers addicted to their patented GM products. Third, Teagasc's claim that using Non-GM feed would wipe out Irish pig farming is simply incredible. Pig farmers across Europe are thriving on their GM-free supply chains. Here in Ireland, the Vice-Chairman of the IFA Pigmeat Committee, Pat O'Flaherty, produces over 8,000 pigs a year in his factory farm at Gort Na Muc in Rathangan, Co. Kildare, with no GM feedstuffs and no use whatsoever of soy feed - without incurring one cent in extra costs [10]. 40% of Brittany's pork production is GM-free; leading French, German, Italian pork brands are GM-free, as is all of Switzerland's beef, pork and dairy production [11]. Teagasc's pro-GM propaganda Teagasc has spent millions of taxpayer funds on research and development of GM crops, co-funding a Canadian GM industry conference promoting GM food [12], and maintaining a website whose content appears to have come from Monsanto's PR department [13]. Teagasc is currently planning to close down its Kinsealy research centre for conventional horticultural crops which provides essential analytical and diagnostic services for Teagasc advisers and for the horticultural industry. The head of Teagasc, Prof Gerry Boyle, is an agricultural consultant to the World Bank, which uses public tax-payer funding from the rich countries to promote GM farming in the developing countries. Teagasc hosted an international conference promoting GM seeds and crops at University College Cork in 2008 [14], on behalf of a Canadian biotech industry front group called the Agricultural Biotechnology International Conference (ABIC) Foundation, managed by Ag-West Bio Inc. and funded by Monsanto. ABIC's Board of Directors includes Jimmy Burke (Teagasc's head of Biotechnology), the conference chair Ashley O'Sullivan (a former Monsanto employee), Roger Kemble (President of Syngenta Biotechnology Inc), and Malcolm Devine (former employee of Aventis CropScience and Bayer CropScience)! Boyle makes the astounding claim that the record of GM crops internationally has been "very good" - completely ignoring the scientific evidence of health dangers, reduced yields, GM superweeds, crop failures, widespread contamination, patent infringement lawsuits, product recalls, billion-dollar food industry losses, EU market rejection and loss of biodiversity. And Teagac's head of biotechnology, Prof. Jimmy Burke, has hailed the introduction of GM maize in Spain as a "great success", despite the widespread contamination of conventional and organic farmers in that country. Smart economy Tomorrow and Thursday, the EU Committee of the Regions will host the 3rd World Conference on Non-GMO labels, Quality Production and European Regional Agriculture Strategies [15], attended by agri-food delegations from 51 EU Regions including high-level representatives of the GM-free Ireland Network and the Irish Cattle and Sheepfarmers Association. If Fine Gael were remotely serious about supporting Ireland's agri-food sector, they would be attending this event. But neither they - nor the other pro-GM bodies including the IFA, ICMSA, and the Irish Farmers Journal - will be there, even though phasing out GM feed would provide the Irish agri-food sector with the most credible safe GM-free food brand in Europe. But if Fine Gael and Teagasc have their way, Irish pig farmers will only be able to produce the lowest quality GM-fed produce in Europe. New leadership, please! ENDS Contact Michael O'Callaghan, Co-ordinator, GM-free Ireland Network +353 (0)87 799 4761 mail@gmfreeireland.org www.gmfreeireland.org Notes for editors 1. "Fine Gael emailer comes a cropper", Miriam Lord's Week, Irish Times, 13 October 2007. 2. "Briefing Document for Fine Gael: GMOs and Ireland: 10 years of poor FF led policy": http://www.gmfreeireland.org/politics/GMOs-and-Ireland.fg.document.oct.2007.doc The Fine Gael briefing contains, inter alia, verbatim text from a letter which Shane Morris previously sent to the Editor of the Kilkenny Voice newspaper, dated 28 September 2007 (published 27 September). Morris is an employee of the Canadian Government agency, Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada, who has been accused of scientific fraud on GMOs. He is currently studying "Science Communication" at UCC. For details see http://www.gmfreeireland.org/morris/ and his Spin Profile http://www.spinprofiles.org/index.php/Shane_Morris Morris's authorship of the briefing is well-known in Fine Gael circles and was also confirmed by Fianna Fáil politicians after the email was sent to them by mistake in October 2008. Fine Gael's credibility on GM food and farming was already in tatters before this embarrassing revelation that they are being advised by a covert agent of the Canadian Government. In the lead up to the 2007 General Election, Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny told Michael O'Callaghan of GM-free Ireland that this Ireland can "do nothing" to stop the invasion of GM animal feed, food and crops - apparently unaware that many other EU member states and Regions have already banned the crops and were starting to phase out GM animal feed as well. On 20 October 2007, Fine Gael MEP Mairead McGuinness, along with MEPs James Nicholson (Ulster Unionist Party) and Struan Stevenson (Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party), engaged in a failed attempt to introduce numerous amendments to an EU Parliament Resolution on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. The amendments aimed, inter alia, to raise contamination thresholds for imported GM animal feed, and to fast track the EU approval of illegal GM imports from the USA and other countries. In December 2006, McGuinness attempted to introduce numerous amendments into a Motion for a European Parliament Resolution on Biotechnology: Prospects and Challenges for Agriculture in Europe (2006/2059 (INI)). Her proposed amendments included weakening EU regulations on GM food and feed, and promoting the release of GM pharma crops, which would contaminate food crops with pharmaceutical products, agrofuels, and industrial chemicals! Luckily, MEPs threw out the Motion and the Resolution after widespread protest by citizens. For details see http://www.gmfreeireland.org/politics 3. "The GM debate and the Irish pig meat sector. Peadar Lawlor and Maria Walsh explore the viability of the Irish pig industry in the presence of a GM feed ban." T Research, Volume 4, Number 4, Winter 2009, ISSN 1649-8917: http://www.teagasc.ie/publications/tresearch/tresearch200910.pdf). 