Sticky PostingsBack again
We are now back online again with a temporary site. It may take a while until we rescue the old site following the attacks.
We also had to change host for our mailing lists. Please send subscription requests to editorATgmwatchDOTeu And you can still find our profiles of GM-promoters - the A-Z of the biotech brigade - via our LobbyWatch site. You can also get into our old archive via LobbyWatch here - articles are archived up until the final attack in April. You can also search our old site here. This site is a temporary solution, where we can post our recent Weekly Watch newsletters and Monthly Reviews, quizzes and campaigns, so please keep watching this space as things might change. Sticky PostingsLATEST NEWS
UK supermarkets campaign
GM Watch quizzes - the answers! Exposed: Europe's GM-Hype in Times of Food and Fuel Crisis Making a profit out of the food crisis Hello green concrete, goodbye wildlife Gordon does 'a Tony': falls for GM hype GM crops: we mustn't rush decisions GM won't yield a harvest for the world Environment ministers agree GM approval overhaul Demand that India's PM ban GM cotton GM humble pie Western Australia's premier calls for GM product ban And check out WEEKLY WATCH for all the past week's news Sticky PostingsUK SUPERMARKETS CAMPAIGN
Last week we published an urgent call for letter writing to UK supermarkets to reinforce the level of public concern over GM foods. Some of our readers suggested a model letter would be useful, so see the one below. Obviously, it's important for maximum impact to still make your letter as personal as possible.
Please send your letters to each of the supermarkets listed - addresses below the model letter. MODEL LETTER Dear..................... I am writing to express my support for the concerns about GM raised by Prince Charles. I think he has made some very important points about the scale of the threat. He, and many leading scientists, have also expressed concerns over many years about the safety of GM foods and the lack of proper studies, and my family and I definitely don't want to eat them. I'm therefore writing to ask you for confirmation that you will continue to enforce the strong stand that ........ [insert name of supermarket that you are writing to e.g. Sainsbury's] has taken over nearly a decade now to protect us all from the dangers of GM foods by excluding them from your own brand products. I would also ask you to require that your suppliers of meat, milk, eggs etc. feed their livestock only non-GM feed. Then I can continue to shop for my family from your stores with confidence, knowing that we are not inadvertently eating GM foods. I look forward to hearing from you. Yours .... SUPERMARKET ADDRESSES The Chairman Asda Stores ASDA House South Bank Great Wilson Street Leeds LS11 5AD The Chairman Tesco Stores Tesco House Delamare Rd Cheshunt Hertfordshire EN8 9SL Peter Marks Chief Executive The Co-operative Group New Century House Manchester M60 4ES The Chief Executive Iceland Foods Limited Second Avenue Deeside Industrial Park Deeside Flintshire CH5 2NW The Chairman Marks & Spencer Chester Business Park Wrexham Road Chester CH4 9GA The Chairman Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd 33 Holborn London EC1N 2HT Waitrose Limited Doncastle Road Bracknell Berkshire RG12 8YA The Chairman Wm Morrison Supermarkets Plc Hilmore House Gain Lane Bradford BD3 7DL The Chairman Edwin Booth Booths Supermarkets Longridge Road Ribbleton Preston PR2 5BX Aldi Stores Holly Lane Atherstone Warwickshire CV9 2SQ Sticky PostingsSupport GM Watch with a donation
'The genetic engineering industry spends hundreds of millions of US dollars on global PR, marketing, lobbying and buying-off of politicians. Sustaining the work of GM Watch is essential to countering this corporate political power and propaganda.' - John Stauber, Founder Center for Media & Democracy (publishers of PR Watch), and co-author of Trust Us, We’re Experts and other works
If you would like to make a contribution to GM Watch (NGIN) click on the button below to make a donation in pounds sterling. [GBP] £ If you would like to make a contribution to GM Watch (NGIN) click on the button below to make a donation in USD Dollars $ Alternatively, you can send a check or money order made out to 'NGIN' to GM Watch, 26 Pottergate, Norwich, NR2 1DX, UK As it our goal to continue to run GM Watch primarily through contributions from individuals, your donation is greatly appreciated. Sticky Postings10 YEARS OF GM WATCH - QUIZTIME!
We've recently launched a series of GM Watch quizzes. Here are the answers to the first two, both of which drew a great response so thanks to all who entered.
10 YEARS OF GM WATCH - QUIZTIME: THE QUESTIONS AND THE ANSWERS QUIZ 1: So who's designing your food? This first quiz came about as a fun way to celebrate 10 years of GM Watch but there is a more serious side. Most people if asked to nominate the greatest calamities of the 20th Century, would place the holocaust and the development of nuclear weapons right at the top of their lists. As our quiz makes clear, the corporations now designing our food played a significant role in both. They also, of course, helped bring the world a toxic legacy that includes napalm, agent orange, dioxin, and PCBs. As for their standards of business ethics... 1.Which biotech corporation was involved in research on uranium for the Manhattan Project and operated a nuclear facility for the US government until the late 1980s? ANSWER: Monsanto http://stlcin.missouri.org/history/peopledetail.cfm?Master_ID=1826 http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/05.11.00/cover/gen-food2-0019.html 2.Name two biotech corporations that were once part of the German chemical firm at the financial core of the Nazi regime and which supplied Zyklon-B during the extermination phase of the Holocaust? ANSWER: Bayer and BASF http://www.answers.com/topic/ig-farben http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IG_Farben 3.Which biotech firm other than Monsanto was a major supplier of Agent Orange, as well as manufacturing napalm? ANSWER: Dow http://www.studentsforbhopal.org/DirtyDow.htm http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Monsanto%2C_Agent_Orange_and_Dioxins 4.In relation to which Alabama town, where the undertaker who lived across the street from the Monsanto plant said he always thought he was burying too many children, was the company found guilty of conduct "so outrageous in character and extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency so as to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in civilized society"? ANSWER: Anniston http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Monsanto%27s_Global_Pollution_Legacy 5.What happened on October 21 2007 to Valmir Mota de Oliveira, also known as Keno, during a protest at an experimental GMO farm owned by Syngenta? ANSWER: He was killed with two shots to the chest at point-blank range by militiamen employed by Syngenta. (The company denies responsibility) http://stuffedandstarved.org/drupal/node/235 6.In 2005 the Bollywood star, Nana Patekar toured India's main cotton growing area of Maharashtra, promoting Monsanto's Bt cotton to farmers. What made him announce the following year that he would no longer support Monsanto or promote its Bollgard Bt cotton? ANSWER: Two reasons were given in press reports: the large scale losses caused to cotton farmers across the state and the impact of Bt Cotton cultivation on farmer suicides. http://www.indiagminfo.org/Independent%20studies%20&%20papers%20on%20GM%20cro ps%20in%20India/STUDIES%20ON%20PERFORMANCE%20OF%20BT%20COTTON/M aharashtra-Bt%20Cotton%20Vs.%20Non%20Bt%20Cotton%20- %20MEC%20study%20report-2005-06.pdf 7.Monsanto says, "Integrity is the foundation for all that we do". How many current and former Indonesian government officials and their family members are known to have received illicit payments on the company's behalf? ANSWER: At least 140, according to the US Securities & Exchange Commission. http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/comp19023.pdf 8.Who was in overall charge of business operations in Indonesia when the bribes scandal got underway? ANSWER: Hugh Grant, Monsanto's current Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President. He was managing director of Monsanto's Asia Pacific division. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2005/jan/19/environment.environment?commentpage=1 9.Which country has a bilateral agreement with the US for the development of its agriculture, including the promotion of GMOs, overseen by a board that includes Monsanto, ADM and Wal-Mart? ANSWER: India (Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture) http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/vandana_shiva/2006/07/wto_is_dead_long_live_free_tra .html 10.Which Health Canada scientist told a Canadian Senate committee of being in a meeting where officials from Monsanto made an offer of between $1-2 million to the scientists from Health Canada -- an offer that she told the senators could only have been interpreted as a bribe. Additionally, she also recounted how notes and files critical of scientific data provided by Monsanto were stolen from a locked filing cabinet in her office. ANSWER: Dr. Margaret Haydon http://www.ethicalinvesting.com/monsanto/news/10009.htm QUIZ 2: Farming in a GM wonderland We're off to see the biotech equivalent of the Wizard of Oz... 1. Many pro-GM commentators hail the technology as the solution to the current food crisis because of its ability to reduce fertilizer use and help farmers cope with problems like drought, salinity or flooding. After 20 years of GM research, how many GM drought tolerant, or salt tolerant, or flood tolerant, or fertilizer-reducing crops are there on the market worldwide? ANSWER: None. NOTES/SOURCES: See, for instance, the commentary by former EPA biotech specialist Dr. Doug Gurian-Sherman, Genetic engineering - a crop of hyperbole, San Diego Union Tribune, 18 June 2008 http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080618/news_lz1e18gurian.html 2. There have been tens of thousands of articles in the world's media about 'miracle' crops genetically engineered for enhanced appearance, flavour, nutrition, or to be allergen-free, or to combat problems like obesity or to contain edible vaccines that protect against major diseases like cancer. How many of these GM crops are there on the market worldwide? ANSWER: None. NOTES/SOURCES: In his book Genetically Modified Language, Prof. Guy Cook notes how a study he conducted of UK press coverage of GM found that largely uncritical stories about speculative GM solutions to intractable problems (e.g. GM allergy-free peanuts, GM apples to fight tooth decay) were widely published in all types of newspapers, even those with editorial lines skeptical of GM. http://www.spinwatch.org/content/view/157/8/ 3. When published in April 2008, which appraisal of global agriculture, sponsored by the World Bank and the U.N., and undertaken on a scale comparable to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, concluded that GM crops have at best variable impacts on yields and would not play a substantial role in addressing climate change, loss of biodiversity, hunger or poverty? ANSWER: IAASTD - International Assessment of Agricultural knowledge, Science and Technology for Development http://www.agassessment.org/ NOTES/SOURCES: For a good short summary see, IAASTD: Overhaul of agriculture systems needed, GM crops not the solution, by Lim Li Ching, Sustainable Food Monitor, 2007. http://sustainablefoodmonitor.org/content/iaastd-overhaul-agriculture-systems-ne eded-gm-crops-not-solution 4. More than 50% of the GM crops grown worldwide are farmed in the United States, and by far the most widely grown crop is herbicide-tolerant soyabeans. Based on U.S. Department of Agriculture trend data and numerous field studies, by roughly how much has GM soya increased yield for U.S. farmers compared to conventional (non-GM) varieties? ANSWER: Zero - it may even have decreased yields compared to non-GM varieties. NOTES/SOURCES: See, for instance, the commentary by Dr. Doug Gurian-Sherman, Genetic engineering - a crop of hyperbole, San Diego Union Tribune, 18 June 2008 http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080618/news_lz1e18gurian.html 5. Who said the following about GM crops when promoting them as a solution to the food crisis? "We've been using them for 10 years in the United States and they have a proven effectiveness in increasing yields, in lowering the use of fertilizer, in providing better water and soil management and also increasing taste and appearance. So, you know, those are all good things." ANSWER: U.S. Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer. NOTES/SOURCES: See: At UN summit, US offers three-prong approach to food crisis, Voice of America, 3 June 2008 http://www.voanews.com/english/Africa/2008-06-03-voa22.cfm 6. What word did Prof. Dennis Murphy - the head of biotechnology at the University of Glamorgan, recently use to describe claims about GM crops solving the problem of drought or feeding the world? ANSWER: "Bullshit". NOTES/SOURCES: Prof. Murphy is quoted in this strongly pro-GM article, GM: it's safe, but it's not a saviour, Spiked, 7 July 2008 http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/5438/ 7. Monsanto and its supporters claim that GM crops have been widely adopted in countries like the United States because of their economic benefits for farmers. Which organization in its review of GM crop cultivation in the U.S. commented, "Perhaps the biggest issue raised by these results is how to explain the rapid adoption of [GM] crops when farm financial impacts appear to be mixed or even negative"? ANSWER: USDA - United States department for Agriculture (USDA/ERS) NOTES/SOURCES: Jorge Fernandez-Cornejo and William D. McBride, Adoption of Bioengineered Crops, Agricultural Economic Report No. AER810, May 2002 http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer810/ 8. The Director of Corporate Affairs for Monsanto India says the increase in GM cotton acres there "bear testimony to the success of this technology and the benefit that farmers derive from it." According to Washington University researcher Glenn Stone's multi-year study of the behaviour of cotton farmers in a key cotton growing area of India, what underlay the rapid spread of GM cotton there? ANSWER: Seed fads. NOTES/SOURCES: Stone argues that far from farmers carefully assessing the technology before adopting it more widely, the process is more like a "craze". He argues that GM cotton has contributed to a disruption of farmers' process of learning, as they rely less on experimentation and observation and more on advertising and a kind of herd mentality where everybody copies everyone else, leading to blind adoption. See: Glenn Davis Stone, Agricultural Deskilling and the Spread of Genetically Modified Cotton in Warangal, Current Anthropology, Volume 48, Number 1, February 2007 http://artsci.wustl.edu/~anthro/research/stone/stone480102.web.pdf Articles about this research here http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7644 9. The wife of which South African farmer who has been flown around the world by Monsanto to preach the benefits of GM cotton and detail how it has transformed his family's life, admitted on camera that they made no profit from the crop? ANSWER: TJ Buthelezi NOTES/SOURCES: See the film, A Disaster in Search of Success: Bt Cotton in Global South http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7994 For a profile of TJ Buthelezi http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=184 10. What was surprising about the posters that appeared in many places in Madhya Pradesh, India, featuring a man who said he'd gained great benefits from growing GM cotton and urging others to do the same? ANSWER: He was not a farmer. NOTES/SOURCES: He was found on investigation to be a paan shop owner - a roadside vendor of betel leaves and cigarettes. See: New report - Farmers lied to and lured into Bt cotton http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5741 11. Why was Gary Rinehart surprised to be publicly harassed over violating Monsanto's patent on GM soybeans, and subsequently to have the company file a federal lawsuit against him? ANSWER: He was not a farmer. NOTES/SOURCES: "Rinehart wasn't a farmer. He wasn't a seed dealer. He hadn't planted any seeds or sold any seeds. He owned a small - a really small - country store…", Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele, Investigation: Monsanto's Harvest of Fear, Vanity Fair, May 2008 http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805 12. What is the annual budget that Monsanto devotes to harassing, intimidating, suing - and in some cases bankrupting - American farmers over alleged improper use of its patented seeds? ANSWER: 10 million dollars. NOTES/SOURCES: See p.6 of the report, Monsanto vs US farmers, The Center for Food Safety, 2005 http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/pubs/CFSMOnsantovsFarmerReport1.13.05.pdf Saturday, May 23. 2009Monsanto's Shapiro On GMOs
Monsanto's Shapiro On GMOs
