The GM Watch website is back after being shut down for nearly a week.
In an outrageous attack on free speech a Canadian Government bureaucrat succeeded in censoring a UK public interest website which serves a global audience on the GM issue. But his goal went still further than that.
The concern was over our expose of how a group of researchers deliberately skewed research to favour GM corn. Shane Morris initially focused his legal threats on the use of the word "fraud" in the title of our article, but once the GM Watch website had been forced down, his real goal became clear.
In a legal threat against GM-free Ireland, he stated:
"You will note that the GM Watch website in the UK has been disabled. As a matter of urgency please remove the [sic] **all** the GM Watch material on GM FREE IRELAND's website that you have reproduced in connection with me." (our emphasis added)
It's vital that this aggressive attempt at web censorship is totally defeated.
*Please circulate this news, and the following article, as widely as possible.
*If you know a website where this could be posted, please ask them to reproduce this message and the following GM Watch article, in order to expose just how far some people will go to try and fix public debate.
---
---
THE GM PROPAGANDA LAB (PART 1)
http://www.gmwatch.org/p1temp.asp?pid=72&page=1
***The article they didn't want you to read***
[Go to the web page to see the damning photo of the "Would you eat wormy sweet corn?" sign]
The British Food Journal's Award for Excellence for Most Outstanding Paper in 2004 went to research that should never have been published. What the reviewers mistook for an impressive piece of scientific enquiry was a carefully crafted propaganda exercise that could only have one outcome. Both the award and the paper now need to be retracted.
***
Since this article was published a leading researcher into scientific ethics has called for the paper to be retracted.
New Scientist's report
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg19025533.300&feedId=gm-food_rss20
***
It was late September 1999. The scene was a news conference outside a Loblaws grocery store in downtown Toronto. Greenpeace and the Council of Canadians were launching a public awareness campaign urging customers to ask the chain to remove all genetically modified foods from their shelves.
"The food is safe," shouted someone on the edge of the crowd. Jeff Wilson, who farms about 250 hectares northwest of Toronto, was part of a small group of hecklers. He had come to the store with Jim Fischer, the head of a lobby group called AgCare which supports GM foods. Doug Powell, an assistant professor at the University of Guelph, was also there.
And they had come prepared. Holding aloft a bug-ravaged cabbage, Wilson demanded, "Would you buy that?" Wilson claimed the cabbage could have been saved by genetic engineering.
According to a report in the Toronto Star, Doug Powell ended up in a shouting match with a shopper - 71-year old Evan John Evans, who told him, "I resent you putting stuff in my food I don't want."
A year later and Powell and Wilson's street theatrics had given way to a much more carefully choreographed exercise in persuading people that GM foods were what they wanted.
The scene this time was not Loblaws but Jeff Wilson's farm store, just outside the village of Hillsburgh. Here Powell and Wilson were running an experiment that had been conceived following the Loblaws encounter.
During summer 2000 Wilson grew both GM and conventional sweet corn on his farm. And following the first harvest in late August, both types of corn were put on sale amidst much publicity. The aim was to see which type would appeal most to Wilson's customers.
According to an award winning paper published in the British Food Journal, a sizeable majority opted to buy the GM corn. In the paper, authored by Wilson and Powell, and Powell's two research assistants - Katija Blaine and Shane Morris, the choice appears simple - the bins were "fully labeled" - either "genetically engineered Bt sweet corn" or "Regular sweet-corn". The only other written information mentioned in the paper that might have influenced the preference of customers was lists of the chemicals used on each type of corn, and pamphlets "with background information on the project."
What Powell and his co-authors failed to report was that the information on the chemicals came with a variation on the bug-eaten cabbage stunt Wilson pulled outside Loblaws. There Wilson had demanded of shoppers "Would you buy that?" In Wilson's store the sign above the non-GM corn bin asked, "Would You Eat Wormy Sweet Corn?" Above the the Bt-corn bin, by contrast, the equivalent sign was headed: "Here's What Went into Producing Quality Sweet Corn".
Toronto Star reporter Stuart Laidlaw, who visited Wilson's farm several times during the research, says, "It is the only time I have seen a store label its own corn 'wormy'". In his book Secret Ingredients , Laidlaw includes a photograph of the "wormy" corn sign, and drily notes, "when one bin was marked 'wormy corn' and another 'quality sweet corn,' it was hardly surprising which sold more."
Laidlaw also notes that any mention of the corn being labelled as "wormy" or "quality" was omitted in presentations and writings about the experiment. This is certainly the case with the paper in the British Food Journal. Yet the paper describes in some detail the care that the researchers took to avoid biasing consumer choice - by having, for example, both corn-bins kept filled to the same level throughout the day; and by selling the two different types of corn for exactly the same amount. We are even told the precise purchase price: Cnd$3.99/dozen.
The emotively worded signs are not the only instance of glaring experimenter bias that went unmentioned in the award winning paper. During his visits to the store, Laidlaw noted that an information table contained, as well as press releases and pamphlets on the experiments, a number of pro-GM fact sheets - some authored by industry lobby groups, but no balancing information from critics of genetic engineering.
And the bias didn't stop there. The lead researcher, Doug Powell, actually demonstrated to the journalist his ability to influence customer responses to questions about Bt corn and their future purchasing preferences. Laidlaw describes how when a customer who'd bought non-Bt corn was walking to his truck, "Powell talked to him about Bt corn - describing how it did not need insecticides because it produced its own and that it had been approved as safe by the federal government. Powell then told me I should talk to the man again. I did, and he said he would buy GM corn the next time he was at the store. Powell stood nearby with his arms crossed and a smile on his face."
Outside Loblaws the previous Fall, Powell had ended up in an unsuccessful slanging match. Now Powell and his associates had engineered a setting in which customer responses could be influenced far more successfully. Seeing Powell in action convinced Laidlaw that the only conclusion which could safely be drawn from these "experiments" was that, "fed a lot of pro-biotech sales pitches, shoppers could be convinced to buy GM products."
But none of the "pro-biotech sales pitches" made their way into the paper for which Powell and his associates were commended. Instead, research that was little more than pro-GM propaganda was presented as providing a meticulous scientific evaluation of consumer purchasing preferences.
READ ON AT
http://www.gmwatch.org/p1temp.asp?pid=72&page=1
Friday, 24 August 2007
Tuesday, 31 July 2007
Organic Tomatoes Found to be More Nutritious
Soil Quality from Long-term Organic Management Nearly Doubles Flavonoids in Organic Tomatoes July 2007
For more than ten years, scientists at U.C. Davis in California have conducted a Long-Term Research on Agricultural Systems project (LTRAS). The impacts of conventional and organic management on tomato production and tomato nutrient concentrations have been a major focus of this effort.On June 23, 2007, the American Chemical Society’s Journal of Food and Agricultural Chemistry published compelling results from the LTRAS (Mitchell et al., 2007). The team found that the level of quercitin, the most common flavonoid in the human diet and the major flavonoid in tomatoes, increased 79 percent as a result of organic management, and kaempferol levels rose 97 percent. In addition, and significantly, the longer a field was managed organically, the bigger the margin in flavonoid levels between organic and conventional plots. The level of quercitin in the organic plots increased about 5 milligrams per gram of dried tomato per year, with the largest increases coming after seven years of organic management. In the conventional plots, quercitin levels increased only 2 mg/gram per year. This finding supports the need for a three-year transition period before a field is eligible to grow certified organic crops, and also helps explain the relatively smaller percentage increases in antioxidant levels typically found in university studies that entail just a few years of organic management. The team points out that a number of factors can trigger the biosynthetic pathway in plants that produces flavonoids – nutrient deficiency, pest attack, wounding, pathogens, and UV radiation (sunlight). This study is unique because of its long duration and the careful accounting of production and nutrient inputs and nitrogen availability. The scientists focused on the long-run impacts of well-defined, typical organic and conventional cropping systems using the same tomato cultivar, rather than the impacts of individual practices and inputs. Tomatoes yields did not vary significantly between the conventional and organic plots, although the variation in yields was lower in the organic plots. The ability of soils under organic management to take in and store water more effectively than conventionally managed soils likely accounts for this finding.Another unique aspect of this study is the ability to link changes in the nutrient content of tomatoes to the impacts of organic management on soil quality. The authors report significantly higher soil organic matter (SOM) levels in the organic plots. SOM levels rose through 1998 in the LTRAS, and reached a steady-state in 1998-1999, at which point the team reduced dramatically the applications of compost. The reduction in total nitrogen applied to the organic system did not reduce yields, and was accompanied by increased flavonoid levels. The authors concluded that –“Flavonoid content in tomatoes seems to be related to available N. Plants with limited N accumulate more flavonoids than those that are well-supplied….overfertilization (conventional or organic) might reduce the health benefits from tomatoes”This study provides powerful, new evidence in support of a nutrient “dilution effect” triggered by high levels of nitrogen and rapid plant growth, especially in the absence of pest pressure.Source: “Ten-Year Comparison of the Influences of Organic and Conventional Crop Management Practices on the Content of Flavonoids in Tomatoes”Authors: Alyson E. Mitchell, Yun-Jeong Hong, Eunmi Koh, Diane M. Barrett, D.E. Bryant, R. Ford Denison, and Stephen Kaffka.Journal of Food and Agricultural Chemistry, published online June 23, 2007.
For more than ten years, scientists at U.C. Davis in California have conducted a Long-Term Research on Agricultural Systems project (LTRAS). The impacts of conventional and organic management on tomato production and tomato nutrient concentrations have been a major focus of this effort.On June 23, 2007, the American Chemical Society’s Journal of Food and Agricultural Chemistry published compelling results from the LTRAS (Mitchell et al., 2007). The team found that the level of quercitin, the most common flavonoid in the human diet and the major flavonoid in tomatoes, increased 79 percent as a result of organic management, and kaempferol levels rose 97 percent. In addition, and significantly, the longer a field was managed organically, the bigger the margin in flavonoid levels between organic and conventional plots. The level of quercitin in the organic plots increased about 5 milligrams per gram of dried tomato per year, with the largest increases coming after seven years of organic management. In the conventional plots, quercitin levels increased only 2 mg/gram per year. This finding supports the need for a three-year transition period before a field is eligible to grow certified organic crops, and also helps explain the relatively smaller percentage increases in antioxidant levels typically found in university studies that entail just a few years of organic management. The team points out that a number of factors can trigger the biosynthetic pathway in plants that produces flavonoids – nutrient deficiency, pest attack, wounding, pathogens, and UV radiation (sunlight). This study is unique because of its long duration and the careful accounting of production and nutrient inputs and nitrogen availability. The scientists focused on the long-run impacts of well-defined, typical organic and conventional cropping systems using the same tomato cultivar, rather than the impacts of individual practices and inputs. Tomatoes yields did not vary significantly between the conventional and organic plots, although the variation in yields was lower in the organic plots. The ability of soils under organic management to take in and store water more effectively than conventionally managed soils likely accounts for this finding.Another unique aspect of this study is the ability to link changes in the nutrient content of tomatoes to the impacts of organic management on soil quality. The authors report significantly higher soil organic matter (SOM) levels in the organic plots. SOM levels rose through 1998 in the LTRAS, and reached a steady-state in 1998-1999, at which point the team reduced dramatically the applications of compost. The reduction in total nitrogen applied to the organic system did not reduce yields, and was accompanied by increased flavonoid levels. The authors concluded that –“Flavonoid content in tomatoes seems to be related to available N. Plants with limited N accumulate more flavonoids than those that are well-supplied….overfertilization (conventional or organic) might reduce the health benefits from tomatoes”This study provides powerful, new evidence in support of a nutrient “dilution effect” triggered by high levels of nitrogen and rapid plant growth, especially in the absence of pest pressure.Source: “Ten-Year Comparison of the Influences of Organic and Conventional Crop Management Practices on the Content of Flavonoids in Tomatoes”Authors: Alyson E. Mitchell, Yun-Jeong Hong, Eunmi Koh, Diane M. Barrett, D.E. Bryant, R. Ford Denison, and Stephen Kaffka.Journal of Food and Agricultural Chemistry, published online June 23, 2007.
Organic Production Increases Yields and Builds Soil Quality in Iowa
Yields increase, soil resilience soars; Long-term research proves organic promise
By ANNE LARSON, Special to the Leopold Center
Year-by-year comparisons, ISU Organic Ag web site
Coupling long-term cropping research with rigorous replication yields reliable results. That’s the premise that drove establishment of the Center’s Long-Term Agricultural Research (LTAR) initiative in 1998 at the Neely-Kinyon Research Farm near Greenfield. The study is believed to be the largest randomized, replicated comparison of organic and conventional crops in the nation.
Kathleen Delate presents information at the August 2006 Neely-Kinyon field day, which drew more than 200 people.
An aerial view of the ISU organic field test plots, which are believed to be the longest-running, largest, randomized comparison of organic and conventional crops in the nation.
Nine years later, leader Kathleen Delate, Iowa State University horticulture and agronomy professor, can display results that convincingly show greater yield, increased profitability, and steadily improved soil quality in organic over conventional rotations. The results bode well for producers looking for higher returns while building soils. “The long-term project enables us to achieve repeatable results,” Delate explains. “If you get the same results over time, they become much more credible to farmers, scientists and policymakers,” she adds.The LTAR has been funded by the Leopold Center to examine short- and long-term physical, biological and economic outcomes of certified organic and conventional grain-based cropping systems. The Neely-Kinyon farm research is testing whether organic systems relying on inputs such as composted manure can promote stable yields, soil quality and plant protection. Those results are being compared with a corn-soybean (C-S) rotation supported by greater levels of externally acquired inputs such as fossil-based fuels. The rotations used on the organic plots have been corn-soybean-oat/alfalfa (C-S-O/A) and corn-soybean-oat/alfalfa-alfalfa (C-S-O/A-A).In the LTAR project, organic crop yields were equal to conventional acres in the three years of transition. In the fourth year, organic corn yields in the longest rotation outpaced those of conventional corn. Organic soybean, which can be grown for a price premium, also out-yielded conventional soybean in the fourth year of the rotation. The research also reported remarkable consistency of yields during the first three transitional years.
One of the things that sets the research apart in addition to its length and design, is that the plots are 42 meters by 21 meters (about 138 ft. by 69 ft., or about 0.2 acre), large enough to accommodate conventional farm equipment. Soil scientist and co-investigator Cynthia Cambardella of the USDA National Soil Tilth Laboratory says the large plots were part of what initially drew her to the research. The biggest attraction was the chance to study changes in soil quality during the transition from conventional to organic management within a completely randomized, replicated experiment.Cambardella has monitored a number of soil quality characteristics as part of the project. Those factors include:
soil organic carbon (C);
potentially mineralized nitrogen (N);
particulate organic matter C;
microbial biomass C;
inorganic N;
pH; and
soil structure.
All of these measures have some impact on soil quality. Potentially mineralized N is an estimate of the available part of N that is held in reserve in the soil, cycling and becoming available when temperature and moisture favor microbial activity. Particulate organic matter C comes primarily from the plant root systems and is an easily digestible source of energy for soil microorganisms. Microbial biomass C comes from the bodies of soil organisms and is one of the most easily digestible food sources in the soil. The nutrient needs of organically managed crops are met entirely through the recycling of nutrients from crop residue, roots, green manures and added amendments. High-quality soils cycle nutrients more efficiently and make them available when and where the plants need them.The organic plots are amended in early spring with composted swine manure, made from a mixture of manure and corn stover that was removed from deep-bedded swine “hoop house” structures located nearby. The organic plots are disked, rotary-hoed and cultivated, with an average of two row cultivations per year.On the organic plots, the organic matter from the composted manure quickly helped enhance the resilience of the soil.“Key to this is organic matter and the supply of nutrients,” Cambardella explains. “Biologically active nutrients can be tapped by the plant when temperatures and moisture will drive availability,” she adds. “The exciting news is that, rather quickly, easily decomposable N began to be reserved in the soil in forms that are not subject to leaching with spring rains,” Cambardella says. Soil structural stability also remained good, despite the increased tillage involved with the organic rotations.Cambardella has observed a number of factors that point toward improved soil health on the organic plots, as compared with conventional C-S. After seven years of organic management, she has seen:
more soil organic C,
more biologically-active organic matter,
reduced soil acidity, and
maintained or improved crop yield.
Delate says the ultimate benefit of the long-term project will be to maximize confidence in the data and to monitor any unexpected results that appear over longer periods of time. Researchers will continue to examine the effects of crop sequence and length on long-term pest disruption and attraction of beneficial insects to the organic system.
Moving from conventional to organic: What is the local payoff?
Read executive summary from report
Organic cropping systems help build soils, but can they also help build local communities?That was the question explored by David Swenson and Liesl Eathington of the ISU economics department and Craig Chase, an ISU Extension farm management field specialist. They received a grant from the Leopold Center Marketing and Food Systems Initiative to assess potential region-wide economic impacts of farmers who convert operations from conventional to organic systems. They used as their model a unique Woodbury County plan that provides tax abatements for producers who make the organic transition.The project, “Determining the methods for measuring the economic and fiscal impacts associated with organic crop conversion in Iowa,” affirms existing ISU research which demonstrates that operators who choose organic methods will receive greater economic returns than those who opt for conventional practices. Next, the economic impact of that difference was measured considering all linkages with the regional economy. The study found that the economic impacts of the organic alternative were substantially larger than the conventional configuration, a significant observation for those engaged in rural and regional economic development. Specifically, organic rotation farming produced 52 percent more gross sales revenue, 110 percent more value added, and 182 percent more labor income than from the same 1,000 acres farmed using conventional corn-soybean rotation practices. According to Swenson, “the organic alternative requires greater mechanical inputs, more labor and yields a higher return to the operators. All of these factors combine to yield greater amounts of income-based economic impacts in the study region.” These outcomes will hold up, he adds, even with the recent spike in corn prices as the spread between organic and conventional crop prices has remained relatively constant.The analysis for the effective economic use of property tax abatements as an incentive for farmers to shift from conventional to organic production is not as promising. The study concludes that over a reasonable period of time, the county is not likely to recover the forgone property tax revenue used to fund the original program with sufficient new, economic impact-driven, property tax collections, as well as fund the county and public school services needed by additional workers (along with their household members) in all impacted economic sectors of the organic conversion. However, there may be important non-economic criteria in favor of a property tax inducement to alter farming practices. These would include environmental benefits, diversifying agricultural production, and supporting the development of organic foods production, processing, and consumption in the region.