4. The study is full of misinformation and spin. See GM-free Ireland's detailed critique at http://www.gmfreeireland.org/news/2009/nov.php#teagasc If you do the math on Teagasc's estimated extra cost of €2.51 to €3.93 per GM-free pig, with an average Irish pig deadweight of 70kg, the consumer would only have to €0.04 to €0.06 extra per kg of GM-free pig meat. That's less than one euro cent for a package of bacon or sausages! Note that the Vice-Chairman of the IFA Pigmeat Commmittee, Pat O'Flaherty, produces over 8,000 pigs a year in his factory farm at Gort Na Muc in Rathangan, Co. Kildare, with no GM feed stuffs and no use whatsoever of soy feed - without incurring one cent in extra costs. Related research found that the extra cost which a consumer would have to pay for a litre of GM-free milk in the UK is GBP 0.0045. 5. "Gov bid to gag Teagasc raised in Dáil - Creed", Fine Gael press release, 27 January 2010: http://www.finegael.org/news/a/2164/article 6. "Emerald politics fail to bring home the bacon: Irish Government attempts to gag GM research: issue raised in Irish Parliament", GMO Pundit a.k.a. David Tribe, 27 January 2010: http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/ 7. "Creed claims Teagasc reprimanded over GM", Pat O'Keefe, Irish Farmers Journal, 30 January 2010. 8. The Irish Government announced its GM-free policy on page 11 of the Renewed Programme for Government of 10 October 2009 (http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/eng/Publications/Publications_2009/Renewed_Programme_for_Governmen t,_October_2009.pdf). The policy states that the Government will "Declare the Republic of Ireland a GMFree Zone, free from the cultivation of all GM plants", and "To optimise Ireland's competitive advantage as a GM-Free country, we will introduce a voluntary GM-Free logo for use in all relevant product labelling and advertising, similar to a scheme recently introduced in Germany." The policy has not yet been implemented with legislation. 9. See video clip of the November 2009 GM-free Ireland press conference on GM-free labelling at http://www.gmfreeireland.org For more information, download "GM-free food production: a unique selling point for Ireland - the food island" (47-page briefing with GM-free market survey, 17 Nov. 2009 (1.2MB pdf): http://www.gmfreeireland.org/GMFI-briefing-3.pdf 10. Communication to Michael O'Callaghan of GM-free Ireland at the 2009 Euro-Toques National Food Forum & Fair 'The Whole Hog; Re-examining how we rear, kill and eat pigs in Ireland today': http://www.eurotoquesirl.org 11. See note 9 above. 12. Irish Government slammed for GM food conference, GM-free Ireland press release, 24 August 2008: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/press/GMFI41.pdf 13. Teagasc maintains the Irish Government's official Information Centre for Genetically Modified (GM) Crops in Ireland, co-funded by the the Environment Protection Agency (EPA). The Centre's web site at http://www.gmoinfo.ie reads like a Monsanto advertisement. The website's short section on what it refers to as the "perceived risks" fails to mention anything about the health, environment, economic and food sovereignty danger of GMOs. 14. See note 12 above. 15. http://www.gmofree-euregions.net _______________________ Scope for law against GM crops being studied The Hindu [India], 2 February 2010: http://www.hindu.com/2010/02/02/stories/2010020253890400.htm THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: The State government will examine the possibility for legislation against arbitrary introduction of genetically modified (GM) crops for field trials in Kerala, Agriculture Minister Mullakkara Ratnakaran said here on Monday. At a news conference, the Minister said his department had requested the Law Department to examine the possibility for such a law in view of Kerala's rich biodiversity and the export-oriented nature of the State's agriculture. The State functioned within serious limitations in the matter and could not go in for legislative measures without examining all aspects of the issue. Mr. Ratnakaran, accompanied by Kerala State Biodiversity Board Chairman V.S. Vijayan, said the State government had told the Centre that no field trial of GM crops should be conducted in Kerala without its concurrence. On a field trial being detected by an NGO in north Kerala, he said there was nothing wrong in it, as such organisations were closest to the people. The government was a huge system, which, though it worked among the people, was dependent on such sources for most such information. The government was alert to the dangers of such field trials and wanted to play an active role in the formulation of a clear policy on GM crops at the national level. It had also written to the Centre seeking conduct of a public hearing on the proposal for introducing Bt brinjal, and hoped that its request would get a favourable response from the Centre. He said the Agriculture Department and the Kerala State Biodiversity Board were jointly organising a national level workshop on "GM crops: their merits and demerits" here on Tuesday and Wednesday to discuss in detail the implications of introducing GM crops on farmers' welfare, biodiversity, especially agro-biodiversity, food security, seed and food sovereignty, cost issues and the question of intellectual property rights over the technology and seeds. The Agriculture Ministers of seven States and experts - Devinder Sharma, Chairman, Forum for Biotechnology and Food Security, New Delhi; Vandana Shiva, Director, Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology, New Delhi; Pushpa M. Bhargava, Founder-Director, Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology and Supreme Court's nominee in the