"In a speech, Robert B. Shapiro, the Chief Executive Officer of the St. Louis biotechnology giant Monsanto Co., said genetic engineering was different from earlier hybridizing because manipulating DNA itself touches on 'the very wellsprings of life.' 'Almost everything we grow, everything we eat is the root result of human intervention, breeding, and so on,' he said. 'But this is unnatural in a different sort of way from the kinds of breeding programs that have characterized humanity for thousands of years.'" Ohio Congressman to Introduce Mandatory Labeling Bill for GE Foods Plain Dealer, 29 September 1999 "Monsanto has found itself in a defensive mode, offering up spin control. In October, Monsanto -- which made $49 million on $1.9 billion in sales during its third quarter -- announced that it would abandon its controversial 'terminator technology,' a form of genetic engineering that makes second-generation seeds sterile. And Shapiro himself has admitted that genetic engineering is a radical step: 'Almost everything we grow, everything we eat is the root result of human intervention, breeding, and so on. But this is unnatural in a different sort of way from the kinds of breeding programs that have characterized humanity for thousands of years.' The moral, environmental, and scientific dimensions of this debate do not interest Wall Street, but the fact that there is a debate at all must trouble Monsanto shareholders...." Terminator Seed Lands Monsanto's Shapiro with Egg, Pie on Face BankRate.com, 9 December 2009 "Almost everything we grow, everything we eat is the root result of human intervention, human breeding and so on. But this [genetic modification through recombinant DNA technology] is unnatural in a different sort of way from the kinds of breeding programs that have characterized humanity for ten thousand years.... So the question which people have, I believe, not only a right but a duty to ask, is how wisely will we use these unprecedented new powers? What are the risks associated with doing something this new and this profound at the very wellsprings of life?... Certainly, humanity's record for using technology wisely, sensitive to its potential effects on society, on people, on environment is, at best, mixed and hardly encouraging.... We have not yet identified, yet alone cloned, the gene for wisdom, and some skepticism about our ability to manage powerful new technologies is appropriate." Robert Shapiro, Chief Executive of Monsanto Speech on genetically modified food, State of the World Forum, San Francisco, October 27, 1998 Robert Shapiro Presented at State of the World Forum Fairmont Hotel San Francisco, CA October 27, 1998 Thank you. I am deeply grateful to be given the chance to take part this evening in this dialogue. I've been asked to speak on a controversial subject. It's a subject in which I am an active participant, not an objective scholar. And, obviously, the perspective I represent ought to be - and I'm sure will be - taken into account in considering my remarks. There are many people here and elsewhere who have deep and important concerns about the applications of biotechnology. Those are concerns that must be addressed. They must be addressed adequately and they must be addressed respectfully. And my hope this evening is to begin that process. In a very important sense, biotechnology is sub-set of the information technology. It does not deal with information that's encoded electronically in silicon. It deals with information that's encoded chemically in living cells. It's information that is not used for purposes of e-mail or "Amazon.com" or spreadsheets. It's information that tells cells what proteins to make, when to make them, and how to make them. And, therefore, it's information that defines what living organisms do and what they are. For the first time, over the last three decades, we have begun to gain access to that information. We are beginning to understand how genes work, individually and together. The rate of increase in knowledge in this field is absolutely phenomenal. It puts Moore's Law to shame. We will map the entire human genome sometime early in the next decade and will understand the functionality of most of that genome within the first decade of the next century. And many other genomes of animals, plants, other species will also be mapped in roughly that time period. Perhaps the most important - and to some degree the most troubling - aspect of this is we have not only developed this knowledge base - or are developing it - but we are also developing tools that enable us, not only to decode the information that's encoded in DNA, but also how to change it. This is something fundamentally new in the world, new in history. It is - if I may be so presumptuous - it is something like that moment in pre-history in which consciousness became aware of itself. It is the moment when life begins to understand what it is. If used well, I will suggest, the application of that understanding creates wholly new, wholly unprecedented hope for addressing some of the most difficult and intractable problems that have confronted humanity over the generations and that remain part of the human condition. Issues like how to feed people without damaging and, indeed, destroying land and forests and water. How to prevent human and animal disease, rather than intervene after it strikes. And how to offer to people around the world the prospect of healthy aging as a normal, expected part of life. The demographics provide the context for assessing the potentials of the technology and the issues that it will confront. The demographics are well known. Five point eight billion people in the world today, about one and a half billion of them in abject poverty. About one person in seven, about eight hundred million people in the world, so malnourished that they cannot participate in work life or in family life, living on the edge of starvation. The rate of growth in population is, to some degree, still controversial, but all demographers, I think, would accept that somewhere within the next thirty to fifty years , we will have a world population of somewhere between eight and twelve billion people. There is no more land. The land has been used. There are at least three distinct challenges that the demographics suggest - and undoubtedly many more, but let me highlight three of them. First, most of the additional people who are going to be joining us on this planet over the next thirty or forty years will be born in the poorest places. They are not willingly going to forego food. They will do as people always have done, what they need to do in order to try to feed themselves and their children. They will slash and burn to grow crops. They will migrate. They will find themselves moving into cities that are increasingly violent and unlivable. Second, in developing countries where the key issue is how can one create development on some sort of sustainable basis, people are not going to forego the opportunity to lead a better life, regardless of its externalities, regardless of its impacts on the environment around them. The question - and, incidentally, in the course of doing that, they begin to move up on what is generally called the protein ladder. That is to say, they change their diets in ways that call for even more land to be devoted to agriculture to support them because they're no longer living at the lowest end of the food chain, at grains. They are now living at the level of animal agriculture, which requires more grain and more land. If the only model for development in those developing countries - representing at this point, say, three billion people in the world - if the only model for development is the recapitulation of the industrial revolution, with all its horrific waste and pollution, there simply is no way that development can occur without doing permanent, irreversible damage to the systems on which life depends. I want to point out that the industrial revolution, taking place as it has over the last two hundred or so years, has in many ways been a phenomenal success for about one billion of the planet's five point eight billion people, the people essentially of Europe, of North America, of Japan, a few other places. It operates on a basis of colossal wastefulness, moving around vast quantities of stuff in order to provide a decent life for those one billion people. To try to extend that same set of methods, that same set of technologies to three, four, five billion additional people is simply and arithmetically unsustainable and brings about ecological crisis within the next century. The third demographic issue is in the richest countries of the world - who, by the way, are unlikely themselves to want to forego their so-called standard of living. They are democracies, by and large, and none has yet, as far as I am aware, willingly chosen a government whose fundamental basis is the diminution of the standard of living that those countries enjoy. The demographic issue for the richest countries is the issue of aging. And today, most of us age unhealthily. As you all know, almost all of the health care costs over a person's life is spent in the last months of that life. It is creating in those countries of the world - the richest countries, where people expect to be taken care of medically by their governments in their old age, to receive the medical care, the best medical care, that science can make available - it is creating, as I said, fiscal strains and economic strains, and indeed, potentially, intergenerational conflict around the question, "Who is going to pay for this?" Because, by definition, the older the consumers of medical services, the funding comes from the relatively young, who are working and paying taxes. My principal point this evening is simply this. None of the issues that I have just quickly raced through can be addressed in the context of the existing technologies by which the world today earns its living. It is not only an issue of fairer distribution - and it certainly is that - it is more fundamentally that current technologies - whether they apply to agriculture, to industry, or to transportation, or to anything else humans do in order to sustain their standard of living - those technologies are simply not sustainable. They lead to destructive subsistence, destructive development, and destructive affluence. Today, there is no such thing as sustainable agriculture. There is no such thing today as sustainable industry. There is no such thing today as sustainable development. And the reasons for that are that we do not have, today, the underlying technologies that could support those concepts. The issues of better social and economic systems, of fairer distribution, of better environmental regulation are, of course, not only relevant, but critical. But they are secondary to the need for new technologies in the sense that the provision of new technologies is the precondition for beginning to address those other issues. The most essential task, I believe, that we as a species confront today is the requirement that we reinvent the technologies by which we feed, clothe, and house ourselves and generate such wealth as humanity enjoys. The fundamental problem is that the technologies we have today require us to use enormous quantities of stuff in order to create modest economic value. And there are thousands of examples of that in your daily life. The notion of automobiles, the notion of moving two tons of iron and steel around in order to move a person is inherently an unsustainable notion, and yet our economies are based on concepts like that. The trick is going to be to multiply value to people to enable them to lead better lives, without multiplying stuff. And there are principally three technologies , three families of technology, that hold the promise of being able to do that. One is information technology. The substitution of information for stuff is one potentially winning strategy for creating more value, while at the same time not putting impermissible burdens on underlying natural systems. The second is biotechnology, for the same reason, and the third is nanotechnology, the emerging science of radical miniaturization. Example: if you compare sending an e-mail with sending a letter. A letter requires not only you to cut down trees, and type a physical object called a letter, which you then in some way transport to someone who drives a car, and puts it in a plane, and puts in a railroad car, and delivers the letter to its intended recipient. A lot of stuff has to happen in order for a letter to work. E-mail just moves electrons. Electrons are cheap, renewable, sustainable. In biotechnology, products like cotton which appeared on the market the last couple years. Cotton, which repels insects, resists insects, has reduced pesticide usage in the cotton fields by about sixty or seventy percent in just a couple of years. It is the substitution of information encoded in a gene in a cotton plant for airplanes flying over cotton fields and spraying toxic chemicals on them. Biotechnology provides a basis, again in agriculture, for practices like conservation tillage. Conservation tillage is required because we lose about twenty-five billion tons of topsoil annually. If you go out to the Gulf of Mexico, you can see much of Iowa floating in the surf, in the waters there. In the Ceratos [spelled phonetically] region of Brazil, in order to produce one ton of soybeans, you lose five tons of topsoil each year. Topsoil is not being created at anything like the rate at which it is being destroyed. The notions of creating higher yields, drought resistance, ability to grow crops in saline and mineralized soils are going to be critically important in a world in which you are going to have to feed more people and you're not going to be able to find more land to do it. Or at least the only land that is findable today is land which is, for example, rain forest and other unused parts of the earth. It should be pointed out that biotechnology is scale neutral. It does not require you to have a large farm in order to justify the economics of it, the way, for example, tractors are not scale neutral. Tractors favor large farming. Seed, which is where biotechnology is delivered, is scale neutral. It works as well, and at the same cost, for small farmers as it does for large farmers. There are a set of applications in biotechnology for nutrition that are just beginning to become apparent. One example: an issue in many parts of the world is vitamin A deficiencies. People try to get vitamin A in the form of supplements to remote rural populations and fail to do so. The consequence is a disease called night blindness, which often degenerates into literal total blindness. We're working on a project in which you put in a gene that creates pro-vitamin A, beta-carotene in, for example, oil seed crops like Canola. The oil gets used for cooking, and vitamin A is part of that process. It's simply a more efficient and, I would submit, a more natural delivery system. It certainly is more effective and lower cost for everyone involved. So, what's the catch? Why is this as controversial as it is? I don't mean to speak for anyone else, but I will give you my impressions. The first catch is that, like information technology, it is new and it is potentially very large in its impacts. Second, it is seen as unnatural. Now, almost all agriculture and almost all medicine, as it exists in the world today, would be hard to justify as natural. Almost everything we grow, everything we eat is the root result of human intervention, human breeding and so on. But this is unnatural in a different sort of way from the kinds of breeding programs that have characterized humanity for ten thousand years. Third, it is largely being developed by private firms for profit, which gives rise to suspicion as to the trustworthiness and motivations of those who are advancing this technology, companies like mine. So the question which people have, I believe, not only a right but a duty to ask, is how wisely will we use these unprecedented new powers? What are the risks associated with doing something this new and this profound at the very wellsprings of life? How are they going to be managed? How will we have credible oversight? How will we have credible and effective monitoring of the introduction of this technology? Certainly, humanity's record for using technology wisely, sensitive to its potential effects on society, on people, on environment is, at best, mixed and hardly encouraging. These are public questions. These are not questions that ought to be decided simply by the private sector. These are questions that people and their institutions have to debate, discuss, and strike an appropriate balance between hope and concern, between the promise of the technology and the risks associated with it. We have not yet identified, yet alone cloned, the gene for wisdom, and some skepticism about our ability to manage powerful new technologies is appropriate. It avoids the sin of hubris and helps us operate within our limitations as humans. But it is not beyond our best potentials to use these technologies wisely. And I believe that the state of the world in the next century will be more hopeful for more people as a result of the wise application of biological knowledge. Thank you very much. Tuesday, April 28. 2009Letter of critical opposition to the “Round Table on Responsible Soy”
April 2009