By ANNE LARSON, Special to the Leopold Center
Year-by-year comparisons, ISU Organic Ag web site
Coupling long-term cropping research with rigorous replication yields reliable results. That’s the premise that drove establishment of the Center’s Long-Term Agricultural Research (LTAR) initiative in 1998 at the Neely-Kinyon Research Farm near Greenfield. The study is believed to be the largest randomized, replicated comparison of organic and conventional crops in the nation.
Kathleen Delate presents information at the August 2006 Neely-Kinyon field day, which drew more than 200 people.
An aerial view of the ISU organic field test plots, which are believed to be the longest-running, largest, randomized comparison of organic and conventional crops in the nation.
Nine years later, leader Kathleen Delate, Iowa State University horticulture and agronomy professor, can display results that convincingly show greater yield, increased profitability, and steadily improved soil quality in organic over conventional rotations. The results bode well for producers looking for higher returns while building soils. “The long-term project enables us to achieve repeatable results,” Delate explains. “If you get the same results over time, they become much more credible to farmers, scientists and policymakers,” she adds.The LTAR has been funded by the Leopold Center to examine short- and long-term physical, biological and economic outcomes of certified organic and conventional grain-based cropping systems. The Neely-Kinyon farm research is testing whether organic systems relying on inputs such as composted manure can promote stable yields, soil quality and plant protection. Those results are being compared with a corn-soybean (C-S) rotation supported by greater levels of externally acquired inputs such as fossil-based fuels. The rotations used on the organic plots have been corn-soybean-oat/alfalfa (C-S-O/A) and corn-soybean-oat/alfalfa-alfalfa (C-S-O/A-A).In the LTAR project, organic crop yields were equal to conventional acres in the three years of transition. In the fourth year, organic corn yields in the longest rotation outpaced those of conventional corn. Organic soybean, which can be grown for a price premium, also out-yielded conventional soybean in the fourth year of the rotation. The research also reported remarkable consistency of yields during the first three transitional years.
One of the things that sets the research apart in addition to its length and design, is that the plots are 42 meters by 21 meters (about 138 ft. by 69 ft., or about 0.2 acre), large enough to accommodate conventional farm equipment. Soil scientist and co-investigator Cynthia Cambardella of the USDA National Soil Tilth Laboratory says the large plots were part of what initially drew her to the research. The biggest attraction was the chance to study changes in soil quality during the transition from conventional to organic management within a completely randomized, replicated experiment.Cambardella has monitored a number of soil quality characteristics as part of the project. Those factors include:
soil organic carbon (C);
potentially mineralized nitrogen (N);
particulate organic matter C;
microbial biomass C;
inorganic N;
pH; and
soil structure.
All of these measures have some impact on soil quality. Potentially mineralized N is an estimate of the available part of N that is held in reserve in the soil, cycling and becoming available when temperature and moisture favor microbial activity. Particulate organic matter C comes primarily from the plant root systems and is an easily digestible source of energy for soil microorganisms. Microbial biomass C comes from the bodies of soil organisms and is one of the most easily digestible food sources in the soil. The nutrient needs of organically managed crops are met entirely through the recycling of nutrients from crop residue, roots, green manures and added amendments. High-quality soils cycle nutrients more efficiently and make them available when and where the plants need them.The organic plots are amended in early spring with composted swine manure, made from a mixture of manure and corn stover that was removed from deep-bedded swine “hoop house” structures located nearby. The organic plots are disked, rotary-hoed and cultivated, with an average of two row cultivations per year.On the organic plots, the organic matter from the composted manure quickly helped enhance the resilience of the soil.“Key to this is organic matter and the supply of nutrients,” Cambardella explains. “Biologically active nutrients can be tapped by the plant when temperatures and moisture will drive availability,” she adds. “The exciting news is that, rather quickly, easily decomposable N began to be reserved in the soil in forms that are not subject to leaching with spring rains,” Cambardella says. Soil structural stability also remained good, despite the increased tillage involved with the organic rotations.Cambardella has observed a number of factors that point toward improved soil health on the organic plots, as compared with conventional C-S. After seven years of organic management, she has seen:
more soil organic C,
more biologically-active organic matter,
reduced soil acidity, and
maintained or improved crop yield.
Delate says the ultimate benefit of the long-term project will be to maximize confidence in the data and to monitor any unexpected results that appear over longer periods of time. Researchers will continue to examine the effects of crop sequence and length on long-term pest disruption and attraction of beneficial insects to the organic system.
Moving from conventional to organic: What is the local payoff?
Read executive summary from report
Organic cropping systems help build soils, but can they also help build local communities?That was the question explored by David Swenson and Liesl Eathington of the ISU economics department and Craig Chase, an ISU Extension farm management field specialist. They received a grant from the Leopold Center Marketing and Food Systems Initiative to assess potential region-wide economic impacts of farmers who convert operations from conventional to organic systems. They used as their model a unique Woodbury County plan that provides tax abatements for producers who make the organic transition.The project, “Determining the methods for measuring the economic and fiscal impacts associated with organic crop conversion in Iowa,” affirms existing ISU research which demonstrates that operators who choose organic methods will receive greater economic returns than those who opt for conventional practices. Next, the economic impact of that difference was measured considering all linkages with the regional economy. The study found that the economic impacts of the organic alternative were substantially larger than the conventional configuration, a significant observation for those engaged in rural and regional economic development. Specifically, organic rotation farming produced 52 percent more gross sales revenue, 110 percent more value added, and 182 percent more labor income than from the same 1,000 acres farmed using conventional corn-soybean rotation practices. According to Swenson, “the organic alternative requires greater mechanical inputs, more labor and yields a higher return to the operators. All of these factors combine to yield greater amounts of income-based economic impacts in the study region.” These outcomes will hold up, he adds, even with the recent spike in corn prices as the spread between organic and conventional crop prices has remained relatively constant.The analysis for the effective economic use of property tax abatements as an incentive for farmers to shift from conventional to organic production is not as promising. The study concludes that over a reasonable period of time, the county is not likely to recover the forgone property tax revenue used to fund the original program with sufficient new, economic impact-driven, property tax collections, as well as fund the county and public school services needed by additional workers (along with their household members) in all impacted economic sectors of the organic conversion. However, there may be important non-economic criteria in favor of a property tax inducement to alter farming practices. These would include environmental benefits, diversifying agricultural production, and supporting the development of organic foods production, processing, and consumption in the region.
Wednesday, 25 July 2007
Claim that GM foods present health risk 'irrefutable'
1.The health risks of GM foods2.Claim that GM foods present health risk 'irrefutable'3.Minister to act quickly on issue of GM-free food 4.Ireland stands up to US pressure on GMOs
Note: For more on Shane Morris and Doug Powell (item 1) see 'Award for a Fraud'http://www.gmwatch.org/p1temp.asp?pid=72&page=1
---
1.The health risks of GM foods
Letter sent to the Editor of the Irish Times, 29 June 2007
Shane Morris's attack on Jeffrey Smith's book Genetic Roulette ‚ The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Modified Foods (Letters, June 29th) employs the "shoot the messenger" strategy favoured by agri-biotech industry spin doctors who are no longer able to deny the growing scientific evidence which links GM food and animal feed to deaths and disease in laboratory animals, livestock and the human population.
Morris and his biotech colleage and mentor Doug Powell (a well-known GM industry lobbyist) have co-authored a number of pro-GMO papers, one of which received the GM Watch Propaganda Lab Award 2006 for its fraudulent scientific claims, triggering a controversy reported by New Scientist magazine.
Morris wrote his letter in response to the Kildare-based farmer Nick Cullen (Letters, June 28th), who critiqued your newspaper's coverage of the briefing on Food Safety and GMOs which I recently organised with Kathy Sinnott MEP at the EU Parliament Office in Dublin ("Sargent says GMO-free pledge is a 'huge step'", June 16th).
As Nick Cullen rightly pointed out, that article avoided any reference to the peer-reviewed scientific papers presented at the briefing, including those summarised in Genetic Roulette, but quoted instead from statements from the floor by the Chairman of the Irish Times Trust, Prof David McConnell, who attempted to portray Trevor Sargent [Ireland's new Minister of State for Agriculture and Food] – and anyone else who disagrees with his views on GMOs – as scientifically illiterate.
In the interests of transparency, your article should have mentioned that Prof McConnell's Smurfit School of Genetics at TCD is part-funded by the agribiotech industry, and that he is also the Co-Chair of EAGLES (European Action on Global Life Sciences), a biotech industry lobby group which promotes GM food and crops in the developing countries.
Our new government's aim to keep the whole island of Ireland free of GM crops and livestock will help our food and farm sectors retain access to the EU market for safe food, which increasingly prohibits or restricts the use of any food (including meat and dairy produce) containing or derived from genetically modified ingredients.
Our media should not encourage us to abandon this long-term competitive advantage because of vested interests.
GM foods and farming present a variety of extremely serious health, agronomic, environmental, legal, economic and food security risks. Please provide some more balanced coverage of these issues in the Irish Times!
Yours etcMichael O'CallaghanCo-ordinator, GM-free Ireland Network---
2.Claim that GM foods present health risk 'irrefutable'By Julie-Anne BarnesIrish Medical News, 30 June 2007http://www.irishmedicalnews.ie/articles.asp?Category=news&ArticleID=19086
The known health risks of genetically modified (GM) foods present a case that is "overwhelming and irrefutable" and it is now up to the biotech industry to provide rigorous scientific evidence "to show they are not risking the health of the population with food".
Mr Jeffrey M Smith, author of Genetic Roulete made this claim at a recent briefing on food safety and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) at the European Parliament Office in Dublin, where he said there are 65 documented health risks from GM foods. Mr Smith said there are now thousands of human beings complaining of toxic or allergic- type reactions from consuming, breathing or even touching GM produce.
"There are numerous ways in which the process of genetic engineering has been shown to create unpredicted side effects and many of the most fundamental assumptions that we use for the basis of safety claims have been truly wrong in the years since these crops were introduced," said Mr Smith.
His presentation coincided with the announcement by Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, with responsibility for Food and Horticulture, Mr Trevor Sargent that one of the Green Party’s primary goals is to ensure that Ireland becomes Europe's first 100 per cent GM Free zone.
Mr Sargent said that the effects of GM foods on human health "are largely untested and potentially very dangerous" and "the use of GM animal feed is damaging our world famous clean green reputation as 'Ireland the food island'".
Ms Kathy Sinnott, MEP also addressed the meeting where she said the new government would need to stand up to the European Commission, which refuses to recognize the legal democratic right of member states and local authorities to have the final say on whether GM crops may be grown in their areas. During the course of the meeting Prof David McConnell, Department of Genetics, Trinity College Dublin challenged Mr Michael O'Callaghan, co-ordinator of the GM-Free Ireland Network and Minister Sargent.
He accused Mr O'Callaghan of "impugning" his scientific reputation during the briefing and said what Prof McConnell was arguing was that everybody interested in the GM debate should take scientific advice and that advice should represent the broad community of science "and you should not pin your view to one view or one expectation of scientific outcome".
He added that he found it very unfortunate that people claiming to be interested in science "really don't understand it and that is really quite serious".
Mr O'Callaghan said the notion that GM crops and non-GM crops can co-exist "is like the notion you can have a person with an infectious disease running around in a population where other people will be contaminated". The meeting was also addressed by Dr Ricarda A Steinbrecher, PhD, developmental biologist and geneticist, EcoNexus.
---
3.Sargent to act quickly on issue of GM-free food By Sean MacConnell The Irish Times, 27 June 2007 [shortened] http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2007/0627/1181771944152.html
The first moves to have Ireland move to where it can claim its food is produced without the aid of GM feed will be made soon by Minister for Food Trevor Sargent.
On his first official engagement as Minister of State for Agriculture with responsibility for food and horticulture, Mr. Sargent said yesterday there was an urgency to move on the GM issue. "I have been getting reports from our markets in Italy and France that they are increasingly moving in the direction of requiring that produce be fed on GM-free feed," he said.
Ireland does not have a clear position in my mind, as yet, on the direction we are going in that regard," he said at the launch of the latest Bridgestone Guide.
"I want to bring together the farming organisations, the food retailers, the grain importers and the people in the Department of Agriculture so we can formulate a strategy in the best interests of the producers and the country."
He said countries which were already able to make this claim were threatening Irish exports and using GM-free status as a marketing tool.
---
4.Ireland stands up to US pressure on GMOs GM-free Ireland press release, 28 June 2007
*Ireland, France and Italy abstain in crucial EU vote on GM animal feed *ICMSA calls for 5-year moratorium on GM crops
DUBLIN - The Irish Government stuck to its new policy goal of protecting this whole island as a GMO-free zone by abandoning its previously agreed intention to legalise a controversial GM maize at a crucial European vote in Brussels on Monday [1].
The decision to follow the new policy was made after intense negotiations last weekend between Mary Coughlan (the Minister of Agriculture and Food), Mary Harney (Minister for Health and Children), Trevor Sargent (the new Green Minister of Agriculture and Food), and Michael O'Callaghan (Co-ordinator of the GM-free Ireland Network) [2].
The illegal GM maize, called Herculex RW, is patented by Pioneer / Dow (of Agent Orange fame). It contains DNA from viruses and bacteria, and is modified to resist weedkiller and produce its own insecticide [3]. There are serious concerns about its impacts on animal and human health [4]. Although "deregulated" in the USA, it remains illegal in the EU.
The European Commisison requested member states to retroactively legalise this GM product after the Irish Department of Agriculture and Food failed to stop it from entering the European food chain in April. Up to 5,313 tonnes of maize gluten contaminated by the illegal GM corn have since been placed on the Irish market and sold to farmers as fodder which their livestock transform into meat and dairy produce, creating health risks for livestock and consumers, together with potential legal problems and liability lawsuits for the government, the feed importer, feed compounder, farmers, food retailers and food exporters [5].
Contaminate first, legislate later
The European Commission's sudden and rapid attempt to legalise Herculex GM maize suggests that the EC is more concerned with neutralizing an illegal GM food contamination scandal, rather than enforcing legal requirements on member states to rigorously test and prevent such contamination in the first place [6]. Monday's vote at the EC Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health was a new case of the "contaminate first, legislate later" strategy favoured by griant transnational agri-biotech corporations determined to genetically modify and patent the world's agricultural seeds so as to control the global food supply [7].
Following a preliminary "indicative vote" made by EU member states, the EC expected them to provide a Qualified Majority Vote (QMV) in favour of legalising the GM maize for use as animal feed and food (but not for cultivation) on Monday. This would have provided a major PR victory for the US government and the agri-biotech industry, because it would have been the first time that EU member voted to legalise a GM product since 1998. Unless there is a QMV against legalisation, the Commission always automatically rubberstamps GMO approval in the end [8].
Prior to Monday's vote, the WTO, USA, EC and PR companies employed by the agri-biotech industry exerted huge pressure on the EU member states to vote in favour of placing this GM maize on the market [9], and have since put pressure on the Irish government to justify its reasons for abstaining. The Irish Grain and Feed Association vigorously lobbied Mary Coughlan, Mary Harney and policy makers in Brussels to vote yes, claiming it was "vital" that this GM maize be approved. A flurry of obvious or subtly pro-GMO stories also appeared in the media [10].
Irish farmers to the rescue
Last Friday, Trevor Sargent summoned Michael O'Callaghan of GM-free Ireland to negotiations with representatives of Mary Harney and Mary Coughlan, who had made preliminary agreements to legalise the GM maize under the previous governmnent. O'Callaghan provided the representatives with hard scientific evidence about the health risks of GMOs including the book "Genetic Roulette - The documented health risks of genetically engineered foods" [11] and copies of two scientic papers [12] on the health risks of GM foods from a recent briefing on the health risk of GM foods at the EU Parliament Office in Dublin [13].
On Sunday morning, Jackie Cahill of the Irish Creamery and Milk Suppliers Association [14] and Malcolm Thompson of the Irish Cattle and Sheepfarmers Association [15] telephoned Mary Coughlan to request her to vote NO.
Trevor Sargent finalised the negotiations in a meeting with Mary Coughlan and Mary Harney on Sunday.
As a result of this collective effort, Ireland abstained from Monday's vote, along with Italy and France, contributing to the lack of a Qualified Majority and thus shattering the biotech industry's expectations of an EU policy U-turn on GM food and feed [16].
Michael O'Callaghan of GM-free Ireland said "This small victory for Ireland and Europe is significant in the context of EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson's pressure for member states to cave in to WTO's claims that we must accept GM food and farming. We expect Ireland's new government will now take active steps to protect Irish farmers and consumers from the GMO invasion."
Ireland's new policy on GMOs
Trevor Sargent said "Fundamentally the issue is a sustainable future. The huge commercial pressure from the United States and some countries in South America for Europe to open up to GM foods is not what the people of Europe want. The consumers of Europe are specifying to their large mutliple retailers that they want GM-free produce. The trouble is that the markets we're trying to export to ‚ particularly in Europe - are adamant: they do not want GM! Up to now they have been saying ëjust make sure it is not grown in Ireland', but now they're saying ëplease don't feed your animals GM feed'. Some of the major supermarkets chains in Italy, France and Britain now actually require labelling that says this produce is fed on GM-free feed. So we have to be able to come up with that and guarantee it. We are at a cross-roads here. We can either go down the road of the Brazilians and have essentially a lower quality product, or else we can continue to make sure we have the high quality product which is going to get us the best price and the best return. So GM is really not any kind of solution to the challenges faced by our farmers, given that the price of their produce, like lamb, have gone down in the past 20 years. The fresh produce people that I'm talking to definitely want GM free. Alot of the farmers in the livestock area definitely want GM-free. The Irish Cattle and Sheepfarmers Association, and many of the farmers in the ICMSA and the IFA want GM free. But they also want a national strategy in place to deal with this, and that is what I intend to bring about."