GEAC - were expected to attend the workshop to be inaugurated by Chief Minister V.S. Achuthanandan, he said. _______________________ Germany - New labelling for GM food Meat Trade News Daily [UK], 2 February 2010: http://www.meattradenewsdaily.co.uk/news/020210/germany___new_labelling_for_gm_food_.aspx The CEO of the National Federation of the German Food Industry (BVE), Matthias Horst, told one of Germany's leading newspapers, the Süddeutsche Zeitung, that if genetic engineering has been involved in the production of a product, then this must be stated on the product's label. His sector wants "transparency" and is for the positive labelling of genetically modified food. Any product that has had any type of contact whatsoever with genetic engineering should be labelled accordingly. Many current widespread uses of genetic engineering do not fall under mandatory labelling regulations, such as the milk, eggs or meat coming from animals given genetically modified feed. Likewise for additives, vitamins and enzymes derived from genetically modified microorganisms. Even "incidental, technically unavoidable" admixtures of genetically modified plants - especially widespread in foods containing soya - are not required to be labelled. If that were the case, an estimated 60 percent of the food products on German shelves would have to be so labelled. Gerhard Sonnleitner, president of the German Farmers' Association, also spoke out critically against current labelling regulations at the International Green Week in Berlin, Germany. He called for a "clear decision": either all uses of genetic engineering throughout the entire production chain be declared on the end product or go back to the product-related labelling, in force in the EU up to 2004, which only required labelling of the use of genetically modified organisms if their presence could be detected in the food product. Sonnleitner called "GM-free" labelling "dishonest". It is "misleading" when the vitamins, enzymes and vaccines produced with genetic engineering that are used in animal husbandry do not need to be declared. All feed today contains traces of genetic engineering. Yet milk and meat derived from that is allowed to carry a "GM-free" stamp. No changes to current labelling regulations can be expected in the near future. Comprehensive labelling as called for by environmental and consumer associations could only be carried out at the European level. Even if there were to be a majority ruling in the European Parliament and among EU Member States, the legislative process required would take several years. --- Comment from GM-free Ireland The article fails to mention that Germany's GM-free labelling regulation for food - including meat, poultry, eggs, fish and dairy produce fed a Non-GMO diet - came into effect in 2008. The regulation allows the use of the GM-free label for animal produce whose diet includes vitamins, enzymes and vaccines produced from GM bacteria, but excludes all use of feedstuffs from GM crops. The last paragraph claims that "comprehensive labelling" could only be carried out at the European level. But France, Germany, and Austria have already set up their own national GM-free labelling regulations, soon to be followed by Ireland. _______________________ Bt Brinjal will be single largest disaster, says scientist Mangalorean [India], 2 February 2010: http://www.mangalorean.com/news.php?newstype=broadcast&broadcastid=167340 New Delhi, Feb 2 (IANS) With less than 10 days to go for Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh's final call on the introduction of genetically modified brinjal, leading scientist Pushp Bhargava, who was also the Supreme Court nominee to the country's biotech regulator, Monday warned that if Bt Brinjal is allowed it would be the "single largest disaster". "Scientists all over the world have opposed GM foods. Renowned scientists like Rupert Sheldrake and many others have said that they don't support GM foods. They have written to India saying that it should not be allowed. If despite all this and the public hearing against Bt Brinjal, it is released it will be the single largest disaster in the country," Bhargava told IANS over phone from Kochi. Bhargava is the founder director of the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB) as well as a National Knowledge Commission member. He is also the independent nominee of the Supreme Court to the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), the country's biotech regulator. He added: "If it is indeed allowed, we won't let it! It will end up as a third war for independence....We will seek legal action. We can file an appeal with the court, asking them to stop the commercial release of the crop, since Bt Brinjal will not be packaged and will look the same as normal brinjal. This is a processed food and the consumer must know what he buys or eats. So, since this highly processed GM food won't be labelled, it shouldn't be allowed." Last year two leading European scientists who spearheaded the movement against GM food in Europe had visited India and appealed to India to reject the Bt Brinjal. Gilles-Eric Seralini, the president of the scientific council of the CRIIGEN (Committee for Independent Research and Information on Genetic Engineering), and Micheal Antoniou from the department of medical and molecular genetics at King's College, London, had criticised the Indian government's growing support for GM crops just ahead of the GEAC's approval to Bt Brinjal in October. Bhargava stressed that when the entire European Union had denied Bt products, the only reason wellknown faces in the biotech industry like Kiran Mazumdar Shaw were vouching for its release was business interests. He has in the past protested that Bt Brinjal was cleared by the GEAC and its expert committees without proper tests and under pressure from the developer Monsanto-Mahyco. "They all have business interests. I know them well, and they are looking only at the vast export market that the US offers... I hope the minister takes note of this and puts a moratorium of seven years and sets up an independent testing lab