We, the undersigned, call for the abandonment of the Round Table on Responsible Soy (RTRS), on the following grounds: 1. RTRS allows and encourages the expansion of soy monocultures The expansion of soy monocultures is resulting in: *Environmental degradation, including: loss of forests and savannahs due to direct destruction by soy monocultures or displacement of existing agriculture (particularly cattle ranching and small holder agriculture); related losses of biodiversity; release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere through land-use changes, fertiliser use including NOx emissions; soil erosion and disruption of surface and ground water and rainfall patterns; *Socioeconomic problems such as land conflicts leading to human rights violations, loss of livelihoods, and expulsion of rural communities, small farmers and indigenous peoples from their land. Such expulsions are effectively forcing displacement of the local population into urban poverty or previously undisturbed natural areas, violating communities’ fundamental right to food, increasing concentration of land ownership by big companies, and feeding rises in related rural unemployment, low employment and slavery-like conditions on industrial farms, poverty, malnutrition, rising food prices and loss of food security and sovereignty due to displacement of staple food crops and increasing corporate control over food production; and *Severe health problems and poisoning in the local population due to the over-use of agrochemicals. 2. RTRS promotes GM soy as “responsible” The RTRS will enable the certification of genetically modified (GM) soy as "responsible", even though there is increasing evidence that after a few years of GM soy cultivation, both overall agrochemical use and resistance problems increase substantially. Brazil recorded nearly an 80 per cent increase in the use of the herbicide Roundup (based on glyphosate) between 2000 and 2005, and a 15-fold increase was recorded in the United States between 1994 and 2005.[1] This has led to an increase in herbicide-resistant weeds in Brazil,[2] Argentina,[3][4] and the United States,[5] pushing farmers onto a new pesticide treadmill of increasing applications of glyphosate-based herbicides in addition to other herbicides (such as the more dangerous Paraquat).[6][7] As a result, GM soy has increased production costs and environmental degradation rather than decreasing them as promised by GM companies. Neither does GM soy increase yields[8] or increase ability to crop in dry or salty land, as often cited by supporters.[9] Use of Roundup Ready (RR) soy (genetically engineered to tolerate glyphosate-based herbicide) has also facilitated indiscriminate fumigations (often by aerial spraying) affecting human health, food crops and the environment. A report by the Rural Reflection Group (Grupo de Reflexión Rural, or GRR, from Argentina) documents how spraying glyphosate-based herbicides on RR soy leads to an increase in health problems in the countryside such as cases of cancer at early ages, birth defects, lupus, kidney problems, respiratory ailments and dermatitis, evidenced by the accounts of rural doctors, experts and the residents of dozens of farming towns.[10] GM crops are rejected by millions of consumers, NGOs and governments all over the world for many reasons. This means the vast majority of the GM soya crop can only be sold as animal feed and meat, dairy products and eggs produced using GM feed are sold unlabelled in the countries that reject GM as food for humans. There is mounting scientific controversy as to the adverse impacts of GM on health and the environment, as seen by recent studies produced in France,[11] Austria,[12] the US,[13][14] and Sweden.[15] These studies demonstrate that we do not yet fully understand the impacts of GM cultivation and use on human and animal health, soil structure, and biodiversity. Their widespread use should therefore be halted to prevent irrevocable harm. 3. RTRS principles and criteria are too weak to protect the integrity and biodiversity of the Amazon, Cerrado, Chaco and other regions from immediate, severe, and irreversible degradation The Amazon, Cerrado, Chaco and other regions are under immediate threat from a constellation of damaging agricultural practices and social impacts, as described above, for which soy cultivation is a core enabling factor. The RTRS principles and criteria cannot and will not effectively address these issues. Unless these immediate crises are addressed promptly, which cannot be done through voluntary certification, these regions will be reduced from farmland to wasteland, and the smallholders and indigenous people of Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and elsewhere will be displaced and become the new urban poor. By providing a cover of “sustainability” for an inherently unsustainable system of production, the RTRS is an obstacle to progress. We call on governments, civil society and companies to tackle the real problems (e.g., over-consumption, inequitable distribution of resources like land and water) and to promote real solutions such as: *phasing out GM and intensive non-GM soy in favour of agricultural practices which work with nature instead of against it, like organic agriculture and integrated crop management; *executing land reforms in producing countries, which will address highly inequitable land ownership and concentration; *substituting soy in animal feed with locally-grown protein crops in importing countries; *stopping the promotion of large scale agrofuel production as a sustainable solution; *developing better transport systems that reduce demand for energy and fuel; and *increased government support for diversification of production and stimulation of local production for local markets that contribute to food security and food sovereignty in producer and consumer countries. The RTRS process will not deliver improvements in these or a host of other areas and should be abandoned. Signed (groups): Agrarian Group of Attac at Wuppertal, Germany Amies de la Terre de Quebec – Quebec, Canada Anthra – Hyderabad, Andhar Pradesh, India Arbeitsgemeinschaft bäuerliche Landwirtschaft – Lüneburg, Germany A SEED Europe – Europe Associação dos Consumidores de Produtos Orgânicos do Paraná (ACOPA) – Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil AVES FRANCE – France AVIFRUTA (Associação de Viticultores e Fruticultores de Atibaia) – São Paulo, Brazil Base Investigaciones Sociales – Paraguay Basler Appell gegen Gentechnologie – Basel, Germany Biofuelwatch – UK Britain-Vietnam Friendship Society – UK Campaña “No te Comas el Mundo” (Entrepobles, Xarxa de l'Observatori del deute en la Globalització, Xarxa de Consum Solidari, Veterinaris Sense Fronteres), Spain Carbon Trade Watch – Netherlands / UK / Spain Centro de desenvolvimento Sustentável e Agroecologia Sapucaia – Amargosa, Brazil Centro de Referência do Movimento da Cidadania Pelas Águas Florestas e Montanhas Iguassu Iterei (Iguassu Iterei Water, Forest, Mountain Citizenship Movement Reference Centre) – São Paulo, Brazil Centro "E. Balducci" Udine – Italy COECOCEIBA – FoE Costa Rica Colectivo La Otra Movida – Buenos Aires, Argentina COL·LECTIU RETS – Catalonia, Spain Coletivo Permacultores – Jaguaruna, Santa Catarina, Brazil Community Alliance for Global Justice, Seattle, WA, USA Corporate Europe Observatory – Europe Ecological Society of the Philippines Ecologistas en Acción, Spain EcoNexus – UK Ecoportal.Net – Buenos Aires, Argentina EdPAC (Educación para la Acción Crítica) – Barcelona, Spain Enginyeria Sense Fronteres – Barcelona, Spain European Coordination Via Campesina FERN (Forests & the European Union Resource Network) – Brussels, Europe FIAN Austria – Vienna, Austria FIAN International – International FIAN Netherlands – Netherlands Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy – Oakland, California 49th Parallel Biotechnology Consortium – Australia, Canada, Columbia, South Africa, UK, USA Fórum Carajás – Brazil Forum for Biotechnology & Food Security – New Delhi, India Fox Hall Vegan Guest House – Kendal, Cumbria, UK Friends of the Earth Australia Friends of the Earth England, Wales and Northern Ireland Friends of the Earth France Friends of the Earth International Friends of the Earth Spain (Amigos de la Tierra España) Gaia Foundation GENET – European NGO Network on Genetic Engineering – Europe Gen-ethical Network, Berlin, Germany Glasgow Group, Friends of the Earth Scotland Global Forest Coalition (members: BIOM – Kyrgystan; BROC – Russia; Friends of the Siberian Forests – Russia; Viola – Russia; Dzelkova – Georgia; Tarun Bharat Sangh – India; Lokayan – India; Kalpavriksh – India; Atree - Bangalore India; Atree – Nepal; The Resources Himalaya Foundation – Nepal; Nefan – Nepal; The Wildlife Trust – Bangladesh; AT – Brazil; Terra di Direitos – Brazil; Sobrevivencia – Paraguay; Alter Vida – Paraguay; Censat Agua Viva, Amigos de la Tierra, Colombia; COECO-CEIBA - Costa Rica; The Asociación Indigena de Limoncocha – Ecuador; CENDAH – Panama; Fundación para el Conocimiento Tradicional – Panama; Friends of the Earth – Argentina; CODEFF – Chile; Institute for Cultural Affairs – Ghana; Justica Ambiental – Mozambique; The Centre for Environment and Development – Cameroon; The National Association of Professional Environmentalists – Uganda; Timberwatch - South Africa; IIN – Kenya; Global Justice Ecology Project – USA; FoE – Australia; TWOE – Aotearoa; PIPEC - New Zealand; The Ole Siosiomaga Society – Samoa; RMI - The Institute for Forest and the Environment – Indonesia; ICTI – Tanimbar Indonesia; Cordillera Peoples Alliance – Philippines; Impac – Thailand) GM Freeze – UK GMWatch – UK GRAIN GRR-Fundación Pasos – Argentina Grupo de Educação Popular – Lins (SP), Brazil Grupo de Reflexión Rural – Argentina Grupo Semillas – Colombia GuardaMar – San Juan, Puerto Rico Institute for Responsible Technology – Fairfield, Iowa, USA Institute of Science in Society – UK/International Instituto Brasileiro de Defesa do Consumidor – São Paulo, Brazil Iterei–Refúgio Particular de Animais Nativos (Iterei Private Fauna and Flora Reserve, affiliated to the Planet Society of Unesco’s Culture of Peace) – São Paulo, Brazil Kheti Virasat Mission – Punjab, India Living Farms – Bhubaneswar, Orissa, India Marcha Mundial das Mulheres no Brasil (The World March of Women in Brazil) – Brazil MPA (Movimento dos Pequenos Agricultores) – Brazil Mouvement Ecologique – Luxembourg Movimento Agrario y Popular de Paraguay – Paraguay NOAH - Friends of the Earth Denmark Plataforma Canarias Libre de Transgénicos – Platform for GM Free Canary Islands – Canary Islands PRO ECO grupo ecologista – Asociación Civil – Tafí Viejo, Tucumán, Argentina pro-Natural Food Scotland – Glasgow, Scotland Pro Regenwald – Germany Proyecto Gran Simio (GAP/PGS - España) Asociacion Internacional e Nacional – Madrid, Spain REF (Rede Economia e Feminismo) – São Paulo, Brazil Reforma Agraria – Brazil Rettet den Regenwald, Germany / Salva la Selva, Alemania Shramik Janata Vikas Sanstha Medha – Maharashtra, India Scottish Green Party Slack House Farm – County Durham, UK SOF (Sempreviva organização feminista) – São Paulo, Brazil Soil & Health Inc. – New Zealand Soil Association – UK SOLIFONDS – Zurich, Switzerland Som lo que Sembrem – Balaguer, Catalonia Soya Alliance – International Sunray Harvesters – Mhow Cantt., India Terræ Organização da Sociedade Civil – São Paulo, Brazil Thanal – Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India Theomai Society, Nature and Development Studies Network – Patagonia, Argentina Transgenics Fora! – Barcelona, Spain Union paysanne – Québec, Canada Washington Biotechnology Action Council, Seattle, USA Weirdigans Travelling Organic Café – West Yorks, UK World Development Movement World Rainforest Movement – Uruguay Signed (individuals): Ignacio H Chapela, PhD Associate Professor, University of California, Berkeley Martin Donohoe, MD, FACP Adjunct Associate Professor, School of Community Health, Portland State University Chief Science Advisor, Campaign for Safe Foods and Member, Board of Advisors, Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility Senior Physician, Internal Medicine, Kaiser Sunnyside Medical Center, USA Umendra Dutt Kheti Virasat Mission, Punjab, India Bhaskar Goswami Forum for Biotechnology & Food Security, New Delhi, India Robin Harper MSP Scottish Parliament Kavitha Kuruganti Kheti Virasat Mission, Punjab, India Peter Melchett, policy director, Soil Association Ralph L. M. Miller Director, Associação dos Consumidores de Produtos Orgânicos do Paraná – Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil Devinder Sharma Forum for Biotechnology & Food Security, New Delhi, India If you would like to add your group/organisation to the signatories of this letter, please email: claire AT gmwatch.org stating your name, the name of your group, and the town/region and country in which the group is based. Please address replies to: clairejr AT sky.com Notes 1. These figures are based respectively on Brazilian government and US government data, and are cited in “The only responsible soy is less soy: The Roundtable on Responsible Soy frustrates real solutions”, Friends of the Earth International statement – 22 April 2008, www.foei.org/en/publications/pdfs/FoEI-RTRS.pdf . The US government data are also cited in “Agricultural Pesticide Use in US Agriculture”, Center for Food Safety, May 2008. Data on herbicide use in the US after the introduction of GM crops in 1996 until 2004 are available in Benbrook, C., “Genetically engineered crops and pesticide use in the United States: The first nine years”, BioTech InfoNet, Technical Paper No. 7, October 2004, http://www.biotech-info.net/Full_version_first_nine.pdf 2. Glyphosate-resistant weeds of South American cropping systems: an overview. Martin M Vila-Aiub et al. Pest Management Science, Vol. 64, Issue 4, 2007, 366-371. 3. Argentina's bitter harvest. Branford S. New Scientist, 17 April 2004; Rust, resistance, run down soils, and rising costs — Problems facing soybean producers in Argentina. Benbrook C.M. AgBioTech InfoNet, Technical Paper No 8, Jan 2005. 4. “Argentina: A Case Study on the Impact of Genetically Engineered Soya - How producing RR soya is destroying the food security and sovereignty of Argentina” EcoNexus (UK) and Grupo de Reflexion Rural (Argentina), April 2005, http://www.econexus.info/pdf/ENx-Argentina-GE-Soya-Report-2005.pdf 5. Glyphosate-Resistant Weeds: Current Status and Future Outlook. Nandula V.K et al. Outlooks on Pest Management, August 2005: 183-187; Syngenta module helps manage glyphosate-resistant weeds. Delta Farm Press, 30 May 2008, http://deltafarmpress.com/mag/farming_syngenta_module_helps/index.html; Resistant ryegrass populations rise in Mississippi. Robinson R. Delta Farm Press, Oct 30, 2008. http://deltafarmpress.com/wheat/resistant-ryegrass-1030/; Glyphosate Resistant Horseweed (Marestail) Found in 9 More Indiana Counties. Johnson B and Vince Davis V. Pest & Crop, 13 May 2005. http://extension.entm.purdue.edu/pestcrop/2005/issue8/index.html; A Little Burndown Madness. Nice G et al. Pest & Crop, 7 Mar 2008. http://extension.entm.purdue.edu/pestcrop/2008/issue1/index.html; To slow the spread of glyphosate resistant marestail, always apply with 2,4-D. Pest & Crop, issue 23, 2006. http://extension.entm.purdue.edu/pestcrop/2006/issue23/table1.html; Genetically-modified superweeds "not uncommon". Randerson J. New Scientist, 05 February 2002. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1882-geneticallymodified-superweeds-not-uncommon.html; Elements of Precaution: Recommendations for the Regulation of Food Biotechnology in Canada. An Expert Panel Report on the Future of Food Biotechnology prepared by The Royal Society of Canada at the request of Health Canada Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Environment Canada, 2001, http://www.rsc.ca//files/publications/expert_panels/foodbiotechnology/GMreportEN.pdf; Gene Flow and Multiple Herbicide Resistance in Escaped Canola Populations. Knispel A.L. et al. Weed Science, 56: 72-80, 2008. 6. “Argentina: A Case Study on the Impact of Genetically Engineered Soya – How producing RR soya is destroying the food security and sovereignty of Argentina”. EcoNexus (UK) and Grupo de Reflexion Rural (Argentina), April 2005, http://www.econexus.info/pdf/ENx-Argentina-GE-Soya-Report-2005.pdf 7. The Round Table on Ir-Reponsible Soy: Certifying Soy Expansion, GM Soy and Agrofuels. ASEED Europe, April 2008, p. 19. 8. Evidence of the Magnitude and Consequences of the Roundup Ready Soybean Yield Drag from University-Based Varietal Trials in 1998. Benbrook C. Benbrook Consulting Services Sandpoint, Idaho. Ag BioTech InfoNet Technical Paper, Number 1, 13 Jul 1999. http://www.mindfully.org/GE/RRS-Yield-Drag.htm; Glyphosate-resistant soyabean cultivar yields compared with sister lines. Elmore R.W. et al. Agronomy Journal, 93: 408-412, 2001; The Adoption of Bioengineered Crops. US Department of Agriculture Report, May 2002, www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer810/aer810.pdf. 9. GM Crops Around the World: An Accurate Picture. GM Freeze, June 2008, http://www.gmfreeze.org/uploads/GM_crops_land_area_final.pdf ; GM and Drought Tolerance. GM Freeze, July 2008, http://www.gmfreeze.org/uploads/drought_briefing_final.pdf ; and GM and Saline Tolerant Crops. GM Freeze, September 2008, http://www.gmfreeze.org/uploads/saline_final.pdf 10. Argentina: Countryside No Longer Synonymous with Healthy Living. Marcela Valente, IPS, March 4 2009, http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=45974 11. Effects on Health and Environment of Transgenic (or GM) Brinjal, Séralini, G-E., January 2009, http://www.criigen.org/images/stories/Actualites/ActusOGM/btbrinjal-ges_%200109.pdf 12. Biological effects of transgenic maize NK603xMON810 fed in long term reproduction studies in mice. Velimirov A et al. Bundesministerium für Gesundheit, Familie und Jugend Report, Forschungsberichte der Sektion IV Band 3/2008, Austria, 2008. http://bmgfj.cms.apa.at/cms/site/attachments/3/2/9/CH0810/CMS1226492832306/forschungsbericht_3-2008_letztfassung.pdf 13. Field-evolved resistance to Bt toxins. Bruce E Tabashnik, et.al., Nature Biotechnology 26, 1074 - 1076 (2008), doi:10.1038/nbt1008-1074 14. Testing Time for Substantial Equivalence: Daphnia magna survival and fitness reduced when fed MON810 (Bt Cry1Ab) maize. Bioscience Resource Project, 17 June 2008. See http://www.bioscienceresource.org/news/news19.php 15. Genetically modified oilseed rape springs up a decade after trial crop was sown. NATURE, 1 April doi:10.1038/news.2008.729, see http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080401/full/news.2008.729.html Thursday, April 16. 2009Professor Philip James On GM Food Safety
Professor Philip James On GM Food Safety