The President of the Irish Creamery and Milk Suppliers Association (ICMSA), Jackie Cahill, has called for a 5 year moratorium on GM crops.
Commenting on Monday's vote, Friends of the Earth Europe GM Campaign Coordinator Helen Holder said:
"Member states have already won the right to uphold high standards on food safety and the environment at the WTO. The US had tried to use trade laws to force GMOs into the European market. But this is a clear signal that Member States have put safety and the environment before US trade interests and that the concerns of EU citizens can prevail over formidable lobbying from biotech companies".
Refering to the illegal Herculex GM maize that entered the EU food chain through Ireland and the Netherlands in April [17], Helen Holder said "These contamination cases indicate more than ever just how important it is to show zero tolerance to countries that have lax measures on contamination and to ensure the right to GMO-free food and farming in the EU is upheld. There is a critical need for strict laws on growing GM crops and clear rules on who is liable for the costs of GM contamination."
There is still widespread public concern over the loophole in EU legislation that allows for consumers to remain unaware that they are eating meat and dairy products from animals fed with GMOs. Earlier this year one million Europeans called for labelling of foods from GMO-fed animals.
Notes for editors:
[1] Ireland's abstention contributed to the lack of a Qualified Majority Vote at the EC Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health on 25 June 2007. The company's authorisation request for Herculex will now be sent an upcoming EU Council meeting on 24 September when Ministers will vote on it a second time.
[2] GM-free Ireland Network: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/
[3] Herculex Rootworm (RW) 59122 maize has been genetically modified by the introduction of a bacterial gene from Bacillus thuringiensis to produce Bt toxins (Cry34Ab1 and Cry35Ab1) so as to make the crop resistant to the Western corn rootworm insect pest. It is also modified by the introduction of a second bacterial gene from Streptomyces viridochromogenes to make the crop immune to the broad-spectrum herbicide glufosinate. Virus DNA is added as a "promoter" to turn the bacterial genes on. Every cell of the maize becomes a tiny pesticide factory, and the entire plant is classified as an insecticide in the USA.
[4] For a detailed scientific critique of Herculex GM maize, see "Comments to the application under Regulation 1829/2003 for authorisation of 59122-maize in the European Union" published by Greenpeace, May 2007, available for download at http://www.gmfreeireland.org/feed/documents/herculex/Maize59122Application.pdf (364kb PDF file).
Risk assessments on Herculex submitted to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) by Pioneer/Dow show important differences between animals fed with this GM maize and those fed with conventional maize, including liver weights in females in a 42-day study, and blood parameters following a 90-day rat feeding trial. Effects concerning the blood parameters in the 90-day feeding trial were noticed after a very short time, indicating potential for toxicity in the longer term. In other words, this GM maize could pose risks for human and animal health. Worryingly, EFSA did not look at these results in any detail: [ EFSA 2007. Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms on an application (Reference EFSA-GMO-NL-2005-12) for the placing on the market of insect-resistant genetically modified maize 59122, for food and feed uses, import and processing under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, from Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. and Mycogen Seeds, c/o Dow Agrosciences LLC. (Question No EFSA-Q-2005-045) Opinion adopted on 23 March 2007. The EFSA Journal (2007) 470, 1-25 ].
Friends of the Earth Europe said the the risk assessment was incomplete and failed to act on key evidence which raised the possibility that this GM maize could pose risks for human and animal health.
EFSA has in the past dismissed similar concerns in positive opinions issued on MON863 and NK603 maize, leading to final authorization by the European Commission of these products. But the reliability of these EFSA opinions has been undermined by recent studies by independent scientists showing toxicological effects in both MON863 and NK603 which the EFSA failed to appreciate. EFSA's failures to exert due diligence in GMO risk assessments was raised by Michael O'Callaghan and by Dr. Ricarda Steinbrecher in her review of the CRIIGEN paper (see note 13 below) at the briefing on Food Safety and GMOs co-hosted by GM-free Ireland and the EU Parliament Independence/Democracy Group at the EU Parliament Office in Dublin on 15 June 2007.
Compositional differences were also detected in the content of the Herculex GM maize and its kernels.
Despite additional serious concerns that all Bt crops are harmful for non-target organisms including beneficial soil bacteria, wildlife, livestock and humans, there have been virtually no independent analyses on the impact of Bt crops on biodiversity. EFSA has, yet again, ignored this in its Opinion on Herculex GM maize.
EFSA's failure to implement due diligence in its approvals of GMO feed and food has been criticised by the European Council, by the Commission and by NGOs, which have accused EFSA of ignoring significant scientific findings and for being unable to perform long-term environmental and health impact assessments on GMOs.
For details see:
The MON863 case: a chronicle of systematic deception: Greenpeace report, 13 August 2002:http://www.gmfreeireland.org/feed/documents/herculex/MON863_chronicle.pdf
The EFSA stakeholders challenge ‚ working with civil society:http://www.gmfreeireland.org/feed/documents/EFSA_stakeholders_challenge.pdf
European Food Safety Authority criticised for GMO bias: ISIS press release, 27 April 2006:http://www.gmfreeireland.org/feed/documents/EFSA-critique-ISIS.pdf
Commission for more transparency on GMO decisions. EuroActiv.com 12 April 2006:http://www.euractiv.com/en/biotech/commission-transparency-gmo-decisions/article-154355icle-154355
Commission proposes practical improvements to the way the European GMO legislative framework is implemented. Europa Press Release, 12 April 2006:http://www.europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/498&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en?reference=IP/06/498&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en
European Commissioner Dimas speech at the Conference on GMO co-existence Vienna, 05 April 2006:http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/06/224&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en?reference=SPEECH/06/224&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en
EU law on the standards and legal requirements for GMO risk assessment is not being respected at present by either EFSA or the European Commission. This could be rectified by:
a. Enforcing a strict, independent and transparent risk assessment of GMOs;
b. Suspending all earlier authorisations until the current system is reviewed;
c. Withdrawing the authorisation granted to MON863 maize, pending further investigation and a re-evaluation of Monsanto's dossier.
[5] GM-free Ireland and Greenpeace found a shipment of animal feed contaminated by the illegal Herculex and other varieties of GM maize being unloaded from a ship which arrived in Dublin port from New Orleans on 2 April. The shipment was accompanied by US lab certificates which claimed the maize gluten was free of Herculex. The Department of Agriculture waited 60 days before taking action, by which time up to 5,313 tonnes of the maize gluten contaminated by the illegal GM corn had already been placed on the market and sold to farmers as fodder which their cattle transform into meat and dairy produce. For details see http://www.gmfreeireland.org/pakrac and download GM-free Ireland press release "Irish GM food contamination scandal" at http://www.gmfreeireland.org/press/GMFI-36.pdf
95% of the soya and maize currently imported into Ireland for use as animal feed is genetically modified.
[6] The Irish Minister for Agriculture and Food, Mary Coughlan, issued a written statement to the D·il [Irish parliament] in December 2006, claiming that "since April 2004 all feed imports have been subjected to inspection for accuracy of GM labelling and very high levels of compliance have been detected". On 3 May 2007, her Department issued a written statement to GM-free Ireland, claiming that authorised officers from the Department of Agriculture and Food "take samples of all potential GM feed imports, such as soya, maize and OSR [oilseed rape] which are not declared as consisting of or containing GM ingredients and have them analysed for the presence of GM material". But on 18 May 2007, the Department admitted that it failed to test the shipment of maize gluten contaminated by the illegal Herculex GM maize which entered Ireland on 2 April before it was placed on the market.
Moreover, Liam Hyde of the Department's Animal Feedingstuffs Section admitted that imported animal feed is only tested for GM content on a random basis, adding that he was "unaware" of the scientific report that MON863 causes organ damage to laboratory animals. Mr. Hyde also said that all of the Department of Agriculture's records of GM animal feed imports for 2006 have been irretrievably lost due to a "computer database failure" making traceability and liability impossible in the event of related disease in livestock and the human population. (Personal communication from Mr. Hyde by phone to Michael O'Callaghan of GM-free Ireland, around 28 March 2007).
[7] As of 2005, worldwide, 10 companies controlled about 50 percent of the global seed business. At the top of the heap are just three companies, Monsanto, Dupont and Syngenta. Industry concentration is continuing to proceed apace. Monsanto has since received US antitrust approval to complete its merger with the 11th largest seed company, Delta Pine & Land. All three companies have been snapping up smaller firms at every opportunity.
[8]: If EU ministers cannot agree, the European Commission usually issues its own approval, valid for 10 years, under an undemocratic legal default process known as the Comitology procedure. For many years, EU countries have been unable to secure the majority needed to vote through a new GMO approval. They last agreed to authorise a new GMO product in 1998.
[9] European Commission documents show US pressure to ignore risk assessment concerns and push GMOs ‚ including this GM Maize 'Herculex' of biotech company Pioneer ‚ onto the European market. For details, see the minutes of a meeting between the EU and the US obtained by Friends of the Earth Europe under a Freedom of Information request: http://www.foeeurope.org/press/2007/May30_HH_EU_US_docs.htm http://www.foeeurope.org/publications/2007/FoEE_GMOS_US_pressure_on_EU_brief_May07.pdf
[10] Recent media coverage of GMOs:
*GM crops: 'Point of no return in ten years'. The Scotsman, 26 June 2007. By Sybille de la Hamaide.
*GMO stance hitting feed trade. Irish Farmers Journal, 23 June 2007. By Pat O'Keefe, News Editor.
*Wall defends role in GMO's. Irish Farmers Journal, 23 June 2007. By Pat O'Keefe, News Editor.
*GM-free cost up to € 40m. Irish Examiner, 21 June 2007. By Stephen Cadogan.
*Sargent says GMO-free pledge is a 'huge step'. The Irish Times, 16 June 2007. By Ronan McGreevy.
*Greens fulfill pledge to have Ireland free of GM crops. Irish Independent, 16 June 2007. By Fionnan Sheahan and Senan Molony.
*EU Risks WTO Cases Over Biotech Food, Mandelson Says. Bloomberg, June 14 2007. By Jonathan Stearns.
*Stand by science on GMO foods, EU trade chief says. Reuters, 14 June 2007.
*Ireland aims to become a GMO-free zone: New coalition government adopts all-island GM-free policy; Farming groups agree to explore phasing out GM animal feed. GM-free Ireland Network press release, 14 June 2007.
*EU Split Over Approvals Of Two GMO Maize Types. Reuters, 11 June 2007.
*Monsanto Warns It May Withdraw From Wheat-Seed Market. Business Day (Johannesburg), 7 June 2007. By Neels Blom.
*Don't mention the G word. The Guardian (Eco soundings), June 6 2007. By John Vidal and David Adam.
*US still bullying EU to market GMOs - But avoid the dirty GMO word! advises US official. Friends of the Earth Europe press release, 30 May 2007.
[11] Genetic Roulette: the documented health risks of GM foods. By Jeffrey M. Smith. Yes! Books. Fairfield, Iowa, USA, 2007. ISBN 978-0-9729665-2-8. Hardcover, 336 pages, € 23. Available at the Cultivate Centre, 15-19 Essex St. West, Temple Bar, Dublin 8, tel (01) 674 6415 or by mailorder from http://www.geneticroulette.com/.
[12] New Analysis of a Rat Feeding Study with a Genetically Modified Maize Reveals Signs of Hepatorenal Toxicity, Journal Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. Publisher Springer New York. ISSN 0090-4341 (Print) 1432-0703 (Online). DOI 10.1007/s00244-006-0149-5. By Gilles-Eric SÈralini, Dominique Cellier, and Joel Spiroux de Vendomois. Download paper: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/health/SeralinPaper2007.pdf (124k pdf file.]
See related CRIIGEN press release at http://www.criigen.org/cp_march2007.pdf and video of related press conference at http://www.criigen.org/
Genome Scrambling - Myth or Reality? Transformation-Induced Mutations in Transgenic Crop Plants. By Allison Wilson, PhD, Jonathan Latham, PhD and Ricarda Steinbrecher, PhD. Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews, Vol 23, December 2006.
Download Summary: http://www.econexus.info/pdf/ENx-Genome-Scrambling-Summary.pdf (88 kb pdf file) Download Report: http://www.econexus.info/pdf/ENx-Genome-Scrambling-Report.pdf (628 kb pdf file)
[13] Food Safety and GMOs: is the European Food Safety Authority downplaying the health risks of genetically modified food? Briefing co-hosted by the European Parliament Independence/Democracy Group and the GM-free Ireland Network, EU Parliament Office, Dublin, 15 June 2007. Speakers included Kathy Sinnott MEP, Jeffrey Smith (who will launch his new book Genetic Roulette: the documented health risks of GM foods), and Dr. Ricarda Steinbrecher PhD of EcoNexus, who is part of the legal and scientific team which recently convinced the European Patent Office to revoke Monsanto's species-wide patent on genetically modified soybeans. For details see http://www.gmfreeireland.org/EUP.php
[14] Irish Creamery and Milk Suppliers Association, http://www.icmsa.ie/.
[15] Irish Cattle and Sheepfarmers Association, http://www.icsaireland.ie/. For details of the ICSA policy on GMOs, see transcript of speech by ICSA General Secretary Eddie Punch at the Green Ireland conference on branding for food, farming and ecotourism, June 2006: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/conference/trans/E.Punch.pdf
[16] The outcome of the vote was 15 countries in favour (197 votes), 7 against (52 votes), 4 abstentions + Poland absent (96 votes). The votes needed to block the decision was 91.
[17] Announced by Greenpeace and GM-free Ireland. See GM-free Ireland press release http://www.gmfreeireland.org/pakrac/index.php
Extracted from GMWATCH
Note: For more on Shane Morris and Doug Powell (item 1) see 'Award for a Fraud'http://www.gmwatch.org/p1temp.asp?pid=72&page=1
---
1.The health risks of GM foods
Letter sent to the Editor of the Irish Times, 29 June 2007
Shane Morris's attack on Jeffrey Smith's book Genetic Roulette ‚ The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Modified Foods (Letters, June 29th) employs the "shoot the messenger" strategy favoured by agri-biotech industry spin doctors who are no longer able to deny the growing scientific evidence which links GM food and animal feed to deaths and disease in laboratory animals, livestock and the human population.
Morris and his biotech colleage and mentor Doug Powell (a well-known GM industry lobbyist) have co-authored a number of pro-GMO papers, one of which received the GM Watch Propaganda Lab Award 2006 for its fraudulent scientific claims, triggering a controversy reported by New Scientist magazine.
Morris wrote his letter in response to the Kildare-based farmer Nick Cullen (Letters, June 28th), who critiqued your newspaper's coverage of the briefing on Food Safety and GMOs which I recently organised with Kathy Sinnott MEP at the EU Parliament Office in Dublin ("Sargent says GMO-free pledge is a 'huge step'", June 16th).
As Nick Cullen rightly pointed out, that article avoided any reference to the peer-reviewed scientific papers presented at the briefing, including those summarised in Genetic Roulette, but quoted instead from statements from the floor by the Chairman of the Irish Times Trust, Prof David McConnell, who attempted to portray Trevor Sargent [Ireland's new Minister of State for Agriculture and Food] – and anyone else who disagrees with his views on GMOs – as scientifically illiterate.
In the interests of transparency, your article should have mentioned that Prof McConnell's Smurfit School of Genetics at TCD is part-funded by the agribiotech industry, and that he is also the Co-Chair of EAGLES (European Action on Global Life Sciences), a biotech industry lobby group which promotes GM food and crops in the developing countries.
Our new government's aim to keep the whole island of Ireland free of GM crops and livestock will help our food and farm sectors retain access to the EU market for safe food, which increasingly prohibits or restricts the use of any food (including meat and dairy produce) containing or derived from genetically modified ingredients.
Our media should not encourage us to abandon this long-term competitive advantage because of vested interests.
GM foods and farming present a variety of extremely serious health, agronomic, environmental, legal, economic and food security risks. Please provide some more balanced coverage of these issues in the Irish Times!
Yours etcMichael O'CallaghanCo-ordinator, GM-free Ireland Network---
2.Claim that GM foods present health risk 'irrefutable'By Julie-Anne BarnesIrish Medical News, 30 June 2007http://www.irishmedicalnews.ie/articles.asp?Category=news&ArticleID=19086
The known health risks of genetically modified (GM) foods present a case that is "overwhelming and irrefutable" and it is now up to the biotech industry to provide rigorous scientific evidence "to show they are not risking the health of the population with food".
Mr Jeffrey M Smith, author of Genetic Roulete made this claim at a recent briefing on food safety and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) at the European Parliament Office in Dublin, where he said there are 65 documented health risks from GM foods. Mr Smith said there are now thousands of human beings complaining of toxic or allergic- type reactions from consuming, breathing or even touching GM produce.
"There are numerous ways in which the process of genetic engineering has been shown to create unpredicted side effects and many of the most fundamental assumptions that we use for the basis of safety claims have been truly wrong in the years since these crops were introduced," said Mr Smith.
His presentation coincided with the announcement by Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, with responsibility for Food and Horticulture, Mr Trevor Sargent that one of the Green Party’s primary goals is to ensure that Ireland becomes Europe's first 100 per cent GM Free zone.
Mr Sargent said that the effects of GM foods on human health "are largely untested and potentially very dangerous" and "the use of GM animal feed is damaging our world famous clean green reputation as 'Ireland the food island'".