facility. This will also give time to revamp the biotech regulatory system which is essential now," Bhargava said. Last week, Bhargava alleged that the environment minister was under pressure from the Prime Minister's Office. Ramesh denied this. Demanding that the government reverse its decision, farmers, scientists and NGOs have staged angry demonstrations and disrupted public hearings organised by the ministry on the issue in the past few days. Ramesh said he could elicit the public response during his planned visits to key farming centres and regions of the country before taking a decision on Bt Brinjal. _______________________ 1 February 2010 Study: GM Wheat Still "Poison" to Montana Farmers' Bottom Lines Deb Courson Public News Service [USA], 1 February 2010: http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/12502-2 HELENA, Mont. - Genetically modified (GM) wheat is still "poison" for Montana growers' pocketbooks. A new review of consumer attitudes in Europe, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan shows if GM wheat is introduced in the U.S., buyers will reject Montana wheat because of the possibility of contamination. And that would send prices for hard red spring wheat down 40 percent. Dr. Neal Blue, a grain market consultant and former research economist at Ohio State University, did the survey because a coalition of some U.S. wheat-farming groups has started pushing GM wheat. He calls that a dangerous move, because action is swift against GM - as seen in 2006, when GM rice was found in American shipments to Europe. "When they saw it, they immediately ceased imports of United States rice. That's a very clear message, and it took a couple years for the United States rice growers to clean up all of that." The new push for GM wheat is backed by the argument that growers and processors need all the advantages they can get to boost production as wheat acreage has declined. However, Blue says the solution to more production is not in GM - it is in Washington D.C. "One of the driving factors causing the wheat acres to go down in the United States over time is agricultural policy that favors corn and soybeans." The review is a follow-up to a study seven years ago that came to the same conclusion. Blue says genetically modified foods may eventually be accepted in foreign markets, but that is at least 10 years away. The full report, "A Review of the Potential Market Impacts of Commercializing GM Wheat in the U.S.," is available at www.worc.org. _______________________ GM-Free Certified Seed Part Of Plan To Regain Flax Exports To EU • Traces of CDC Triffid have been found in Mons and Normandy breeder seed Allan Lawson AGCanada.com, 1 February 2010: http://www.agcanada.com/Article.aspx?ID=17377 The ongoing CDC Triffid saga could end farmers' practice of saving flax seed from year to year, industry sources say. Not all the details have been worked out, but the industry, represented by the Flax Council of Canada, is heading toward requiring certified seed, said council president Barry Hall. However, he noted that certified seed will have to be tested for GM flax too. "It's our best effort, no-holds barred, to clear this up once and for all," Hall said. Canadian flax farmers traditionally grow mostly farm-saved seed. But they will instead be expected to grow certified seed that has been tested and found to be free of CDC Triffid, a genetically modified (GM) variety that is contaminating Canadian flax supplies and blocking sales to the European Union (EU). National Farmers Union (NFU) president Terry Boehm says farmers should be allowed to deliver flax grown from farm-saved seed so long as the seed and subsequent crop tests GM-free, especially since one source of the Triffid contamination is breeder seed from the University of Saskatchewan's Crop Development Centre. "Just because it's certified seed doesn't guarantee anything," Boehm said in an interview. "The seed system was the source of the contamination originally." Boehm said the seed industry is always looking for ways to force farmers to buy new seed and will use Triffid contamination to that end. Traces Found The European Union (EU) found traces of CDC Triffid in shipments of Canadian flax last summer. Although Triffid was approved for release in Canada and the United States, it wasn't approved in the EU, Canada's biggest flax market. That's why CDC Triffid was de-registered and the pedigreed seed recalled and processed before it was sold to farmers to grow commercially. When traces of Triffid began showing up in Canadian flax, there was speculation some of the seed made it into farmers' hands. That still might have happened, but some of the spread is due to contamination in the breeder seed of two other Crop Development Centre flax varieties - CDC Normandy and CDC Mons. Dorothy Murrell, managing director of the University of Saskatchewan's Crop Development Centre, said testing revealed the contamination, but she doesn't know how it happened. Breeder seed is distributed to seed growers who multiply it, eventually selling certified seed to farmers for commercial production. If breeder seed is contaminated, the seed produced from it will be too. Purity Depending on the stage, pedigreed seed is required to be 99.95 to 99.8 per cent pure. But when comes the unapproved presence of GM, any level is intolerable by the EU. All stocks of pedigreed CDC Normandy and CDC Mons will be pulled off the market, tested for contamination and marketed accordingly. Then both varieties will be de-registered, Murrell said. CDC Normandy was registered in 1995. It accounted for 14 per cent of the Canadian Grain Commission's flax harvest samples in 1999, its peak year. CDC Mons was registered in 2002 and peaked at 0.7 per cent of the samples in 2005. Since Triffid is widespread at low levels in Canadian flax, Murrell doubts CDC Normandy and CDC Mons are the only sources. "Dorothy might be right, but I'm hoping she's wrong because if we can nail it down to two varieties, pull them off the market, pull all the pedigreed seed of that off the EU-destined market and then start to clean up farm-saved seed we