"The perception that everything is totally straightforward and safe [with GM food] is utterly naive. I don't think we fully understand the dimensions of what we're getting into." Professor Philip James Director of the Rowett Research Institute, Aberdeen, and author of the 'James' Report commissioned by Tony Blair on the structure and functions of the then proposed UK Food Standards Agency Scottish Daily Record, 3 February 1998 Original URL http://home.intekom.com/tm_info/rw80208.htm#Prof Prof. Philip James warns of "Frankenstein Foods" MONSTER OUTLOOK ON NEW NOSH! Scottish Daily Record, February 3, 1998 by Ken Oxley Health expert Professor Philip James warned yesterday of the dangers of "Frankenstein Foods" A health expert warned yesterday of the dangers of "Frankenstein Foods". Professor Philip James said he believed genetically - altered grub had not been properly tested. And he feared scientists could be stocking up serious health problems for the future. Professor James, of the new Food Standards Agency, said the new nosh could lead to an antibiotic-resistant superbug with devastating consequences. He said genetically -modified soya was found in up to 60 per cent of processed foods. It's already on supermarket shelves in bread, biscuits, pizzas and even baby foods and scientists insist it is safe. But Professor James, of the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen, warned: "The perception that everything is totally straightforward and safe is utterly naive. "I don't think we fully understand the dimensions of what we're getting into." Genetically -modified food involves combining genes from different plants and animals to create a new super species. The controversial practice will be examined in tonight's BBC 1 Frontline Scotland report, Forbidden Fruit, at 10 pm. "It is not often that you meet a scientific pariah, so my recent interview with Dr Árpád Pusztai was a fascinating experience. Pusztai was at the centre of a huge media storm in 1998 over research in which he fed GM potatoes to rats. He purportedly found that rats fed a GM diet did not grow as well as rats on the control diet and that they had immune problems. Part of his work was eventually published in the Lancet, but the affair effectively killed off his research career. I had always been sceptical of claims that the scientific establishment allied with dark political and commercial forces conspired to destroy him, but after looking into the history of the events that surrounded his dismissal and from talking to him I have begun to change my view..... Rumours of political interference have surrounded the decision by the director of the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen Prof Philip James - who is now chair of the International Obesity Task Force - to suspend Pusztai after first congratulating him. One allegation is that James received two phone calls from the prime minister's office the day after the screening of a World in Action documentary in which Pusztai expressed his fears about the safety of GM food. In the most far-fetched version, those phone calls are supposed to have come at the behest of President Clinton who had been lent on by the biotech industry. James has always denied this, including during an appearance before a Science and Technology Select Committee hearing into the Pusztai saga..... When I talked to James about the Pusztai affair he told me he had been phoned by someone he described as 'the science officer in the Department of Agriculture in the Scottish Office' on either the Tuesday or Wednesday - one or two days after the documentary. '[They] told me how dissatisfied they were with the research that was being undertaken by Árpád Pusztai,' he wrote in an email to me. At the time, the Scottish Office was still part of central government because devolution had not yet happened. That department was funding Pusztai's research. Then things started to get a bit strange. I asked James why he had not told the Science and Technology Select Committee about this phone call when he appeared before them in March 1999....In direct contradiction to his previous email, James then wrote to me, 'I was not contacted - or lobbied - to my knowledge by the Scottish Office of Agriculture - who so specified? If so I was and am now unaware of it.' When I pointed out that it was him who had told me about the phone call, he changed tack again, saying the contact had occurred after his decision to suspend Pusztai had been taken so it had not had any influence on him..... Make of that what you will. At any rate, James denies any political influence over his decision-making. He agrees that he phoned Pusztai immediately after the programme was broadcast to congratulate him on his performance, but he later changed his mind and decided to suspend the scientist." Did Downing Street ruin anti-GM scientist's career? Science Blog, Guardian, 18 January 2008 "As we search for answers as to whether GM foods are safe, two questions stand out. Given such a huge controversy over Pusztai's experiments, and the preliminary nature of their findings, why were the political and scientific establishments so intent on rebutting him? More importantly why have the experiments never been repeated?..... having finished his doctorate in biochemistry and post-doctorate at the Lister Institute, he [Pustai] was invited to join the prestigious Protein Chemistry Department at the Rowett Research Institute, which has become the pre-eminent nutritional centre in Europe. Dr Pusztai was put to work on lectins, plant proteins that were going to be central in the GM controversy years later. Over the intervening years, Pusztai became the world's leading expert on plant lectins, publishing over 270 scientific studies, and three books on the subject... In 1995, the Scottish Office Agriculture Environment and Fisheries Department commissioned a three-year multi-centre research programme under the coordinatorship of Dr Pusztai into the safety of GM food. At the time there was not a single publication in a peer-reviewed journal on the safety of GM food [note: incredibly, this was despite GM food already having started to enter the market with the Flavr Savr tomato in 1994, and soon Monsanto's GM soya in 1996] .... The idea was that the methodologies that they tested would be used by the regulatory authorities in later risk assessments of GM crops. For the first time, independent studies would be undertaken to examine whether feeding GM potatoes to rats caused any harmful effects on their health, bodies or metabolism....The thinking was that, if you could genetically modify a potato with the lectin gene inside it, the potato could have an inherent built-in defence mechanism that would act as a natural insecticide, preventing aphid attack. Because it looked promising, the snowdrop gene had already been incorporated into several experimental crops, including rice, cabbages and oil-seed rape. But by late 1997, the first storm clouds were brewing at the Rowett. Preliminary results from the rat-feeding experiments were showing totally unexpected and worrying changes in the size and weight of the rat's body organs. Liver and heart sizes were getting smaller, and so was the brain. There were also indications that the rats' immune systems were weakening... Finally in August 1998, Pusztai expressed his growing concerns on World in Action in a 150 second interview. So what did he say? 'We're assured that this is absolutely safe,' said Pusztai. 'We can eat it all the time. We must eat it all the time. There is no conceivable harm, which can come to us. But as a scientist looking at it, actively working in the field, I find that it's very, very unfair to use our fellow citizens as guinea pigs. We have to find guinea-pigs in the laboratory.' He continued: 'If I had the choice, I would certainly not eat it till I see at least comparable experimental evidence which we are producing for our genetically modified potatoes. I actually believe that this technology can be made to work for us. And if the genetically modified foods will be shown to be safe, then we have really done a great service to all our fellow citizens. And I very strongly believe in this, and that's one of the main reasons why I demand to tighten up the rules, tighten up the standards.' On the evening of the broadcast, the head of the Rowett Professor James 'congratulated,' Pusztai on his TV appearance, commenting on 'how well Arpad had handled the questions'. The following morning a further press release from the Rowett noticed that a 'range of carefully controlled studies underlie the basis of Dr Pusztai's concerns'..... When Pusztai spoke out in August 1998, the new Labour administration was already beginning to shape government policy for its second term. It was looking for drivers of the economy that could be trusted to deliver the growth and hence results that Labour needed. Hightech industries, such as biotechnology, were to be the central cogs of the engine that would drive the Blairite revolution, and deliver the coveted second term. What Pusztai was saying could literally derail an entire industry and with it many of the hopes and aspirations of New Labour..... Although banned from talking to the press, he was not banned from talking to other scientists outside the Rowett. In February 1999 30 international scientists from 13 countries published a memo supporting Pusztai that was published in the Guardian which sparked a media frenzy over GM. A week after the international scientists backed Pusztai, a secret committee met to counter the growing alarm over GM. Contrary to reassurances by the government that GM food was safe, the minutes show the cross departmental committee formed to deal with the crisis, called MISC6, knew the reassurances were premature. It 'requested' a paper by the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) and the Chief Scientific Advisor (CSA) on the 'human health implications of GM foods'. What would happen, the minutes asked, if the CMO/CSA's paper 'shows up any doubts? We will be pressurised to ban them immediately. What if it says that we need evidence of long-term effects? This will look like we are not sure about their safety'....However Pusztai and Ewen had submitted a paper to the Lancet, which was finally published in October 1999..... four out of the six reviewers were for publication. 'A clear majority of The Lancet's reviewers were in favour,' says Richard Horton, the editor of the Lancet. Then came the 'threats'. Three days after The Independent article, Richard Horton received a phone call from Professor Lachmann, the former Vice-President and Biological Secretary of The Royal Society and President of the Academy of Medical Sciences. According to Horton, Professor Lachmann threatened that his job would be at risk if he published Pusztai's paper....the fundamental flaw in the scientific establishment's response is that in 1999 everyone agreed that more work was needed. Three years later, that work remains to be undertaken. A scientific body, like The Royal Society, that allocates millions in research funds every year, could have funded a repeat of Pusztai's experiments. Is it that it is easier to say there is no evidence to support his claim, because no evidence exists, than it is to say that no one has looked?" HOT POTATO Media Lens, 15 July 2003 "The initial response [to the TV broadcast regarding the work at the Rowett Institute by Dr Pusztai on GM potatoes] was moderate praise for those concerned but plaudits were soon to be replaced by a complete 'U turn'........The results seemed to be treated as fraudulent enabling the Audit mechanism to be commenced under Biotechnology and Biology Science Research Council rules. Four eminent persons were selected without recourse to Dr Pusztai and he was left defenceless. He was immediately gagged and his great reputation nullified at a stroke.... His friends and colleagues felt a real sense of outrage that Dr Pusztai, a Hungarian refugee from KGB dominated Hungary in 1956, had been treated in this heavy handed manner." Memorandum submitted by Dr Stanley William Barclay Ewen, Department of Pathology, University of Aberdeen Select Committee on Science and Technology, House of Commons, 26 February 1999 Thursday, April 16. 2009Arable Agriculture And The Genomics Revolution
Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society of England, Volume 163, 2002
'Arable Agriculture And The Genomics Revolution' JOHN W. SNAPE. B.Sc. Ph.D. The John Innes Centre, Norwich, UK, is Europe's leading agricultural biotechnology laboratory, where Professor John Snape is head of Crop Genetics. "GM is only one easily recognised byproduct of genetic research. The quiet revolution is happening in gene mapping ['genomics'], helping us understand crops better. That is up and running and could have a far greater impact on agriculture.... There really are no downsides, particularly in terms of public perception... [By contrast in the case of GMOs] there are public perception problems and the technology itself is still not optimised, with antibiotic and herbicide resistance genes still needed and bits of bacterial DNA hanging about. Whether that poses any danger is debatable, but it is not desirable." Professor John Snape, Head of Crop Genetics, John Innes Centre 'Gene mapping the friendly face of GM technology' Farmers Weekly, 1 March 2002, p54 "In the nucleus of each cell of each species of plant and animal is the hereditary material, the DNA, which determines the structure and function of the organism. The DNA is packaged into structures, the chromosomes. Each chromosome is, essentially, one long molecule of DNA protected and packed into a coherent structure by proteins. All the chromosomes, and hence DNA, together make up the GENOME of that organism.... The recent developments in tissue culture and molecular biology, as well as genetics and genomics, means that plant breeding now has the potential to follow two directions. First, the conventional route, as practised by plant breeders for well over a century, but now aided by molecular approaches, using the genetical variation that already exists within a species. Central to this will be the use of molecular markers to 'tag' genes, so that selection can be practised in the laboratory for specific genes associated with desirable traits.... Second is the genetic modification [GM] approach, which allows the introduction of isolated individual genes from any biological source.... Undoubtedly, the [GM] technology has promise, but there are still, obviously, barriers to be overcome in terms of public acceptability..... genomic science's biggest contribution is likely to be through providing markers and understanding to conventional plant breeding.... to date, very few breeders can quantify the genetic advances they have made in terms of known genes for any complex trait. The current advances in our knowledge of genomics and genetics of our crops has the potential to dramatically change this situation, and, ultimately, to change the plant breeder's 'art' into an objectively based plant breeding science! One of the most immediate and ongoing uses of genomics is in the development of genetic maps of major crop species.... Good genetic maps, based on molecular marker technologies are now available for all major, and for many minor, species. The major use of genetic maps is to locate genes of interest so that the maps can be fully annotated with the locations of genes, be it for quality, agronomic performance, disease resistance, adaptability, or any other trait.... In this millennium, genomics research has the potential to define the total extent of the genetic variation for simple and complex characters within our crop plants. This will allow our plant breeders, using high-through-put molecular marker systems, to produce 'designer' varieties. ...As well as leading to economic prosperity, this research can also make an important contribution to world food security through development of varieties much more resistant to pest and diseases both in major crops, and in 'orphan' crops of the less developing world through comparative approaches. Clearly we have only just started to see the fruits of this genomics revolution leading, hopefully, to the evolution of a new Green Revolution." Arable Agriculture and the Genomics Revolution JOHN W. SNAPE. B.Sc. Ph.D. Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society of England, Volume 163, 2002 (p12-20) Extracts From: Arable Agriculture and the Genomics Revolution JOHN W. SNAPE. B.Sc. Ph.D. Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society of England, Volume 163, 2002 (p12-20) Professor John Snape is Head of Department of Crop Genetics at the John Innes Centre, Norwich, and is an international expert on cereal genetics and biotechnology, and was winner of the 2001 RASE research medal. What is the Genomics Revolution? In the nucleus of each cell of each species of plant and animal is the hereditary material, the DNA, which determines the structure and function of the organism. The DNA is packaged into structures, the chromosomes. Each chromosome is, essentially, one long molecule of DNA protected and packed into a coherent structure by proteins. All the chromosomes, and hence, DNA. together make up the GENOME of that organism. The sequence of four bases, adenine, thiamine, cytosine and guanine, which make up the DNA of each chromosome, provide a code for the genes (Figure 1). This code is interpreted by the cellular mechanisms to produce proteins which govern all cellular structures and functions. GENOMICS is the science of understanding the structure and function of each of the tens of thousands of genes that are coded for by all the DNA..... ..... However, this will take years and even decades to complete because of the numbers of genes (30,000 or so in man, for example)! ....When applied to the study of arable crops....knowledge of gene function means that we have the potential to understand the genetic makeup of all of our crop species, and relate the structure of genes to variation between varieties in yield, quality, disease resistance, or any trait. The challenge is now to develop this knowledge base and then to think through how to use this information to adapt to the changing face of agriculture.... The recent developments in tissue culture and molecular biology, as well as genetics and genomics, means that plant breeding now has the potential to follow two directions. First, the conventional route, as practised by plant breeders for well over a century, but now aided by molecular approaches, using the genetical variation that already exists within a species. Central to this will be the use of molecular markers to 'tag' genes, so that selection can be practised in the laboratory for specific genes associated with desirable traits. This requires a much greater understanding of the inheritance of agronomic traits, which is now possible because of the development of genetic maps (see below). Second is the genetic modification approach, which allows the introduction of isolated individual genes from any biological source....Undoubtedly, the [GM] technology has promise, but there are still, obviously, barriers to be overcome in terms of public acceptability... Our understanding of genomics will contribute to this [GM technology] by producing a library of 'useful' genes from a range of crop species that can be introduced into any another.... However, genomic science's biggest contribution is likely to be through providing markers and understanding to conventional plant breeding. For most arable crops, conventional plant breeding is still, and will be the mainstay for the production of new arable crop varieties for the near future. This, of course, involves creating variation through making crosses between established varieties with complementary characteristics..... to date, very few breeders can quantify the genetic advances they have made in terms of known genes for any complex trait. The current advances in our knowledge of genomics and genetics of our crops has the potential to dramatically change this situation, and, ultimately, to change the plant breeder's 'art' into an objectively based plant breeding science! One of the most immediate and ongoing uses of genomics is in the development of genetic maps of major crop species. Genetic maps define the locations of genes on the individual chromosomes relative to landmarks, - see Figure 1, for example, for a diagrammatic representation of the genetic maps of wheat. These landmarks, termed molecular markers, are anonymous pieces of DNA which differ in sequence between varieties visualised by various molecular techniques. These genetic maps provide the 'road maps' of the genome of any one plant species, and are one of the major starting points for isolating genes. Good genetic maps, based on molecular marker technologies are now available for all major, and for many minor, species. The major use of genetic maps is to locate genes of interest so that the maps can be fully annotated with the locations of genes, be it for quality, agronomic performance, disease resistance, adaptability, or any other trait. For many traits, this is complicated by the fact that the variation is quantitative in nature determined by many genes acting in unison. Nevertheless, major progress in developing statistical as well as genetical tools to locate such genes, so called quantitative trait loci, QTL, is taking place. .... The full genomic sequencing of crop plants is not a realistic strategy in most cases because of the high amount of 'junk' DNA (for example, 80% of the wheat genome is junk DNA)... there are many genes of unknown function in cereals........ Probably in the next five years, all expressed genes will be captured..... Again, however, as in whole genome sequencing, the challenge will be to ascribe function to these genes. As the functions of individual genes are identified, the relationships between different genes in common metabolic pathways can also be understood, so that the 'circuitry' of particular traits of interest will be elucidated... So, although a start has already been made on developing a battery of genomic tools to understand the biology of key traits, there is still many years of research and technology development to complete the picture. In this millennium, genomics research has the potential to define the total extent of the genetic variation for simple and complex characters within our crop plants. This will allow our plant breeders, using high-through-put molecular marker systems, to produce 'designer' varieties. Also there is the capacity to modify metabolic pathways by genetic engineering.... Much of this research is 'big science', for example, sequencing of the rice genome is estimated to have cost at least $40 million US.... As well as leading to economic prosperity, this research can also make an important contribution to world food security through development of varieties much more resistant to pest and diseases both in major crops, and in 'orphan' crops of the less developing world through comparative approaches. Clearly we have only just started to see the fruits of this genomics revolution leading, hopefully, to the evolution of a new Green Revolution." Friday, April 3. 2009Monsanto scientist helped author GM guide