Ms Kathy Sinnott, MEP also addressed the meeting where she said the new government would need to stand up to the European Commission, which refuses to recognize the legal democratic right of member states and local authorities to have the final say on whether GM crops may be grown in their areas. During the course of the meeting Prof David McConnell, Department of Genetics, Trinity College Dublin challenged Mr Michael O'Callaghan, co-ordinator of the GM-Free Ireland Network and Minister Sargent.
He accused Mr O'Callaghan of "impugning" his scientific reputation during the briefing and said what Prof McConnell was arguing was that everybody interested in the GM debate should take scientific advice and that advice should represent the broad community of science "and you should not pin your view to one view or one expectation of scientific outcome".
He added that he found it very unfortunate that people claiming to be interested in science "really don't understand it and that is really quite serious".
Mr O'Callaghan said the notion that GM crops and non-GM crops can co-exist "is like the notion you can have a person with an infectious disease running around in a population where other people will be contaminated". The meeting was also addressed by Dr Ricarda A Steinbrecher, PhD, developmental biologist and geneticist, EcoNexus.
---
3.Sargent to act quickly on issue of GM-free food By Sean MacConnell The Irish Times, 27 June 2007 [shortened] http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2007/0627/1181771944152.html
The first moves to have Ireland move to where it can claim its food is produced without the aid of GM feed will be made soon by Minister for Food Trevor Sargent.
On his first official engagement as Minister of State for Agriculture with responsibility for food and horticulture, Mr. Sargent said yesterday there was an urgency to move on the GM issue. "I have been getting reports from our markets in Italy and France that they are increasingly moving in the direction of requiring that produce be fed on GM-free feed," he said.
Ireland does not have a clear position in my mind, as yet, on the direction we are going in that regard," he said at the launch of the latest Bridgestone Guide.
"I want to bring together the farming organisations, the food retailers, the grain importers and the people in the Department of Agriculture so we can formulate a strategy in the best interests of the producers and the country."
He said countries which were already able to make this claim were threatening Irish exports and using GM-free status as a marketing tool.
---
4.Ireland stands up to US pressure on GMOs GM-free Ireland press release, 28 June 2007
*Ireland, France and Italy abstain in crucial EU vote on GM animal feed *ICMSA calls for 5-year moratorium on GM crops
DUBLIN - The Irish Government stuck to its new policy goal of protecting this whole island as a GMO-free zone by abandoning its previously agreed intention to legalise a controversial GM maize at a crucial European vote in Brussels on Monday [1].
The decision to follow the new policy was made after intense negotiations last weekend between Mary Coughlan (the Minister of Agriculture and Food), Mary Harney (Minister for Health and Children), Trevor Sargent (the new Green Minister of Agriculture and Food), and Michael O'Callaghan (Co-ordinator of the GM-free Ireland Network) [2].
The illegal GM maize, called Herculex RW, is patented by Pioneer / Dow (of Agent Orange fame). It contains DNA from viruses and bacteria, and is modified to resist weedkiller and produce its own insecticide [3]. There are serious concerns about its impacts on animal and human health [4]. Although "deregulated" in the USA, it remains illegal in the EU.
The European Commisison requested member states to retroactively legalise this GM product after the Irish Department of Agriculture and Food failed to stop it from entering the European food chain in April. Up to 5,313 tonnes of maize gluten contaminated by the illegal GM corn have since been placed on the Irish market and sold to farmers as fodder which their livestock transform into meat and dairy produce, creating health risks for livestock and consumers, together with potential legal problems and liability lawsuits for the government, the feed importer, feed compounder, farmers, food retailers and food exporters [5].
Contaminate first, legislate later
The European Commission's sudden and rapid attempt to legalise Herculex GM maize suggests that the EC is more concerned with neutralizing an illegal GM food contamination scandal, rather than enforcing legal requirements on member states to rigorously test and prevent such contamination in the first place [6]. Monday's vote at the EC Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health was a new case of the "contaminate first, legislate later" strategy favoured by griant transnational agri-biotech corporations determined to genetically modify and patent the world's agricultural seeds so as to control the global food supply [7].
Following a preliminary "indicative vote" made by EU member states, the EC expected them to provide a Qualified Majority Vote (QMV) in favour of legalising the GM maize for use as animal feed and food (but not for cultivation) on Monday. This would have provided a major PR victory for the US government and the agri-biotech industry, because it would have been the first time that EU member voted to legalise a GM product since 1998. Unless there is a QMV against legalisation, the Commission always automatically rubberstamps GMO approval in the end [8].
Prior to Monday's vote, the WTO, USA, EC and PR companies employed by the agri-biotech industry exerted huge pressure on the EU member states to vote in favour of placing this GM maize on the market [9], and have since put pressure on the Irish government to justify its reasons for abstaining. The Irish Grain and Feed Association vigorously lobbied Mary Coughlan, Mary Harney and policy makers in Brussels to vote yes, claiming it was "vital" that this GM maize be approved. A flurry of obvious or subtly pro-GMO stories also appeared in the media [10].
Irish farmers to the rescue
Last Friday, Trevor Sargent summoned Michael O'Callaghan of GM-free Ireland to negotiations with representatives of Mary Harney and Mary Coughlan, who had made preliminary agreements to legalise the GM maize under the previous governmnent. O'Callaghan provided the representatives with hard scientific evidence about the health risks of GMOs including the book "Genetic Roulette - The documented health risks of genetically engineered foods" [11] and copies of two scientic papers [12] on the health risks of GM foods from a recent briefing on the health risk of GM foods at the EU Parliament Office in Dublin [13].
On Sunday morning, Jackie Cahill of the Irish Creamery and Milk Suppliers Association [14] and Malcolm Thompson of the Irish Cattle and Sheepfarmers Association [15] telephoned Mary Coughlan to request her to vote NO.
Trevor Sargent finalised the negotiations in a meeting with Mary Coughlan and Mary Harney on Sunday.
As a result of this collective effort, Ireland abstained from Monday's vote, along with Italy and France, contributing to the lack of a Qualified Majority and thus shattering the biotech industry's expectations of an EU policy U-turn on GM food and feed [16].
Michael O'Callaghan of GM-free Ireland said "This small victory for Ireland and Europe is significant in the context of EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson's pressure for member states to cave in to WTO's claims that we must accept GM food and farming. We expect Ireland's new government will now take active steps to protect Irish farmers and consumers from the GMO invasion."
Ireland's new policy on GMOs
Trevor Sargent said "Fundamentally the issue is a sustainable future. The huge commercial pressure from the United States and some countries in South America for Europe to open up to GM foods is not what the people of Europe want. The consumers of Europe are specifying to their large mutliple retailers that they want GM-free produce. The trouble is that the markets we're trying to export to ‚ particularly in Europe - are adamant: they do not want GM! Up to now they have been saying ëjust make sure it is not grown in Ireland', but now they're saying ëplease don't feed your animals GM feed'. Some of the major supermarkets chains in Italy, France and Britain now actually require labelling that says this produce is fed on GM-free feed. So we have to be able to come up with that and guarantee it. We are at a cross-roads here. We can either go down the road of the Brazilians and have essentially a lower quality product, or else we can continue to make sure we have the high quality product which is going to get us the best price and the best return. So GM is really not any kind of solution to the challenges faced by our farmers, given that the price of their produce, like lamb, have gone down in the past 20 years. The fresh produce people that I'm talking to definitely want GM free. Alot of the farmers in the livestock area definitely want GM-free. The Irish Cattle and Sheepfarmers Association, and many of the farmers in the ICMSA and the IFA want GM free. But they also want a national strategy in place to deal with this, and that is what I intend to bring about."
The President of the Irish Creamery and Milk Suppliers Association (ICMSA), Jackie Cahill, has called for a 5 year moratorium on GM crops.
Commenting on Monday's vote, Friends of the Earth Europe GM Campaign Coordinator Helen Holder said:
"Member states have already won the right to uphold high standards on food safety and the environment at the WTO. The US had tried to use trade laws to force GMOs into the European market. But this is a clear signal that Member States have put safety and the environment before US trade interests and that the concerns of EU citizens can prevail over formidable lobbying from biotech companies".
Refering to the illegal Herculex GM maize that entered the EU food chain through Ireland and the Netherlands in April [17], Helen Holder said "These contamination cases indicate more than ever just how important it is to show zero tolerance to countries that have lax measures on contamination and to ensure the right to GMO-free food and farming in the EU is upheld. There is a critical need for strict laws on growing GM crops and clear rules on who is liable for the costs of GM contamination."
There is still widespread public concern over the loophole in EU legislation that allows for consumers to remain unaware that they are eating meat and dairy products from animals fed with GMOs. Earlier this year one million Europeans called for labelling of foods from GMO-fed animals.
Notes for editors:
[1] Ireland's abstention contributed to the lack of a Qualified Majority Vote at the EC Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health on 25 June 2007. The company's authorisation request for Herculex will now be sent an upcoming EU Council meeting on 24 September when Ministers will vote on it a second time.
[2] GM-free Ireland Network: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/
[3] Herculex Rootworm (RW) 59122 maize has been genetically modified by the introduction of a bacterial gene from Bacillus thuringiensis to produce Bt toxins (Cry34Ab1 and Cry35Ab1) so as to make the crop resistant to the Western corn rootworm insect pest. It is also modified by the introduction of a second bacterial gene from Streptomyces viridochromogenes to make the crop immune to the broad-spectrum herbicide glufosinate. Virus DNA is added as a "promoter" to turn the bacterial genes on. Every cell of the maize becomes a tiny pesticide factory, and the entire plant is classified as an insecticide in the USA.
[4] For a detailed scientific critique of Herculex GM maize, see "Comments to the application under Regulation 1829/2003 for authorisation of 59122-maize in the European Union" published by Greenpeace, May 2007, available for download at http://www.gmfreeireland.org/feed/documents/herculex/Maize59122Application.pdf (364kb PDF file).
Risk assessments on Herculex submitted to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) by Pioneer/Dow show important differences between animals fed with this GM maize and those fed with conventional maize, including liver weights in females in a 42-day study, and blood parameters following a 90-day rat feeding trial. Effects concerning the blood parameters in the 90-day feeding trial were noticed after a very short time, indicating potential for toxicity in the longer term. In other words, this GM maize could pose risks for human and animal health. Worryingly, EFSA did not look at these results in any detail: [ EFSA 2007. Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms on an application (Reference EFSA-GMO-NL-2005-12) for the placing on the market of insect-resistant genetically modified maize 59122, for food and feed uses, import and processing under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, from Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. and Mycogen Seeds, c/o Dow Agrosciences LLC. (Question No EFSA-Q-2005-045) Opinion adopted on 23 March 2007. The EFSA Journal (2007) 470, 1-25 ].
Friends of the Earth Europe said the the risk assessment was incomplete and failed to act on key evidence which raised the possibility that this GM maize could pose risks for human and animal health.
EFSA has in the past dismissed similar concerns in positive opinions issued on MON863 and NK603 maize, leading to final authorization by the European Commission of these products. But the reliability of these EFSA opinions has been undermined by recent studies by independent scientists showing toxicological effects in both MON863 and NK603 which the EFSA failed to appreciate. EFSA's failures to exert due diligence in GMO risk assessments was raised by Michael O'Callaghan and by Dr. Ricarda Steinbrecher in her review of the CRIIGEN paper (see note 13 below) at the briefing on Food Safety and GMOs co-hosted by GM-free Ireland and the EU Parliament Independence/Democracy Group at the EU Parliament Office in Dublin on 15 June 2007.
Compositional differences were also detected in the content of the Herculex GM maize and its kernels.
Despite additional serious concerns that all Bt crops are harmful for non-target organisms including beneficial soil bacteria, wildlife, livestock and humans, there have been virtually no independent analyses on the impact of Bt crops on biodiversity. EFSA has, yet again, ignored this in its Opinion on Herculex GM maize.
EFSA's failure to implement due diligence in its approvals of GMO feed and food has been criticised by the European Council, by the Commission and by NGOs, which have accused EFSA of ignoring significant scientific findings and for being unable to perform long-term environmental and health impact assessments on GMOs.
For details see:
The MON863 case: a chronicle of systematic deception: Greenpeace report, 13 August 2002:http://www.gmfreeireland.org/feed/documents/herculex/MON863_chronicle.pdf
The EFSA stakeholders challenge ‚ working with civil society:http://www.gmfreeireland.org/feed/documents/EFSA_stakeholders_challenge.pdf
European Food Safety Authority criticised for GMO bias: ISIS press release, 27 April 2006:http://www.gmfreeireland.org/feed/documents/EFSA-critique-ISIS.pdf
Commission for more transparency on GMO decisions. EuroActiv.com 12 April 2006:http://www.euractiv.com/en/biotech/commission-transparency-gmo-decisions/article-154355icle-154355
Commission proposes practical improvements to the way the European GMO legislative framework is implemented. Europa Press Release, 12 April 2006:http://www.europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/498&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en?reference=IP/06/498&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en
European Commissioner Dimas speech at the Conference on GMO co-existence Vienna, 05 April 2006:http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/06/224&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en?reference=SPEECH/06/224&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en
EU law on the standards and legal requirements for GMO risk assessment is not being respected at present by either EFSA or the European Commission. This could be rectified by:
a. Enforcing a strict, independent and transparent risk assessment of GMOs;
b. Suspending all earlier authorisations until the current system is reviewed;
c. Withdrawing the authorisation granted to MON863 maize, pending further investigation and a re-evaluation of Monsanto's dossier.
[5] GM-free Ireland and Greenpeace found a shipment of animal feed contaminated by the illegal Herculex and other varieties of GM maize being unloaded from a ship which arrived in Dublin port from New Orleans on 2 April. The shipment was accompanied by US lab certificates which claimed the maize gluten was free of Herculex. The Department of Agriculture waited 60 days before taking action, by which time up to 5,313 tonnes of the maize gluten contaminated by the illegal GM corn had already been placed on the market and sold to farmers as fodder which their cattle transform into meat and dairy produce. For details see http://www.gmfreeireland.org/pakrac and download GM-free Ireland press release "Irish GM food contamination scandal" at http://www.gmfreeireland.org/press/GMFI-36.pdf
95% of the soya and maize currently imported into Ireland for use as animal feed is genetically modified.
[6] The Irish Minister for Agriculture and Food, Mary Coughlan, issued a written statement to the D·il [Irish parliament] in December 2006, claiming that "since April 2004 all feed imports have been subjected to inspection for accuracy of GM labelling and very high levels of compliance have been detected". On 3 May 2007, her Department issued a written statement to GM-free Ireland, claiming that authorised officers from the Department of Agriculture and Food "take samples of all potential GM feed imports, such as soya, maize and OSR [oilseed rape] which are not declared as consisting of or containing GM ingredients and have them analysed for the presence of GM material". But on 18 May 2007, the Department admitted that it failed to test the shipment of maize gluten contaminated by the illegal Herculex GM maize which entered Ireland on 2 April before it was placed on the market.
Moreover, Liam Hyde of the Department's Animal Feedingstuffs Section admitted that imported animal feed is only tested for GM content on a random basis, adding that he was "unaware" of the scientific report that MON863 causes organ damage to laboratory animals. Mr. Hyde also said that all of the Department of Agriculture's records of GM animal feed imports for 2006 have been irretrievably lost due to a "computer database failure" making traceability and liability impossible in the event of related disease in livestock and the human population. (Personal communication from Mr. Hyde by phone to Michael O'Callaghan of GM-free Ireland, around 28 March 2007).
[7] As of 2005, worldwide, 10 companies controlled about 50 percent of the global seed business. At the top of the heap are just three companies, Monsanto, Dupont and Syngenta. Industry concentration is continuing to proceed apace. Monsanto has since received US antitrust approval to complete its merger with the 11th largest seed company, Delta Pine & Land. All three companies have been snapping up smaller firms at every opportunity.
[8]: If EU ministers cannot agree, the European Commission usually issues its own approval, valid for 10 years, under an undemocratic legal default process known as the Comitology procedure. For many years, EU countries have been unable to secure the majority needed to vote through a new GMO approval. They last agreed to authorise a new GMO product in 1998.
[9] European Commission documents show US pressure to ignore risk assessment concerns and push GMOs ‚ including this GM Maize 'Herculex' of biotech company Pioneer ‚ onto the European market. For details, see the minutes of a meeting between the EU and the US obtained by Friends of the Earth Europe under a Freedom of Information request: http://www.foeeurope.org/press/2007/May30_HH_EU_US_docs.htm http://www.foeeurope.org/publications/2007/FoEE_GMOS_US_pressure_on_EU_brief_May07.pdf
[10] Recent media coverage of GMOs:
*GM crops: 'Point of no return in ten years'. The Scotsman, 26 June 2007. By Sybille de la Hamaide.
*GMO stance hitting feed trade. Irish Farmers Journal, 23 June 2007. By Pat O'Keefe, News Editor.
*Wall defends role in GMO's. Irish Farmers Journal, 23 June 2007. By Pat O'Keefe, News Editor.
*GM-free cost up to € 40m. Irish Examiner, 21 June 2007. By Stephen Cadogan.
*Sargent says GMO-free pledge is a 'huge step'. The Irish Times, 16 June 2007. By Ronan McGreevy.
*Greens fulfill pledge to have Ireland free of GM crops. Irish Independent, 16 June 2007. By Fionnan Sheahan and Senan Molony.
*EU Risks WTO Cases Over Biotech Food, Mandelson Says. Bloomberg, June 14 2007. By Jonathan Stearns.
*Stand by science on GMO foods, EU trade chief says. Reuters, 14 June 2007.
*Ireland aims to become a GMO-free zone: New coalition government adopts all-island GM-free policy; Farming groups agree to explore phasing out GM animal feed. GM-free Ireland Network press release, 14 June 2007.
*EU Split Over Approvals Of Two GMO Maize Types. Reuters, 11 June 2007.
*Monsanto Warns It May Withdraw From Wheat-Seed Market. Business Day (Johannesburg), 7 June 2007. By Neels Blom.
