GM/Biotechnology
Click here for Latest News
"Unlike ordinary drugs or pesticides, which have to be tested for three-months in three mammalian species, then with one mammalian species for one year, and yet another for 2 years, current regulation does not require such tests for 'biopesticides' produced continuously in open fields; nor for the herbicides and herbicide residues accumulated by herbicide-tolerant GM crops. The two traits, biopesticides and herbicide tolerance now account for practically all GM crops grown in the world today." www.i-sis.org.uk
Genetic Modification for Profit
Warmwell.com Links to articles we have found interesting about what seems to us to be the less ethical side of GM technology.
Soil Association Report - Seeds of Doubt(new window) : North American farmers' experiences of GE crops is the first comprehensive study into the economic and social impacts of Genetically Engineered crops in North America.
"We strongly object that the image of the poor and hungry from our countries is being used by giant multinational corporations to push a technology that is neither safe, environmentally friendly nor economically beneficial to us."
Delegates from 20 African Countries to the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UN meeting on Plant Genetic Resources. GM WatchGM/Biotechnology
Human insulin is capable of being grown in GM yeast and there are, as the FAO's 2000 statement says, "examples where genetic engineering is helping to reduce the transmission of human and animal diseases through new vaccines" and we have said many times on this website, we do not want to throw the entire biotechnology/GM baby out with the bath water. Yet the FAO statement shows awareness too of the unwanted transfer of antibiotic resistance markers, unintended transfer of transgenes through cross-pollination, unknown effects on the soil - and a possibly disastrous loss of biodiversity. (See February posting)GM ".. to maximise profits rather than to pull the world out of poverty and hunger"
Advances in every human sphere - commerce, agriculture, transportation, the military, science and technology, household life, health care, public utilities-were driven directly or indirectly by the changes in society's underlying energy systems.
Bamboozled by PR from the Agrobiotech lobby?
The Soil Association's page GM crops don't increase yields, do have negative health impacts
November 17 2008 ~ GM protests to be criminalised?
It is alarming - to say the least - to read in the Independent that
"Ministers are drawing up plans for genetically-modified crops to be grown in secret and more secure locations to prevent trials being wrecked by saboteurs. They may ask the police to target opponents of GM crops in the way that they have cracked down on animal rights protesters. Another option is for the controversial crops to be grown at a secure government site such as Porton Down.." Read in full
Professor Tim Benton at Leeds university, research dean of Biological Science, who wants to run trials, is quoted as saying:"There is absolutely no way we can move towards a world with food security without using GM technology. ..."
but there are powerful arguments against this view that did not find their way into the article. One unanswerable problem is that GM material can escape to cross-fertilise conventional plants. As we reported on Nov 3, when crops failed in the past, farmers could still save seeds and replant them the following year but many GM seeds contain 'terminator technology'and do not produce viable seeds of their own. (GM page) It is hardly surprising that the issue of GM produces such strength of feeling. There is a genuine fear that the huge firms pushing GM as the magic seeds to feed the world are more interested in the heady power of holding a monopoly on food crops.
By the term "security at trial sites", the biotechnology industry seems to mean - not safe trials in which cross contamination cannot take place and proper independent studies are done - but "more protection against protest". Their drawing of a parallel between anti-GM protesters and opponents of experiments on animals suggests that anyone whose deep conviction leads them to active protest may now be prosecuted and no defence allowed.November 3 3008 ~ "official figures from the Indian Ministry of Agriculture do indeed confirm that ...more than 1,000 farmers kill themselves here each month."
A journalist from the Daily Mail, Andrew Malone, travelled to the 'suicide belt' in Maharashtra state.
"...What I found was deeply disturbing - and has profound implications for countries, including Britain, debating whether to allow the planting of seeds manipulated by scientists to circumvent the laws of nature.....In village after village, families told how they had fallen into debt after being persuaded to buy GM seeds instead of traditional cotton seeds. The price difference is staggering: £10 for 100 grams of GM seed, compared with less than £10 for 1,000 times more traditional seeds..."
The article explains how traditional varieties have been banned from many government seed banks. Up to 17 million acres in India have been planted with GM but, far from being 'magic seeds', as poor farmers were promised, not only do GM pest-proof 'breeds' of cotton become devastated by bollworms, they also require double the amount of water. When crops failed in the past, farmers could still save seeds and replant them the following year but GM seeds contain 'terminator technology'and do not produce viable seeds of their own.November 1 2008 ~ And what of the effect of genetic modification on the soil?
Geoffrey Lean's article last Sunday (IOS) revealed, from minutes of a series of private meetings of representatives of 27 governments, that there are plans to "speed up" the introduction of GM crops and foods and to "deal with" public resistance to them.
He quoted Peter Melchett of the Soil Association: "... Scientists have found genetically engineered insecticide in crops can leak and kill beneficial soil fungi" and the article notes:"Official trials in Britain showed that growing GM crops was worse for wildlife than cultivating conventional ones. Worse, genes escape from the modified plants to create superweeds and to contaminate normal and organic crops..." Read Geoffrey Lean's article
Extract from concluding Q and A section::"Can they feed the world?
Almost certainly not. Despite all the hype, present GM varieties actually have lower yields than their conventional counterparts. The seeds are expensive to buy and grow, so wealthy developing-world farmers would tend to use them and drive poor ones out of business, increasing destitution. The biggest agricultural assessment ever conducted - chaired by Professor Robert Watson, now Defra's chief scientist - recently concluded that they would not do the job."October 8 2008 ~ London Conference November 12th 2008
The Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre 10.30 am Feeding the World - Are GM crops fit for purpose? If not, then what?...see email and details "......With the support and participation of charitable foundations, academics, researchers, NGOs, farmers and policy makers from the UK and abroad this conference brings a wide and challenging perspective to questions and issues that are too often mired in cliché and propaganda..." Read in full
October 5 2008 ~"The reason I keep sticking my 60-year-old head above an increasingly dangerous parapet is not because it is good for my health"
Prince Charles on his heartfelt opposition to GM crops - "commerce without morality". See Geoffrey Lean's Independent on Sunday article
"...the Prince attacked the contention that "GM food is now essential to feed the world", saying that the evidence showed that modified crops' yields were "generally lower than their conventional counterparts". He called them "a wrong turning on the route to feeding the world in a sustainable or durable manner" and "a risky and expensive distraction, diverting attention and resources away from those real, long-term solutions such as crop varieties which respond well to low input systems that, in turn, do not rely on fossil fuels."....
September 8 2008 ~ Devon farmer appeals to Farming Today to "give us some properly impartial investigative reports".
The email was copied to warmwell.com. Extract:
"...the adoption of GM crops presents us with the real possibility that one large Pharmaceutical Company will gain control of the World food supply..... Secondly, the GM crops are not subject to rigorous safety testing. ..... Thirdly, the advice of the ‘expert scientists' on this matter cannot be trusted. .... it is suicidal for any research scientist to make comments unwelcome to these powerful interests. ..."
Read in fullSept 3 2008 ~ EU to approve Bayer GM soy imports next week
Reuters -" The European Union will next week approve imports of genetically modified (GM) soybeans made by Bayer CropScience..... hoping to ease a shortage of animal feed, officials said on Wednesday.
The rubber-stamp approval, permitted under EU law when ministers from the bloc's 27 countries fail to agree after a certain time, will be valid for a standard 10 years and be granted by the European Commission, the EU's executive arm, on September 8, they said.
Bayer's soybean, developed to resist glufosinate herbicides, is known by its codename A2704-12 and will be imported into EU markets either as whole soybeans, oil or meal, and then be processed by European companies for use in food and animal feed.
Its EU authorization does not permit cultivation in Europe...."August 23 2008 ~ "More Milk. Fewer Cows. What's The Problem?"
This is the headline of an article from the "Center for Consumer Freedom" - an article that concludes,
"...the folks at Eli Lilly are no dummies. They've just placed a nine-figure bet on the notion that this product is in the food chain to stay.
There is well documented concern about animal welfare and an article that calls such concern "radical environmentalism" seems, itself, somewhat bizarre. Monsanto's Posilac has been banned in every industrialized nation in the world except for the United States. According to http://ec.europa.eu , the use of rBST, "substantially increased health problems with cows, including foot problems, mastitis and injection site reactions, impinged on the welfare of the animals and caused reproductive disorders" Monsanto's attempt to restrict labels indicating that milk comes from untreated cows, failed. Even Wal-Mart pledged to source only rBGH-free milk.
Fortunately for those of us outside the bizarre world of radical environmentalism, this looks like a bet that farmers, cows, and the milk-buying public are also likely to win."
Eli Lilly bought Monsanto's Posilac last week for 300 million dollars. www.indystar.comAugust 13 2008 ~ Des Turner, Labour MP is calling Prince Charles a Luddite.
There is outrage being expressed (Telegraph this afternoon) from GM supporters with powerful voices - Lord Haskins included - who are implying that Prince Charles' warning about the multinationals' use of GM crops for profit is a rejection of all science in agriculture. This is not what he is saying. His passionate view echoes that of a recent UNESCO statement:
"...We must develop agriculture that is less dependent on fossil fuels, favours the use of locally available resources and explores the use of natural processes such as crop rotation and use of organic fertilisers"
Crop rotation, the use of organic fertilisers and understanding of local resources are the time honoured ways of working with nature. But, as Prince Charles shows in yesterday's interview, the so-called Green Revolution and its genetic engineering technologies are dependent on external suppliers of seeds, fertiliser, pesticides and water. That this comes at a huge price is now becoming evident - even to those most blinded by the alllure - political and financial -of untried technologies that need external and expensive inputs.August 13 2008 ~ relying on multi-nationals to mass-produce GM food would drive millions of farmers off their land and lead to "absolute disaster" - says Prince Charles
Prince Charles speaks of the damage being "wreaked on the earth's soil by scientists' research" and warns that huge multi-national corporations involved in developing genetically modified foods are conducting a "gigantic experiment with nature and the whole of humanity - which has gone seriously wrong". Millions driven off their own land and "into unsustainable, unmanageable, degraded and dysfunctional conurbations of unmentionable awfulness." There is an audio link on the page in which we hear him warning that it could all end in "absolute disaster".
target="_blank"
What should be being debated was "food security not food production", he says. Telegraph article. Food Security was indeed debated in Parliament on June 30th this year - and there were several voices dutifully claiming that GM can solve the world's hunger. It was rather alarming to hear statements, even from the wary, such as, "Whether people want to grow those crops is up to them, as is whether they think there is a market for such production..." as if there really were some kind of democratic choice involved.
Food security in all its aspects has become a most urgent issue for Britain as well as for the rest of the world and it is cheering to see what genuine and powerful concern Prince Charles shows for the planet and for those who have no such voice to raise in eloquent protest."... if they think its somehow going to work because they are going to have one form of clever genetic engineering after another then again count me out, because that will be guaranteed to cause the biggest disaster environmentally of all time."
target="_blank"
August 13 ~ Was Prince Charles trying to turn back the clock?