might have the problem solved," said Dale Adolphe, executive director of the Canadian Seed Growers Association. About 3.5 per cent of the farmer and elevator flax samples tested have been positive for CDC Triffid at or above 0.01 per cent (one seed in 10,000), Quinton Stewart of Viterra told the Saskatchewan Flax Development Commission meeting in Saskatoon Jan. 11. Ten to 15 per cent of the rail shipments tested positive and seven per cent of the vessel holds. That's why Canada's flax industry, including farmers, must take extraordinary action to remove CDC Triffid and regain the confidence of EU buyers, Richard Wansbutter, Viterra's vice-president of government and commercial relations, said in an interview. Farmers can test farm-saved seed, but only growing certified seed, which has also been tested and found to be GM-free, provides better seed management and hopefully a faster resolution to the problem. "This is not an issue of farmsaved seed versus certified seed." Wansbutter said. "The issue is, we've got a critical situation where we cannot access the European market." Testing key Boehm counters that one year won't eradicate all traces of CDC Triffid and testing seed, whether certified or farm-saved, as well the harvested product, is the only solution. "The testing is the critical piece," Boehm said. "It's not whether it's certified or farmsaved, it's out there now." Under the Canada Grain Act licensed elevators are obliged to take delivery of crops farmers want to deliver if they have space, Boehm added. That's true, said Canadian Grain Commission spokesman Remi Gosselin, but the act doesn't say what the company has to pay. Presumably if an elevator only wants to buy flax grown from certified seed it will heavily discount the price of flax that wasn't. The problems created by CDC Triffid illustrate seed developers need to be concerned about disrupting markets, Boehm said. "The long and the short of it is once the genie is out of the bottle you can't contain it." allan@fbcpublishing.com _______________________ Russia to tighten labeling requirements for GMO food products Eugene Vorotnikov Food Biz Daily.com Moscowe: http://foodbizdaily.com/articles/96174-russia-to-tighten-labeling-requirements-for-gmo-food-products.aspx MOSCOW - Russian food producers will be required to label their products with "This product contains GMOs" inscription, according to Russian media reports. Such proposal has recently been introduced by some members of the Russian Parliament. According to the bill, the size of inscription must be at least 20% of the advertising space of the package. Many of the Russian officials believe that the absence of such information confuses the Russian consumer and violates the right of consumers to receive truthful information about the products they use. Lack of information about the presence of GMOs in the product prevents the consumer's right to choose natural and safe product for themselves and their families, analysts believe. "Despite the fact that the use of genetic engineering can improve the efficiency of production, we must recognize that the impact of GMOs on the human body has not been fully studied, and there are many reputable studies proving their devastating effects on human health, according to the Russian lawmakers - Russia's legislation obliges manufacturers to label food products only if their composition contains 0,9% or more of the components derived from the use of GMOs. Moreover the current legislation gives a right to producers whose products contain less than 0.9% GMOs, to say that they "Do not contain GMOs." "It seems out that the Russian consumers buy products with traces of GMOs, even without knowing it" - analysts said. _______________________ GM Crops Facing Meltdown in the USA Dr. Mae-Wan Ho Institute of Science in Society report, 1 February 2010: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMCropsFacingMeltdown.php SUMMARY: Major crops genetically modified for just two traits - herbicide tolerance and insect resistance - are ravaged by super weeds and secondary pests in the heartland of GMOs as farmers fight a losing battle with more of the same; a fundamental shift to organic farming practices may be the only salvation. Read the full report online: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMCropsFacingMeltdown.php _______________________ Staple food endangered: EU urged not to approve Bayer�s GM Rice Keycode Bayer 446 Press Release Coalition against Bayer Dangers [Germany], 1 February 2010: http://www.cbgnetwork.de/3262.html Great Greenpeace clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsxFZ0rUCoM The Coalition against Bayer Dangers urges European authorities to refuse an import approval for Liberty Link Rice (LL62) produced by Bayer CropScience. LL62 has been modified with a gene that makes the plant tolerant to glufosinate, a weed-killer produced by Bayer under the brands Basta and Liberty. An approval of this modified rice strain would pose unknown risks for human health and the environment. Glufosinate is to be phased out in Europe due to its hazardous nature. The herbicide is classified as toxic for reproduction and can also cause birth defects. With LL62, usage levels for glufosinate would increase, also increasing the likelihood of herbicide residues on the rice itself. A European approval would also allow Bayer to promote GM rice cultivation in developing countries, especially in Asia. This would inevitably lead to genetic contamination of existing rice cultivation, to poisoning of peasants and to the elimination of local rice strains. Europe has a strong moral obligation to take these developments into account when assessing LL62. Bayer already applied in 2003 to import LL62. The application was rejected several times when voted on in the EU council of ministers, but has so far not been withdrawn. Bayer is also pushing for legal approval in Brazil, South Africa, India and the Philippines. In the USA, LL62 has already been permitted for commercial planting, although farmers in the US are reluctant to plant it because it is not approved for import elsewhere in the