*Don't mention the G word. The Guardian (Eco soundings), June 6 2007. By John Vidal and David Adam.
*US still bullying EU to market GMOs - But avoid the dirty GMO word! advises US official. Friends of the Earth Europe press release, 30 May 2007.
[11] Genetic Roulette: the documented health risks of GM foods. By Jeffrey M. Smith. Yes! Books. Fairfield, Iowa, USA, 2007. ISBN 978-0-9729665-2-8. Hardcover, 336 pages, € 23. Available at the Cultivate Centre, 15-19 Essex St. West, Temple Bar, Dublin 8, tel (01) 674 6415 or by mailorder from http://www.geneticroulette.com/.
[12] New Analysis of a Rat Feeding Study with a Genetically Modified Maize Reveals Signs of Hepatorenal Toxicity, Journal Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. Publisher Springer New York. ISSN 0090-4341 (Print) 1432-0703 (Online). DOI 10.1007/s00244-006-0149-5. By Gilles-Eric SÈralini, Dominique Cellier, and Joel Spiroux de Vendomois. Download paper: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/health/SeralinPaper2007.pdf (124k pdf file.]
See related CRIIGEN press release at http://www.criigen.org/cp_march2007.pdf and video of related press conference at http://www.criigen.org/
Genome Scrambling - Myth or Reality? Transformation-Induced Mutations in Transgenic Crop Plants. By Allison Wilson, PhD, Jonathan Latham, PhD and Ricarda Steinbrecher, PhD. Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews, Vol 23, December 2006.
Download Summary: http://www.econexus.info/pdf/ENx-Genome-Scrambling-Summary.pdf (88 kb pdf file) Download Report: http://www.econexus.info/pdf/ENx-Genome-Scrambling-Report.pdf (628 kb pdf file)
[13] Food Safety and GMOs: is the European Food Safety Authority downplaying the health risks of genetically modified food? Briefing co-hosted by the European Parliament Independence/Democracy Group and the GM-free Ireland Network, EU Parliament Office, Dublin, 15 June 2007. Speakers included Kathy Sinnott MEP, Jeffrey Smith (who will launch his new book Genetic Roulette: the documented health risks of GM foods), and Dr. Ricarda Steinbrecher PhD of EcoNexus, who is part of the legal and scientific team which recently convinced the European Patent Office to revoke Monsanto's species-wide patent on genetically modified soybeans. For details see http://www.gmfreeireland.org/EUP.php
[14] Irish Creamery and Milk Suppliers Association, http://www.icmsa.ie/.
[15] Irish Cattle and Sheepfarmers Association, http://www.icsaireland.ie/. For details of the ICSA policy on GMOs, see transcript of speech by ICSA General Secretary Eddie Punch at the Green Ireland conference on branding for food, farming and ecotourism, June 2006: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/conference/trans/E.Punch.pdf
[16] The outcome of the vote was 15 countries in favour (197 votes), 7 against (52 votes), 4 abstentions + Poland absent (96 votes). The votes needed to block the decision was 91.
[17] Announced by Greenpeace and GM-free Ireland. See GM-free Ireland press release http://www.gmfreeireland.org/pakrac/index.php
Extracted from GMWATCH
Monday, 16 July 2007
AUSTRALIAN GM PUSH !!!!!!
1.Victoria to lift GM ban?
2.GM push vilifies organics
3.Federal bill threatens GM moratoriums
NOTE: Three informative articles on the aggressive campaign being waged in Australia to push in GM and undermine State bans.
---
---
1.Victoria to lift GM ban?
Janet Grogan
Comment & Analysis, Green Left Weekly issue #717, 14 July 2007
http://www.greenleft.org.au/2007/717/37244
Three years after extending its moratorium on the commercial growing of genetically modified (GM) crops, the Victorian ALP government appears poised to remove the ban when it expires in February 2008.
State agriculture minister Joe Helper believes that Victoria is now "open-minded" about GM crops and a "careful and considered approach" will be used to determine the impact of GM crops on the market before a decision is made.
Farmers' groups are split. The National Farmers Federation (NFF) has been lured by promises of increased yields for less expense, but the Network of Concerned Farmers sees an erosion of choice for non-GM farmers, with up to 10% additional costs to cover segregation bills alone. The United Dairy Farmers of Victoria voted on June 19 to reverse their support for Victoria's ban on commercial GM canola. In response, consumer groups say that they will vote with their feet and choose non-GM soy or organic alternatives if the ban is lifted.
Federal agriculture minister Peter McGuaran, a supporter of GM crops, was quoted by the May 13 Age as saying: "Farmers have much to gain, particularly in times of drought, from growing GM crops, such as wheat and canola that use less water and herbicides than conventional crops." The same points have been reiterated by NFF chief executive Ben Fargher.
These are emotive words, especially in times of drought, but they are hard to substantiate. There is no GM drought-resistant wheat or canola and development could be 10 years away. Non-GM varieties will be available far sooner. Seventy per cent of GM crops are herbicide resistant, and farmers spray more often and at higher doses, resulting in "super weeds" that demand an increasing amount of chemicals to control them.
Federal minister for trade Warren Truss has repeatedly said that Australian farmers are being "left behind". Yet, according to a 2006 industry-backed report from the International Service for Acquisition of Agro-biotechnology Applications ten years after the introduction of GM crops, just 0.7% of all farmers grew them, and 85% of all GM crops were grown in North and South America.
With Australian GM-free canola enjoying a premium of up to $120 per tonne more than the Winnipeg price it is difficult to see how our farmers are being left behind.
The Victorian government has appointed a three-member GM review panel to examine the economic impact of commercial GM canola on trade. However, the panel appears flawed from the start. The chairperson, Gus Nossal, is a retired medical researcher and a long-time supporter of GM crops and food. Panel member Merna Curnow was an officer of the Victorian Farmers Federation. She also worked for the Grains Research Development Council, which invests in GM promotion. Neither appear to have skills to review the issue.
As Bob Phelps from Gene Ethics said, "The Bracks government has set up a panel to recommend fast tracking GM crops into our environment and onto our plates". On May 22, he called for a review of "new evidence on health and environmental impacts of GM crops and foods since the licences were issued".
There have been few independent GM studies carried out, partly due to a lack of funding, but also because of the difficulty in accessing GM material. Hence the majority of data comes from the GM companies themselves. It is then the responsibility of Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) to review the data.
WA agriculture minister Kim Chance has said that FSANZ does not adequately assess health impacts of genetically modified crops, and FSANZ spokesperson Lydia Buchtmann agreed it did not conduct trials involving feeding animals or people GM foods. As the May 13 Age editorial stated, "To ask Big Agribusiness about GM is a little like consulting Big Tobacco about the risks of smoking".
One independent study was conducted by Dr Irina Ermakova of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Female rats were fed GM soy, non-GM soy or non-soy diets prior to conception. Two weeks after birth, 36% of the GM pups weighed less than 20g compared to 6% of the others. Within three weeks, 25 of the 45 (55.6%) rats from the GM soy group died compared to only three of 33 (9%) from the non-GM soy group, and three of 44 (6.8%) from the non-soy controls. These results are consistent with other independent studies.
If Victoria does remove its ban, the pressure will be on other states to follow. In WA, there is a push to make GM cotton exempt from the moratorium. Opponents see it as a Trojan Horse that will serve to pave the way for GM canola and other crops.
In WA, the Say No to GMO campaign has brought together the Conservation Council of WA, the Organic Growers Association and the Network of Concerned Consumers. A petition asking that the GM moratorium be extended 10 years beyond 2008 has gathered almost 4000 signatures and was recently tabled in parliament.
This type of consumer-led resistance is evident across the country. As Phelps explained, "The citizen campaign to keep Victoria GM-free is even stronger since the turnaround as their foolish decision is based on empty promises about the profit potential of GM canola".
With outstanding issues to consider such as segregation, contamination, liability, labeling, consumer rejection, health, environment and economics, one has to wonder why we are even having this debate.
[To get involved in Say No to GMO email Janet on jan60gro@yahoo.com or phone Maggie on (08) 9420 7260.]
---
---
2.GM push vilifies organics
Annolies Truman
Comment & Analysis, Green Left Weekly issue #717, 14 July 2007
http://www.greenleft.org.au/2007/717/37243
Recent attacks on the organic food industry are about discrediting it to soften up the public to accept genetically modified (GM) crops, Dr Maggie Lilith of the Conservation Council of WA and the Say No to GMO campaign told Green Left Weekly.
"The spate of recent claims that organic food is riskier and linked to health scares seems to have come from proponents of GM and those with a vested interest", said Lilith, who is also a member of the Fremantle Organic Growers Association. "The claims about the safety of organic foods are unfounded and aim to spread misinformation to the public."
On April 12, a syndicated piece by Bettina Arndt entitled "Organic myths pose real risks to health" appeared in newspapers across Australia. The article is a savage attack on the organic food industry and consumers who choose its products.
"The organic food industry is booming with ever more people deluded into thinking that paying two or three times more for organic food products will provide them with healthier, safer food", stated Arndt.
In an attempt to portray organics as backward and unscientific, Arndt quotes British Lord Dick Taverne as saying, "What is most worrying about the whole organic product movement is the underlying notion that scientific progress is inevitably bad and we are all better off reverting to primitive, 'natural' ways of doing things."
Lilith disputes this unscientific claim. "Organic systems rely on modern scientific understanding of ecology and soil science as well as traditional methods of crop rotations to ensure fertility and weed and pest control", she said.
"Moreover, organic production aims to be sustainable and reduce dependence on non-renewable resources. The soil is not depleted as under conventional agribusiness practices. Organic produce is not covered in toxic chemicals as no pesticides or artificial chemicals are used. Animals are not treated with synthetic growth hormones or drugs."
Arndt also quotes Taverne glorifying GM crops: "If people were really worried about the effects of pesticides in farming on wildlife or human health, they should promote pest-resistant GM crops, which reduce pesticide use … The solid scientific support for the safety and efficiency of GM crops means nothing to blinkered souls who trust instincts over science."
Janet Grogan, a leading activist with the Say No to GMO campaign, described Arndt's article as "a thinly veiled pro-GM rant against organic foods".
"It was misinformed and biased. Arndt cites two cases to prove the dangers of eating organic foods, neither actually linked to organically-derived produce."
"What's more, her list of experts comes from pro-GM groups. Lord Taverne is the chairman of the pro-GM lobby group the Association of Sense in Science. His book was lambasted in the Guardian newspaper as … mingling myth with fact."
A month later, on May 16, an article appeared in the West Australian, promoting the idea of growing GM cotton in the Ord River district of northern WA and attacking organic growers.
A key GM scientist, Dr Jim Peacock, claimed opponents of the scheme were largely "self-serving organic farmers and ill-informed environmental activists". Peacock was instrumental in developing GM cotton while working at the CSIRO. Some 100 hectare trials of GM cotton along the Ord have already been approved by the WA government.
Lilith is scathing about Peacock's criticism. "It's the pro-GM groups who are self-serving, interested only in making profits at the expense of farmers and community health. Moreover, GM cotton should be considered a Trojan horse as it leaves the door open for other unwanted GM crops."
Another attack on organics followed soon after. The May 22 edition of the Bulletin contained an exclusive titled "The Truth About Organic Food". Two large photos of shopping baskets graphically illustrate the expense of organic food over conventional.
Lilith contests the claim that organic food is expensive, saying, "A lot of supermarket pre-packaged food costs far more than organic staples. The typical household spends far more on junk food, or alcohol, or take-aways than on fruit and vegetables."
"The Bulletin article also ignores the nutritional benefits of organic produce", Lilith told GLW.
"Scientific evidence shows that fresh organic produce is more nutritious than non-organic food, containing higher nutrient levels, more vitamins, minerals, cancer-fighting antioxidants and enzymes."
But the Bulletin article does concede "consumption of organics is growing at 25% to 44% per year, outstripping the rise in organic food production at 6% to 15% … in 2000, there were 7.6 million hectares under organic management, with a value of $19m. By 2006, that had grown to 12.3 million hectares valued at $400 million."
According to Annie Kavanagh, president of the Organic Growers Association WA, suppliers are finding it difficult to keep up with the demand from consumers.
Across Australia, in addition to the 12.3 million hectares under organic cultivation, a further 1.1 million hectares land is being prepared for organic certification. In 2006, there were 176 listed organic processors and producers in WA, compared to 58 in 2002. This shows a 300% increase in four years, which reflects the increasing demand for organic produce.
Perhaps this trend explains why the GM lobby is so keen to demolish the credibility of organic agriculture.
---
---
3.Federal bill threatens GM moratoriums
Annolies Truman
Comment & Analysis, Green Left Weekly issue #717, 14 July 2007
http://www.greenleft.org.au/2007/717/37242
A bill recently pushed through federal parliament has the potential to threaten state moratoriums on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) by granting new powers to the federal agriculture minister, a WA anti-GMO activist told Green Left Weekly.
Say No to GMO campaigner Janet Grogan is worried the Gene Technology Amendment (GTA) bill will be used to bypass state regulations and community consultation to introduce unwanted GM crops.
"At stake is the future of the Ord River, in the east Kimberley region of Western Australia, which has been marked out for GM cotton by bio-tech companies Monsanto and Bayer CropScience. The federal government has vowed to pressure WA to lift its ban on GM crops as part of negotiations surrounding development of the second stage of the Ord", Grogan said.
At the government's Northern Australian Land and Water Taskforce inaugural meeting on June 29, the Ord River region was high on the agenda, with GM cotton tabled as a first crop. While WA agriculture minister Kim Chance is on record committing his government to maintain the moratorium on the commercial production of GM crops, the state government has recently given approval for a 100-hectare GM cotton research trial on the Ord.
A number of consumer and farmer groups and NGOs are campaigning for the current moratorium on GM crops to remain for another 10 years after it expires in 2008. "But even if we succeed in convincing the WA government, the GTA bill would enable the federal government to override its decision", Grogan said.
"Under the bill's new emergency provisions, the federal agriculture minister could use drought or pest problems to justify the release of GM crops, with no requirement for a safety assessment or approval from the states", Grogan explained. "The bill also removes the requirement for community consultation when dealings may pose significant risks to the health and safety of people or the environment, and when genetically engineered [GE] crops are field-tested."
Grogan said the federal government seems absolutely determined to bring GE crops to market. "It has invested millions of dollars in GE crops through CSIRO and is calling on all the states to lift their bans [on GE food crops]. This pro-GM agenda has permeated many of the government’s agencies including Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ). So far, FSANZ has rubber-stamped as safe every GE crop that has come across its desk."
"The government appears to be yielding to pressure from the US to lift trade barriers", she said. "At the moment 85% of GM crops are grown in North and South America. If the federal government decides that, due to the drought, the Ord is the new food basket of Australia, there may be little that the state government, or the people of WA, can do to prevent the introduction of GM crops", Grogan concluded.
Extracted from: GMWATCH
2.GM push vilifies organics
3.Federal bill threatens GM moratoriums
NOTE: Three informative articles on the aggressive campaign being waged in Australia to push in GM and undermine State bans.
---
---
1.Victoria to lift GM ban?
Janet Grogan
Comment & Analysis, Green Left Weekly issue #717, 14 July 2007
http://www.greenleft.org.au/2007/717/37244
Three years after extending its moratorium on the commercial growing of genetically modified (GM) crops, the Victorian ALP government appears poised to remove the ban when it expires in February 2008.
State agriculture minister Joe Helper believes that Victoria is now "open-minded" about GM crops and a "careful and considered approach" will be used to determine the impact of GM crops on the market before a decision is made.
Farmers' groups are split. The National Farmers Federation (NFF) has been lured by promises of increased yields for less expense, but the Network of Concerned Farmers sees an erosion of choice for non-GM farmers, with up to 10% additional costs to cover segregation bills alone. The United Dairy Farmers of Victoria voted on June 19 to reverse their support for Victoria's ban on commercial GM canola. In response, consumer groups say that they will vote with their feet and choose non-GM soy or organic alternatives if the ban is lifted.
Federal agriculture minister Peter McGuaran, a supporter of GM crops, was quoted by the May 13 Age as saying: "Farmers have much to gain, particularly in times of drought, from growing GM crops, such as wheat and canola that use less water and herbicides than conventional crops." The same points have been reiterated by NFF chief executive Ben Fargher.
These are emotive words, especially in times of drought, but they are hard to substantiate. There is no GM drought-resistant wheat or canola and development could be 10 years away. Non-GM varieties will be available far sooner. Seventy per cent of GM crops are herbicide resistant, and farmers spray more often and at higher doses, resulting in "super weeds" that demand an increasing amount of chemicals to control them.
Federal minister for trade Warren Truss has repeatedly said that Australian farmers are being "left behind". Yet, according to a 2006 industry-backed report from the International Service for Acquisition of Agro-biotechnology Applications ten years after the introduction of GM crops, just 0.7% of all farmers grew them, and 85% of all GM crops were grown in North and South America.
With Australian GM-free canola enjoying a premium of up to $120 per tonne more than the Winnipeg price it is difficult to see how our farmers are being left behind.
The Victorian government has appointed a three-member GM review panel to examine the economic impact of commercial GM canola on trade. However, the panel appears flawed from the start. The chairperson, Gus Nossal, is a retired medical researcher and a long-time supporter of GM crops and food. Panel member Merna Curnow was an officer of the Victorian Farmers Federation. She also worked for the Grains Research Development Council, which invests in GM promotion. Neither appear to have skills to review the issue.
As Bob Phelps from Gene Ethics said, "The Bracks government has set up a panel to recommend fast tracking GM crops into our environment and onto our plates". On May 22, he called for a review of "new evidence on health and environmental impacts of GM crops and foods since the licences were issued".
There have been few independent GM studies carried out, partly due to a lack of funding, but also because of the difficulty in accessing GM material. Hence the majority of data comes from the GM companies themselves. It is then the responsibility of Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) to review the data.