He is quoted: "I think not. I'm terribly sorry. It's not going backwards. It is actually recognising that we are with nature, not against it. We have gone working against nature for too long.
Look at India's Green Revolution. It worked for a short time but now the price is being paid.
I have been to the Punjab where you have seen the disasters that have taken place as result of the over demand on irrigation because of the hybrid seeds and grains that have been produced which demand huge amounts of water. [The] water table has disappeared. They have huge problems with water level, with pesticide problems, and complications which are now coming home to roost. ..." The article should be read in full.Tuesday 15th July 2008 ~ "A shift from an industrialised agriculture system to one based on ecologically sound principles and free from petro-chemical inputs..."
The House of Commons All Party Parliamentary Group on Peak Oil has published its first report. See peak oil pages. Building on the advice of experts in international development its findings are as relevant to the affluent West as to the 'developing' world. It quotes a recent UNESCO statement:
"The status quo is no longer an option. We must develop agriculture that is less dependent on fossil fuels, favours the use of locally available resources and explores the use of natural processes such as crop rotation and use of organic fertilisers"
and agrees that ".... The food crisis is set to deepen if modern agriculture remains reliant on fossil fuels..."
The page 16 section on Resilient food production advocates "independence from external suppliers of seeds, fertiliser, pesticides and water, .... builds resilience and stronger local economies, health and wellbeing." Interestingly it appears to concur with the view that‘External Input' agricultural models of Green Revolution and genetic engineering technologies fare poorly compared with ‘Internal Input' ecological agriculture, where productivity is based upon biodiversity and full and efficient utilisation of biological resources.."
The report is a timely acknowledgement that after the end of cheap oil and gas, business as usual is not an option. Nor can GM technology (see below) ever replace time honoured ways of working with nature.July 10 2008 ~" using high market prices to scare consumers into thinking that their food will become too expensive unless they turn to GM technology.."
An article in the International Herald Tribune, after reporting that "Monsanto, DuPont and Syngenta have all raised 2008 earnings forecasts.." and that "a wave of food-price inflation may help wash away popular opposition to so-called Frankenstein foods", gives balance on the second page by quoting Peter Melchett the policy director of the Soil Association
"GM chemical companies constantly claim they have the answer to world hunger while selling products which have never led to overall increases in production and which have sometimes decreased yields or even led to crop failure."
The IHT also quotes Geert Ritsema, a genetic engineering campaigner at Greenpeace International, who said that proponents of biotech crops are using high market prices to scare consumers into thinking that their food will become too expensive unless they turn to GM technology.10 July ~ "There is no one-size-fits-all solution to the current food price increase. ."
If there really exists - as some genuinely fear - an ambition among the biotech giants to control across the globe the seed trade and ultimately food production itself, the present food crisis provides the ideal opportunity to drown out opposing voices. But there is evidence of what can happen when small farmers change over from their traditional farming to the use of GMO seeds. According to www.countercurrents.org what follows "... is a horror story of bad harvests, huge debts, increased costs for herbicides and fertilizers (in spite of the companies' promises of lower costs), and the suicides of thousands of farmers in Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Kerala - among the Indian states that are hit the worst."
Marco Contiero, Greenpeace EU GMO campaign director said last month that there is no one-size-fits-all solution to the current food price increase and any claim that a single technology such as genetic engineering is a silver bullet for our future food supply distracts attention from the real solutions."Farming methods that ensure higher yields, that are more climate resilient, which do not destroy natural resources and can provide better livelihoods for farmers around the world are the only way forward."
What must also not be forgotten is the possibility of the unwanted transfer of antibiotic resistance markers, unintended transfer of transgenes through cross-pollination, unknown effects on the soil - and a possibly disastrous loss of biodiversity. (See also February posting.July 2 2008 ~ A sustainable food system must be low energy, water conscious and actively involve as many people as possible.
Dr Ian Gibson, in his persuasive arguments in favour of GM crops in Tuesday's debate, said: ".. high food prices will be with us for some time to come. The only response is to increase the food supply.. " He meant that genetic modification has the answer. However, on the notion that we can relax and simply now give full rein to GM crops, one warmwell emailer says today,
"....I am not at all convinced that in times of diminishing oil reserves we should seek to utilise methods so dependent on oil-based products (fertiliser, herbicide etc)"
He went on to say that in the production of herbicide-resistant varieties, if the seed production and the herbicide production lies in the same commercial organisation it is "a bit like having an election with only one candidate".
Since intensive farming equipment is so dependent on fossil fuel for its machinery, transport and non-organic fertilisers, let us instead learn to cultivate our gardens in the most biodiverse way we can, and encourage as fast and as widely spread as possible the human scale gardening and farming that isn't dependent on oil. The methods so happily embraced by UK smallholders, by the Transition movement and other far-sighted ones should now be a source of inspiration to all.June 20 2008 ~ "genetically modified food lobby smiling all the way to the seed bank"
Unfortunately the oil and food crisis is giving quick fix solutions a false allure - encouraging what Geoffrey Lean in his article today calls "the increasingly noisy British GM lobby" to assert that GM can feed the world. His article is packed with enough facts and statistics showing that GM is not the answer to world hunger to make one's jaw drop. He writes,
" biotech companies ... have filed for no fewer than 532 patents around the world....these will enable them to monopolise the seeds..charge what they like and, by ensuring the seeds are 'infertile', make farmers buy new ones every year...
In spite of its fine words about caution and "upsetting the ecosystem balance" one's heart sinks to read in the FAO statement that "the responsibility for formulating policies towards these technologies rests with the Member Governments themselves...."
... Even some biotech chiefs seem to be admitting the truth. Hans Kast, managing director of the plant science branch of the chemical giant BASF, said: 'Genetically modified agriculture will not solve the world's hunger problem.' "
If the FAO is waiting for governments to demonstrate a responsible attitude in formulating GM policy one finds oneself muttering, along with Mr Lean, " If I were you, I wouldn't hold your breath." (See also below)June 20 2008 ~ "Europe is heavily dependent on imports as it does not have enough land to both farm animals and grow the feed they need."
In an article revealing that the Environment minister has held private talks with the biotechnology industry about relaxing Britain's policy on the use of GM crops, Andrew Grice, the Independent's Political Editor in Brussels tells us
"... At a two-day summit in Brussels which began last night, EU leaders were urged to "bite the bullet" and embrace GM products as a solution to rocketing food prices. .... Europe is heavily dependent on imports as it does not have enough land to both farm animals and grow the feed they need. .."
At the end of the article Michael McCarthy's Q and A section we discover that it is only in the developing countries that governments and universities are now working on drought-resistant crop strains. The dominant aim of the big commercial companies is different. It is "is to maximise profits rather than to pull the world out of poverty and hunger". If widely grown in Britain, the present "broad-spectrum" weedkillers used with herbicide-tolerant crops "would have a devastating effect on farmland wildlife".May 22 ~ The threat of GM terminator seeds - back again
The practice of seed-saving and seed sharing is at the very heart of small-scale farming and central to the livelihoods of 1.4 billion people in the developing world. But its future - and the food security of those who rely on it - is now under serious threat. Sol Oyuela, the Environmental officer of Progressio, an international development charity which chairs the 'UK Working Group on Terminator Technology', writes in today's Guardian about the threat to the world's poorest farmers from "terminator" technology - genetic engineering that results in plants producing sterile seeds. The highly controversial technology is currently controlled by a temporary UN ban - but this is
"... now under threat from a powerful alliance of biotech companies and countries with vested interests.... We fear the ban will once again come under pressure at this week's UN summit on the convention on biological diversity in Bonn. ...the EU and, by implication, British taxpayers are contributing to the development of the technology through a £3.4m EU research project "
Read Progressio's report "Against the Grain"May 22 2008 ~ The relentless rise of the seed multinationals has already locked millions of farmers into buying commercialised seed
Extract from Progressio's report "Against the Grain"
"Seed industry concentration and market forces are undermining small-scale farming in developing nations. The facts are shocking:
Read "Against the Grain"The danger is that Terminator is the logical next step in seed companies' bid to privatise plant life and would leave farmers with no choice at all...."
- As market demand for commercial crops rises, small producers are forced to abandon local and indigenous varieties.
- Seeds which people once saved now have to be sourced from seed companies while foodstuffs farmers once grew on their land now have to be bought from shops.
- The top 10 seed companies control 55% of the total commercial seed market.
May 2 2008 ~ "Organic agriculture is the only option left in our looming energy crisis, when oil becomes too expensive and scarce for farming use..."
Letter from Richard Sanders of Elm Farm (Organic Research Centre) in the Independent today. ".... It is time to move on from sterile debates about GM food verses organic, about the relative killing power of organic and synthetic pesticides and whether an outdoor pig is happier than his concrete-dwelling cousin. We're running out of oil and we're running out of food. Proper organic farming allied to local food economies has minimal reliance on fossil fuels and must play a central part in future, sustainable solutions to feeding our hungry planet."
April 16 2008 ~ There is emphasis in the report on proven traditional agricultural methods from around the world as much as on the new technologies.
The controversial questions surrounding GM were not dodged by the IAASTD report. The fact that we still don't know how GMOs will alter biodiversity, eco-system function or affect human health is seen as important. "We do know," says the video report, "that corporate control over seeds can undermine the livelihoods of small scale farmers." As for the combined expertise of the smaller farmers across the world, the four year study took pains to collect information. We learn, for example, that after Hurrican Mitch in 1998, farmers in one small area of Honduras using "zero tillage" (which helps prevent mud slides) managed to feed the rest of the country.
March 25 2008 ~ France's "decision was a victory for environmentalists and for farmers opposed to gene-modification technology"
The Conseil d'Etat has upheld the ban on MON810 (see below). Judge Jean-Marie Delarue evidently felt that the committee of French specialists who had, in January, called for more studies on the product's safety, should not be ignored. The New York Times commented that proponents of the GM maize said that allowing plantings of the gene-altered seed "could benefit consumers at a time of rising food prices." However, a analytical study (pdf) conducted last year by Greenpeace raised "far-reaching questions about the safety and the technical quality of the MON810 plants as well as some fundamental methodological questions."
March 10 2008 ~ The Independent on "prejudice" and "superstition" among food consumers
A rather different kind of article appeared in the Independent this morning, attacking consumer 'ignorance'. On the subject of H5N1, the article seems to profess concern that "...nine out of 10 people questioned said they would be concerned about eating chicken from a factory contaminated with the disease..." This, "despite evidence showing the illness cannot be contracted from consuming properly cooked poultry." The article assures readers that the Food Standards Agency's board concluded in 2000 that " the safety assessment procedures for GM foods were "sufficiently robust and rigorous" to ensure that they posed "no additional risk"..." In 2000 John Krebs was still the boss at the FSA. His profile at www.gmwatch.org is interesting.
Colin Blakemore says of the FSA report that it,".... seems to show that people are more likely to listen to advice about risk from friends than from scientists."
This is not surprising. Consumers, tired of false scares, will trust their own judgement until they are convinced of the genuine independence, benign intentions and common sense of scientists who make assertions about food safety.February 25 2008 ~ GM crops will save us?