MONSANTO SCIENTIST HELPED AUTHOR GM GUIDE
The pro-GM lobby group Sense About Science (SAS) has been caught with its pants down by Private Eye. The famous satirical magazine has obtained a confidential draft copy of SAS's recently published GM guide which shows it had a "ghost writer" that SAS failed to declare. Here's the article. Private Eye No. 1232, 20 March - 2 April 2009, Books and Bookmen (p.26) A spat has broken out over a Times Higher Education article highlighting the failure of a new guide to GM food, 'Making Sense of GM', to disclose its industry connections. Tracey Brown of Sense About Science, publisher of the guide, condemned the T.H.E. article as "mischievous" and "rude" and claimed it relied on "tortuously indirect links" between the authors and the GM industry. But the Eye has a copy of an unpublished draft of the guide - and it seems it wasn't just the industry links of some of its authors that didn't appear in the final published version. One of the guide's listed authors, Andrew Cockburn, is also missing. Who he? None other than GM giant, Monsanto's former director of scientific affairs, and a figure so controversial that when former PM Tony Blair invited him to author part of the government's official GM Science Review, it led to questions being raised in the House and the resignation of one of the expert panellists. No wonder Sense About Science felt erasure was the better form of valour. (For the Times Higher Education article which originally reported on the failure to disclose the vested interests of the authors of Making Sense of GM, see http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=405427 ) Wednesday, April 1. 2009GM may be on the agenda at the G20 summit
1.What they said about Prof. Detritus and the G20
2.GM may be on the agenda at the G20 summit NOTE: The media this year once again followed in the fine tradition of the BBC's spoof documentary on the spaghetti harvest in Ticino, by pumping out a host of entirely bogus stories on April 1. This year's April Fool pieces included The Guardian telling the world it was closing down its print edition in favour of Twittering, and the New Zealand Herald's tech blog announcing Microsoft had taken over Apple. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/apr/01/guardian-twitter-media-technology http://blogs.nzherald.co.nz/blog/mac-planet/2009/4/1/microsoft-buys-apple/ And in case anyone's still in the slightest doubt, the Times article by "Mark Handerson" (GM may be on the agenda at the G20 summit) that GMWatch circulated on the morning of April 1, and also posted onto its website, was also an April Fool. Although the bogus article was authored by us, some others joined in the joke by posting the piece on their websites too, while others presumably took it at face value. Bioportfolio, for instance - a site that claims its "Serving the needs of the biotech industry", posted a truly extraordinary number of links to the piece. http://tiny.cc/svRks And even Sky News has posted links to an article quoting our April Fool's piece, including links claiming to provide greater "depth" on Prof. Pingo Detritus, the bogus expert that we quoted. (Sky News - Pingo Detritus In Depth) http://indepth.news.sky.com/InDepth/topic/Pingo_Detritus Someone even went to the trouble of checking with the GM-adoring science correspondent of the Times, Mark Henderson (sic) that he hadn't written our piece. Mr Henderson confirmed, "It was an April Fool, nothing to do with me or The Times. The tinyurl goes to GM Watch, which isn't surprising really - they're not my biggest fans. It would be flattering if it were funny!" http://tiny.cc/Hu7G0 Below are all the other comments we came across or were sent. But first here are two very telling quotes from GM supporters that one commentator posted together with our article: "This journal champions biotech research, so we are not downbeat on its prospects to, one day, generate products that will heal, fuel and feed the world. That is, nevertheless, an outrageous act of faith bordering on the religious. And the fact is that biotech approaches must be used in the context of other technical and nontechnological solutions. Thus, reason dictates that proponents should be very careful about overhyping what biotech can do now and overpromising what it can do in the future ... it is time that the industry and its lobby organizations learnt that pushing one-dimensional hype about biotech solutions is counterproductive... Pushing biotech as the 'solution' to the world's problems is doing more harm than good." Editorial, Nature Biotechnology 26, 837 http://fbae.org/news_08_08_pushing-biotech.html "The cynic in me thinks that they're just using the current food crisis and the fuel crisis as a springboard to push GM crops back on to the public agenda', says Professor Denis Murphy, head of biotechnology at the University of Glamorgan in Wales. 'I understand why they're doing it, but the danger is that if they're making these claims about GM crops solving the problem of drought or feeding the world, that's bullsh**.'" http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/5438/ --- --- 1.What they said about Prof. Detritus and the G20 "That Pingo Detritus super GM corn item that was just posted into the GM Watch page. That's an April Fool thing, right?" "Very funny, and so real!" "gotta be an april fool, right?" "Did you write this GMWatch! Thought it was too good to have come from Mark Henderson :-)" "Nice one, april fool!!" "Please say this 'multi f-ing superfood' is a big April fool's joke?" "Of course it is... Dr Pingo Detritus!!!" "Nice one, GMWatch!" "I'm still assuming this is a joke--as strangely similar as it is to real life. But someone just wrote an article that quotes from it." "It is sufficiently close to some of the material that appears in the media on this subject (a technology that promises everything and delivers little) that some have been taken in by it." "Please tell me this is an April Fool's joke." "Damn that Professor Detritus!" "This must be an April fools joke, but the story is still circulating around the net... Certainly a search of Dr. "Pingo Detritus" yields no results. Of course not. Its a crock, or rather, a pingo of detritus." "Ha! Dr. Detritus. Amazing how far this bogus story is traveling tho. Good spot." "Prof. 'Pingo Detritus' is a dead giveaway. A parody name for Ingo Potrykus..." "There are things called pingo detritus -- it is the collection of mud etc at the end of a pingo which seems to be a wedge of ice coming off a glacier. See this link: http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/cpc/CPC4-81.pdf There is something strange going on here..." "No no -- a pingo is a prominent mound of ground ice found in permafrost areas -- nothing to do with glaciers. The ground ice mass keeps on expanding until the crust of surface soil and debris is punctured, after which it is transformed into something that looks like a mini volcano for a while, and then collapses completely, leaving just a ring or ridge of detritus with a lake in the middle. Strange features indeed. I've seen them in Greenland." "Now I know where I have seen his name! He is a frequent contributor to Prakash's AgBioView list serve, along with Andura Smetacek and other non-existent GMO apologists." "Do I take it GM Watch authored this April fool? Very droll!" "'A spokesperson for the Biotechnology Industry Organization in Washington D.C. said, "We don't need regulation of our friends in the banking sector......"' I beg to differ!" "sure it's not an April Fool? Prof Detritus? and Grant's quote is pretty outrageous - surely even he'd think twice before including feeding the starving masses and feeding his hummer in the same sentence? let alone the quote re regulation & the banks" "Brian seems to think this was an April Fool's joke instigated entirely by GMWATCH" "an utterly splendid April Fools jape!" "Do these people expect Obama, Brown et al to believe in all this nonsense?" "Shame on you for April 1 gag; I'm not laughing and think you should know it damages your credibility; you need to do something to make amends and never again pull a stunt like this." "dear old Pingo Detritus. He was a good old fellow until he got bogged down as recently as yesterday, in the melting permafrost somewhere in Siberia." --- --- 2.GM may be on the agenda at the G20 summit Mark Handerson The Times, April 1 2009 http://tiny.cc/7f45D As the G20 meet and the world groans under the triple whammy of the food, fuel and financial crises, scientists have announced a remarkable breakthrough that they hope will make the agenda of the G20 leaders at their summit in London today. A new genetically modified super maize is said to have the potential to not only ensure an unending era of cheap food but to make the world's food supply far more nutritious, while providing low cost energy, reducing environmental degradation, and promoting sustainable agriculture. The GM maize is the remarkable outcome of a project that has been kept under wraps for nearly a decade. The new super maize, which should begin field trials within the next two years, is also the result of an unusual alliance of all the major biotechnology companies. It is said to involve the most ambitious use of multi-stacked genes to date, and has already been dubbed "a multi F-ing super food", because of its ability to feed, fuel and fortify the world, while helping to undercut the financial crisis. In a press release Hugh Grant, Monsanto's CEO, commented, "Not only do one in three people go to bed every night malnourished and not knowing where their next meal will come from, but many of us can barely afford to run our hummers. While not in anyway a silver bullet, this is a remarkable breakthrough in terms of putting plentiful ultra-nutritious food on the world's table while eliminating environmental overload and petroleum dependence on often hostile foreign powers." Although exact details of the project and its timetable for delivery still remain sketchy for the moment, Prof. Pingo Detritus, who's been heading up the international project, said, "This breakthrough is of such monumental importance, that it's vital that the G20 leaders now unite behind this inspirational global endeavour and start to remove all regulatory barriers to genetically modified crops. Critics of GM foods also need to abandon their doctrinaire fact-free opposition to this life-saving technology." A spokesperson for the Biotechnology Industry Organization in Washington D.C. said, "We don't need regulation of our friends in the banking sector, and we don't need regulation of a technology that can feed, fuel and heal the world. The G20 leaders need to recognise that GM, while not being the single answer to all our problems, is the solution to the world's most pressing needs. It can also provide the kind of economic stimulus for the global economy that our members feel would be most appropriate." Friday, March 20. 2009FACT FILE ON GM CROPS
FACT FILE ON GM CROPS*
FACTS IN THE FILE 1.ARE GM CROPS TAKING OVER GLOBAL AGRICULTURE? 2.ARE GM CROPS EXPANDING IN EUROPE? 3.WHAT GM CROPS ARE BEING GROWN? 4.DO GM CROPS MATCH THE HYPE? 5.ARE GM CROPS REDUCING PESTICIDE USE? 6.WHO BENEFITS FROM GM CROPS? 7.WHO'S MILKING THE FOOD CRISIS? 8.QUOTE: SELLING THE DREAM 9.FACT FILE SOURCES 1.ARE GM CROPS TAKING OVER GLOBAL AGRICULTURE? *GM plantings make up a mere 2.4% of global agricultural crop land *nearly 80% of the global area planted to GM crops was in just three countries - the US, Argentina and Brazil *the US alone plants over 50% of the world's GM crops *less than 3% of cropland in India and China is planted with GM crops, almost exclusively just 1 crop - GM cotton 2.ARE GM CROPS EXPANDING IN EUROPE? *in the 27 countries of the European Union, GM crop cultivation represents a mere 0.21% of agricultural land *the number of hectares of GM crops fell last year in Europe *EuropaBio inflated the figures for GM crops grown in Europe by almost a quarter to mask the decline *the area of GM crops being grown has actually fallen in Europe every year since 2005 3.WHAT GM CROPS ARE BEING GROWN? *most investment has gone into a small number of crops and traits targeted toward large-scale commercial farming *only four crops - soya, maize, cotton and canola (oilseed rape) - comprise virtually 100% of GM agriculture *GM rice, wheat, tomatoes, sweetcorn, potatoes and popcorn have all been rejected as unacceptable in the global marketplace *GM papaya cultivation in Hawaii has been declining over several years 4.DO GM CROPS MATCH THE HYPE? *none of the GM crops on the market are modified for increased yield potential *some studies show GM crops reduce yield *disease-tolerant GM crops are practically non-existent *the GM industry has not marketed a single GM crop with enhanced nutrition, drought-tolerance, salt-tolerance or any of the other 'beneficial' traits long-promised by the industry *there are no commercially available GM crops designed for biofuels 5.ARE GM CROPS REDUCING PESTICIDE USE? *almost all GM crops involve just 2 traits, mainly just one trait - herbicide tolerance *herbicide tolerance is found in over 80% of all GM crops planted worldwide *GM crops have contributed substantially to increased pesticide use *most new GM crop varieties are also pesticide-promoting *GM crops have caused an epidemic of herbicide-resistant weeds *this is encouraging the use of more toxic petsicides, including ones banned in some European countries 6.WHO BENEFITS FROM GM CROPS? *the real beneficiaries are the GM companies which profit from patents, expensive GM seeds, and increased pesticide sales *Monsanto is the world's largest seed firm *Monsanto holds a near monopoly in the biotech "traits" incorporated in GM seeds *Monsanto is the world's fifth largest pesticide firm *Monsanto markets Roundup, the world's biggest selling pesticide *Monsanto controls roughly 60% of the market for glyphosate (the active ingredient of Roundup) *Roundup is used in conjunction with Monsanto's 'Roundup Ready seeds' 7.WHO'S MILKING THE FOOD CRISIS? *The World Bank attributes 75% of global food price inflation to "biofuels" *Monsanto has been at the heart of the "biofuels" lobby, particularly the lobby for corn ethanol *The price of Monsanto's GM triple-stack corn will reportedly increase by around 35% in 2009 - by $95-100 per bag, to top $300 per bag *The average price for soybean seed, the largest GM crop in the US, has risen by more than 50% in just two years from 2006 to 2008 - from $32.30 to $49.23 per planted acre *Retail prices for Roundup herbicide have increased from just $32 per gallon in December 2006 to $45 per gallon a year later, to $75 per gallon by June 2008 - a 134% price hike in less than two years 8.QUOTE: SELLING THE DREAM "All those dreams... the blind will see, the lame will walk... has turned out to be science fiction. They are basically chemical companies selling more chemicals. They've been able to spread these herbicide-promoting plants around because it is more convenient for farmers who can just mass-spray their crops. But they've given absolutely nothing to the consumer while causing more chemical pollution and contamination." -- Andrew Kimbrell, lawyer and executive director of the Center for Food Safety (USA) http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8854 9.FACT FILE SOURCES Almost all the facts in our fact file are taken from "Who Benefits from GM crops?: Feeding the biotech giants, not the world's poor", Friends of the Earth International (2009) Full report: http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/Who_Benefits/full_report_2009.pdf Executive Summary: http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/Who_Benefits/Exec_summary_2009.pdf EU briefing: http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/Who_Benefits/EU_briefing_2009.pdf Friday, March 20. 2009DATEN UND FAKTEN ZU GENTECH-PFLANZEN
*DATEN UND FAKTEN ZU GENTECH-PFLANZEN