WA agriculture minister Kim Chance has said that FSANZ does not adequately assess health impacts of genetically modified crops, and FSANZ spokesperson Lydia Buchtmann agreed it did not conduct trials involving feeding animals or people GM foods. As the May 13 Age editorial stated, "To ask Big Agribusiness about GM is a little like consulting Big Tobacco about the risks of smoking".
One independent study was conducted by Dr Irina Ermakova of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Female rats were fed GM soy, non-GM soy or non-soy diets prior to conception. Two weeks after birth, 36% of the GM pups weighed less than 20g compared to 6% of the others. Within three weeks, 25 of the 45 (55.6%) rats from the GM soy group died compared to only three of 33 (9%) from the non-GM soy group, and three of 44 (6.8%) from the non-soy controls. These results are consistent with other independent studies.
If Victoria does remove its ban, the pressure will be on other states to follow. In WA, there is a push to make GM cotton exempt from the moratorium. Opponents see it as a Trojan Horse that will serve to pave the way for GM canola and other crops.
In WA, the Say No to GMO campaign has brought together the Conservation Council of WA, the Organic Growers Association and the Network of Concerned Consumers. A petition asking that the GM moratorium be extended 10 years beyond 2008 has gathered almost 4000 signatures and was recently tabled in parliament.
This type of consumer-led resistance is evident across the country. As Phelps explained, "The citizen campaign to keep Victoria GM-free is even stronger since the turnaround as their foolish decision is based on empty promises about the profit potential of GM canola".
With outstanding issues to consider such as segregation, contamination, liability, labeling, consumer rejection, health, environment and economics, one has to wonder why we are even having this debate.
[To get involved in Say No to GMO email Janet on jan60gro@yahoo.com or phone Maggie on (08) 9420 7260.]
---
---
2.GM push vilifies organics
Annolies Truman
Comment & Analysis, Green Left Weekly issue #717, 14 July 2007
http://www.greenleft.org.au/2007/717/37243
Recent attacks on the organic food industry are about discrediting it to soften up the public to accept genetically modified (GM) crops, Dr Maggie Lilith of the Conservation Council of WA and the Say No to GMO campaign told Green Left Weekly.
"The spate of recent claims that organic food is riskier and linked to health scares seems to have come from proponents of GM and those with a vested interest", said Lilith, who is also a member of the Fremantle Organic Growers Association. "The claims about the safety of organic foods are unfounded and aim to spread misinformation to the public."
On April 12, a syndicated piece by Bettina Arndt entitled "Organic myths pose real risks to health" appeared in newspapers across Australia. The article is a savage attack on the organic food industry and consumers who choose its products.
"The organic food industry is booming with ever more people deluded into thinking that paying two or three times more for organic food products will provide them with healthier, safer food", stated Arndt.
In an attempt to portray organics as backward and unscientific, Arndt quotes British Lord Dick Taverne as saying, "What is most worrying about the whole organic product movement is the underlying notion that scientific progress is inevitably bad and we are all better off reverting to primitive, 'natural' ways of doing things."
Lilith disputes this unscientific claim. "Organic systems rely on modern scientific understanding of ecology and soil science as well as traditional methods of crop rotations to ensure fertility and weed and pest control", she said.
"Moreover, organic production aims to be sustainable and reduce dependence on non-renewable resources. The soil is not depleted as under conventional agribusiness practices. Organic produce is not covered in toxic chemicals as no pesticides or artificial chemicals are used. Animals are not treated with synthetic growth hormones or drugs."
Arndt also quotes Taverne glorifying GM crops: "If people were really worried about the effects of pesticides in farming on wildlife or human health, they should promote pest-resistant GM crops, which reduce pesticide use … The solid scientific support for the safety and efficiency of GM crops means nothing to blinkered souls who trust instincts over science."
Janet Grogan, a leading activist with the Say No to GMO campaign, described Arndt's article as "a thinly veiled pro-GM rant against organic foods".
"It was misinformed and biased. Arndt cites two cases to prove the dangers of eating organic foods, neither actually linked to organically-derived produce."
"What's more, her list of experts comes from pro-GM groups. Lord Taverne is the chairman of the pro-GM lobby group the Association of Sense in Science. His book was lambasted in the Guardian newspaper as … mingling myth with fact."
A month later, on May 16, an article appeared in the West Australian, promoting the idea of growing GM cotton in the Ord River district of northern WA and attacking organic growers.
A key GM scientist, Dr Jim Peacock, claimed opponents of the scheme were largely "self-serving organic farmers and ill-informed environmental activists". Peacock was instrumental in developing GM cotton while working at the CSIRO. Some 100 hectare trials of GM cotton along the Ord have already been approved by the WA government.
Lilith is scathing about Peacock's criticism. "It's the pro-GM groups who are self-serving, interested only in making profits at the expense of farmers and community health. Moreover, GM cotton should be considered a Trojan horse as it leaves the door open for other unwanted GM crops."
Another attack on organics followed soon after. The May 22 edition of the Bulletin contained an exclusive titled "The Truth About Organic Food". Two large photos of shopping baskets graphically illustrate the expense of organic food over conventional.
Lilith contests the claim that organic food is expensive, saying, "A lot of supermarket pre-packaged food costs far more than organic staples. The typical household spends far more on junk food, or alcohol, or take-aways than on fruit and vegetables."
"The Bulletin article also ignores the nutritional benefits of organic produce", Lilith told GLW.
"Scientific evidence shows that fresh organic produce is more nutritious than non-organic food, containing higher nutrient levels, more vitamins, minerals, cancer-fighting antioxidants and enzymes."
But the Bulletin article does concede "consumption of organics is growing at 25% to 44% per year, outstripping the rise in organic food production at 6% to 15% … in 2000, there were 7.6 million hectares under organic management, with a value of $19m. By 2006, that had grown to 12.3 million hectares valued at $400 million."
According to Annie Kavanagh, president of the Organic Growers Association WA, suppliers are finding it difficult to keep up with the demand from consumers.
Across Australia, in addition to the 12.3 million hectares under organic cultivation, a further 1.1 million hectares land is being prepared for organic certification. In 2006, there were 176 listed organic processors and producers in WA, compared to 58 in 2002. This shows a 300% increase in four years, which reflects the increasing demand for organic produce.
Perhaps this trend explains why the GM lobby is so keen to demolish the credibility of organic agriculture.
---
---
3.Federal bill threatens GM moratoriums
Annolies Truman
Comment & Analysis, Green Left Weekly issue #717, 14 July 2007
http://www.greenleft.org.au/2007/717/37242
A bill recently pushed through federal parliament has the potential to threaten state moratoriums on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) by granting new powers to the federal agriculture minister, a WA anti-GMO activist told Green Left Weekly.
Say No to GMO campaigner Janet Grogan is worried the Gene Technology Amendment (GTA) bill will be used to bypass state regulations and community consultation to introduce unwanted GM crops.
"At stake is the future of the Ord River, in the east Kimberley region of Western Australia, which has been marked out for GM cotton by bio-tech companies Monsanto and Bayer CropScience. The federal government has vowed to pressure WA to lift its ban on GM crops as part of negotiations surrounding development of the second stage of the Ord", Grogan said.
At the government's Northern Australian Land and Water Taskforce inaugural meeting on June 29, the Ord River region was high on the agenda, with GM cotton tabled as a first crop. While WA agriculture minister Kim Chance is on record committing his government to maintain the moratorium on the commercial production of GM crops, the state government has recently given approval for a 100-hectare GM cotton research trial on the Ord.
A number of consumer and farmer groups and NGOs are campaigning for the current moratorium on GM crops to remain for another 10 years after it expires in 2008. "But even if we succeed in convincing the WA government, the GTA bill would enable the federal government to override its decision", Grogan said.
"Under the bill's new emergency provisions, the federal agriculture minister could use drought or pest problems to justify the release of GM crops, with no requirement for a safety assessment or approval from the states", Grogan explained. "The bill also removes the requirement for community consultation when dealings may pose significant risks to the health and safety of people or the environment, and when genetically engineered [GE] crops are field-tested."
Grogan said the federal government seems absolutely determined to bring GE crops to market. "It has invested millions of dollars in GE crops through CSIRO and is calling on all the states to lift their bans [on GE food crops]. This pro-GM agenda has permeated many of the government’s agencies including Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ). So far, FSANZ has rubber-stamped as safe every GE crop that has come across its desk."
"The government appears to be yielding to pressure from the US to lift trade barriers", she said. "At the moment 85% of GM crops are grown in North and South America. If the federal government decides that, due to the drought, the Ord is the new food basket of Australia, there may be little that the state government, or the people of WA, can do to prevent the introduction of GM crops", Grogan concluded.
Extracted from: GMWATCH
Monday, 9 July 2007
AUSTRALIA: GM MILK ANGER
Milk is being produced on south-west Victorian dairy farms using GM feeds without the public's knowledge, reveals newspaper The Standard. Director of the Institute of Health and Environmental Research, Dr Judy Carman, said there had been no long-term testing on livestock fed GM feeds, or on consumers eating GM foods or meat produced with GM feeds.
1.GM content a threat to market: farmer
2.GM MILK ANGER
---
1.[GM] Content a threat to market: farmer
ALEX JOHNSON The Standard, June 7 2007 http://the.standard.net.au/articles/2007/06/07/1181089193898.html
A CONCERNED farmer said the future of Australia's dairy industry depended on whether farmers rejected genetically modified cattle feed.
The Network of Concerned Farmers spokesman Geoffrey Carracher, who runs an irrigation property near Minimay growing white clover seed, called on dairy farmers not to use GM cotton to feed their cattle.
The network is funded by a number of farmers and local councils, including West Wimmera Shire.
"The world is our market for Australia at the moment," Mr Carracher said.
"With the introduction of GMs into Australia, our opportunities throughout the world will be reduced.
"New Zealand will pick up our milk market if we do it."
"There has been no testing of GM crops against non-GM crops so we don't know what their comparisons are, their yields (or) their agronomy."
He said the crops, modified to be resistant to pests and diseases, might not bring the benefits some farmers expect.
"They're set up for corporate profits, not farmers' profits."
---
2.GM MILK ANGER
TERRY SIM The Standard, June 7 2007http://the.standard.net.au/articles/2007/06/07/1181089193892.html
[image caption: The beauty of canola fields in bloom do little to mask fears over genetically modified plants being fed to dairy cows.]
MILK is being produced on south-west Victorian dairy farms using genetically modified feeds without the public's knowledge. Now consumers are demanding to know more.
The Standard can reveal that a range of feeds with a GM content have been used on the region's farms.
Feeds with GM content include cottonseed meal, soybean and canola meal. Consumers are concerned about the impact on milk and a lack of clear labelling. Studies found no impact on foods generated from GM-fed livestock or GM crops.
Member for Western Province John Vogels said dairy factories should admit "the GM genie is long gone".
Mr Vogels said it was time to scrap Victoria's moratorium on GM crops and ensure proper risk assessments were in place.
He said south-west dairy farmers were using GM cottonseed to produce milk and other farmers were using GM canola and soymeal in cattle rations.
"If 90 per cent of cotton grown is GM and I've seen farmers feeding cottonseed to their dairy cows, then the (GM) genie is long out of the bottle," Mr Vogels said.
Mr Vogels' comments come as the Network of Concerned Farmers starts a media campaign against feeding genetically modified crops in animals' feed.
Anti-GM campaigner and director of the Institute of Health and Environmental Research Dr Judy Carman said it was a `"big leap in logic to open up the doors" because farmers were already feeding GM feed to their cattle.
"If it was widely known that there was a milk company in Australia that was getting milk from cows being fed GM feeds I think you would find consumers would switch brands.
"There would be some concern - it is just that they (consumers) don't know."
Dr Carman said there had been no long-term testing on livestock fed GM feeds, consumers eating GM foods or meat grown with GM feeds. There was inadequate crop segregation, product labelling and knowledge of contamination levels to protect consumers'
interests and cottonseed oil did not have to be labelled as a GM product in Australia, she said.
Anti-GM dairy farmer in Dixie, Andrea Balcombe, has decided not to give potentially GM feeds to her cows. She said labelling laws meant consumers were not able to choose non-GM over GM products.
Mr Vogels said despite the "scare campaign" of the organics industry and anti-GM protesters, he did not believe consumers should be concerned about feeding GM feed to livestock. Research had shown there were no ill effects from people consuming GM foods, he said.
The "hypocrisy" of the State Government's moratorium on commercial GM crops was exposed by the use of cottonseed oil in vegetable oil formulations for cooking, Mr Vogels said. About a third of vegetable oil is made from cottonseed, he said.
A spokesperson for Victorian Agriculture Minister Joe Helper said industry sectors could take their own steps to prevent farmers using GM feedstocks.
"That a small amount of GM feedstocks are used for stock has relatively little bearing on the forthcoming review of the moratorium on GM canola," the minister's spokesperson said.
Mothers rally against "GM" milk (19/6/2007)
Mothers rally against "GM" milkBreaking Rural News : DAIRYNorth Queensland Register, 19 June 2007(SOURCE: Extract from full story in Stock & Land, Vic, June 21)http://nqr.farmonline.com.au/news_daily.asp?ag_id=43211
Mothers and children will rally outstide the United Dairyfarmers of Victora (UDV) conference in Melbourne on Tuesday to voice their opposition to milk produced from cows fed genetically modified (GM) grain.
Mothers Against GE (MAdGE) spokeswoman, Glenda Lindsay, said the group – a newly formed coalition of anti-GM mothers, grandmothers and children –wanted to show farmers, Victorian consumers didn’t want genetically engineered (GE) or GM milk.
"We want to feed our families food guaranteed to be safe, local and GM free," Ms Lindsay said.
"There are no peer reviewed studies that prove it is safe to drink milk from cows fed GM products."
Ms Lindsay said the group wanted the ban on GM canola in Victoria to be extended permanently.
"It makes no sense to grow GM crops when most polls show shoppers don't want GM foods," she said.
UDV members will today vote on a resolution for the UDV to reverse its anti-GM position and support choice of GM technology in the dairy industry,"
SOURCE: Extract from full story in Stock & Land, Vic, June 21.
1.GM content a threat to market: farmer
2.GM MILK ANGER
---
1.[GM] Content a threat to market: farmer
ALEX JOHNSON The Standard, June 7 2007 http://the.standard.net.au/articles/2007/06/07/1181089193898.html
A CONCERNED farmer said the future of Australia's dairy industry depended on whether farmers rejected genetically modified cattle feed.
The Network of Concerned Farmers spokesman Geoffrey Carracher, who runs an irrigation property near Minimay growing white clover seed, called on dairy farmers not to use GM cotton to feed their cattle.
The network is funded by a number of farmers and local councils, including West Wimmera Shire.
"The world is our market for Australia at the moment," Mr Carracher said.
"With the introduction of GMs into Australia, our opportunities throughout the world will be reduced.
"New Zealand will pick up our milk market if we do it."
"There has been no testing of GM crops against non-GM crops so we don't know what their comparisons are, their yields (or) their agronomy."
He said the crops, modified to be resistant to pests and diseases, might not bring the benefits some farmers expect.
"They're set up for corporate profits, not farmers' profits."
---
2.GM MILK ANGER
TERRY SIM The Standard, June 7 2007http://the.standard.net.au/articles/2007/06/07/1181089193892.html
[image caption: The beauty of canola fields in bloom do little to mask fears over genetically modified plants being fed to dairy cows.]
MILK is being produced on south-west Victorian dairy farms using genetically modified feeds without the public's knowledge. Now consumers are demanding to know more.
The Standard can reveal that a range of feeds with a GM content have been used on the region's farms.
Feeds with GM content include cottonseed meal, soybean and canola meal. Consumers are concerned about the impact on milk and a lack of clear labelling. Studies found no impact on foods generated from GM-fed livestock or GM crops.
Member for Western Province John Vogels said dairy factories should admit "the GM genie is long gone".
Mr Vogels said it was time to scrap Victoria's moratorium on GM crops and ensure proper risk assessments were in place.
He said south-west dairy farmers were using GM cottonseed to produce milk and other farmers were using GM canola and soymeal in cattle rations.
"If 90 per cent of cotton grown is GM and I've seen farmers feeding cottonseed to their dairy cows, then the (GM) genie is long out of the bottle," Mr Vogels said.
Mr Vogels' comments come as the Network of Concerned Farmers starts a media campaign against feeding genetically modified crops in animals' feed.
Anti-GM campaigner and director of the Institute of Health and Environmental Research Dr Judy Carman said it was a `"big leap in logic to open up the doors" because farmers were already feeding GM feed to their cattle.
"If it was widely known that there was a milk company in Australia that was getting milk from cows being fed GM feeds I think you would find consumers would switch brands.
"There would be some concern - it is just that they (consumers) don't know."
Dr Carman said there had been no long-term testing on livestock fed GM feeds, consumers eating GM foods or meat grown with GM feeds. There was inadequate crop segregation, product labelling and knowledge of contamination levels to protect consumers'
interests and cottonseed oil did not have to be labelled as a GM product in Australia, she said.
Anti-GM dairy farmer in Dixie, Andrea Balcombe, has decided not to give potentially GM feeds to her cows. She said labelling laws meant consumers were not able to choose non-GM over GM products.
Mr Vogels said despite the "scare campaign" of the organics industry and anti-GM protesters, he did not believe consumers should be concerned about feeding GM feed to livestock. Research had shown there were no ill effects from people consuming GM foods, he said.
The "hypocrisy" of the State Government's moratorium on commercial GM crops was exposed by the use of cottonseed oil in vegetable oil formulations for cooking, Mr Vogels said. About a third of vegetable oil is made from cottonseed, he said.
A spokesperson for Victorian Agriculture Minister Joe Helper said industry sectors could take their own steps to prevent farmers using GM feedstocks.
"That a small amount of GM feedstocks are used for stock has relatively little bearing on the forthcoming review of the moratorium on GM canola," the minister's spokesperson said.