Iain Ferguson, the chief executive of Tate & Lyle and president of the UK's Food and Drink Federation (FDF) said at the NFU conference that food prices in the UK are fuelling a rise in the average family's annual shopping bill of £750. He seems to contemplate GM as a possible saviour. (One doubts if Percy Schmeiser would agree.) Mr Ferguson is quoted:
"We have to face up to the issue of genetic modification and rise to the challenge of helping to foster a fair and scientific debate on an issue that has typically been clouded by suspicion and a lack of trust." (source)
A fair and scientific debate that allows the voices of genuine scientific caution to speak would indeed be a good thing. And as warmwell noted in a Blog last October, it may be remembered that Sir John Krebs, when still at the helm of the FSA, dismissed anyone who disagreed with his championing of GM as "shrill, often ill-informed and dogma-driven".February 20 2008 ~ Commission likely to give green light to 5 GM strains
Since the relevant Ministers failed to agree on Monday, the European Commission is now likely to give its approval - and within weeks - on four strains of insect-resistant genetically modified maize developed by Monsanto, and a GM potato produced by German chemical firm BASF. The potato is intended for industrial purposes, but has animal feed applications as well. None of the strains is intended to be grown on European farms, but they are intended to be used in food and feed. See EUobserver
Unfortunately, however "pest resistant" GM crops may seem to be, evolution is at work - as in the case of the destructive bollworm insect which has developed resistance to a GM cotton crop in America ( as the Independent reported last week.)January 3 2008 ~ GMOs "contribute negatively to poverty alleviation and food security"
José Bové, the farmer hero to so many in France and elsewhere has launched an anti GM hunger strike today in Paris. (José Bové is the force behind the Confederation Paysanne, the 2nd largest farmers' union in France.) The majority opinion in France is that GMOs could harm humans and wildlife by triggering an uncontrolled spread of modified genes. The government has only suspended the commercial use of GM maize seeds reliant on the MON 810 technology until Feb. 9 by which time a new law allowing for GMO use is expected to have been passed.
According to Reuters, senior government officials had said France would extend its ban beyond Feb. 9 and use the safeguard clause if doubts about safety lingered.January 3 2008 ~ "quality balanced information on agricultural biotechnology"
The FAO's Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture has now been running for over seven years with the aim of providing "quality ba lanced information on agricultural biotechnology in developing countries" and its statement can be read here. Genetic modification is not necessarily an all-or-nothing issue. One can be glad, for example, that human insulin is capable of being grown in GM yeast but still feel deep misgivings about a possible biotech monopoly of the food chain. Interesting then that a contributor to the FAO's Forum, Professor El-Tayeb, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Industrial Biotechnology at Cairo University commented that: "..currently available (GMO's) mostly contribute negatively to poverty alleviation and food security - and positively to the stock market."
Monday October 29 2007 ~ A farmer's story: 'It's all about control of food production'
We see from Geoffrey Lean's article in the Independent today that the government has been using taxpayers' "tens of millions of pounds a year to boost research into modified crops and foods" Constant claims of impartiality on GM technology and repeated promises to promote environmentally friendly, "sustainable" farming now seem hollow. Internal documents obtained under the Freedom Of Information Act reveal that DEFRA allowed the biotech giant BASF to plant 450,000 modified potatoes in British fields and officials
"repeatedly went to remarkable lengths to make sure the trial conditions, supposed to protect the environment and farmers, were "agreeable" to BASF"
Meanwhile in France, President Sarkozy says no GMO crops will be planted in France until the government had received the results of an evaluation by a new authority on GMOs set to be launched later this year. The BBSRC, however, says its funding for the research on GM crops would continue even if there was "a Europe-wide ban" on growing them commercially.
It is hard not to speculate on possible reasons why the UK government envisages the end of livestock farming with apparent lack of concern.Monday October 29 2007 ~ "few signs that the boom in organic food is ending."
An ongoing four year Newcastle University study has now found that
"Fruit and vegetables contain up to 40 per cent more nutrients if they are grown without chemical fertilisers and pesticides, organic milk contains 80 per cent more antioxidants and organic produce also had higher levels of iron and zinc, vital nutrients lacking in many people's diets."
Foods grown without pesticides and chemicals are increasingly popular with shoppers in the UK. Sales are now growing by 25 per cent each year.Monday October 29 2007 ~ The debate over the future of GMOs in Europe rages
In France, where 80 percent of the public are against GMO foods, President Sarkozy had said no more will be grown until an evaluation has been considered. When one type of maize was fed to rats in a laboratory study at the University of Caen, their immune system was weakened. Hungary banned the planting of Monsanto's MON 810 seed in January 2005. Germany says maize grown from MON 810 seeds can only be sold if there is an accompanying monitoring plan to research its effects on the environment. Austria could soon be facing an attempt by EU regulators to force it to lift bans on two GMO maize types. See www.dw-world.de
European labels must declare GMO ingredients. This is not the case in the US.June 2007 ~ "Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez Frias has announced that the cultivation of genetically modified crops will be prohibited on Venezuelan soil
possibly establishing the most sweeping restrictions on transgenic crops in the western hemisphere.
Though full details of the administration's policy on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are still forthcoming, the statement by President Hugo Chavez will lead to the cancellation of a contract that Venezuela had negotiated with the US-based Monsanto Corporation. Before a recent international gathering of supporters in Caracas, Chavez admonished GM crops as contrary to interests and needs of the nation's farmers and farmworkers. He then zeroed in on Monsanto's plans to plant up to 500,000 acres of transgenic soybeans in Venezuela.
"I ordered an end to the project," said Chavez, upon learning that GM crops were involved. "This project is terminated." www.organicconsumers.orgJune 2007 ~ "My topic was genetically modified (GM) food and my stance was distinctly supportive. (Don't start throwing the rotten tomatoes now!)...."
An interesting post (only just tracked down) on Genetics and Health ( which is in favour of genetic modification when it involves the cross-breeding two organisms of the same species, such as crossing strawberry plants with a deeper red color with those that have larger fruit) goes on to list the controversies summarised by the Human Genome Project in relation to GM foods. A substantial list! :
and the post concludes, "There's no doubt that the GM food supply should be closely monitored and regulated, but that doesn't mean it should all be banned. I believe that genetic engineering of plants, animals, and humans has much to offer as long as we are aware of potential benefits and side effects. And that's true even for more traditional methods of farming, animal husbandry, and medicine."
- Potential human health impact: allergens, transfer of antibiotic resistance markers, unknown effects
- Potential environmental impact: unintended transfer of transgenes through cross-pollination, unknown effects on other organisms (e.g., soil microbes), and loss of flora and fauna biodiversity
- Domination of world food production by a few companies
- Increasing dependence on Industralized nations by developing countries
- Biopiracy - foreign exploitation of natural resources
- Violation of natural organisms' intrinsic values
- Tampering with nature by mixing genes among species
- Objections to consuming animal genes in plants and vice versa
- Stress for animal
- Labeling not mandatory in some countries (e.g., United States)
- Mixing GM crops with non-GM confounds labeling attempts
- New advances may be skewed to interests of rich countries
June 3 2007 ~ MAJOR FLAW IN GM TRIALS
Louise Vennells in the Western Morning News "Studies into contamination by genetically modified crops failed to take into account one important factor - the wind. Academics based in the Westcountry say researchers made the basic flaw of not calculating the effects of wind on GM pollen. The news yesterday brought an outcry from growers of organic crops, who said the Government had consistently underestimated the threat of cross-contamination by GM plants.
Dr Martin Hoyle, of Exeter University, who conducted the study of GM crop research as part of his post-doctorate work in ecology, said he was "surprised" the effects of wind speed and distances had not been taken into account before. He said he had used "common sense" in investigating the subject, which resulted in a computer model which could be applied to calculate the risk of cross-pollination. ...... Dr Hoyle, who plans to approach the Government with his new model, said: "If the production of GM crops becomes widespread in Europe, it is essential that measures are taken to minimise cross-pollination from GM to conventional non-GM crops,' said Hoyle.
The recommended minimum distances between GM and conventional crops should be informed by weather data, which is possible using our model of pollen dispersal in the wind." He added: "We were surprised that this hasn't been assessed before. I approached this research in the first place by using my common sense." Dr Hoyle's work has been funded by the Natural Environment Research Council and is published today.
Dr Hoyle said it was too early to say how much further apart fields could have to be to minimise the risk of cross-pollination. "Another piece of research would be needed to assess that," he said. Now, recommended distances vary depending on a range of factors, including the crop species and the depth of the field. It stands at about 35 metres for oilseed rape, but 100 metres for maize. ............
......... Phil Thomas, of Linscombe Organics near Crediton, East Devon, said he believed the greatest danger was not cross-pollination, but GM DNA spreading to unrelated species through viral infections. He said: "This research shows how flawed most of the studies have been in the past, because this one takes into account a natural factor which any idiot could have thought of, but hasn't been researched under lab conditions. It just makes you wonder how many other natural factors have not been thought of."3rd May 2007 ~ GM Maize MON 863 is Toxic
French scientists have found signs of toxicity to liver and kidney in Monsanto's study on its controversial GM maize....As Séralini and colleagues point out in the case of MON 863, a new artificial protein Cry3Bb1 is produced at relatively high levels (49 97 microgram/gram). Its mechanism of action is not known in mammals because it was never studied, and the target receptor has not even been characterised in insects. Most of all, unlike ordinary drugs or pesticides, which have to be tested for three-months in three mammalian species, then with one mammalian species for one year, and yet another for 2 years, current regulation does not require such tests for 'biopesticides' produced continuously in open fields; nor for the herbicides and herbicide residues accumulated by herbicide-tolerant GM crops. The two traits, biopesticides and herbicide tolerance now account for practically all GM crops grown in the world today." Dr. Mae-Wan Ho
March/April 2006 ~ 8th of April 2006: Joint International GM Opposition Day (JIGMOD)
See pdf file ".. The World Trade Organization (WTO) -- whose Deputy Director General previously served as the European general counsel for the agrochemical and biotechnology giant Monsanto -- has ruled yesterday (Feb 6 2006) in favor of genetically modified (GM) crop producers against the European Union (EU).
International critics of GMOs (genetically modified organisms) are confident that European citizens remain opposed, and that GMOs will not significantly break into the European market.
However, they are concerned that it will open the way to the development of GM crops, as well as the contamination of both GM-free fields and food chains.
Furthermore, the WTO is thus dictating a message to the world that it is useless to attempt to regulate GMOs.In this context, 100 international organizations from more than 40 countriesiare now announcing April 8, 2006 as a Joint International GM Opposition Day. The day will feature major public events in several of these countries to demonstrate continuing global opposition to genetically modified foods and crops..."March 22 2006 ~ This week's United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity ends on March 31.
The US did not sign the convention, because it was feared that the convention would constrain US companies from accessing the genetic resources of developing countries (which was indeed an objective of the convention).