world. EU import approvals so far have mainly been granted for genetically manipulated feed crops. Liberty Link rice would be the first GM product intended directly for human food use. Philipp Mimkes from the Coalition against Bayer Dangers, an international network that has been monitoring Bayer for more than 30 years: "Allowing the import of Liberty Link Rice would give the green light to multinationals to promote this unsustainable form of farming in developing countries. The world's most important staple food must not fall into the hands of companies like Bayer." The Coalition has introduced several countermotions on the issue at Bayer�s annual shareholder meetings in recent years. In July 2006, Bayer LL601, a similar rice variety that was not approved for commercial distribution or human consumption anywhere in the world, appeared in supermarkets worldwide. According to a Greenpeace study the damages amounted to 1.2 billion US$. In December 2009 Bayer was sentenced to pay about $2 million for losses sustained by two US farmers. The verdict of the federal court in St. Louis is seen as a test run for up to 3000 cases brought by other rice farmers in the US. "We call for the stringent application of the precautionary principle with regard to GM rice. The incident in the US shows that risks linked with genetically modified crops cannot be controlled in the long term", Mimkes adds. See also:
•	US: BAYER ordered to pay damages http://www.cbgnetwork.de/3169.html
•	India: Bayer, Hands off our Rice http://www.cbgnetwork.de/3017.html
•	Take Glufosinate off the Market immediately! http://www.cbgnetwork.de/2785.html
•	Open Letter to the European Food Safety Authority http://www.cbgnetwork.de/1592.html
•	Reject Bayer's application to import genetically modified rice into the EU http://www.cbgnetwork.de/300.html
_______________________ Rise in GM crops in Brazil alarms industry watchdog War on Want, 1 February 2010: http://www.waronwant.org/news/latest-news/16781-rise-in-gm-crops-in-brazil-alarms-industry-watchdog War on Want partner the Alternative Agriculture Support Service (AS-PTA) has expressed major concerns about the rate at which genetically modified (GM) seeds are being approved for commercial use in Brazil. The organisation, which raises awareness of the dangers of GM seeds, has linked the rise in GM crop cultivation to the growing influence of multinational agribusiness. The watchdog AS-PTA recently challenged the impartiality of the National Technical Commission for Bio-safety, a regulatory body set up by the government in 2005 to monitor the effects of GM crops on human health, the environment and growth of non-GM crops. AS-PTA has criticised the relationship between many of the Commission's members and multinational companies that deal in GM crops. Dr. Lia Giraldo resigned from the Commission over concerns about its bias, declaring that "the majority of those who are involved are biotechnology specialists and have a direct interest in the development of genetic engineering, whereas only a few are actually specialists in bio-safety." AS-PTA has also accused the Commission of lacking "scientific rigour" and ignoring the safety procedures set out in the Cartagena Protocol, an international agreement which Brazil has signed that seeks to protect biological diversity from the risks posed by modern biotechnology. The rise in GM crops has led to an increase in the use of powerful chemical pesticides, many of which are banned in other countries. Agro-chemical firms wield enormous political influence, and in 2008 industry lobbyists tried to block the Brazilian National Health Surveillance Agency from carrying out a safety assessment of agrochemicals used to cultivate GM crops. It was only after pressure from civil society groups, including AS-PTA, that the decision was overturned, allowing the survey of agrochemicals to proceed. The results of the study, released in 2009, revealed that a total of 12 agrochemicals were in breach of health regulations. Despite these findings, multinational agribusinesses continue to win approval for their products. According to an AS-PTA spokesperson, "we only need examine the list of requests for authorisation filed with the National Technical Commission for Bio-safety to see how genetically modified seeds will play a big role, particularly in the expansion of the pesticide market." AS-PTA plays a leading role in the GM-Free Brazil Campaign, a coalition of Brazilian NGOs, social movements and individuals who exert pressure on the government to implement effective forms of control over GM crops and dangerous agro-chemicals. The long-term goal of the coalition is to eliminate all GM crops from Brazil. War on Want is proud to support AS-PTA's work promoting alternative and sustainable agriculture based on small-scale farming projects. _______________________ Equivita thanks Minister Luca Zaia and urges him to proceed in defense of Italian citizens' rights Press release Equivita [Italy], 1 February 2010: http://www.equivita.it [Translation courtesy of GM-free Ireland] The EQUIVITA Scientific Committee expresses its support to the [Italian Agriculture] Minister Zaia, who has been placed in a difficult position by Council of State's sensational ruling to authorise the cultivation of genetically modified maize by the Futuragra organisation - upsetting the institutional procedure for the authorisation of GMOs under decree no 212 of 2001. "I fail to understand the motivation for this decision", said Fabrizia Pratesi, secretary of the EQUIVITA Scientific Committee. "The European Union has not established an obligation to cultivate GMOs. The Member States are only allowed to use them under norms of traceability, labelling and co-existence. In regards to co-existence, it has requested the Member States to formulate the regulations which, in Italy, are connected to the route of legislative decree 212/2001. These regulations are indispensable, if only for economic reasons, and may not be disregarded. Pre-empting [the implementation of these regulations] signals a disregard for the Precautionary Principle on which the Treaty of the