INHALT: 1. ÜBERNEHMEN GENETISCH VERÄNDERTE (GV-) PFLANZEN WELTWEIT DIE LANDWIRTSCHAFT? 2. BREITEN SICH GV-PFLANZEN IN EUROPA AUS? 3.WELCHE GV-PFLANZEN WERDEN ANGEBAUT? 4. WERDEN GV-PFLANZEN DEM RUMMEL GERECHT? 5. REDUZIEREN GV-PFLANZEN DEN EINSATZ VON PESTIZIDEN? 6. WEM NÜTZEN GV-PFLANZEN? 7.WER NUTZT DIE NAHRUNGSMITTELKRISE AUS? 8. ZITAT: SIE VERKAUFEN EINEN TRAUM 9. QUELLEN 1. ÜBERNEHMEN GENTECH-PFLANZEN WELTWEIT DIE LANDWIRTSCHAFT? *Gentech-Pflanzungen machen lediglich 2,4% der weltweiten landwirtschaftlichen Fläche aus *fast 80% der weltweiten Anbaufläche unter gv-Pflanzen befinden sich in nur drei Ländern - den USA, Argentinien und Brasilien *die USA allein bauen über 50% aller gv-Pflanzen an *auf weniger als 3% der landwirtschaftlichen Nutzfläche in Indien und China werden gv-Pflanzen angebaut, und fast ausschließlich gv-Baumwolle 2. BREITEN SICH GV-PFLANZEN IN EUROPA AUS? *in den 27 Ländern der Europäischen Union stellt der Anbau von gv-Pflanzen nur 0.21% der landwirtschaftlichen Nutzfläche dar *die Fläche unter gv-Pflanzen in Europa schrumpfte letztes Jahr in Europa *EuropaBio blähte die Zahlen für in Europa angebaute gv-Pflanzen um fast ein Viertel auf um den Rückgang zu verschleiern *die Fläche unter gv-Pflanzen in Europa ist in Wahrheit seit 2005 jedes Jahr gefallen 3.WELCHE GV-PFLANZEN WERDEN ANGEBAUT? *die meisten Investitionen gingen in eine kleine Zahl von Nutzpflanzen und Merkmalen, die auf großflächige kommerzielle Landwirtschaft abzielen *nur vier Pflanzen - Soja, Mais, Baumwolle und Raps - umfassen praktisch 100% der Gentechnik-Landwirtschaft *gv-Reis, -Weizen, -Tomaten, -Zuckermais, -Kartoffeln und -Perlmais sind alle als für den Weltmarkt unakzeptabel abgelehnt worden *der Anbau von gv-Papaya in Hawaii ist über mehrere Jahre zurückgegangen 4.WERDEN GV-PFLANZEN DEM RUMMEL GERECHT? *keine der gv-Pflanzen, die auf dem Markt sind, sind verändert, um das Ertragspotenzial zu steigern *einige Studien zeigen, dass gv-Pflanzen Erträge reduzieren *krankheitstolerante gv-Pflanzen sind praktisch nicht existent *die Gentechnikindustrie hat nicht eine einzige gv-Pflanze mit verbessertem Nährwert, Dürretoleranz, Salztoleranz oder irgend einem anderen 'nützlichen' gv-Merkmal, die lange von der Industrie versprochen wurden, auf den Markt gebracht *es gibt keine kommerziell verfügbaren gv-Pflanzen, die für Agrotreibstoffe entwickelt wurden 5.REDUZIEREN GV-PFLANZEN DEN EINSATZ VON PESTIZIDEN? *fast alle gv-Pflanzen haben nur 2 Merkmale, hauptsächlich nur eins - Herbizidtoleranz *Herbizidtoleranz wird in über 80% aller weltweit angebauten gv-Pflanzen gefunden *gv-Pflanzen haben substanziell zu einem gesteigerten Einsatz von Pestiziden beigetragen *die meisten neuen gv-Pflanzensorten sind ebenfalls pestizidfördernd *gv-Pflanzen haben eine Epidemie von herbizidtoleranten Unkräutern verursacht *dies fördert den Einsatz von giftigeren Pestiziden, einschließlich denen, die in einigen europäischen Ländern verboten sind 6.WEM NÜTZEN GV-PFLANZEN? *die wahren Nutznießer sind die Gentechnikunternehmen, die von Patenten, teurer gv-Saat und steigenden Pestizidverkäufen profitieren *Monsanto ist das weltgrößte Saatgutunternehmen *Monsanto hat fast ein Monopol auf die Biotech-"Merkmale"von gv-Saat *Monsanto ist das fünftgrößte Pestizidunternehmen der Welt *Monsanto vermarktet Roundup, das weltweit meistverkaufte Pestizid *Monsanto kontrolliert rund 60% des Marktes für Glyphosat (dem Wirkstoff in Roundup) *Roundup wird zusammen mit Monsantos "Roundup Ready-Saat" eingesetzt 7.WER PROFITIERT VON DER NAHRUNGSMITTELKRISE? *Die Weltbank führt 75% der Inflation der weltweiten Nahrungsmittelpreise auf "Biokraftstoffe" zurück *Monsanto stand im Zentrum der "Biokraftstoff"-Lobby, insbesondere der Lobby für Maisethanol *Der Preis für Monsantos 'Triple Stack'-gv-Mais wird Berichten zufolge 2009 um etwa 35% steigen - um 95-100 US-Dollar pro Sack, auf über 300 US-Dollar pro Sack *Der Durchschnittspreis für Soja-Saat, der verbreitetsten gv-Pflanze in den USA, ist in nur zwei Jahren von 2006 bis 2008 um mehr als 50% gestiegen - von 32,30 US-Dollar auf 49,23 US-Dollar pro Acre [1 Acre entspr. ca. 0,4 Hektar] *Einzelhandelspreise pro Gallone [1 Gallone entspr. ca. 3,8 Liter] für das Herbizid Roundup sind von nur 32 US-Dollar im Dezember 2006 auf 45 US-Dollar ein Jahr später gestiegen, und dann auf 75 US-Dollar im Juni 2008 - eine 134% Preissteigerung in weniger als zwei Jahren 8.ZITAT: SIE VERKAUFEN EINEN TRAUM "All jene Träume... die Blinden werden sehen, die Lahmen gehen... haben sich als Science Fiction erwiesen. Sie sind im Grunde Chemieunternehmen, die mehr Chemikalien verkaufen. Sie waren in der Lage, diese herbizidfördernden Pflanzen zu verbreiten, weil es bequemer für Landwirte ist, die ihre Felder einfach besprühen können. Aber dem Verbraucher haben sie absolut nichts gegeben, und gleichzeitig mehr chemische Verschmutzung und Kontaminierung verursacht." -- Andrew Kimbrell, Anwalt und Geschäftsführer des 'Center for Food Safety (USA)' http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8854 9.QUELLEN Fast all diese Daten und Fakten sind "Who Benefits from GM crops?: Feeding the biotech giants, not the world's poor" (Friends of the Earth International,2009) entnommen. Vollständiger Bericht: http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/Who_Benefits/full_report_2009.pdf Zusammenfassung: http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/Who_Benefits/Exec_summary_2009.pdf EU-Information: http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/Who_Benefits/EU_briefing_2009.pdf Sunday, March 8. 2009BEST OF 2008 - PART ONE
NOTE: 2009's been such a busy year for GMWatch that this is the first chance we've had to review 2008. Here's the first instalment.
----------------------------------------------------------- BEST OF 2008 - PART ONE ----------------------------------------------------------- INTRODUCTION 2008 was another great year in the global resistance to the imposition of GM crops. But you might not have known it thanks to the atmosphere of crisis as food prices sky-rocketed and so did Monsanto's profits. The two were directly connected. The World Bank's attributed as much as 70% of food price inflation to the disastrous policy of growing food for fuel. Some go further and see 'biofuels' as the critical catalyst for the entire crisis. Monsanto had been at the heart of the lobby for 'biofuels', and with food riots breaking out as the poor were pushed increasingly to the wall, Monsanto got together with the likes of Dupont and Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) to form the Alliance for Abundant Food and Energy. The aim: to keep Bush's ethanol mandates firmly in place, regardless of the consequences. The reason was that food price inflation not only enabled Monsanto to profit by massively hiking up its prices for seeds and Roundup, it also provided the launch pad for an aggressive new PR campaign. Its purpose was to use the atmosphere of crisis to try and over-rule grassroots resistance to GM by enlisting the support of pro-GM politicians, technocrats, industrialists and commentators in promoting GM crops as vital to solving the food crisis. As Daniel Howden, Africa correspondent of The Independent succinctly put it, 'The climate crisis was used to boost biofuels, helping to create the food crisis; and now the food crisis is being used to revive the fortunes of the GM industry.' Even some GM supporters showed signs of disquiet at this panic-mongering. Prof Denis Murphy, head of biotechnology at the University of Glamorgan in Wales admitted, 'The cynic in me thinks that they're just using the current food crisis and the fuel crisis as a springboard to push GM crops back on to the public agenda. I understand why they're doing it, but the danger is that if they're making these claims about GM crops solving the problem of drought or feeding the world, that's bullshit.' But the waves of BS were also being driven by industry desperation. Despite repeated claims to the contrary, resistance to GM was far from crumbling amidst the panic, and to make matters worse a major report produced by 400 scientific experts and signed up to by nearly 60 governments was published in 2008, which made it clear that after more than 10 years of commercialisation, GM crops had done nothing to help with the eradication of hunger or poverty, nor reversal of environmental degradation caused by agriculture. Just as damaging for the biotech industry, was the report's conclusion that the evidence showed that it was the agroecological alternatives, with their proven track record in boosting production for small farmers in developing countries, that needed special promotion at the cost of investments in industrial and GM-based agriculture. After reading the 2500-page report of the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development, it was easy to see that the diversion of political attention, scientific endeavour and funding away from these innovative low-cost approaches will have a long-term negative impact on both future food supplies and equity for the poor. This is a message that the biotech industry and its supporters are desperate to keep out of the media and away from the political elite, but 2008 was the year the cat got out of the bag. Nobody should any longer be in doubt - when it comes to resolving global problems and building a better world, GM crops are a dangerous irrelevance that will only push us further down the path to destruction. Here are the first 6 months of GM resistance from 2008. ----------------------------------------------------------- JANUARY ----------------------------------------------------------- + MEXICO: 'MEGA MARCHA' AGAINST DUMPING GM CORN IN MEXICO Upto 200,000 protesters opposing the dumping of US GM corn, took part in a 'Mega Marcha' in Mexico City. They were also overwhelmingly opposed to GM corn being cultivated in Mexico itself. http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8734 + SPAIN: OVER 300 SCIENTISTS AND NGOs CALL FOR GM BAN 'This is a technology that is destroying biodiversity... It is lamentable that Spain is acting as a vector for introducing these cultures into Europe when it is a country rich in biodiversity,' said Eugenio Reyes, a researcher at the Botanical Garden of Las Palmas in Gran Canaria, at the presentation of a petition calling on the government to ban the cultivation of GMOs throughout Spain. http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8696 + AUSTRALIA: SUPERMARKET CHAIN GOES GM-FREE Independent South Australian supermarket chain Foodland joined the Coles chain in ensuring that their own brand products were GM-free. Both supermarkets said they were responding to strong customer preferences. http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8705 + U.S.: PENNSYLVANIA BACKS OFF LABEL BAN Pennsylvania agriculture officials had to back down from a planned ban on milk labels that identified milk that came from cows not treated with Monsanto's GM growth hormone. Governor Rendell ordered a review of the proposed ban after a consumer outcry. http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8688 ----------------------------------------------------------- FEBRUARY ----------------------------------------------------------- + FRENCH BAN ON GM CORN OFFICIAL France officially imposed a ban on the growing of Monsanto's GM maize MON810, following a report by the country's Provisional High Authority on GM Organisms that said it had 'serious doubts' as to its safety. As MON810 is the only GM crop that has been grown commercially in France, the ban effectively brought to a halt all GM commercial planting. http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8740 + OPPOSITION TO GMOs HARDENING AMONG EU GOVERNMENTS Despite massive pressure to introduce more GM products into the EU in order to normalize trade relations with the United States, experts said that if anything some EU countries were hardening their longstanding opposition to GM. Jacqueline Mailly, senior European regulatory affairs adviser at the law firm Hogan & Hartson in Brussels, commented, 'If you take the Austrians, for example, they now appear to be standing firmer than ever against biotechnology.' http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8777 + BASF GM POTATO BLOCKED Yet again in 2008, BASF failed to get final approval for cultivation of its GM 'Amflora' potato, which produces extra starch for making glossy paper products and for feeding animals. Patrice Courvalin, the head of the Antibacterial Agents Unit at the Institut Pasteur in Paris was among those who spoke out about the dangers of ever approving Amflora, 'The biotechnology industry threatens to set an extremely worrying example if it wins approval for this potato. We should keep trying to prevent dissemination of antibiotic resistance rather than to allow products into the food chain that could potentially make a bad situation even worse.' So far, Amflora has not been planted commercially anywhere in the world. http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8781 + U.S. GROCERIES START TAKING GMOs OFF THE SHELVES In Oregon, some grocers started taking items containing GMOs off their shelves. The Ashland Food Co-op launched a program to get all such products off its shelves by the end of 2008 - and other area markets, including Shop N Kart and Food For Less, said they were steadily increasing offerings of GM-free food. http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8815 ----------------------------------------------------------- MARCH ----------------------------------------------------------- + FRANCE: 25,000 PROTESTERS DEMONSTRATE AGAINST GMOs Demonstrations against GMOs were held across France prior to the opening of the debate in the French parliament on draft GM legislation. http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8947 + BRAZILIAN DEMONSTRATORSRS DESTROY GM CROPS, PROTEST CORPORATE MURDER Hundreds of Brazilian women raided a Monsanto research unit and destroyed GM corn. Meanwhile in Brasilia, a protest in front of the Swiss embassy by another 400 women from Via Campesina, protested the October 2007 incident in which guards working for the Swiss-based GM multinational Syngenta killed an anti-GM protester. http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8853 + MONSANTO MOVIE TRIUMPHS The new must-see film 'The World According to Monsanto' was watched by several million viewers when first broadcast on the Franco-German TV channel ARTE, making it the biggest audience ever for an ARTE production. One sign of the massive interest in the film was the response on discussion panels, blogs etc., with more than 10,000 responses in the immediate aftermath of the broadcast. http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8892 For a brilliant review of the film see: http://www.bangmfood.org/films/22-films/4-film-review-the-world-according-to-monsanto Watch a trailer for the film and find out how to purchase the DVD (available in English, French and German): http://www.bangmfood.org/films/22-films/10-watch-the-world-according-to-monsanto + WALES SET TO BAN GM CROPS Proposals by the Welsh Assembly government came as close as possible to banning GM crops from Wales. The new regulations set Wales apart from England by applying a strict 'polluter pays' principle that should put an end even to GM trial plantings. http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8896 http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8836 + U.S.: WAL-MART GOES GM HORMONE-FREE Canada's Globe and Mail reported that March 20 was 'the day the ground shifted'. Giant food retailer Wal-Mart Stores Inc. announced that its store brand milk in the US will now come exclusively from cows not treated with Monsanto's GM bovine growth hormone (rBGH). The move, said the Globe and Mail, sends a powerful signal to food manufacturers about what consumers want. Ronnie Cummins, director of the Organic Consumers Association in the US said, 'It's reached the tipping point. Even Wal-Mart's customers are demanding milk free from genetically engineered hormones.' http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8915 http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8915 + U.S. CAMPAIGN MOBILIZES HEALTH-CONSCIOUS SHOPPERS Non-GMO Education Centers began appearing in natural food stores nationwide. These six-foot high blue towers featured books, DVDs, CDs, and handouts about the dangers of GMOs. View the Non-GMO Shopping Guide http://www.seedsofdeception.com/documentFiles/144.pdf View the GMO Health Risks Brochure http://www.seedsofdeception.com/DocumentFiles/140.pdf Purchase 50 of the Guides and/or Brochures at cost price http://www.fsicart.com/seeds/ + IS AFRICA REJECTING GM? A publication by the African Centre for Biosafety pointed out the major setbacks and failures for GM showcase projects in Africa, and how African countries such as Sudan, Angola and Zambia have fiercely resisted receiving GM food aid, precipitating reforms in food aid policies internationally. The ACB also noted how, despite the GM lobby's heavily resourced battle for GMO-acceptance, the reaction of people in Africa has in many instances been extremely hostile with the media proving critical of GMOs in countries such as Kenya, Zambia and South Africa. http://agricbiotech.blogspot.com/2008/03/is-africa-rejecting-genetic-engineering.html + SCHMEISER PLEASED WITH VICTORY OVER MONSANTO Monsanto agreed to pay all the clean-up costs of the Roundup Ready canola that contaminated Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser's fields and not to bind him with their usual gagging-clause. http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8906 + U.S. COURT THROWS OUT GM GRASS APPEAL A Federal Court of Appeals tossed out the appeal of Monsanto's partner Scotts Grass Company, ending a long-running dispute over the US Dept of Agriculture's (USDA) approval of the open-air field testing of GM Roundup Ready grasses without assessing any potential environmental impacts. http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/bentgrassPR3_19_08.cfm For more on this and other court victories: http://www.biosafety-info.net/article.php?aid=548 + MASS PROTESTS IN INDIA AGAINST GM CROPS In India, farmers' unions, consumer organizations, environmental groups, development organizations and concerned scientists stepped up their protests against Bt brinjal (eggplant/aubergine), which is in its last year of trials before possible commercial approval. http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=9000 http://www.i-sis.org.uk/gmProtestsIndia.php + INDIA: FARMERS CONCLUDE 4000 KM MARCH AGAINST GM SEEDS http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=9000 ----------------------------------------------------------- APRIL ----------------------------------------------------------- + MAJOR INTERNATIONAL REPORT SAYS GM NO ANSWER FOR HUNGER The biotech industry suffered a devastating blow when the biggest study of its kind ever conducted concluded that GM is not the answer to world hunger. The 2500-page report of the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) was produced by 400 scientific experts and took four years to complete. It was initiated by the World Bank with the co-sponsorship of the United Nations. The lack of specific support for GM crops was based on a rigorous and peer-reviewed analysis of the empirical evidence. The report concluded: "Assessment of the technology lags behind