March 22 2006 ~ The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety
is an agreement designed to regulate the international trade, handling and use of any genetically engineered organism that may have adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. Extract from An Introduction to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (pdf new window)
"Governments and civil society are collaborating through the Convention on Biological Diversity to reverse the tide of devastation that humanity has inflicted upon the natural world. The stakes are high: although some 40% of the world economy is derived directly from biological diversity, humanity is pushing ecosystems, species and gene pools to extinction faster than at any time since the dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago."
March 22 2006 ~ Little African input at the convention
SABC News reports today that there were " ... "concerns about the lack of adequate financial resources for the participation of all developing countries." ..... Who is liable for genetically modified contamination, should it arise, and who should pick up the bill for potentially costly compensation are issues that remain contentious at negotiations on the Protocol."
March 22 2006 ~ "The funding issue has also led participants to speculate about wider implications of the costs involved for full implementation of all the provisions of the protocol.
Building the capacities of developing countries for labelling, packaging, testing, policing and a host of other issues will need to be paid for. Governments promoting genetic modification have fought hard to avoid responsibility for these extra costs.
They argue instead that if importers are concerned about genetic modified material entering their country they should be prepared to pay for that information. With the genetically modification industry also refusing to pick up the tab, some delegates said it appears likely that the cost will have to be borne by developing country taxpayers.
Another controversial topic is the current de-facto moratorium on what is commonly known as 'terminator technology'. This technique is designed to make seeds infertile after their first harvest to prevent sharing and re-use by farmers.
As many farmers in developing countries depend on seed sharing, it could potentially have a major long-term impact on their livelihoods. There are also safety implications should the terminator genes spread into the natural environment and render other plants infertile." From SABCNews.comJanuary 25th 2006 ~ 'Suicide Seeds' Could Spell Death of Peasant Agriculture, UN Meeting Told
Groups fighting for the rights of peasant communities are stepping up pressure on governments to ban the use of genetically modified ''suicide seeds'' at UN-sponsored talks on biodiversity in Spain this week. ''This technology is an assault on the traditional knowledge, innovation, and practices of local and indigenous communities,'' said Debra Harry, executive director of the U.S.-based Indigenous Peoples Council on Biocolonialism...." Yahoo
August 8 2005 ~ Monsanto is offering free GM seed to UK farmers.
GM crops can be grown in the UK without farmers having to notify the authorities or their neighbours," the Guardian reports. "...Supporters of GM crops can legally grow them in Britain by applying to the biotech company Monsanto for a sample pack of GM maize to test on a British farm...". DEFRA "says no regulations exist to prevent farmers growing GM crops approved for cultivation elsewhere in the EU because "it seems unlikely that anyone would want to do so".
August 8 2005 ~ the Government is launching a charm offensive to stop the media reporting scare stories about GM crops.
Independent "A cabinet minister has revealed that the Government is launching a charm offensive to stop the media reporting scare stories about GM crops. The campaign led by John Hutton, the Cabinet Office Minister, led environmental pressure groups to warn last night against the Government "softening up" the media for controversial scientific developments. The EU Commission will today approve the use in animal feed of a GM maize that allegedly showed a link with low liver weight in tests on rats. Anti-GM campaigners said agriculture ministers would now greenlight the maize for use in food, lifting a ban on its EU import. "
27 July 2005 ~ Bayer plays down anti-GM claims
FWi ".BAYER HAS dismissed claims by Friends of the Earth that it withdrew its applications to grow genetically modified oilseed rape in the EU following new DEFRA research findings..... FoE claim the DEFRA report (July 25) which found that in farm-scale trials, genes from Bayer's GM oilseed rape had transferred into wild charlock to produce a resistant strain of the weed, had prompted the decision. Their [Bayer's] genetically modified oilseed rape would be a disaster for farmers and wildlife, said FoE GM campaigner, Clare Oxborrow. The UK government must do more to support sustainable farming, producing food that people want to eat, and abandon GM technology once and for all. Five Year Freeze director Pete Riley agreed, adding that politicians need to involve people more in decisions about food and farming."
26 July 2005 ~ Government researchers have found a GM version of the common weed charlock growing in one of the fields used in the Government-sponsored farm-scale trials of GM crops.
Telegraph "....The plant was resistant to the weed killer used in the GM trial and was confirmed as containing the gene inserted into the GM oilseed rape. It is the first known case of such an occurrence in Britain and overturns previous scientific assumptions that charlock, a common weed found alongside oilseed rape in Europe, was unlikely to cross-breed with GM oilseed rape. FoE says that is GM oilseed rape was grown commercially, herbicide-resistant weeds could become widespread. Farmers would then have to use more and more damaging weedkillers to get rid of them, with knock-on impacts on the environment. Bayer has lodged two applications for approval to grow GM oilseed rape with the European Commission. Approval would allow the GM oilseed to be grown in Britain.
FoE said that last month Elliot Morley, the environment minister, voted to try to force France and Greece to lift their bans on GM oilseed rape."28/30 June 2005 ~ "If you just grow GM crops you are pushing farmers down the line of just producing a commodity. That is really not what we need, particularly in a region like the Westcountry where we can establish a reputation for growing high quality and safe food." WMN reports on Elliot Morley's comment that European ministers are going against "sound science". EU ministers have overwhelmingly rejected the proposals to lift the GM bans imposed by Austria, Luxembourg, Germany, France and Greece. See also the article by Geoffrey Lean showing "Stalinist tactics" by the FSA.
28/30 June 2005 ~ GM. "Britain's official food safety watchdog - which prides itself on its "openness" - is embroiled in a row over the blanking-out of large sections of a document relating to a banned GM maize illegally imported into the country..." Article by Geoffrey Lean last week in the Independent about the FSA. "..the maize contained a gene conferring resistance to antibiotics that could potentially cause people to resist vital medicines."
5 June 2005 ~ Mandelson wants to fast-track GM
Mandelson wants to fast-track GM by Geoffrey Lean in the Independent
"Peter Mandelson is pressing for new GM foods and crops to be eaten and planted across Europe, even though governments cannot agree on whether to introduce them.... the controversial trade commissioner's department wants to speed up their use, despite widespread public opposition, and is insisting on their being imposed by the Commission on unwilling governments. ......
Michael Meacher, the former UK environment minister, said yesterday: "Having a group of unelected bureaucrats deciding what food should be eaten is fundamentally undemocratic. It is intolerable that they can ride it through roughshod over the objections of member states. "This is the very kind of thing that the peoples of France and the Netherlands were objecting to in their referendums last week." Mr Mandelson's office failed to take up the opportunity to comment. "22 March 2005 ~ Yet another nail was hammered into the coffin of the GM food industry in Britain yesterday
The Independent reports "Yet another nail was hammered into the coffin of the GM food industry in Britain yesterday when the final trial of a four-year series of experiments found, once more, that genetically modified crops can be harmful to wildlife.
The study was the fourth in a series that has, in effect, sealed the fate of GM in the UK - at least in the foreseeable future. They showed the ultra-powerful weedkillers that the crops are engineered to tolerate would bring about further damage to a countryside already devastated by intensive farming.
Only one of the four farm-scale trials, which have gone on for nearly five years, showed that growing GM crops might be less harmful to birds, flowers and insects than the non-GM equivalent - and even that was attacked as flawed, because the weedkiller the particular conventional crop required was so destructive it was about to be banned by the EU.
Even so, a year ago the Government gave a licence for that crop - a maize known as Chardon LL, created by the German chemical group Bayer - to be grown in Britain, thus officially opening the way for the GM era in Britain, to loud protests from environmentalists.
However, only three weeks later Bayer withdrew its application, suggesting the regulatory climate would be too inhibiting. That followed the withdrawal from Europe of the world leader in GM crops, the American biotech giant Monsanto, which also seemed to have tired of the struggle. "23 January 2005 ~ ".... the minute you start fooling around with it in various ways, I think there is a danger."
The I-SIS ( Institute of Science in Society )Report, September 24, 2001 suggested that the FMD epidemic might possibly have been the result of a bio-warfare simulation or genetic engineering experiments gone wrong. Scientists in Australia genetically modified a mousepox virus - then realised they had created a highly virulent strain that could not be stopped by vaccination. Now, on the subject of GM modification of the smallpox virus to "counter any threat of a bioterrorist attack" the Independent quotes the warnings of the man who eradicated smallpox, Professor Donald Henderson, "...the minute you start fooling around with it in various ways, I think there is a danger..."
January 3 2005 ~ The GM watchdog, the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission, is to be scrapped.
See Guardian "... .... the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and other pro-GM forces in the government, particularly Tony Blair, had not factored in the persuasive powers of Prof Grant, who managed to produce three influential consensus reports... the commission insisted the consumer should have the freedom to buy non-GM British food... ..... Privately, members have been told the organisation is to be abolished..." Read in full
December 7 2004 ~ An alarming letter suggesting that there is corruption in the European Food Safety Authority.
Apparently, they received - but refuse to make public - fresh evidence on the detrimental effects of GM by Arpad Pusztai. They have also threatened him with litigation if he himself makes his research public : "... Monsanto are tied in with the European Food Safety Authority as they have been for years ever since the Eurobio Office was set up." See also the whistle-blowing article in Le Monde from last April.
November 20 - 26 2004 ~ Iraqi farmers will no longer be permitted to save their seeds. Instead, they will be forced to buy seeds from US corporations
including seeds the Iraqis themselves developed over hundreds of years. See www.Grain.org "...The new law is presented as being necessary to ensure the supply of good quality seeds in Iraq and to facilitate Iraq's accession to the WTO [5]. What it will actually do is facilitate the penetration of Iraqi agriculture by the likes of Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer and Dow Chemical - the corporate giants that control seed trade across the globe. Eliminating competition from farmers is a prerequisite for these companies to open up operations in Iraq, which the new law has achieved. Taking over the first step in the food chain is their next move.
The new patent law also explicitly promotes the commercialisation of genetically modified (GM) seeds in Iraq.."November 22 2004 ~ Industry has dropped its last attempts to get GM seeds approved for growing in Britain
Geoffrey Lean in the Independent on Sunday writes, "Industry has dropped its last attempts to get GM seeds approved for growing in Britain, in a final surrender of its dream to spread modified crops rapidly across the country. Bayer CropScience has withdrawn the only two remaining applications for government permission for the seeds - a winter and a spring oilseed rape..."
October 2004 ~ The Five Year Freeze, a unique alliance of 120 UK organisations,
all calling for a freeze on genetic engineering and patenting in food and farming. For more information, go to the website: www.fiveyearfreeze.org.