Mothers rally against "GM" milk (19/6/2007)
Mothers rally against "GM" milkBreaking Rural News : DAIRYNorth Queensland Register, 19 June 2007(SOURCE: Extract from full story in Stock & Land, Vic, June 21)http://nqr.farmonline.com.au/news_daily.asp?ag_id=43211
Mothers and children will rally outstide the United Dairyfarmers of Victora (UDV) conference in Melbourne on Tuesday to voice their opposition to milk produced from cows fed genetically modified (GM) grain.
Mothers Against GE (MAdGE) spokeswoman, Glenda Lindsay, said the group – a newly formed coalition of anti-GM mothers, grandmothers and children –wanted to show farmers, Victorian consumers didn’t want genetically engineered (GE) or GM milk.
"We want to feed our families food guaranteed to be safe, local and GM free," Ms Lindsay said.
"There are no peer reviewed studies that prove it is safe to drink milk from cows fed GM products."
Ms Lindsay said the group wanted the ban on GM canola in Victoria to be extended permanently.
"It makes no sense to grow GM crops when most polls show shoppers don't want GM foods," she said.
UDV members will today vote on a resolution for the UDV to reverse its anti-GM position and support choice of GM technology in the dairy industry,"
SOURCE: Extract from full story in Stock & Land, Vic, June 21.
Thursday, 5 July 2007
There's a Lot You Don't Know About What's in Your Food
EXTRACT: ...the industry has been very powerful in the media... a huge number of Americans believe that genetically engineered food is feeding the world, that it's increasing nutrition, that it's making better flavored food, is creating drought resistant crops, it's curing kids in Africa. This is complete science fiction. ... It's a marginal technology at best -- it is not curing anything, it is not feeding anything. (item 1)
---
---
1.There's a Lot You Don't Know About What's in Your Food By Vanja Petrovic AlterNet, July 3 2007 http://www.alternet.org/story/55847/
Nearly three quarters of all processed foods contain genetically engineered ingredients, but you'd never know it by reading the back of your kid's cereal box or that pint of ice cream you've been craving. Rather than being relegated to its own supermarket section, this food sits unlabeled on grocery store shelves, allowing a handful of transnational biotech companies to profit handsomely as consumers shop blindly.
In his new book, Your Right to Know: Genetic Engineering and the Secret Changes in Your Food, Andrew Kimbrell explores the risks of this technology and what genetic engineering means to our health, the environment and the future of agriculture.
Although Kimbrell's book aims primarily to educate, it is also an easy-to-use activist guide on how to identify -- and avoid -- genetically engineered foods.
Andrew Kimbrell is founder and executive director of the Washington D.C.-based Center for Food Safety and the International Center for Technology Assessment. As an author, lawyer, and activist for more than 20 years, Kimbrell has been at the forefront of legal and grassroots efforts to protect the environment and promote sustainable agricultural production methods. His written work has appeared in the New York Times, Washington Post, and Harper's. He has testified at numerous congressional and regulatory hearings, and in 1994, Utne Reader named Kimbrell as one of the world's leading 100 visionaries.
AlterNet talked with Kimbrell via telephone.
Vanja Petrovic: How did you become interested in genetically engineered food?
Andrew Kimbrell: I became very interested in genetic engineering in general; it stemmed from my early work in appropriate technology. There was an E.F. Schumacher book, Small is Beautiful -- great book, everyone should read it. What Schumacher was saying is that we're going to have to devolve our technologies and change our economics to fit nature, otherwise we're going to destroy ourselves. And I thought that was inevitable and became part of that. And it wasn't until genetic engineering that I realized that some people were saying, "Listen, let's not change our technology or our economic system to fit nature, let's change nature -- including human nature -- so that it fits our technology and our economic system."
So, for example what we have with genetic engineering, if you spray herbicide on crops, it kills them, it kills everything green, it doesn't just kill the weeds, it kills the crops. So, the idea would be, as weeds become resistant to herbicides, to stop using them, and find other ways of weed and pest control. But that didn't fit the needs of ... the chemical companies. That would mean less of their product. So, instead of changing their technology and economics to fit nature, they said "let's change plants so they can withstand huge amounts of our chemicals" -- herbicides -- and four out of every five acres of genetically engineered plants in this country and in the world are planted solely because they can tolerate these herbicides.
Petrovic: Why did you choose to write this book now?
Kimbrell: Actually, I didn't choose to write this book right now. I wish I could have stopped my fingers three years ago.
But, there are a number of reasons I wrote this book. One, the industry has been very powerful in the media. It has been able to influence the traditional media. So, a huge number of Americans believe that genetically engineered food is feeding the world, that it's increasing nutrition, that it's making better flavored food, is creating drought resistant crops, it's curing kids in Africa. This is complete science fiction. ... It's a marginal technology at best -- it is not curing anything, it is not feeding anything.
As a matter of fact, as we've seen in corn and soy, we have seen actual yield decreases because of genetic engineering. Not an increase, no more vitamins. We've seen, actually, FDA studies that show that it actually decreases vitamin content in food. So, why is it popular? Why do farmers use it? Because it's very convenient. You don't have to spot spray your herbicide just on the weed, you can, for the first time, aerial spray your herbicides over your entire crop and it won't kill your crop, it'll just kill the weeds. Although, those weeds are becoming more and more resistant and now we're having to use more and more.
Petrovic: What are the dangers of genetically engineered food?
Kimbrell: Genetically engineered food is the first really artificially lab created food that we have. Basically, you (the scientist) are putting foreign bacteria, foreign viral chains, foreign anti-biotic resistant genes into each cell of every food. So, every cell of every genetically engineered food, every one, has a novel bacteria, has novel viral promoters, has a novel genetic construct whether it be the herbicide tolerant gene or the Bt, and has an anti-biotic marker system.
So each one of these, this genetic set, which is completely new and is placed at random really within each cell within each genetically engineered food, brings with it threats. Those threats are documented by the FDA, by the good scientists there -- not the policy people who forgot to listen to them -- and the risks are: it could take a nontoxic food and make it toxic. ... It can create new human allergies ... significantly reduce the vitamin content in the food, and ... there has been peer-reviewed scientific evidence that it can be harmful to the immune system.
The environmental risks are that it's biological pollution. We know now, we've seen over and over again that this is not simply a tool for the farmer, this is an evasive living pollution. It pollutes conventional, it pollutes organic, makes these farmers unable to sell these crops to the European market, to the organic market, and it creates the gene jump to create super weeds. In the case of fish, documented, peer-reviewed science out of Purdue University says that the release of these genetically modified fish, because of the unexpected changes in these fish, could create complete extinction for species like salmon and stripped bass.
Petrovic: Any social risks?
Kimbrell: Yes, there are social risks. What happens here, and we've documented this in the book, is that because of Monsanto (a St. Louis-based chemical company) having farmers signing technology use agreements, what you're basically seeing is farmers becoming tenant farmers for Monsanto. And farmers who have been polluted -- unintentionally polluted -- are being sued, and have been sued by Monsanto. Farmers who did not understand, who did not sign a technology use agreement, and did not understand what this technology was about, are being sued. Saving their seeds, cleaning their seeds is becoming an illegal activity where they are faced with hundreds of thousands worth of damages because Monsanto filed lawsuits.
This is really kind of corporate terrorism against America's farmers. ... It's really (destroyed) the social fabric of a lot of America's farmland and it's amazing to me that this has gone unreported.
Petrovic: Is organic farming in danger of disappearing?
Kimbrell: No, I don't think that organic farming is in danger of disappearing. One of the myths that the book also tries to bust is that people think, "Oh, Pandora's Box is open, we're over, we're doomed." Not true at all. We, the Center for Food Safety, and a number of other organizations who we work very closely with, have been very successful in stopping genetically engineered wheat. ...We have stopped primarily genetically engineered rice, we have stopped genetically engineered fish, and that's in this country. Around the world, these foods are being rejected.
Petrovic: In your book, you talk about Tom and Gail Wiley -- North Dakota farmers who grow over a thousand acres of food-grade soy. When they landed a contract with Japan, the prospective buyers tested the crop and they discovered that the 1.37 percent of the soy had been contaminated with of genetically engineered seeds. Does the Wiley's story ring true for a lot of farmers in America?
Kimbrell: A lot of farmers are facing that and worse. At least they got their crop ... We have literally hundreds of thousands of farmers in the South that literally cannot plant rice because of rice contamination. ... So, yeah, it has become and it will become an increasing problem because it's living pollution. These contaminations to the extent that we now know -- and our government seems to think this -- are coming from very small field trials. Even if (only a few species are affected) ... when it's released, since it's biological pollution, it disseminates, grows and mutates.
Petrovic: Why has three quarters of agricultural genetic diversity been lost in the past century?
Kimbrell: We've seen a devastating loss ... that has happened because of hybrid monoculture, that has happened because of industrial agriculture. In my book, Fatal Agriculture, we have all these experts who explain how that happened. It is the monoculture that we see in our crops even before genetic engineering even came on board in '96, '97. And that's already a tragedy.
It's not like genetic engineering is the only bad thing that ever happened in agriculture. That hybridization of monoculture is bad in a number of ways, but the loss of diversity is also a loss of food security. If you have one type of corn, one type of tomato, one type of wheat out there and there is a corn blithe [blight???] or a wheat blithe there is no genetic diversity to protect that crop. We saw that with the corn blithe a couple of decades ago and we had to get corn from South America to save us ... Genetic engineering, of course, is monoculture on steroids... It's the ultimate monoculture, but it's also an unnatural monoculture because it has genetic material in it that's never been in that plant ever before. I mean, you're not only crossing species, you're crossing phyla.
Petrovic: Will we reach a point when there is no genetic diversity?
Kimbrell: We'll never reach the zero point because there will always be some natural mutation, but I think we're going in the opposite direction now. We have tremendous efforts now to save local seeds; that's part of one of the documentaries that I'm making, we're showing that there really is a future of food. That's very encouraging.
But obviously if we were to continue down the path of industrial genetically engineered agriculture, yeah, you would get to a point where literally -- and we're almost there in some cases -- where literally you have one variety, or two varieties of lettuce, one variety of corn, one variety of tomato, where it'll be so monoculture because that's the easiest one for them to grow in large quantities, the easiest one for them to store, and the easiest one for them to sell.
We're at a real crossroads for the future of food. ... We're either going to continue down the industrial path all the way to genetically engineering our food so that it literally becomes nothing but a tool of industrial agriculture, including withstanding all these poisons. Or, we're going to go down the organic and beyond way, which says no to genetic engineering, no to irradiation, no to this massive alteration at the atomic and genetic level.
Petrovic: What changes would you like to see the FDA make?
Kimbrell: Oh, thank you for bringing up my favorite agency. ... There is no mandatory testing, there is no mandatory labeling, what they did set up is what they call a voluntary consulting process. So, if you're putting a new genetically engineered food on the market, you can choose if you wish, to consult with the FDA if you have issues. ... Can you imagine this with drugs? If you tell the drug companies, "Oh, no, you don't have to test, you don't have to label your drug, but if you think it's going to kill somebody, you should probably consult us."
I mean, no one would accept that. No one would accept that with car safety, no one would accept that with virtually any aspect of what's going on, yet we're accepting it with genetically modified food? ... That really is a corporate coup d'etat.
Petrovic: With the help of this book can people completely avoid genetically engineered food and for how long?
Kimbrell: Yes, with the help of the book, if they read the book carefully, and follow the instructions, they will be able to avoid virtually all -- there may be some enzymes in cheese, for example, some very, very minor enzyme stuff -- but for all practical purposes, yes, they will be able to avoid GMOs.
The intriguing part of your question is for how long. And we will, on the Center for Food Safety Web site have continuing updates on what's going on. ... For now this will protect you, but that shouldn't make us feel good about our government. If it had mandatory labeling you wouldn't need this book. You wouldn't need to take all this time and effort because they should have done it for you.
Petrovic: Why do you think topics that you cover in this book, such as herbicide-resistant super weeds, super pests, and the dangers to organic farming don't show up in the mainstream media?
Kimbell: You should look at their advertisers. I mean if you look at the advertisers of even National Public Radio -- they're not allowed to have advertisers, but they have underwriters -- you'll see major biotechnology companies. ... And I also think there is a "gee-whiz" quality, particularly in America, that anything that seems technological and new is automatically better.
Petrovic This book is different from other books on genetic engineering in that it's much more practical and accessible. What was the thought process behind that?
Kimbrell: There's been a lot of books out there that are really good, but let's face it a lot of people had a hard time getting through high school biology. A lot of people have not been spending a lot of time on biology. So, we wanted to present it in a very accurate way, and that's why the whole book is exhaustively footnoted ... however, we wanted to present it in a way that would be fun, interesting and I think very beautiful, I hope you agree. I think it's very attractive, very interesting, very engaging and after all, that's what we're about. We wanted people to understand and present this in a very interesting way.
Vanja Petrovic is an editorial intern with AlterNet.
---
---
1.There's a Lot You Don't Know About What's in Your Food By Vanja Petrovic AlterNet, July 3 2007 http://www.alternet.org/story/55847/
Nearly three quarters of all processed foods contain genetically engineered ingredients, but you'd never know it by reading the back of your kid's cereal box or that pint of ice cream you've been craving. Rather than being relegated to its own supermarket section, this food sits unlabeled on grocery store shelves, allowing a handful of transnational biotech companies to profit handsomely as consumers shop blindly.
In his new book, Your Right to Know: Genetic Engineering and the Secret Changes in Your Food, Andrew Kimbrell explores the risks of this technology and what genetic engineering means to our health, the environment and the future of agriculture.
Although Kimbrell's book aims primarily to educate, it is also an easy-to-use activist guide on how to identify -- and avoid -- genetically engineered foods.
Andrew Kimbrell is founder and executive director of the Washington D.C.-based Center for Food Safety and the International Center for Technology Assessment. As an author, lawyer, and activist for more than 20 years, Kimbrell has been at the forefront of legal and grassroots efforts to protect the environment and promote sustainable agricultural production methods. His written work has appeared in the New York Times, Washington Post, and Harper's. He has testified at numerous congressional and regulatory hearings, and in 1994, Utne Reader named Kimbrell as one of the world's leading 100 visionaries.
AlterNet talked with Kimbrell via telephone.
Vanja Petrovic: How did you become interested in genetically engineered food?
Andrew Kimbrell: I became very interested in genetic engineering in general; it stemmed from my early work in appropriate technology. There was an E.F. Schumacher book, Small is Beautiful -- great book, everyone should read it. What Schumacher was saying is that we're going to have to devolve our technologies and change our economics to fit nature, otherwise we're going to destroy ourselves. And I thought that was inevitable and became part of that. And it wasn't until genetic engineering that I realized that some people were saying, "Listen, let's not change our technology or our economic system to fit nature, let's change nature -- including human nature -- so that it fits our technology and our economic system."
So, for example what we have with genetic engineering, if you spray herbicide on crops, it kills them, it kills everything green, it doesn't just kill the weeds, it kills the crops. So, the idea would be, as weeds become resistant to herbicides, to stop using them, and find other ways of weed and pest control. But that didn't fit the needs of ... the chemical companies. That would mean less of their product. So, instead of changing their technology and economics to fit nature, they said "let's change plants so they can withstand huge amounts of our chemicals" -- herbicides -- and four out of every five acres of genetically engineered plants in this country and in the world are planted solely because they can tolerate these herbicides.
Petrovic: Why did you choose to write this book now?
Kimbrell: Actually, I didn't choose to write this book right now. I wish I could have stopped my fingers three years ago.
But, there are a number of reasons I wrote this book. One, the industry has been very powerful in the media. It has been able to influence the traditional media. So, a huge number of Americans believe that genetically engineered food is feeding the world, that it's increasing nutrition, that it's making better flavored food, is creating drought resistant crops, it's curing kids in Africa. This is complete science fiction. ... It's a marginal technology at best -- it is not curing anything, it is not feeding anything.
As a matter of fact, as we've seen in corn and soy, we have seen actual yield decreases because of genetic engineering. Not an increase, no more vitamins. We've seen, actually, FDA studies that show that it actually decreases vitamin content in food. So, why is it popular? Why do farmers use it? Because it's very convenient. You don't have to spot spray your herbicide just on the weed, you can, for the first time, aerial spray your herbicides over your entire crop and it won't kill your crop, it'll just kill the weeds. Although, those weeds are becoming more and more resistant and now we're having to use more and more.
Petrovic: What are the dangers of genetically engineered food?
Kimbrell: Genetically engineered food is the first really artificially lab created food that we have. Basically, you (the scientist) are putting foreign bacteria, foreign viral chains, foreign anti-biotic resistant genes into each cell of every food. So, every cell of every genetically engineered food, every one, has a novel bacteria, has novel viral promoters, has a novel genetic construct whether it be the herbicide tolerant gene or the Bt, and has an anti-biotic marker system.
So each one of these, this genetic set, which is completely new and is placed at random really within each cell within each genetically engineered food, brings with it threats. Those threats are documented by the FDA, by the good scientists there -- not the policy people who forgot to listen to them -- and the risks are: it could take a nontoxic food and make it toxic. ... It can create new human allergies ... significantly reduce the vitamin content in the food, and ... there has been peer-reviewed scientific evidence that it can be harmful to the immune system.
The environmental risks are that it's biological pollution. We know now, we've seen over and over again that this is not simply a tool for the farmer, this is an evasive living pollution. It pollutes conventional, it pollutes organic, makes these farmers unable to sell these crops to the European market, to the organic market, and it creates the gene jump to create super weeds. In the case of fish, documented, peer-reviewed science out of Purdue University says that the release of these genetically modified fish, because of the unexpected changes in these fish, could create complete extinction for species like salmon and stripped bass.
Petrovic: Any social risks?