Union is based, the Cartagena Protocol [on Biosafety], and numerous other international agreements. Moreover, European Commission President Manuel Barroso recently expressed his favourable dispositin towards allowing the Member States the freedom of choice on GMOs, and the European Union has accepted the existence of GM-free zones. We agree with Slow Food in viewing this episode as another move in the sequence of "faits accomplis" through which GMOs have spread up to now, beginning in the USA with their approval by the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) despite the negative opinions of scientists. EQUIVITA supports the proposal made by the President of Coldiretti [Italy's largest farming union] Sergio Marini for a national referendum (pending it being extended on the European level), since no-one can yet demonstrate any improved traits of GMOs (for citizens or farmers) which would justify not only their dangers and risks, but also all this related confusion and regulatory difficulties. --- Comment from GM-free Ireland This refers to today's announcement that Italy's highest court of appeals has overruled a decision by the Ministry of Agriculture which refused consent for Futuragra, a pro-GM front group based in Vivaro, near Venice, to grow GM maize in defiance of the de-facto ban on the cultivation of GM crops in Italy. The Ministry' previous denial of authorisation cited the lack of regulations on the so-called "co-existence" of GM crops with conventional and organic agriculture. Commenting on the court of appeals decision, the Agriculture Minister Luca Zaia said authorisation for the cultivation of the GM maize would still require approval by a technical commission - which is unlikely given the lack of "co-existence" regulations. "The court decision ... obviously contradicts the will of an overwhelming majority of the Italian citizens and regions. And first of all, of an overwhelming majority of farmers who do not want GMOs in their fields.' Italy's farmers, food producers and consumers are furious at the move. The main farming union Coldiretti (with 18 regional federations for 98 provinces, 765 area offices, 9,812 sections, and over 568,000 farms) is totally opposed to GM food and farming. The most recent Italian survey - carried out by Coldiretti-SWG in 2009 - found that 63% of Italian consumers believe that GM foods are less healthy than traditional foods, up from 52% in 2003 According to Coldiretti's GM expert Stefano Masini, the court's decision only applies to the Futuragra farm and does not signify any change whatsoever to Italy's de-facto national ban on GM crops. Minister Zaia's web site states that "A new ethics for agriculture is needed if we truly want to feed the world. My opposition to GMOs is well-known, in fact I do not believe that they are the solution to the hunger problem. We are with the farmers and always with those who work. _______________________ Heated protests take place over Bt brinjal [aubergine] in India B. Chandrashekhar The Hindu [India], 1 February 2010: http://current.com/17uq44c [Photo caption: Union Minister of State for Environment and Forests Jairam Ramesh with a brinjal garland put up by protesters at the Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture in Hyderabad on Sunday.] HYDERABAD: Union Minister of State for Environment and Forests Jairam Ramesh faced angry protests at the consultations on Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) brinjal at the Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture here on Sunday. The demonstration by activists of farmers' and non-governmental organisations, opposing introduction of genetically modified crops began with the Minister's entry at the institute. The protesters, led by Andhra Pradesh Rythu Sangham president K. Ramakrishna, blocked his entry to the auditorium. Others, including activists of the Swadeshi Jagaran Manch, raised slogans such as 'Bt brinjal go back' and 'Monsanto agents go back.' The exercise did not commence for one hour. Mr. Ramesh lost his cool several times and prompted the police to "push out" the protesters after they did not heed his requests to stop shouting. He asked the protesters not to "bring disrepute to Hyderabad," as nowhere else were such uncalled-for interruptions marred the public consultations. After hearing a large number of farmers, social activists, scientists, doctors, representatives of NGOs and farmers and consumer organisations for more than two-and-a-half hours (a majority of them arguing against Bt brinjal and GM crops), Mr. Ramesh said he would announce his decision on the first GM food crop in the country on February 10. "My decision won't be influenced by any quarter, including scientists, NGOs, agriculture universities or Monsanto. Neither is there any pressure from the PMO nor the Prime Minister. My decision will be fair and judicious, and will be based purely on the outcome of consultations," he said. Mr. Ramesh described as unfortunate the polarisation of the debate from the beginning. It was not correct to dub those supporting Bt brinjal as 'agents of Monsanto' and the opponents as 'anti-technology.' He appealed to the scientists to educate the people on the facts, and not to add fuel to the fire. _______________________ Final decision on Bt Brinjal [Aubergine] after 10th Feb News On Air (via Press Note) [India], 1 February 2010: http://www.pressnote.in/english/readnews.php?id=66232 Environment and Forests Minister, Jairam Ramesh has said that a final decision on introduction of BT Brinjal for commercial cultivation will be taken by the 10th of this month. The Minister said, the final decision will be taken after taking into consideration all shades of opinion. Addressing a public hearing held at the Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture in Hyderabad on Sunday, he said the debate over the BT Brinjal has been highly polarised. Mr Ramesh said, those who were favouring BT Brinjal are accused of being agents of Multi National Companies and those who were opposing were alleged to be anti-technologists. He appealed to all sections to express their