Sept 20 ~ Europe halts GM maize proposals
"....The Monsanto-produced maize failed to get the required qualified majority from representatives of the member states in an indicative vote on Monday (Sept 20). Results of a feeding study of this GM maize on rats have caused some concern among scientists. Monday's vote in the EU regulatory committee was the eighth failed attempt by the Commission to win support for a GM product among member states. The Commission must now decide whether to send the application to a vote by Ministers. If there is no agreement from Ministers, the Commission will make a decision itself...." FWi
Sept 2 ~ Public opposition to genetically modified (GM) food has hardened
during the past two years, even as the government moves closer to drawing up rules on GM crop cultivation, according to a new survey...The use of GM products in food worried 61 percent of the survey's respondents compared with 56 percent in 2002 while the percentage of people who tried to avoid GM food and ingredients rose to 58 percent from 45 percent. Lack of information on the long-term health consequences of genetically altered products was cited as the main cause for concern. The government said in July that commercial plantings of GM crops are still unlikely for some time yet, though a consultation process is underway to draw up rules for any future biotech crop sowings. Environmental group Friends of the Earth welcomed the Which? report and called on the government to ensure tough rules on GM crops to protect food, farming and the environment. ..." Reuters
August 17 ~ José Bové and 500 of his supporters came to blows with a new group describing itself as "volunteer farmers and researchers in favour of GMO tests"
Independent "... In a maize field near Marsat in the Puy-de-Dome at the weekend, gendarmes intervened after the anti-globalisation campaigner Josi Bovi and 500 of his supporters came to blows with a new group describing itself as "volunteer farmers and researchers in favour of GMO tests" The clash came amid growing signs that the French authorities are wavering in their opposition to open-field tests of GM crops....
..France - where anti-GMO campaigners trample experimental crops most weekends - has become Europe's main battleground over the issue, but police rarely intervene and most confrontations have been confined to courtrooms. Mr Bovi has called on his supporters - known as "the volunteer reapers" - to step up their campaign of civil disobedience before a European Commission decision on the issue due this autumn. The commission, which in May for the first time authorised the planting of a genetically modified maize seed manufactured by the Swiss company Syngenta, is divided and must decide by November whether to authorise the US chemical giant Monsanto to sell its transgenic NK603 maize in the EU...The "volunteer farmers and researchers in favour of GMOs'' are led by Pierre Pagesse, a farmer and the managing director of the French biotechnology firm Biogemma. "July 10 2004 ~ Vineyard owners call for ban on GM grapes
Telegraph "French winemakers have called on the government to block attempts to cultivate pest-resistant genetically modified grapes, arguing that they could ruin traditional wine-growing methods. ........... "We have no proof that there won't be some kind of contamination of healthy vines." She is demanding full disclosure from the government on every step in the experiments with GM vines. She added that any experiments on vines needed to run for at least 80 years for their conclusions to be considered valid. The winemakers argue that it is one thing to experiment on the GM vines in laboratories, but quite another to plant them in fields where they could infect other vines nearby. The institute's scientists believe that is all but impossible...."
July 5 ~ To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list GM products which may be imported into the UK..
Mr. Morley : The crops in the following table were approved for placing on the market under Directive 90/220/EC (Directive 2001/18's predecessor). As far as we are aware the countries listed in the third column of the table have approval to cultivate these crops but we do not know for certain whether crops are grown there for export to the EU. ...Hansard.
July 1 2004 ~ Firm shuts British project on GM crops
Telegraph "....... Earlier this year, the GM food lobby was dealt a blow when Bayer CropScience gave up attempts to grow GM maize in Britain. Now the Government faces further embarrassment with Syngenta moving its project from Bracknell, Berks, to North Carolina..."
June 29 2004 ~ the sixth time in a row that the European Commission has failed to convince the member states to approve a genetically modified organism
FoE ".. EU Environment Ministers today failed to reach an agreement on a proposal by the European Commission to authorise the import of genetically modified maize NK 603, produced by the US company Monsanto. Eight EU ministers ( from Austria, Cyprus, Denmark, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania and Luxembourg) voted against the proposal and three countries (Germany, Spain and Slovenia) abstained.
Eleven countries (Belgium, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Ireland, Netherlands, Portugal, Slovakia, Sweden and UK) voted in favour. The postions of Poland and Malta remained unclear.
Friends of the Earth Europe's GM Campaign Coordinator Geert Ritsema said: "This is the sixth time in a row that the European Commission has failed to convince the member states to approve a genetically modified organism. The Commission wants to show the public that there is a thorough safety assessment for any adverse impact on public health. What they achieve is the contrary. It is becoming more and more clear that the authorities in Europe are deeply divided over the subject of GM."
June 22 ~ Greenpeace spokesman Ben Stewart claimed success in the protest last night.
Independent "Tonight we thwarted a third opportunity to bring the boat into the dock," he said. "This was a result of the actions of two brave campaigners who suspended themselves above the propeller so the ship could not move. "We hope people are now more aware that supermarkets like Sainsbury's, which claim to be GM free, are supporting huge imports of GM crops by selling milk from cows fed on GM products."
May 24 ~ ordinary New Zealanders are having to call ERMA to account for a cavalier attitude to sound science
and their refusal to monitor sites like the PPL GE Sheep farm. The farm has been sold off and the proceeds are to be taken out of this country despite a lack of funding for ongoing monitoring of the site. The legal case, expected to be lodged in court next week is being taken by Claire Bleakley. GE Free (NZ)in food and environment were unable to take the case on because of fears that the authority would attempt to destroy the community group in the same way that MAdGE was sued for costs by AgResearch. Situations like this show that a functioning watchdog is needed to protect New Zealand's GE Free status. ...
...ERMA have been burying their heads in the sand and pretending there are no risks to consider from transgenes in the soil. Claire Bleakley's lawyer wrote to ERMA to put them on notice that papers would be filed with the courts following ERMA's dismissal of such concerns. ERMA's stated intention is to allow PPL to re-patriate remaining assets to the UK. This leaves the field trial site soiled by 8 years of transgenic sheep to be sold for farming without any research or monitoring of transgenic material. " Press Release: GE Free NZ
May 21 ~ The Supreme Court of Canada rules against Percy Schmeiser by 5-4- but waives the 200,000 dollar "damages" and court costs
CBC News ".......The Supreme Court of Canada ruled against a Saskatchewan farmer Friday, saying since U.S. biotechnology giant Monsanto holds a patent on a gene in its canola seed, it can control the use of the plant.
In a 5-4 decision, the court upheld Monsanto's patent over its Roundup Ready canola plant gene, ruling Percy Schmeiser infringed on the company's patent by growing the plant without a licence. The company inserts a gene into a canola plant to make it pesticide-resistant. Monsanto holds patents over the gene and the insertion process, and argued the patent should extend to control of the plant. ...Schmeiser argued the canola seed blew onto his property from a nearby farm. He has said the plants "polluted" his fields. In a news release, Monsanto said it welcomed the decision, adding the Supreme Court has "set a world standard in intellectual property protection." In what Schmeiser called a "personal victory," the Supreme Court ruled he does not have to pay roughly $200,000 in court costs and damages to Monsanto. He said his battle is now over, but believes the debate over patenting life forms must continue. "I and my wife have done everything possible to take it this far," said Schmeiser. "It will have to be carried forward, whether it's through the Parliament of Canada or other countries of the world."
INDEPTH: Percy Schmeiser's battle..."
May 19 ~ EU Commissioners grant a licence for the importation and use of a GM maize
FWi EU Commissioners have granted a licence for the importation and use of a GM maize - the insect resistant Bt11 variety from Swiss firm Syngenta.
The move brings an end to the five year moratorium on new approvals.
Speaking after the decision on Wednesday (May 19), food safety commissioner David Byrne insisted the commission was acting responsibly.
"GM sweet corn has been subject to the most rigorous pre-marketing assessment in the world," he said.
May 18 ~".. biotechnology is much more than genetically modified organisms (GMOs)
sometimes also called transgenic organisms. And while the potential benefits and risks need to be carefully assessed case by case, the controversy surrounding transgenics should not distract from the potential offered by other applications of biotechnology such as genomics, marker-assisted breeding and animal vaccines.
Still, biotechnology should complement - not replace - conventional agricultural technologies, the report says. Biotechnology can speed up conventional breeding programmes and may offer solutions where conventional methods fail..." See FAO's report - "Agricultural Biotechnology: Meeting the Needs of the Poor?" (pdf)
May 18 ~ The FAO is at variance with the views of many leading aid agencies
Independent "Genetically modified crops were given a cautious endorsement as a means of solving world hunger by the UN's food agency yesterday, in a move that will prolong the controversy over GM technology. The backing, from the Rome-based UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), is at variance with the views of many leading aid agencies, which say that such claims made for GM are misleading...Eighteen months ago Britain's top aid charities told Tony Blair that genetically modified foods would not solve world hunger, but might increase poverty and malnutrition.
A submission signed by the directors of Oxfam, Christian Aid, Save the Children, Cafod and Action Aid said claims that GM crops could feed the world were "misleading and fail to address the complexities of poverty reduction". The charities said that GM crops were likely to create more poverty, pointing out that hunger was not caused by a shortage of food, but because the poor could not afford to buy it; and it was rich farmers who tended to take up new agricultural techniques.
They feared that introducing GM technology would have catastrophic effects because it is dominated by a few multinational companies. Salil Sheehy, the director of Action Aid, said at the time: "Farmers will be caught in a vicious circle, increasingly dependent on a small number of giant multinationals." Prince Charles, a noted GM opponent, said that the argument GM would feed the world was "suspiciously like emotional blackmail". ..." Read in full
May 15 ~ The European Commission says it will approve one variety of genetically modified corn for human consumption.
BBC
May 13 ~ US biotech giant Monsanto has abandoned plans to grow GM oil seed j rape (canola) in Australia
Earlier this week it was confirmed that Monsanto had pulled out of GM wheat ....GM canola has also proved controversial in Canada, where it has been widely grown, because it has led to wide-spread GM contamination, and many potential markets (such as the EU) have refused to take it because the public demand GM-free food. ...." FOE press release
May 7 ~ The field-scale trials clearly demonstrated what a disaster these crops can be for wildlife
Guardian letters ".....However, his claim that GM crops allow low-till farming that is "the most beneficial to birds and wildlife" is deeply misleading. The field-scale trials clearly demonstrated what a disaster these crops can be for wildlife, drastically reducing the availability of seeds, an important food source for birds ..."
May 7 ~ Peter Ainsworth's Environmental Audit Committee criticises the "either wilful or careless misinterpretations of the Government Response to its report.
In the light of the debate on GM crops, the Committee decided to respond quickly to the Government response to its Second Report. Environmental Audit Committee
The Government response is clearly unsatisfactory. It fails to reply to the substance of some arguments even while misinterpreting others. (para 3) The response contains a number of either wilful or careless misinterpretations of the Committee's Report.