Kimbrell: Yes, there are social risks. What happens here, and we've documented this in the book, is that because of Monsanto (a St. Louis-based chemical company) having farmers signing technology use agreements, what you're basically seeing is farmers becoming tenant farmers for Monsanto. And farmers who have been polluted -- unintentionally polluted -- are being sued, and have been sued by Monsanto. Farmers who did not understand, who did not sign a technology use agreement, and did not understand what this technology was about, are being sued. Saving their seeds, cleaning their seeds is becoming an illegal activity where they are faced with hundreds of thousands worth of damages because Monsanto filed lawsuits.
This is really kind of corporate terrorism against America's farmers. ... It's really (destroyed) the social fabric of a lot of America's farmland and it's amazing to me that this has gone unreported.
Petrovic: Is organic farming in danger of disappearing?
Kimbrell: No, I don't think that organic farming is in danger of disappearing. One of the myths that the book also tries to bust is that people think, "Oh, Pandora's Box is open, we're over, we're doomed." Not true at all. We, the Center for Food Safety, and a number of other organizations who we work very closely with, have been very successful in stopping genetically engineered wheat. ...We have stopped primarily genetically engineered rice, we have stopped genetically engineered fish, and that's in this country. Around the world, these foods are being rejected.
Petrovic: In your book, you talk about Tom and Gail Wiley -- North Dakota farmers who grow over a thousand acres of food-grade soy. When they landed a contract with Japan, the prospective buyers tested the crop and they discovered that the 1.37 percent of the soy had been contaminated with of genetically engineered seeds. Does the Wiley's story ring true for a lot of farmers in America?
Kimbrell: A lot of farmers are facing that and worse. At least they got their crop ... We have literally hundreds of thousands of farmers in the South that literally cannot plant rice because of rice contamination. ... So, yeah, it has become and it will become an increasing problem because it's living pollution. These contaminations to the extent that we now know -- and our government seems to think this -- are coming from very small field trials. Even if (only a few species are affected) ... when it's released, since it's biological pollution, it disseminates, grows and mutates.
Petrovic: Why has three quarters of agricultural genetic diversity been lost in the past century?
Kimbrell: We've seen a devastating loss ... that has happened because of hybrid monoculture, that has happened because of industrial agriculture. In my book, Fatal Agriculture, we have all these experts who explain how that happened. It is the monoculture that we see in our crops even before genetic engineering even came on board in '96, '97. And that's already a tragedy.
It's not like genetic engineering is the only bad thing that ever happened in agriculture. That hybridization of monoculture is bad in a number of ways, but the loss of diversity is also a loss of food security. If you have one type of corn, one type of tomato, one type of wheat out there and there is a corn blithe [blight???] or a wheat blithe there is no genetic diversity to protect that crop. We saw that with the corn blithe a couple of decades ago and we had to get corn from South America to save us ... Genetic engineering, of course, is monoculture on steroids... It's the ultimate monoculture, but it's also an unnatural monoculture because it has genetic material in it that's never been in that plant ever before. I mean, you're not only crossing species, you're crossing phyla.
Petrovic: Will we reach a point when there is no genetic diversity?
Kimbrell: We'll never reach the zero point because there will always be some natural mutation, but I think we're going in the opposite direction now. We have tremendous efforts now to save local seeds; that's part of one of the documentaries that I'm making, we're showing that there really is a future of food. That's very encouraging.
But obviously if we were to continue down the path of industrial genetically engineered agriculture, yeah, you would get to a point where literally -- and we're almost there in some cases -- where literally you have one variety, or two varieties of lettuce, one variety of corn, one variety of tomato, where it'll be so monoculture because that's the easiest one for them to grow in large quantities, the easiest one for them to store, and the easiest one for them to sell.
We're at a real crossroads for the future of food. ... We're either going to continue down the industrial path all the way to genetically engineering our food so that it literally becomes nothing but a tool of industrial agriculture, including withstanding all these poisons. Or, we're going to go down the organic and beyond way, which says no to genetic engineering, no to irradiation, no to this massive alteration at the atomic and genetic level.
Petrovic: What changes would you like to see the FDA make?
Kimbrell: Oh, thank you for bringing up my favorite agency. ... There is no mandatory testing, there is no mandatory labeling, what they did set up is what they call a voluntary consulting process. So, if you're putting a new genetically engineered food on the market, you can choose if you wish, to consult with the FDA if you have issues. ... Can you imagine this with drugs? If you tell the drug companies, "Oh, no, you don't have to test, you don't have to label your drug, but if you think it's going to kill somebody, you should probably consult us."
I mean, no one would accept that. No one would accept that with car safety, no one would accept that with virtually any aspect of what's going on, yet we're accepting it with genetically modified food? ... That really is a corporate coup d'etat.
Petrovic: With the help of this book can people completely avoid genetically engineered food and for how long?
Kimbrell: Yes, with the help of the book, if they read the book carefully, and follow the instructions, they will be able to avoid virtually all -- there may be some enzymes in cheese, for example, some very, very minor enzyme stuff -- but for all practical purposes, yes, they will be able to avoid GMOs.
The intriguing part of your question is for how long. And we will, on the Center for Food Safety Web site have continuing updates on what's going on. ... For now this will protect you, but that shouldn't make us feel good about our government. If it had mandatory labeling you wouldn't need this book. You wouldn't need to take all this time and effort because they should have done it for you.
Petrovic: Why do you think topics that you cover in this book, such as herbicide-resistant super weeds, super pests, and the dangers to organic farming don't show up in the mainstream media?
Kimbell: You should look at their advertisers. I mean if you look at the advertisers of even National Public Radio -- they're not allowed to have advertisers, but they have underwriters -- you'll see major biotechnology companies. ... And I also think there is a "gee-whiz" quality, particularly in America, that anything that seems technological and new is automatically better.
Petrovic This book is different from other books on genetic engineering in that it's much more practical and accessible. What was the thought process behind that?
Kimbrell: There's been a lot of books out there that are really good, but let's face it a lot of people had a hard time getting through high school biology. A lot of people have not been spending a lot of time on biology. So, we wanted to present it in a very accurate way, and that's why the whole book is exhaustively footnoted ... however, we wanted to present it in a way that would be fun, interesting and I think very beautiful, I hope you agree. I think it's very attractive, very interesting, very engaging and after all, that's what we're about. We wanted people to understand and present this in a very interesting way.
Vanja Petrovic is an editorial intern with AlterNet.
Friday, 8 June 2007
GM Food: The People versus Victoria
GM Food: The People versus Victoria
When Sydney Greenpeace staffers John Hepburn and Louise Sales took the train to Melbourne to meet a small group of campaigners last weekend, things were looking shaky. The group had learned that the Victorian Government intended to overturn bans on genetically manipulated (GM) food crops. By media accounts, it was a done deal.
Gene contamination knows no borders, so other States may have no choice but to follow. As the group — from rural, health and environment sectors — shivered in a room in 60L Green Building, Hepburn plotted a whiteboard map of players on both sides. Things were looking lop-sided.
‘It’s not bad,’ he said.
On the pro-GM side was State Treasurer and Innovations Minister John Brumby, a fierce GM food advocate. Below him was Agriculture Minister Joe Helper, by name and nature. Rubbing shoulders with them were Premier Steve Bracks, CSIRO, the DPI, and most of the media.
A complex of industry lobbyists followed — including the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) — and their PR arms, like the IPA’s Australian Environment Foundation (not to be confused with the citizen-supported Australian Conservation Foundation). Driving these were multinationals Bayer and Monsanto, leading the vastly-funded gene technology industry.
And on it went. A squad of vocal scientists in receipt of GM funds were plotted alongside the panel appointed to review the bans. On the panel: the lovable Sir Gus Nossal, who has spoken cautiously in support of GM food crops, and Merna Curnow, who represents the pro-GM Grains Research Development Corporation. (Not much is known about the third panelist, Christine Forster.)
Finally, there was Australia’s Chief Scientist, the formidable Jim Peacock: friend of John Howard, founder of GM companies, lodger of contentious GM patents, who recently called those opposing GM foods ‘self-serving … unprincipled minorities.’
If the whiteboard’s pro-GM camp reeked of fiscal and political power, the GM-free side had people power. Celebrity chefs Margaret Fulton, Charmaine Solomon, Maggie Beer and Stefano Di Pieri sat alongside nutritionist and biochemist Dr Rosemary Stanton, epidemiologist Dr Judy Carman, medical scientist Professor Stephen Leeder, and erstwhile CSIRO soil scientist Dr Maarten Stapper, who claimed to have been sacked for speaking out about the dangers of GM crops.
Supporting them were health and environment groups and, well, most people. In every poll taken to date, the public is overwhelmingly opposed to GM food. So are an even larger majority of polled farmers, who don’t want GM food crops.
Finally, there were allies like celebrated geneticist Dr David Suzuki, who has said: ‘Any scientist or politician who tells you [GM] foods are safe is either very stupid or lying.’
‘Perhaps we’re being optimistic,’ said Hepburn. 'But it's looking good.'
Later, at GM-free restaurant The Curry Pot, Sales said she was feeling confident.
Across town, in the pro-GM camp, things looked just as shaky. The IPA — exposed in The Age as sponsored by Monsanto — had hosted drinks and hors d’œuvres in a warm Parliament room, as part of a forum to promote an end to GM bans. The forum was endorsed by three MPs including Labor’s young Luke Donnellan — which raised eyebrows. The IPA, famous for tobacco-lobbying, Murray-crisis denial and climate change skepticism, ‘was one of Kennett’s key backers, so their involvement with a Labor MP will not have gone unnoticed,’ remarked Labor staffer Chris Anderson.
I RSVPd to attend the IPA forum, but was told it was full. Tammy Lobato, Victorian State Labor MP for Gembrook, who did attend, told me:
It wasn’t well-attended by MPs. The IPA wheeled out the usual GM promises. [The IPA’s] Jennifer Marohasy said the bans were ‘irresponsible’, and were ‘killing’ Victoria’s canola industry. The next day I opened my copy of The Weekly Times to learn that Victoria now has record high yields of canola.
***
Mine isn’t a balanced and disinterested account of this issue. But to the best of my knowledge, it’s a fair and truthful one. As Robert Manne wrote last year in The Monthly, one side has gained 'an altogether undeserved importance.’ He was speaking about climate change skeptic (carbon lobby) scientists, not pro-GM scientists, but the GM debate is even more distorted.
So much so that the issue is framed not as ‘industry interest versus public interest,’ but as ‘Science versus Luddites.’ How many Australians are aware of the hordes of scientists — geneticists, agronomists, epidemiologists, toxicologists, cancer pathologists, soil biologists — who vehemently warn against GM food? How many are aware that, despite rhetoric of drought-tolerant GM crops flooding our media, no such crop has been commercially developed or even field-trialled? Has any journalist questioned why chemical giants Bayer and Monsanto refuse to produce empirical, peer-reviewed evidence to back utopian claims (greater long-term yields, fewer chemicals, feed the world, tolerate drought, boost the economy, save malnourished children) for patented GM food crops?
Have they questioned the billions of public, private and philanthropist dollars invested in GM duds — CSIRO’s non-browning potato, its weevil-resistant field pea, the Flavr Savr tomato, banned terminator seeds, Golden Rice, and so on?
The two rats pictured are the same age. The smaller one's mother was fed genetically manipulated food. Image thanks to Dr Irina Ermakova.
After the bans were put in place four years ago, I undertook a content analysis of all newspaper articles about GM in Australia’s canola-growing States as a postgrad research project. I looked at who was quoted, and I followed the money. Without exception, quoted scientists (many claiming ‘scientific consensus’ about GM) had received funds from biotech companies, sponsored think tanks, or GM grant and regulatory bodies. Most who made safety claims had no relevant expertise. Not one of the adverse research results or dissenting scientists — and there are many — was reported.
So when GeneEthics (a network of farmers, scientists, foodies and concerned citizens) failed to get studies showing negative impacts of GM into media reports, its supporters raised enough money to buy a series of advertisements in the Grains Research and Development Council's magazine, Ground Cover. After publishing one ad, Ground Cover, dependent on big agribusiness dollars, cancelled five subsequent GeneEthics ads. ‘The GRDC is funded by farmers and taxpayers, yet we can’t even buy space in their journal. This was the only way of reaching an audience of 50,000 graingrowers,’ said GeneEthics executive director Bob Phelps. As Jeffrey Smith’s Seeds of Deception documents, this is the norm for scientists worldwide who attempt to publish research showing the negative impacts of GM. The free market of ideas, says Phelps, is free not just to those who can afford it, but to those who agree with it.
***
When West Australian graingrower Julie Newman heard about Victoria’s plans, she prepared for combat. Newman isn’t one of Jim Peacock’s ‘unprincipled… self-interested organic farmers.’ She’s a conventional, broadacre, monocrop farmer with a 10,000 hectare wheat property. She owns one of the largest seed-grading factories in WA, and she heads the national Network of Concerned Farmers. Many public stoushes with figures like Jim Peacock, and threats allegedly made against her family by big agribusiness players famous for their dirty tricks, have made her battle-hardened. She’s not prepared to lose this one.
Still, when Newman heard Victorian Agriculture Minister Joe Helper’s claim that introducing GM will give choice to farmers, she groaned.
‘Farmers don’t have a choice if their crops — or the environment — are contaminated, but we have to suffer the consequences. Agribusiness giants, not farmers, should be liable for economic losses from the introduction of GM. But this has been rejected by GM companies, by our chief scientist, and by our Federal Government. They want to make money out of farmers, but they don’t want to compensate us when it goes wrong.’
Newman says the widely-reported spin of greater yields from GM crops isn’t backed by evidence. In a long-term study of official US Government data, agronomist Dr Charles Benbrook reported: ‘The evidence is now overwhelming and indisputable that average yields of [GM] Roundup-ready varieties are about 4-6 per cent less than conventional varieties.’ Benbrook warned: ‘Australia should avoid the problems and market losses that the US experienced with GM.’
Here, his warnings went largely unreported.
As did reports that the US lost $12 billion when Europe refused its GM corn. A recent report by the Canadian’s National Farmers Union (Canada lost its EU canola market to Australia because of GM) says: ‘While the benefits [of GM] are questionable, risks and costs are real. Consumers are rejecting GM foods. Markets in Europe, Japan, and elsewhere are closing and domestic markets are likewise threatened. This is driving prices down. Closing markets and falling prices threaten to overwhelm any small, short-term economic benefits that GM crops or livestock may offer.’
Armed with even newer information, Newman is heading for Victoria.
Consumer groups, too, are mobilising. Australia refuses to label GM food, or food using GM process, so if the bans are lifted, there’s no choice. It’s easy to figure why. Customer demand forced US Starbucks and Walmart (the US's biggest retailer) to drop dairy products made from GM growth-hormone treated animals. It forced US Safeway to take GM milk off its shelves.
UK customer demand forced Sainsbury’s to eliminate GM ingredients from its own-brand products, and Marks & Spencer removed them altogether. Even the canteen of Monsanto, the chemical giant at the forefront of pro-GM lobbying, banned GM food ‘in response to concern raised by our customers,’ according to a BBC report.
In Australia, chains like The Pancake Parlour reject imported GM ingredients, as do the kitchens of upmarket restaurants like The Grand Mildura and Café EQ at Melbourne’s Southbank.
‘The vast majority of customers in cafés and food stores that I have spoken to have been very skeptical regarding GM foods,’ says food researcher Sun Hyland. ‘It’s very clear to most people that big GM companies like Monsanto are primarily motivated by profit, not by a desire to make the world a better place.’
Her views are echoed by nutritionist Dr Rosemary Stanton, who said: ‘Claims that GM foods are essential to feeding the world population are absurd.’ (Claims that GM crops could improve nutrition in third world countries have also been comprehensively discredited.)
Rod Barbey, who runs Bcoz restaurant in Melbourne’s leafy east, is among those gearing up to oppose lifting the ban. ‘Chefs have a responsibility to health, environmental and sustainable practices,’ he says. Recent (non-industry) studies link GM food with serious dangers not just from horizontal gene transfer or antibiotic marker resistance, but from novel, incorrectly-folded proteins resulting from the process of GM.
In an ANU experiment, CSIRO’s GM field peas were found to cause serious adverse effects in animals. In the UK, world-renowned toxicologist Dr Arpad Pusztai fed potatoes to two groups of rats. Those fed GM potatoes had damaged immune systems and organs and were more vulnerable to disease than the control groups. (Pusztai’s study was widely smeared, but has been vindicated by independent scientists.) In a Russian experiment, Dr Irina Ermakova fed soy to two groups of pregnant rats as part of their diet. Pups from the rats fed GM soy died at much higher rates and had stunted growth, when compared to the control group.
Australian epidemiologist Dr Judy Carman says: ‘Many scientifically valid concerns are raised by independent scientists worldwide about the safety of these foods. GM foods were initially approved as safe as a result of a political directive which overrode the warnings of the US Food and Drug Administration’s own experts.’
She says money is rarely directed to sound experimental design. Instead, our health bodies are ‘relying on company data. But even within these experiments, which are limited in their ability to pick up health problems, some adverse effects were found.’ In Australia, GM food has been assessed as safe according to US standards that are ‘full of unsound scientific assumptions, rife with careless science, and arrogantly dismissive of valid concerns,’ according to University of California geneticist, Professor Patrick Brown.
But despite mounting new evidence, and despite scientists worldwide gathering in Brussels next week to argue the scientific case for Europe to ban GM foods, Australian States’ forthcoming GM ban reviews can accept objections on marketing grounds only. Still, if Australia’s shoppers, diners, chefs and overseas markets have any say in the democratic process, marketing grounds alone would see the bans stay in place.
Which is what GM-free campaigners are counting on. They hope citizens Australia-wide will make submissions (letters, documents, studies) to Victoria’s review panel, because if Victoria keeps its bans, other States should follow. A tough battle is ahead. But despite reports of done deals among agribusiness powerbrokers and pollies, the campaigners hope that the customer is always right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