opinions in a democratic and restrained manner. He also said majority of the Chief Ministers in the Country have opposed BT Brinjal. AIR Correspondent reports, the public hearing held in Hyderabad is the 6th in the series being held across the country. Before taking a final decision by 10th of February whether to introduce the BT Brinjal for commercial cultivation, the Minister will hold the last public hearing in the series in Bangalore on 6th February. Refuting all allegations the Minister has made it clear that he would take an independent decision over introduction of BT Brinjal after due consideration of opinions from all sections. Stating that it would be difficult to take a decision which would be acceptable to every one, as the public opinion on the matter has been highly polarised. Speaking to reporters about various issues relating to BT Brinjal, the Minister said he wrote to all Chief Ministers and well known Scientists seeking their opinion and added that most of the Chief Ministers have opposed introduction of BT Brinjal. The Minister has opined that an independent Regulator should be set up in the Agriculture sector to tackle issues relating to genetically modified crops. Unlike in other places, the public hearing has witnessed wide protests. In Kerala, protest against the move to introduce genetically modified Brinjal is fast gaining momentum. Kerala Agriculture Minister Mullakkara Ratnakaran has written to Union Environment & Forest Minister to hold a public consultation in Kerala as well, before taking any decision to launch Bt. Brinjal. The state will be sending a team comprising of environmentalists and scientists to Bangalore for the forthcoming consultation next week. For the first time in Kerala, the state Government, environmentalists, scientists and farmers have come together against genetically modified crops. They say that introduction of Bt. Brinjal will be against farmers and the rich biodiversity of Kerala. The capital city of Thiruvananthapuram witnessed participation of eminent persons in a hunger strike held on Sunday against genetically modified crops. They have planned a high level convention in Kochi against bt. Brinjal. Experts point out that introduction of Bt.brinjal can lead to destruction of two thousand varietes of indigenous Brinjal. Eminent agriculture scientist M S Swaminathan has already expressed concerns on introduction of genetically modified crops. _______________________ Ryanair near bottom of 'ethical ranking' list [Note: Monsanto in worst place!] Frank McDonald, Environment Editor The Irish Times, 1 February 2010: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0201/1224263502392.html RYANAIR HAS appeared in the bottom 10 of an "ethical ranking" of 581 companies, based on environmental performance, corporate social responsibility and information provided to consumers. The ranking was compiled by Geneva-based Covalence, which measures qualitative data on 45 criteria including labour standards, waste management, social utility and human rights policy. The company claims that its "reputation index", which is distributed by Thomson Reuters, Bloomberg and Capital IQ, is "a barometer of how multinationals are perceived in the ethical field". Ryanair is ranked 575 on the latest list, just ahead of Occidental Petroleum, US tobacco company Phillip Morris and oil giant Chevron. At the bottom is Monsanto, chiefly known for genetically modified foods. CRH plc, the only other Irish firm on the list, comes close to the bottom, with a ranking of 557 - sandwiched between Exxon Mobil and Japan Tobacco. Guinness manufacturer Diageo is ranked high, at 39. The top 10 are headed by IBM, followed by Intel (which has a major plant at Leixlip, Co Kildare), HSBC Holdings, Marks Spencer, Unilever, Xerox, General Electric, Cisco Systems, Dell and Procter & Gamble. "Environmental initiatives, eco-innovative products and social sponsorships enabled companies to generate positive coverage in 2009, while issues related to downsizing, CO2 emissions and working conditions caused the most criticisms," Covalence said. New sector leaders are BMW (cars), Walt Disney (media), and Suncor Energy (oil & gas). Across sectors, companies progressing the most during 2009 were British Telecom, Kimberly-Clark, Samsung Electronics and Siemens. Well-known companies in the top 20 include Alcoa Aluminium, Pepsico, Nike, Microsoft, Starbucks, DuPont, BASF, Danone and Vodafone, while those in the bottom 20 include Royal Dutch Shell, AIG, British American Tobacco and Halliburton. Google is ranked at 24, Toyota at 32, Walmart at 42, Barclays at 46 and Coca-Cola at 47. Still in the top 100 are French conglomerate Veolia (which operates Luas in Dublin) at 89, Statoil at 90, Mazda at 93, Tesco at 97 and Fiat at 98. Ethical companies: best and worst TOP 10 1 International Business Machines Corp Technology 2 Intel Corporation Technology 3 HSBC Holdings Banks 4 Marks & Spencer Retail 5 Unilever NV Food Beverages 6 Xerox Technology 7 General Electric Co Industrial Goods Services 8 Cisco Systems Technology 9 Dell Technology 10 Procter & Gamble Personal & Household Goods BOTTOM 10 572 Total SA Oil & Gas 573 Grupo Mexico SA de CV Basic Resources 574 Syngenta AG Chemicals 575 Ryanair Travel & Leisure 576 Occidental Petroleum Oil & Gas 577 Philip Morris International Personal & Household Goods 578 Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Basic Resources 579 Chevron Oil & Gas 580 Halliburton Company Oil & Gas 581 Monsanto Food & Beverages

2010: Jan 2009: Jan • Feb • Mar • Apr • May • Jun • Jul • Aug • Sep • Oct • Nov • Dec 2008: Jan • Feb • Mar • Apr • May • Jun • Jul • Aug • Sep • Oct • Nov • Dec 2007: Jan • Feb • Mar • Apr • May • Jun • Jul • Aug • Sept • Oct • Nov • Dec 2006: Jan • Feb • Mar • Apr • May • Jun • Jul • Aug • Sept • Oct • Nov • Dec 2005: Jan/Feb/Mar • Apr/May/Jun/Jul • Aug/Sept/Oct • Nov/Dec 2004 • 2003


Sponsored by Global Vision Consulting Ltd	© 2003 - 2010 Global Vision Consulting Ltd • updated 8 February 2010 Privacy policy For enquiries contact mail@gmfreeireland.org URL of this page: www.gmfreeireland.org/news/index.php