The Government response tries to take us to task for its failure to take oral evidence from the research consortium engaged in the farm scale evaluations, a failure it regards as a serious weakness. Yet it makes clear that it was the job of the Scientific Steering Committee (SSC), not the research consortium, to ensure that the design of the trials with which we took greatest issue was appropriate. We of course did take evidence from the Chairman of the SSC. (para 4)
The Government response also fails to address the point that the farm scale evaluations reflected not only a narrow part of the assessment required under Directive 2001/18/EC but an even narrower part of the totality of the Government's consultation. (para 5)
The Government response does not address the issue of liability. (para 6)
We intend to return to the issue of GM crops later in the year when we will look at the issues raised by the Government response in more detail, and at the ever-growing body of evidence about the impact of GM crops on the environmentThe public at large are very concerned about issues relating to GM and will regard the Government's failure to engage in a proper debate with the Committee on this matter as a sign of weakness. (para 8)
May 6 2004 ~ CENSURE FOR BECKETT OVER GM GO-AHEAD
Western Morning News " A furious row erupted at Westminster yesterday over the Government's decision to give the green light to GM crops, as ministers were accused of riding roughshod over the views of expert MPs. In an unprecedented move, the powerful Environmental Audit Committee reprimanded Environment Secretary Margaret Beckett for her decision to allow the commercial growing of GM maize just four days after the committee warned that such a move would be premature. In a statement, the committee said: "It is unfortunate that the Government has not responded in a more constructive way to our report. The public at large are very concerned about issues relating to GM and will regard the Government's failure to engage in a proper debate with the committee on this matter as a sign of weakness. We can only hope the Government will show itself to be more open and responsive in the future." The statement came as MPs were finally given the chance to debate Mrs Beckett's decision - two months after it was announced...."
April 24 2004 ~ Hansard for April 22
GM Crops
The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): The Government are accepting the advice that there are no reasons not to support the application by Syngenta for approval under the European novel foods regulations for sweetcorn from genetically modified maize line Bt11.
Joan Ruddock : Is my hon. Friend aware that the Belgian Government, the French Government and the Austrian Government have all raised serious concerns about the scientific testing of this sweetcorn, which is designed for human consumption, and its safety? As that is the case, how can he support the marketing of this product when it has been tested under outdated and inadequate novel foods regulation, given that a much more rigorous testing regime has just become law in the EU?April 4 2004 ~ 'GM will never be grown in Britain'
By Geoffrey Lean Independent on Sunday "Ministers are prepared for GM crops never to be grown commercially in Britain after the strain approved for cultivation was withdrawn last week by the company that developed it.
They are determined not to compromise on strict conditions for growing the crops, which were behind the decision by Bayer CropScience not to proceed with the GM maize given a tentative go-ahead by the Government last month. Unless the controls are relaxed, Bayer says it will abandon the technology in Britain.
Environmentalists and politicians hailed Bayer's decision as the death of GM in Britain. They said that even if biotech companies did try to get new modified crops approved it would be "extremely difficult" to get government or public approval. . "
April 4 ~ 'IoS' hastens end of GM crops in Britain
Independent on Sunday After five years of lobbying by the public and this newspaper, the Government caves in Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor "Wednesday should have been a triumphant day for Tony Blair. That evening the latest revolt by Labour MPs - on tuition fees - fizzled out like all those before it. But, almost unnoticed, this was also the day on which the Prime Minister suffered his greatest ever defeat. It was inflicted not by Parliament, but by the public, with the assistance of a five-year campaign in The Independent on Sunday. For the decision by Bayer CropScience to "discontinue" its efforts to grow a modified maize in this country marks the end of Mr Blair's personal drive to make Britain the "European hub" for GM technology. The Government admitted that no genetically modified crops would now be grown in Britain for "the foreseeable future", and both campaigners and ministers believe that might mean never. Peter Melchett, the policy director of the Soil Association, said bluntly: "This is the end of GM in Britain."
Many can rightly lay claim to major credit for this, the first outright defeat for one of the Prime Minister's passionately promoted causes - notably pressure groups, critical politicians and, above all, the public.
But the former Environment minister, Michael Meacher, who has himself played one of the most crucial roles in the drama, said yesterday that the IoS had been "the most effective anti-GM campaigner" of all. .......In November 1999 the Government - led by Michael Meacher - concluded year-long negotiations with the biotech industry, establishing a three-year voluntary moratorium while official trials were carried out. And it was soon officially accepted that GM foods would have to be labelled. ...... Study after study showed that genes from GM crops spread to neighbouring organic and conventional produce; only last month we reported that more than two-thirds of non-GM crops in the United States were so contaminated. ......
Last year Monsanto announced that it was closing down its cereal seed business in Britain and Europe. The Government still pressed on, tentatively approving Bayer's GM maize only last month, while imposing strict conditions on its cultivation. But with Bayer's withdrawal, none of the 50 crops originally queuing for approval will now be grown...."
GM MAIZE APPROVAL IN THE UK THREATENS SCOTTISH AGRICULTURE, PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT
Scottish Green Party News Release (before Bayer's Decision) "As well as the environmental safety of GM maize being questionable, there is also evidence that it may pose a serious risk to the animals who will be eating it, said Green MSPs today. Although Chardon LL (GM maize) is fed to cattle, there have been no published studies that have shown that it is safe for animals to eat. The UK government, with the consent of the Scottish Executive, is set to give the go ahead to GM maize this week.(1)
A feeding study carried out for Bayer CropScience (the patent holder of the organism) by Reading University has never been published, in spite of being completed several years ago. It is believed that the results of the trial have been passed to Bayer, but they have never released the data.(2) During feeding trials of this crop on chickens, the mortality rate of chickens fed the GM maize was double that of the control group. Yet the crop was given marketing approval by the government's own scientific advisors. (3)..." Read in full
There is plenty of evidence that transgenic lines are unstable
Transgenic Lines Proven Unstable The insert in every commercially approved GM line has undergone rearrangement. The cauliflower mosaic virus promoter plays a major role. This should be the final nail in the coffin for GM crops, says Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, who has, for years, challenged scientific committees advising governments over this very issue.
There is plenty of evidence that transgenic lines are unstable which is why ISIS has long recommended that appropriate molecular methods must be used to document the stability of the GM insert before any transgenic line is released into the environment. The characterization of the insert must be 'event-specific', which not only gives the structure of the insert, but also the host genome sequences flanking the insert, proving that the insert remains stable in successive generations. This recommendation has been incorporated into the current European Directive (2001/18 /EC) on deliberate release of GMOs..."
Read in full
March 31 ~ GM giant abandons bid to grow crops in Britain
Independent "In a huge blow to the genetically modified food lobby, Bayer Cropscience has given up attempts to grow commercial GM maize in Britain. The decision, blamed by the company on government restrictions, means no GM crop will be grown commercially in the UK in 2005 and raises questions about the future of GM in this country.
The German biotechnology company will announce today that its maize variety Chardon LL, which was to be developed as cattle feed, had been left "economically non-viable" because of conditions set by the Environment Secretary Margaret Beckett when she gave limited approval to the growing of the crop this month.
..... There were suggestions last night that GM crops were unlikely to be grown in the UK until 2008, when GM oil seed rape may be approved for cultivation.
Bayer's decision will be seen as a huge win for the former environment minister Michael Meacher and green groups. ......
Only three weeks ago in parliament, Ms Beckett controversially announced her decision to allow Bayer to go ahead with its maize project. The decision came after 15 years of field trials and four years of farm-scale evaluations. Ms Beckett told the Commons the GM maize could be grown as soon as next year and said non-GM farmers who suffered financial losses because of crop contamination would be compensated by the industry, not the taxpayer. At the time, Mr Meacher said: "This is the wrong decision. It is driven by the commercial interests of the big biotech companies and, no doubt, pressure from the White House."
March 26 2004 ~ Genetically Modified Organisms Bill collapses - Elliot Morley "did not bother to turn up"
Press release received "Paterson: Embarrassed Labour kill GM Bill"
Shadow Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Owen Paterson MP, commented on the collapse of the Genetically Modified Organisms Bill, which the Government engineered today. He said:Today, Labour has killed off this important Bill which would have ensured that regulations on liability could be debated and approved by the Houses of Parliament. This makes it even more extraordinary that the Minister, Elliot Morley did not bother to turn up. This Bill was designed to address the legal and compensation implications of the issues surrounding GM crops. Bearing in mind that the issue of GM is one of great national controversy, the Bill is all the more important. We are now left without any idea of how the Government will proceed with the fundamental GM issues of liability.
All parties agree that the issues of liability must be resolved before GM plantings can proceed. The Government's actions today are astonishing.
March 23 ~ Why GM maize should not be grown in the UK
Dr Brian John in the Ecologist Exposing the flaws in the science behind the one GM product that the government has approved
Dr Brian John is a geographer, and taught geomorphology and environmental management at Durham University. He now lives in Wales, where he is involved in a number of environmental groups. He is one of the founders of the pressure group GM-Free Cymru " Read the article in full
- THE CROP ISN"T SAFE
- IT WILL CONTAMINATE OTHER CROPS
- THE HERBICIDE ISN'T SAFE
- THE TRIALS WERE FATALLY FLAWED
- IT IS NOT SAFE FOR WILDLIFE
March 21 ~ Crucial vote on GM crop
Independent on Sunday By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor "Plans to grow GM maize in Britain are on a knife edge this weekend after a strong revolt in the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly. As revealed by The Independent on Sunday, ministers have threatened to quell the resistance to allowing genetically modified maize by an unprecedented use of powers in the devolution settlement.
Scotland's parliament has failed to reject the GM crop by just 60 votes to 59 after the Liberal Democrats supported it in defiance of their position in the rest of the UK. The Scottish National Party's Roseanna Cunningham said that if just one Liberal Democrat had stood by their own policy "the executive would have been told Scotland must remain GM free".
On Wednesday this week the Welsh Assembly also faces the crunch, with the Lib Dems leading the opposition to the crop and set to prevail if they can get just one Labour member to rebel. The Lib Dems' Mick Bates, who praised the IoS for exposing the devolution loophole, said that approving the crop would jeopardise work done to make Wales "a quality environment". The votes are vital for Westminster, as all the UK administrations must agree before any approval for the crop's cultivation can be given. "
March 18 ~ Welsh amazement at Scottish ambivalence
Herald "Down in Wales we are amazed at the ambivalence shown in Scotland on the matter of GM crop commercialisation, and the apparent willingness of MSPs to believe whatever Mrs Beckett and her tame civil servants choose to tell them. Here are two facts.
The government simply assumes that there is no GM problem, because that is what the GM industry tells them. No epidemiological studies have been conducted anywhere in the world to demonstrate that GM foods are safe to eat. Now the Westminster government is proposing that thousands of beef and dairy cattle should be fed on Chardon LL forage maize, without ever having researched the transfer of transgenic DNA from feed into animal and human cells, or the physiological changes that might result, or the "knock-on" effects on humans who eat meat and drink milk from those animals.
- Neither DEFRA nor FSA, nor any other responsible authority, has ever commissioned any research designed to examine the effect of GM crops or GM foods on human health.
- With respect to Chardon LL, which is a GM fodder maize intended for cattle feeding, none of the responsible bodies has ever asked for or commissioned any research designed to test the physiological effects on animals which are fed on this material for extended periods.
Have we learned nothing from the tragedy of BSE and CJD? We now have a glimpse of a GM world inhabited by mad scientists and mad politicians. We hope that Scotland will join Wales in seeking to resist the madness of Whitehall and in showing that at least some of us are still capable of rational thought processes.
Dr Brian John, GM-free Cymru, Trefelin, Cilgwyn, Newport, Pembrokeshire
March 16 ~ Chardon LL maize: greater value - or triggering illness?