its development, information is anecdotal and contradictory, and uncertainty about possible benefits and damage is unavoidable." It also noted that the yield gains in GM crops "were highly variable" and in some cases, "yields declined". Asked at a press conference whether GM crops were the simple answer to hunger and poverty, IAASTD Director Professor Bob Watson (former director of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and as of 2008, chief scientist at Defra) replied, "I would argue, no ". The UK Government approved the IAASTD report as did nearly 60 other governments. Large sections of the IAASTD report favoured approaches to cultivation and pest control that recognise the value, particularly to the poor and hungry, of low-cost practices using locally available materials and technologies in an environmentally sensitive manner. The IAASTD report notes that these non-GM approaches can deliver effective crop protection and pesticide reduction and yield advantages, particularly in the developing world, thus increasing productivity for poor farmers while enhancing sustainability. This, the report notes, has significant policy implications for food security. The IAASTD report also notes that the community-wide economic, social, health and environmental benefits of these approaches have been widely documented. http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8998 http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8999 http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=9001 http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=9003 Key points in the report http://sustainablefoodmonitor.org/content/iaastd-overhaul-agriculture-systems-ne eded-gm-crops-not-solution http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/apr/15/food.unitednations The biotech industry pulled out of IAASTD in a fit of pique, when it became clear that the report would not endorse GM crops. http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8684 + GM LIVESTOCK FEED CON Claims that livestock farmers in the EU were suffering high prices for livestock feed because of the EU's slow rate of GM approvals were blown out of the water when it emerged that U.S. livestock farmers, including those in Monsanto's home state of Missouri, were suffering exactly the same problems. Missouri farmers complained that a 10% ethanol target was triggering a 'livestock industry meltdown'. And they were not just having problems in Missouri, Tyson's Foods - the huge US broiler conglomerate - announced a loss blamed in part on high feed prices, while the USDA estimated that corn feed price increases added nearly 9 percent to the price of US beef last year. All of which showed, as British Green member of the European Parliament Caroline Lucas noted, that the attempt to establish a link between the rise in feed and EU rules on GMOs is 'completely false and disingenuous'. http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/04/28/business/28tysons.php http://www.onlineathens.com/stories/042708/opinion_2008042700877.shtml http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2008/04/27/analysis/ ----------------------------------------------------------- MAY ----------------------------------------------------------- + GM CROPS BANNED IN SWITZERLAND UNTIL 2012 The Swiss government voted to extend the country's moratorium on GM plants for a further three years beyond the current expiry date of November 2010. According to the Swiss government, the moratorium has not caused any obvious problems, either for the farming industry, researchers, or international relations. In fact, it claimed, Swiss farmers had benefited from being able to market their produce on international markets as GM-free. http://www.allaboutfeed.net/news/id102-50901/gm_crops_banned_in_switzerland_until_2012.html + GREECE EXTENDS GM BAN Greece renewed its ban on GM maize produced by Monsanto, expanding it to include 70 types of seed. http://www.cattlenetwork.com/International_Content.asp?contentid=140529 + SCOTLAND STANDS FIRM AGAINST GM Scotland's first minister, Alex Salmond, said he was strongly opposed to introducing GM crops. http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2350876.0.UK_must_think_again_o n_growing_GM_crops_says_cabinet_minister.php + GERMAN UNIVERSITIES BOW TO PUBLIC PRESSURE OVER GM CROPS Two German universities pulled the plug on field trials of GM crops. Stefan Hormuth, president of the Justus Liebig University in Giessen, Hesse, said, they were no longer able to deal with 'the massive opposition from politicians and the general public. The university has a reputation in the region that we cannot risk losing.' Nuertigen-Geislingen University also had to stop GM field trials of GM maize because of massive protests from the public and local politicians. The journal Nature cited Heinz Saedler, a director at the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Cologne, as saying, 'The incidents reveal a new level of public hostility to plant genetic engineering in Germany.' The Max Planck Institute is also not cultivating GM crops this year. Numerous other GM maize plots were destroyed in Germany during 2008. http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080514/full/453263a.html http://www.gmo-safety.eu:80/en/news/643.docu.html + MAJORITY OF AMERICANS DON'T WANT TO BUY GM FOOD According to a CBS News/New York Times poll, 53 percent of Americans say they won't buy GM food. But it's not labeled, so they have no choice. Nutritionist Marion Nestle, a former FDA advisor, said, "They [the industry] didn't want it labeled because they were terrified that if it were labeled, nobody would buy it." http://cbs4.com/national/CBS.News.New.2.721469.html + HERSHEY'S IN BRAZIL GOES GM-FREE Chocolate bar manufacturer Hershey's in Brazil announced that it would not source ingredients from Cargill, one of the world's largest food providers, because the company cannot guarantee that soy, lecithin, and oils are not GM. They also said they would avoid genetically modified sugar. But US consumers have had no such assurances from Hershey's. http://action.foodandwaterwatch.org/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=26014 And their contaminated products have even started turning up in the UK: http://www.gmfreeze.org/page.asp?id=357&iType=1083 + NEWSNIGHT DEBUNKS GM ANIMAL FEED CLAIMS In a special report on GM and the food crisis for Newsnight (BBC2, 19 June), Susan Watts, the Science Editor of the BBC's flagship current affairs programme, dismissed the claim that the EU speeding up GM approvals could reduce the cost of importing animal feed. Watts noted that in the 12 months from May 07 to May 08 prices rose as follows on the world market: Feed barley (100% non-GM) - 43% Maize gluten (about 25% GM) - 72% Argentinian soya meal (100% GM) - 110% Argentinian soya meal has full approval for import to the EU! See also the analysis in the important new briefing from GM Freeze. http://www.gmfreeze.org/uploads/89D_yields_briefing%5B1%5D.pdf http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/brown-pushes-eu-to-allow-more-mod ified-animal-feeds-851020.html http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/06/22/Europe_considers_new_rules_on_crops/UPI-5 2111214111442/ ----------------------------------------------------------- JUNE ----------------------------------------------------------- + SYNGENTA ADMITS GM WILL NOT SOLVE FOOD CRISIS Martin Taylor, chairman of GM giant Syngenta, admitted GM will not solve the current food crisis. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/27/gmcrops.food + OFFICIAL REVIEW ADMITS AGROFUELS' ROLE IN FOOD CRISIS A UK government report found that the rush to develop 'biofuels' had played a 'significant' role in the dramatic rise in global food prices which left 100 million more people without enough to eat, and do little to combat climate change (Monsanto has been in the forefront of those lobbying for 'biofuels'.) http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/19/climatechange.biofuels + QUOTE OF THE MONTH 'While consumers struggle to pay their bills and put food on the table, Monsanto, Cargill, and Archer Daniels Midland rake in billions from taxpayer-subsidized biofuels. Monopolizing markets, polluting the environment with genetically modified organisms, and hoarding future reserves of crop seeds, wheat, rice, soy, corn, and other grains, the food and gene giants profit from global crisis and misery. Adding fuel to the fire, Wall Street speculators have shifted their greed from sub-prime mortgages to food and non-renewable resources... we have a Fast Food Nation, living in denial (at least until recently), gorging ourselves on the industrialized world's cheapest and most contaminated fare, allowing out-of-control politicians, corporations and technocrats to waste our tax money on corporate welfare, destroy the environment, starve the poor, wage a multi-trillion dollar war for oil, and destabilize the climate.' - Ronnie Cummins, 'The Food, Climate, and Energy Crisis: From Panic to Organic' http://www.just-international.org/article.cfm?newsid=20002742 Saturday, March 7. 2009BEST OF 2008 - PART TWO
NOTE: Here's the second instalment of GMWatch's review of 2008. The first instalment can be found at: http://www.gmwatch.eu/archives/56-BEST-OF-2008-PART-ONE.html
----------------------------------------------------------- BEST OF 2008 - PART TWO ----------------------------------------------------------- INTRODUCTION: Global resistance to GMOs continued apace in the second half of 2008, although the news agenda was increasingly dominated by the U.S.-led financial crisis. Happily, many people recognised that the crisis had major implications that went way beyond Wall Street, financial speculators and the banking sector. Marie Robin's film The World According to Monsanto, released earlier in the year, contained chilling footage of George Bush Sr's visit to Monsanto's HQ, when he was U.S. Vice President. Bush told the folk at Monsanto that if they ran into any problems steering their new genetically engineered products past U.S. regulators, "Call me. We're in the 'de-reg' business. Maybe we can help." http://www.bangmfood.org/films It is, of course, "the 'de-reg' business" that lies behind the market meltdowns. And because the financial crisis exposed the anti-regulatory agenda as a complete disaster, it's helped many people to recognise that a hands-off approach to huge commercial interests can devastate people's lives and wreak havoc with the global environment. As Brent Blackwelder of Friends of the Earth USA has put it, "The government must impose oversight and re-regulation... The days of the fox guarding the henhouse, with corporate lobbyists writing the laws that regulate their industries, must end." http://action.foe.org/pressRelease.jsp?press_release_KEY=418 And nowhere has the fox been guarding the henhouse more, of course, than with GMOs. (Revolving Doors: Monsanto and the Regulators) http://www.albionmonitor.net/9904b/monsantofda.html Monsanto and its corporate lobbyists still, of course, have undue influence over the new U.S. administration, but fortunately the end of 2008 saw the demise of the corporate supremacist ideologues of the Bush administration for whom Monsanto's interests and U.S. interests were automatically synonymous. Here's our review of the second half of 2008. ----------------------------------------------------------- JULY ----------------------------------------------------------- + AMERICAN NURSES ASSOCIATION OPPOSES rBGH, CALLS FOR GM LABELLING The House of Delegates of the American Nurses Association passed a resolution at their 2008 conference making it ANA's official position to oppose Monsanto's GM hormone rBGH. The ANA also supported the labelling of all GMOs. http://current.com/items/89086977/american_nurses_association_calls_for_ban_on_monsanto_bovine_growth_hormone.htm + AUSTRIA BANS MONSANTO'S GM MAIZE Austria banned the import of Monsanto's GM maize MON 863. The announcement was made on health safety grounds. Tests carried out on rats fed with MON 863 maize revealed they suffered liver and kidney damage. http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/austria-bans-monsanto-maize250708 + GM WHISTLEBLOWER VINDICATED The biologist and GM whistleblower Christian Velot won support from the Presidency of his university -- Paris-South (Orsay), after suffering repeated persecution because of raising concerns over GMOs. The attacks included the removal of funding, the requisitioning of his lab, and a false allegation of supposed aggression against a colleague -- aggression denied even by the supposed victim! The Presidency of the University made commitments to Velot on protection of his freedom of speech and his research work. The Presidency also agreed to write an open letter to clear Velot and his team of the false accusations levelled against them. http://www.gmwatch.eu/archives/31-GM-whistleblower-vindicated.html ----------------------------------------------------------- AUGUST ----------------------------------------------------------- + PRINCE CHARLES WARNS GM CROPS ARE MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTER In a story that triggered a storm of media interest, Prince Charles warned that GM crops were the "biggest disaster environmentally of all time" and that firms were conducting a "gigantic experiment" with "nature and the whole of humanity which has gone seriously wrong". Relying on "gigantic corporations" for food, he said, would result in "absolute disaster". "That would be the absolute destruction of everything... and the classic way of ensuring there is no food in the future," he said. " http://www.gmwatch.eu/archives/15-Prince-of-Wales-in-tune-with-public-and-indepe ndent-scientific-opinion.html + PRINCE SHOULD CONTINUE TO SPEAK OUT A Daily Telegraph poll revealed strong backing from the public for Prince Charles to continue to speak out on issues such as global warming, GM food, and organic farming. Asked if he was right to speak out publicly on such controversial issues, 68 per cent were in favour with only 24 per cent against. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/theroyalfamily/3411051/Public-support -falls-for-Queen-Camilla.html + MORE SUPPORT FOR THE PRINCE Numerous letters and opinion pieces were written in support of the Prince's comments: http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/letters-to-the-editor/Prince-Charless-principled- stand-on.4425856.jp http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/theroyalfamily/2571514/Prince-Charles -wrong-on-GM-says-minister.html http://www.gmwatch.eu/archives/15-Prince-of-Wales-in-tune-with-public-and-independent-scientific-opinion.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/13/gmcrops.food http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/14/gmcrops.food1 http://www.people.co.uk/news/tm_headline=charles-right-on-gm-crops&method=full&o bjectid=20700397&siteid=93463-name_page.html + MONSANTO SELLS GM DAIRY HORMONE BUSINESS Monsanto sold off its GM growth hormone for dairy cows, rBGH or rBST, to pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly. The decision came as more and more retailers, responding to consumer demand, opted to sell dairy products from cows NOT treated with the GM hormone. GM Watch comment: rBGH, marketed as Posilac, was launched in 1994. It was Monsanto's first GM product to hit the market, and it's taken 14 years of hard campaigning to get to this point... but what a success! http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2008/aug/21/business/chi-thu-monsanto-posilac-lilly--aug21 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/07/business/07bovine.html?ei=5070&en=7e1305646359117f&ex=1218772800&adxnnl=1&emc=eta1&adxnnlx=1218117951-6NflL06Qp8VMfrsHfW5n0w http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/August2008/08/c2833.html http://www.commondreams.org/news2008/0807-13.htm + COMMENTS ON MONSANTO'S SALE OF rBGH "No one wants the growth hormone rBGH used in milk production, not even the company that makes it. In the last year we've seen retailers including Walmart, Kroger, and Starbucks fall like dominoes in the race to meet consumer demand for artificial growth hormone-free milk." -- Food & Water Watch executive director Wenonah Hauter "If genetically engineered products like this were safe, Monsanto would put 'made with GE' in big block letters on all its products." -- Josh Brandon, agriculture campaigner with Greenpeace "[rBGH is] a very attractive product." -- Monsanto spokeswoman Christie Chavis + SMALL FARMS (NOT GMOs) MEAN FOOD SECURITY Christian Aid once again criticised GM technology as against the interests of "the larger part of the African population" and as being "far from guaranteed to deliver the needed productivity gains." http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/aug/23/food + NEW ACTION AGAINST GM CROPS IN FRANCE A hundred "volunteer reapers", including veteran activist Jose Bove, destroyed two fields of Monsanto MON810 maize, which is currently forbidden from being grown in France. "These were commercial trials by Monsanto based on MON810 maize, with added herbicide-resistant genes. MON810 has been banned since February 2008 and Monsanto continues to want to force it through," said Bove. http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20080813090939740 + CATALONIA SAYS NO TO GMOs On 20 August over 105,000 signatures against GMOs were delivered to the Catalan Parliament. http://www.somloquesembrem.org/img_editor/file/Press%20Note%20OGM%20-%20English%20version%2020_08_2008.doc ----------------------------------------------------------- SEPTEMBER ----------------------------------------------------------- + EU STATES SHOULD BE ABLE TO STOP GM CROPS - GERMANY Germany wants EU member states to have the power to block GM crops in their countries, agriculture minister Horst Seehofer said. http://www.gmwatch.eu/archives/39-Two-governments-call-for-Ireland-to-become-a-GM-free-zone.html + BASF MAY CUT AND RUN FROM EUROPE The chemical giant BASF said it may abandon research into GM crops for the European market should it fail to get approval for its GM Amflora potato. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601100&sid=aCGKeh_e3LrM&refer=germany + DROP IN GM CROPS GROWN IN EU The area of European farmland sown with GM crops declined by just over 2% in 2008, due to a ban in France. France was previously the second-largest producer of GM maize, the only GM crop allowed to be grown in the EU. GMWatch comment: Interestingly, the press release announcing this news, from the GM industry PR body Europabio, is written as if the downturn is a mere blip in an otherwise relentless story of GM success in Europe! Spurred on by Europabio's press release, some pro-GM sources actually headlined news of Europe's shrinking GM crop acreage as, "More GM crops being grown across Europe"! Over the past 5 years the GM crop acreage has actually shrunk by 35%. http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/2008/09/drop-in-genetically-modified-crops-grown-in-eu/62491.aspx + THE DAYS OF GM CROPS MAY BE NUMBERED IN EUROPE Pressure from the president of the European Commission had not succeeded in advancing the cause of GM crops, said a report for the Inter Press Service. In spite of the power wielded by the executive organ of the European Union, the bloc's member countries are gradually discontinuing the use of GM seeds. This is due in large measure to the difficulty of convincing European farmers to adopt the transgenic crop production model, but also to increasingly vociferous protests in different parts of Europe. http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=43895 + UK: CELTIC REVOLT AGAINST WESTMINSTER OVER GM CROPS The Independent on Sunday reported how UK government ministers are facing an unprecedented Celtic revolt from their Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish counterparts. All three devolved governments have declared themselves implacably opposed to any GM crops in their territory. And their opposition is likely to have an impact throughout Europe, sapping the UK's hitherto obdurate support for the introduction of the technology throughout the Continent. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/celtic-revolt-against-west minster-over-gm-crops-944768.html http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.2446130.0.scotland_urges_ukwide_ban_on_gm_crops.php + MEPs VOTE OVERWHELMINGLY FOR BAN ON CLONING FOR FOOD European parliamentarians voted with an overwhelming majority in favour of a proposal to ban cloning of animals for food. Protagonists on both sides of the debate acknowledge that cloned animals are faced with a wide range of health problems, with a high death rate and a high incidence of disease. http://euobserver.com/19/26681 http://www.farminguk.com/Commission-urged-to-prohibit-cloning-for-food-after-MEP s-vote-to-support-ban8460.asp http://www.geneticsandsociety.org/article.php?id=4247 + U.S.: COURT SAYS NO -- AGAIN -- TO GM ALFALFA An appeals court ruled that the US government must review the potential environmental effects of GM seeds before farmers can plant them. The decision of the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals forces the US Dept of Agriculture to issue an environmental impact statement on Monsanto's Roundup Ready alfalfa seeds. http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=court-just-says-no--agai n----to-gen-2008-09-02 + PERU TO BE GM-FREE? Antonio Brack, Peru's minister of environment, was reported to be ready to back a declaration of Peru as a GM-free nation. http://goodluckchuck.wordpress.com/2008/09/18/peru-to-be-a-genetically-modified- free-country/ + FOOD FIRMS LAUNCH GM-FREE GRAIN GROUP Brazilian soy producers and processors have launched an association, Abrange, that will guarantee grains and feeds free of GMOs to meet demand in Europe. http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssHealthcareNews/idUSN0927664920080909 + MONSANTO'S INTIMIDATION TACTICS NO LONGER LEGAL IN CALIFORNIA A landmark piece of legislation protecting California's farmers was signed by Governor Schwarzenegger on 27 September 2008. The bill, AB 541, indemnifies California farmers who have not been able to prevent the drift of GM pollen or seed onto their land and the subsequent contamination of non-GM crops. Currently, farmers with crops that become contaminated by patented seeds or pollen have been the target of harassing lawsuits brought by Monsanto. http://www.nwrage.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2352 http://www.gmwatch.eu/categories/2-News + MONSANTO PROFITEERING CONDEMNED BY PRESIDENT OF THE UN GENERAL ASSEMPLY The President of the General Assembly of the United Nations condemned the profiteering by Monsanto in the food crisis. H. E. M. Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann made his comments at the opening of the High-level Event on the Millennium Development Goals at the UN in New York. Brockmann said, "The essential purpose of food, which is to nourish people, has been subordinated to the economic aims of a handful of multinational corporations that monopolize all aspects of food production, from seeds to major distribution chains, and they have been the prime beneficiaries of the world crisis. A look at the figures for 2007, when the world food crisis began, shows that corporations such as Monsanto and Cargill, which control the cereals market, saw their profits increase by 45 and 60 per cent, respectively..." http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_14843.cfm + GM LABELLING TO BE MANDATORY IN SOUTH AFRICA Labelling of the GM contents of food should become mandatory once the Consumer Protection Bill is implemented, and producers, importers, distributors and retailers will be held liable for any damage these products might cause. http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/topstories.aspx?ID=BD4A845077 + CHINA’S LEADERS EAT GM-FREE The Associated Press reported that suppliers of food for China’s ruling elite have to make sure it is organic and not genetically modified. This news follows on from other recent revelations about the pro-GM elite: one, that contrary to Tony Blair's claims that he fed his children GM foods, his wife Cherie admitted this summer that "I always tried to feed my children organic food", and the other, that Monsanto's CEO buys organic. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26874854/ http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=2914 http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/08/20/corner_office_grant_transcript/?refid=0 ----------------------------------------------------------- OCTOBER ----------------------------------------------------------- + ORGANIC FARMING "COULD FEED AFRICA" - STUDY Organic farming offers Africa the best chance of breaking the cycle of poverty and malnutrition it has been locked in for decades, according to a major study from the United Nations. The study found that traditional practices increased yield by 128 per cent in east Africa. The head of the UN's Environment Programme, Achim Steiner, said the report "indicates that the potential contribution of organic farming to feeding the world maybe far higher than many had supposed". http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/organic-farming-could-feed-africa-968641.html + SYNGENTA HANDS BACK FARM IN BRAZIL WHERE TWO WERE KILLED Marking an end to a violent conflict, Syngenta handed over its experimental farm in Parana state, in the South of Brazil, to the state government. The 127-hectare farm in Santa Tereza do Oeste, where two protesters were killed, was used by Syngenta to field-test its GM crops. http://www.brazzilmag.com/content/view/10091/ + EU KEEPS ZERO TOLERANCE ON IMPORTS The European Union decided to keep its "zero tolerance" policy on allowing the presence of unapproved varieties of GM plants in imported food and animal feed. Biotech interests and feed importers sought a change to the policy because of concerns that imports with trace amounts of unapproved GM plants would be blocked from the EU. http://www.cattlenetwork.com/International_Content.asp?contentid=261654 GMWatch comment: All the industry scaremongering about the European livestock industry being ruined through a shortage of non-GM animal feed failed. The reality is that if they had to label meat, eggs and dairy products from animals reared on GM feed, the market for GM animal feed would be dead overnight. Only consumer deception allows it to continue - see: http://www.bangmfood.org/stealth-gmos + GM SETBACK FOR SOUTH AFRICA'S MAIZE EXPORTERS The World Food Programme, one of the biggest buyers of South African maize, said it was having to consider shopping elsewhere due to a growing shortage of non-GM maize. The move would be another huge blow to grain exporters, with some saying they have already suffered economic losses due to the country's heavy reliance on GM maize. "It is becoming more difficult every year to find sufficient quantities of non-GM maize in South Africa," WFP southern Africa spokesman Richard Lee said. "The situation is that the majority of countries that we send maize to from South Africa as food assistance do not want GM maize," Lee said. South Africa is the only African country growing a GM food crop commercially. http://www.thetimes.co.za/Business/BusinessTimes/Article1.aspx?id=851643 + AMERICANS STARTING TO TURN AGAINST GM FOOD? Major new developments suggest that the tide may finally be turning against GM technology in the US, according to a Soil Association briefing which noted: *the staggering collapse in the market for Monsanto's GM milk hormone; *the launch of a major new non-GM labelling initiative in the US, involving 400 American processors and retailers; *the rejection of new GM crops by US farmers. *the support of US president elect Barack Obama for labelling. The Soil Association's policy director, Peter Melchett, commented: "Labelling stopped consumers buying milk from cattle treated with the growth hormone rBGH, leading Costco, Kroger, Publix, Safeway and Wal-Mart to turn to non-GM own-brand milk. It is the beginning of the end for GM worldwide." For details of the report: http://www.soilassociation.org/gm Download the report: Land of the GM-Free? How the American public are starting to turn against GM food http://www.soilassociation.org/Web/SA/saweb.nsf/cfff6730b881e40e80256a6a002a765c/62b3b08dfb6cdaea80256a9500473789/$FILE/Land_of_free_GM_Report.pdf Daily Mail article about the report: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1077297/U-S-begins-turn-GM-crops- report-claims.html?ITO=1490 Farmers Weekly article about the report: http://www.fwi.co.uk/Articles/2008/10/13/112619/us-consumers-rejecting-gms-says- soil-association.html + DROUGHT RESISTANCE PROVES ELUSIVE An article in the New York Times looks at scientists' attempts to genetically engineer drought resistance into crops. One problem is unexpected effects of genetic engineering: "with so many downstream genes activated, there could be other effects on the plants besides less need for water. At a recent biotechnology conference, a university researcher showed a photograph of a cotton plant with an inserted gene for a transcription factor. The plant was missing most of its leaves." The article concludes, "No single approach is likely to suffice for all types of dry conditions." Jian-Kang Zhu, a professor of plant biology at the University of California, Riverside, comments, "Probably no one has found the magic gene yet. Probably there is no magic gene." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/23/business/23drought.html?hp + AG BUBBLE BURSTS -- STOCKS DIVE Shares of chemical companies had begun to falter in July 2008 with Monsanto stocks losing nearly all their second-quarter gains in a matter of days. Investment specialists blamed "bubblelike conditions" and "pent-up speculation" in some of the stocks. Monsanto lost a further sixth of its market value in October and by the end of the year Monsanto's stock had fallen 51% in value. http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2008/07/08/the-worm-turns-and-fertilizer-stocks- suffer/trackback/ http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/business/stories.nsf/manufacturingtechnology/story/42399508D5A34B03862574D70009B82D?OpenDocument ----------------------------------------------------------- NOVEMBER ----------------------------------------------------------- + CHAPELA VINDICATED - MEXICAN MAIZE CONTAMINATION CONFIRMED The journal Nature reported on research confirming that Mexico's ban on GM corn (maize) had not stopped transgenes getting into traditional 'landrace' maize crops in the Mexican heartland. The original research exposing this GM contamination scandal was published by Nature back in 2001, but on publication the researchers David Quist and Ignacio Chapela from the University of Califonia, Berkeley, became the focus of a ferocious campaign of vilification aimed at discrediting them. The campaign originated with Monsanto itself, as part of a much wider smear campaign against the company's critics. http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081112/full/456149a.html http://ngin.tripod.com/deceit_index.html + EXTRA-NUTRITOUS GM FOODS STILL YEARS AWAY After media reports of a "cancer-fighting" GM tomato, engineered to contain the same nutrients already found in a host of natural foods like berries, aubergines, red cabbage, red onions, etc., there was news of "a GM soyabean that can help to prevent heart attacks". The soyabean is engineered to contain Omega 3 fatty acids, the same nutrients that are already found in natural foods like oily fish, flaxseed oil and walnuts. The GM soyabean will be available in four years' time ... maybe. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/02/AR2008110201939.html http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article5068437.ece http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article5068449.ece + MUCH-HYPED GM LANDMINE-DETECTION FAILS There's been a huge amount of publicity over the past few years about how GM plants are going to solve the problem of landmine detection. News items around the globe -- from the New York Times to the BBC -- have trumpeted the life saving potential of plants genetically modified to 'Red Detect': change from green to red when grown near to landmines or unexploded ordinance. http://www.time.com/time/globalbusiness/article/0,9171,1565533,00.html http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/23600/story.htm But it emerged in late 2008 that the technology had failed. The biotech company behind Red Detect, Aresa, reported, "As was expected the tests in Serbia did not produce a positive result (none of the plants changed colours to red)". The scientific staff had been fired, reported Aresa, which is seeking to transform itself from a biotech firm into a property company - something Aresa describes as a "far less risky" investment strategy. http://www.aresa.dk/uploads/File/aresa-PR-311008-UK.pdf http://www.aresa.dk/uploads/File/aresa-update-2008-18-09-uk.pdf + VICTORY IN HAWAII: GM COFFEE AND TARO BANNED ON BIG ISLAND The Hawaii County Council voted unanimously to uphold a ban on GM taro and coffee. http://kgmb9.com/main/content/view/11447/40/ ----------------------------------------------------------- DECEMBER ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- + MASSIVE EU GM CAMPAIGN SUCCESS Campaigners managed to prevent pro-GM countries like the UK from wrecking an important EU environment ministers' meeting on GMOs and food safety. Over 70,000 messages were sent to EU politicians. Subsequently, EU environment ministers agreed that: *The long-term effects of GMOs on the environment and health need to be assessed. *There should be independent scientific research on GMOs, and access to information that is currently kept secret by biotech companies. *The European Food Safety Authority should consider the environmental impact of herbicides spread over GM crops. *Pesticide-producing GM crops should be treated in the same way as chemical pesticides. *Regions and local communities have a right to establish GM-free zones. Details of the new legal framework for the authorisation of GMOs can be found at: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/fr/envir/104510.pdf + BRITAIN TRIED TO BLOCK VITAL GM SAFEGUARD Britain single-handedly set out to sabotage a vital safeguard against farmers unwittingly growing GM crops, a leaked document reveals. The document shows that the UK government is alone among European member states in opposing a provision that would keep GM contamination of seed to the "lowest possible" levels. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/britain-tries-to-block-vital-gm-safeguard-1041641.html + GM FOODS ARE HEALTH RISK - INDIA'S HEALTH MINISTER India's health minister Dr Anbumani Ramadoss has made a strong statement warning of the health risks of GM food. Speaking at a farmers' meeting, he said, "GM food is a health hazard. No independent health impact tests have been conducted on the safety of Bt brinjal. But people are pushing for its introduction in the market. The health ministry will take all necessary steps to see that GM food is not commercialized unless all the safety criteria are met. As a minister of PMK [Indian political party] and as the health minister, I will always oppose this technology." http://www.gmfreeireland.org/news/2008/dec.php http://www.hindu.com/2008/12/10/stories/2008121054150400.htm Government should not allow GM food in Gujarat: http://www.newkerala.com/topstory-fullnews-58360.html + FORMER FOOD SAFETY CHAIR QUESTIONS GM RISK ASSESSMENTS! In an astonishing interview released on YouTube, the former chairman of the European Food Safety Authority, Prof Patrick Wall, said people had lost confidence in the European Food Safety Authority's ability to assess the risks of GM food. Prof Wall said: "Do we want corporate giants to own the food chain? GM food has no benefits for consumers... EFSA is a consumer protection agency; it is not meant to rubberstamp biotech dossiers... We cannot force-feed European citizens products that they don't want. We live in a democracy. People have a right to have objections... If people don't want (GM) technology they have a right not to have it." For the full interview + link to transcript: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/efsa Press release at http://www.gmfreeireland.org/press/GMFI44.pdf + QUOTE OF THE YEAR: THE EXPERIMENT THAT FAILED "As far as genetic engineering for food, that is the great experiment that has failed. They literally have the entire world market against them. All those dreams... the blind will see, the lame will walk... has turned out to be science fiction. They are basically chemical companies selling more chemicals. They've been able to spread these herbicide-promoting plants around because it is more convenient for farmers who can just mass-spray their crops. But they've given absolutely nothing to the consumer while causing more chemical pollution and contamination." -- Andrew Kimbrell, lawyer and executive director of the Center for Food Safety (USA) http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8854 |
Calendar
QuicksearchCategoriesSyndicate This Blog |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