Hansard 15 Mar 2004 : Column 4W
Mr. Simon Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether Chardon LL fodder maize has a greater value for cultivation and use than the conventional varieties from which it was bred. [160571]
Mr Morley means, presumably, that it has never even been compared to non-GM varieties. It appears to have been in vain that nine organisations representing 8 million members, including the National Trust and the Women's Institute, wrote to Tony Blair on March 5th demanding he postpone the introduction of GM crops. Their introduction rests not on demand, nor measurable advantage - and GM maize may even be triggering respiratory illness. See John Vidal's article "Scientists suspect GM maize crop of triggering respiratory illnesses" in the Guardian on February 28th "..Scientists investigating a spate of illnesses among people living close to fields of genetically modified maize in the Philippines believe the crop may have been the cause of fevers, respiratory illnesses and skin reactions..."
Mr. Morley: The value for cultivation and use of Chardon LL has not been compared with that of its parental lines or the equivalent non-GM variety. The criterion for addition to the UK National List is that it should, taking its qualities as a whole, represent a clear improvement compared with other forage maize varieties already on the UK List. Chardon has been assessed on this basis and found to meet the performance standards set to indicate a clear improvement."
March 16 ~ If the public knew that Carwyn Jones had this option and that it was neither "illegal" nor "irresponsible", then he would be under considerable pressure to choose that option.
From a letter in icWales by Robert Vint, the Director of Genetic Food Alert UK
".....a total, open-ended, unconditional ban on all GM crops in the absence of a scientific explanation may violate current EU law.
However, that is not the only option available. If a ban is temporary, relates to specified crops and is justified by a scientific explanation, then the use of the veto is legal.
Only one crop, Chardon LL maize, needs stopping and Westminster's cross-party Environmental Audit Committee has provided a sound reason for a four-year postponement of approval of that crop - they say the crop trials were flawed and another three years of trials of maize are needed, using different growing regimes, before we can know its environmental impact.
If the public knew that Carwyn Jones had this option and that it was neither "illegal" nor "irresponsible", then he would be under considerable pressure to choose that option.
Carwyn Jones has pledged to take "the most restrictive approach possible to the growing and commercialisation of GM crops within current UK and EU legislation" - and he can do a lot more than set up "voluntary" and unenforceable GM-free zones.
ROBERT VINT Director, Genetic Food Alert UK Hope House, High Street, Totnes, Devon
March 14 - 20 ~ Scotland and Wales 'bullied' over GM crop veto
Geoffrey Lean in the Independent on Sunday "Ministers are threatening to take unprecedented steps under the devolution agreements with Scotland and Wales to ensure that they accept GM crops, The Independent on Sunday can reveal. Margaret Beckett, Secretary of State for the Environment, made it clear last week that the devolved administrations - which are much more sceptical about the technology than the Westminster government - could not have a veto on planting GM maize across Britain. Her move, immediately described by environmentalists as "bullying", is bound to lead to a storm of protests in both devolved assemblies, where GM crops have become an explosive political issue, and could cause a constitutional crisis..."
March 13 ~ "GM crops: The public spoke but, hey, why should ministers listen?"
The Western Mail "....... "Shaping policy, apparently, was never the point of the public consultation. Mrs Beckett said, "It was never intended that the debate would do more than explore the range and nature of the public's concerns." Then, presumably, ignore them...."
March 9 ~ Starved of the truth
George Monbiot asks (Guardian 09/03/04) "The question is as simple as this: do you want a few corporations to monopolise the global food supply? If the answer is yes, you should welcome the announcement that the government is expected to make today that the commercial planting of a genetically modified (GM) crop in Britain can go ahead. If the answer is no, you should regret it. The principal promotional effort of the genetic engineering industry is to distract us from this question.
GM technology permits companies to ensure that everything we eat is owned by them. They can patent the seeds and the processes that give rise to them. They can make sure that crops can't be grown without their patented chemicals. They can prevent seeds from reproducing themselves. By buying up competing seed companies and closing them down, they can capture the food market, the biggest and most diverse market of all. .....
The biotech companies are not interested in whether science is flourishing or whether people are starving. They simply want to make money. The best way to make money is to control the market. But before you can control the market, you must first convince the people that there's something else at stake." Read in fullMarch 8 ~ We have been sent the whole Environment Audit Committee report on the GM trials
(pdf file) Extract: "The problems evident in north America have not been taken seriously enough. DEFRA should have advised the SSC to take account of north American experiences with GM. (Paragraph 31)
We are unhappy that this work on north American GM experiences has been left until after most of the FSEs have reported. Consequently, the findings from that trans-Atlantic research have not now been factored in to the decisions that are already being reached on those GMHT crops in the UK nearest approval. This is clearly unsatisfactory. No decision to proceed with the commercial growing of GM crops should be made until thorough research into the experience with GM crops in north America has been completed and published."
March 7 2004 ~ The Nature paper and the Environment Audit report
The abstract of the paper "Ban on triazine herbicides likely to reduce but not negate relative benefits of GMHT maize cropping" can be accessed here."... Some critics of the FSE pointed out that the atrazine used on conventional maize is so harmful to weeds and other wildlife anyway, that almost any alternative would be better, whether or not the crops were GM.
The Nature article that accompanies it is also on the Nature website. The Environment Audit Committee's press release can be read here."...We are concerned that the GMHT forage maize trials were based on an unsatisfactory, indeed invalid, comparison. ..."
March 7 ~"... The influential Environmental Audit Select Committee's report suggests that, for the first time since the GM debate started, Parliament has smelt the GM rat
Peter Melchett in the Independent on Sunday " The report raised serious questions to which the Government has no answers. Why, for example, were GM crops tested for their impact on wildlife by comparing them with the most destructive types of farming, rather than the best? .." Read in full
March 7 ~"... The reports says that "contamination ... is endemic to the system"
It adds: "Heedlessly allowing the contamination of traditional plant varieties with genetically engineered sequences amounts to a huge wager on our ability to understand a complicated technology that manipulates life at the most elemental level." There could be "serious risks to health" if drugs and industrial chemicals from the next generation of GM crops got into food...." Geoffrey Lean in the Independent on Sunday "Genetically modified strains have contaminated two-thirds of all crops in US"
March 7 ~ Executive tells farmers: don't grow modified crops
By Rob Edwards, Environment Editor of the Sunday Herald "The Scottish Executive will defy the Blair government by rejecting genetically modified crops, which this week will get the go-ahead in England. After years of not taking sides in one the fiercest environmental arguments of our times, Scottish ministers finally decided against GM crops on Friday. They accepted that the public had not been convinced of the need for GM by the biotechnology industry.
So when UK environment secretary, Margaret Beckett makes her long-awaited announcement this week allowing GM maize to be grown commercially, the Executive will take steps to ensure none is planted north of the Border...."
Independent on Sunday "the most serious threat to the Government's position is posed by the Welsh and Scottish administrations. Ministers desperately want them on board so that they can make a united announcement that, in principle, growing the maize is acceptable. Even more crucially, by law they have to have their assent before a definite go-ahead can be given to cultivating the GM crop commercially anywhere in Britain. ..... Ministers are puttingpressure on both administrations...." Read today's GM stories in full
March 6 ~ Delay GM crops, say groups speaking for 8m members
Paul Brown Guardian "Nine organisations representing 8 million members, including the National Trust and the Women's Institute, wrote to Tony Blair yesterday demanding he postpone the introduction of GM crops. The letter was among an unprecedented number of hostile reactions to the news that Margaret Beckett, the environment secretary, is to make a statement on Tuesday giving the go-ahead for the first commercial GM crop in Britain. The letter came on the same day as a report from the all-party Commons environmental audit committee which demanded a halt to the government's plans. ..."
March 5 ~ Peter Ainsworth, the (Environmental Audit) committee chairman ...said leaked minutes from a cabinet panel suggest "a decision to open the door to the commercial growing of genetically modified crops is imminent."
"It would be irresponsible of the government to permit the commercial growing of GM crops" without reviews of research from North America and the Britain, the Environmental Audit Committee said in a report. Existing trials of a genetically modified corn developed by a Bayer unit were "invalid..." International Herald Tribune
March 4 ~ Scientists back GM crop findings
Financial Times "The imminent decision to approve the growing of genetically-modified maize in the UK will this week be supported by scientific advice that the crop remains more wildlife-friendly than conventional varieties, despite a European Union ban on atrazine, a widely-used and powerful weedkiller.
On Friday scientists involved in the farm-scale evaluations of GM crops will announce that the ban on atrazine does not overturn their original findings, published last October, that growing GM maize does less damage to biodiversity than non-GM maize crops. ..... Professor Joe Perry, the ecological statistician from Rothamsted Research station who recalculated the trials results following the ban, concluded that if atrazine was not used for conventional production, the benefits to wildlife of growing GM maize were reduced by about one-third but still remained significant. His findings, to be published on the website of the scientific magazine Nature, will be welcomed by the biotechnology industry and disappoint environmentalists who had hoped the atrazine ban could force ministers to change their minds and block the commercialisation of the UK's first GM crop. Margaret Beckett, the environment secretary, is due to announce the controversial go-ahead for GM maize next week, subject to a number of conditions."
March 2 ~ Until the middle of April, GM foods imported into the UK for human and animal feeds will not have been labelled.
Letter in the Western Mail from J MacDonald BSc "...The multinational companies have been enabled to patent genes, giving them control over our life forms. These genes can be taken up by the normal bacteria in the human and animal gut, the combination creating an organism of unknown character and effect. While masses of pro-GM propaganda is being forced on countries around the world, research on human safety is in short supply. Many GM companies also produce the chemical sprays used on these crops so have a double interest in their promotion. Weeds related to the crop species build up resistance to these crops resulting in production and use of more chemicals on our food crops. It is vital that we remind this Government that it was voted in to address the wishes of the electorate and not these companies. This Government has got to be stopped from putting monetary interests of companies before the safety issues of the nation's food."
....and from Peter Melchett
"...how can a ban on a potential contaminant that consumers want kept out of their food possibly be a "disadvantage"? The Welsh Assembly Government's determination to keep Wales GM-free will, of course, be a huge economic advantage to Welsh farmers and the Welsh food industry. This was recognised in a report by Tony Blair's own Cabinet Office Strategy Unit into the economic impact of growing GM crops. They said "the introduction of GM crops could . . . affect tourism and the potential for rural areas to play a role as non-GM suppliers on the domestic and international agri-food market", and they also said that growing non-GM crops would allow farmers to capitalise on a non-GM "premium"....Read letters in fullMarch 1 ~" Leaked minutes from the UK government show that it is planning to enforce different levels of GM contamination for different organic food if GM crops are grown commercially
in the UK, says UK organic body, the Soil Association.
....Currently, EU organic law forbids any use of GM products or derivatives in organic food. EU labelling rules forbid any deliberate use of GM in all food, but allow accidental or technically unavoidable GM contamination up to 0.9 per cent.
The rules state that any food containing more than 0.9 per cent 'adventitious' or 'technically unavoidable' (or any deliberate or avoidable) GM ingredients must be labelled as GM. But the Soil Association insists that the lowest level of reliable detection (0.1 per cent) must be used throughout the organic sector. ...The leaked minutes state "a lower threshold for organic should not be ruled out immediately, instead the government should consult on its feasibility on a crop-by-crop basis," said the Soil Association in a statement last week.
"This is nonsense. No-one in the food industry will take these proposals seriously. The government seems to be saying that some organic food can have no reliably detectable GM in it, but with other products, almost one in a hundred mouthfuls could be pure GM," said Peter Melchett, the Soil Association's policy director.
According to the Soil Association, Defra, the government department in charge of GM policy, claims that it does not know what the EU legal position is, and that it is still getting legal advice on the precise meaning of 'use', 'adventitious' and 'technically unavoidable' in the EU laws. ...." FoodNavigator
Feb 29 ~ GM crops roll-out is blighted as MPs prepare to challenge No 10
Independent on Sunday Geoffrey Lean
"MPs are poised to reject the Government's plans to approve the growing of GM crops in Britain, just as ministers are preparing to announce them.
The House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee, one of its two most powerful select committees, is putting the final touches to a report concluding that no modified crops should be cultivated commercially until more trials are carried out. This would delay their introduction until the end of the decade. ..... The MPs believe approval should not be given until after new trials are carried out using the herbicides that replace Atrazine, and that these trials need to be run for at least four years. They also believe ministers have not taken enough account of problems with GM crops in the US and Canada, where neighbouring crops have been contaminated and superweeds created.
In another blow for the industry, Bayer CropScience, which owns the maize about to be approved by ministers, has made the heads of its GM operations in Europe redundant. "
Feb 27 ~ "Friends of the Earth renewed its call for tough GM liability legislation in the UK
following agreement earlier today on a framework for an international liability regime at the first meeting of the parties to the Biosafety Protocol - the global agreement on genetically modified organisms - in Kuala Lumpur.
The UK Government is expected to announce its GM policy shortly, including commercial approval for GM maize, but as a Party to the Biosafety Protocol they are bound by any international agreements made under the Protocol. This will provide a framework for the regulation of international trade in GM seed with any agreement under the Protocol affecting imports of GM contaminated seeds to the UK. ..." Read press release in full including the three key decisions made in Kuala Lumpur on liability, compliance and identification.
Feb 26 ~ GM crops delayed by at least a year after cabinet leak
Paul Brown Guardian Genetically-modified crops cannot be planted in the UK for at least another year, and maybe not even then, the environment minister, Elliot Morley, said yesterday. The delay is because it will take many months to sort out proper separation distances between crops, and a liability regime for contamination of conventional or organic crops.
A Commons statement by Margaret Beckett, the environment secretary, that the government is to go ahead with the first commercially grown GM crop has been delayed, after the leak to the Guardian last week of cabinet sub-committee minutes. Details of government plans to recruit MPs and scientists to put a gloss on the announcement embarrassed ministers, who have decided that another wide public consultation exercise is required before the policy on commercial growing can be implemented. Mr Morley met Gregory Barker, Conservative MP for Bexhill and Battle, who has cross-party support for a private member's bill on GM being introduced on March 26. It would create a strict regime for planting and compensation for farmers whose crops or livelihoods are damaged by GM crops. Mr Morley told him that the government would not support his bill, although the minister agreed with parts of it. Mr Morley told the Guardian that the bill was "out of sync" with government plans for a wide-ranging public consultation on the separation distances between GM and other crops and compensation funds for farmers, and on who would pay any damages.
......the twin problem of compensation if all goes wrong, and who pays for it, remains intractable. The biotech companies remain adamant that they will not foot the bill, and that it is a matter for insurance by farmers. The government refuses to set up a fund with taxpayers' money. ..."
Feb 26 ~ GM industry to be liable for damages claims
By Robert Uhlig Telegraph "The biotechnology industry will be liable for any compensation for damage or contamination caused by genetically modified crops, leaked Cabinet minutes reveal. According to minutes of a recent Cabinet committee meeting, the Government has decided that damage caused by GM crops "would be funded by the GM industry". The proposal, if adopted, is likely to derail the Government's plans to license at least one GM crop this spring.
Paul Rylott, chairman of the industry-backed Agricultural Biotechnology Council, warned yesterday that if the industry was made liable for compensation, GM crops would become too expensive for farmers to plant. He said there was a "finite limit of money" to be gained by planting GM, which was at "risk of erosion" if the Government made the industry liable for losses. He said that if the financial benefits of GM were threatened, then "there will not be any point in planting GM crops because there will be few benefits to farmers". The minutes say "the difficulty of proving that a particular farmer was to blame for GM contamination should not be underestimated". By making the industry responsible, it would be necessary only to identify the GM variety, which could be easily traced back to the consent holder - the biotech company that developed the GM seed."
Feb 25 ~ First evidence'of GM health-risk
"The first evidence emerges that GM crops are harmful to humans, reports the Daily Mail..." FWI
Feb 25 ~ Dismay over GM licence
Guardian Letters As a former member of the Biotechnology Commission set up by the government to advise on strategy for GM use in agriculture, I am dismayed by its apparently cavalier attitude to the licensing of GM herbicide-tolerant maize. It was emphasised in our report, Crops on Trial, that we certainly did not consider the results of the farm-scale evaluations (FSE) were "the final piece of the jigsaw" in deciding on the whether GM crops should be grown commercially in the UK. Far more is at stake, as is patently evident from the widespread apprehensions expressed in the GM nation debate held last year.
Yet, if the leaked Cabinet Office minutes (Leader, February 20) are anything to go by, it seems that by treating the FSE results as the sole criterion, the government is totally ignoring the advice of its own advisers. Moreover, the deficiencies of the FSEs themselves - in comparing management of GM maize with that employing a herbicide (atrazine) soon to be banned in the EU - are inexplicably discounted. Given the recommendation of the advisory committee on releases to the environment that "further work be conducted to investigate the implications of the impending withdrawal of atrazine", a decision to licence would smack of irresponsibility. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the government's decision has far more to do with striking a political bargain with the US government than with a belief in the oft-cited "sound science".
Prof Ben Mepham
Southwell, Notts
Feb 24 ~ UK 'not yet set for GM go-ahead'
By Alex Kirby BBC News Online "The UK environment minister, Elliot Morley, has sought to calm fears the government will shortly give the go-ahead to genetically modified crops. Mr Morley said there were still several issues to be settled, and the UK could not let GM crops be grown commercially. He told journalists the UK would give no blanket approval for GM varieties, but would judge each crop on its own. But it is clear the government is close to making an announcement on GM crops in the UK, probably in early March. ..."
Feb 24 ~ Scientists warn of danger of GMO contamination
FT "Seeds from genetically modified crops designed for industrial or pharmaceutical use could leak into the food chain and threaten human health because regulation by the US authorities is too lax, scientists warned yesterday. .... poor controls to separate GM and non-GM varieties could lead to increased dangers in the future, said the Union of Concerned Scientists, a Washington-based pressure group.
Margaret Mellon, director of the UCS food and environment programme, said: "This study shatters the presumption that at least one portion of the seed supply - that for traditional varieties of crops - is truly free of genetically engineered elements. The (US) government should immediately follow up this study to determine the extent of the contamination and the steps needed to protect this treasure." ...... "Seeds are the wellspring of our food system, the base on which we improve crops and the course to which we return when crops fail. Seeds will be our only recourse if the prevailing belief in the safety of genetic engineering proves wrong," it said. ......
* Some developing countries lack the capacity to monitor the introduction of GM technology, a United Nations-backed conference in Malaysia was told. Hamdallah Zedan, executive secretary of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, said countries that had signed the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety were trying to implement rules that take effect next year. However, many lacked the money to set up the necessary science laboratories to monitor use of the technology. www.ucsusa.org
Feb 24 ~ Legal challenge to GM go-ahead
FWI "Friends of the Earth has warned that it will consider a legal challenge if the government pushes ahead with the decision to force through Chardon LL GM maize for commercial growing in the UK.
The environmental organisation said the GM maize has not been rigorously assessed for its proposed uses and could pose a risk to human health and the environment. If the government decides to add Chardon LL to the National List of Varieties then members of the public - including Friends of the Earth - would still be able to take the matter to the national Plant Varieties and Seeds Tribunal.
Before a seed can be approved for the National List, it has to be shown to be "distinct, uniform and stable" and have "value for cultivation and use....."
Feb 22 ~ "... how to spin the announcement of a decision to approve GM maize with "careful presentation" so that public opposition can be "worn down"...."
See two articles today on the GM question GM seeds may have built-in obsolescence by Geoffrey Lean in the Independent on Sunday and The Not-So-Funny Farm by Ian Bell in the Sunday Herald. "Labour is going to give us GM crops whether we want them or not what does that say about British democracy?"
Feb 22 2004 ~The GM maize trials were doubly flawed
Michael Meacher, writing in the Independent on Sunday :"... The trials used by ministers to justify commercial planting, purport to show that it harmed the environment less than conventional (ie non-GM) maize. But the trials were doubly flawed. First, Atrazine, the chemical weedkiller used on conventional maize crops, has now been banned throughout the EU because of its toxicity. Since it will therefore never be used, the whole basis of the trial is invalidated. Second, the farmers were told to spray the GM crops only once in the trials, allowing more weeds to grow and thus reducing environmental damage. But in the real world it is unlikely that commercial GM maize growers would accept a significantly lower yield so as to enjoy more beetles and butterflies on their land.
Because of these flaws on both the GM and non-GM sides the trials cannot be cited to justify licensing GM maize cultivation. But even if that were not so, the Government cannot remotely claim that the trials - simply comparing the management of different weedkillers - constitute a proper assessment of the environmental impacts of GM crops. They included nothing about soil residues or soil bacteria, nothing about gene flow or transgenic contamination, nothing about "superweeds" or "superpests". Until these are fully investigated, the Government cannot claim it has any systematic knowledge of the most serious environmental consequences of GM pollution.
Even worse, no analysis has been done of the health impact of eating GM foods. The Government cites the absence of evidence of harm to show that GM is safe when no evidence has been sought. The biotech companies rely on the spurious principle of "substantial equivalence" whereby a new GM product is simply assumed to be safe if its toxins, allergens and nutrients are judged broadly similar to those of a non-GM counterpart. But when a new gene is inserted crudely into a plant out of a sequence that has evolved over hundreds of millions of years, it will interact with other genes in unknown ways and with unpredictable results."
Read in full
Feb 21 ~ "..a complete reversal of Meacher's view that there is no scientific case for Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) which should therefore remain banned.
Reuters The cabinet committee minutes also made it clear that the government, which is pushing for an end to the European Union's ban on imports of genetically modified maize from the United States, was in favour of allowing commercial planting. The government promptly denied that any decision had been taken. "It is interesting to note that despite the leak of these supposedly confidential minutes, the government has not announced any inquiry," Meacher said....Friends of the Earth has said it could lodge a legal challenge to any decision to allow commercial planting of GMOs on the grounds of inadequate scientific testing