Guest guest Posted July 30, 2004 Report Share Posted July 30, 2004 > WEEKLY_WATCH_83 > " GM_WATCH " <info > Thu, 29 Jul 2004 23:01:48 +0100 > --------------------------- > WEEKLY WATCH number 83 > --------------------------- > from Claire Robinson, WEEKLY WATCH editor > --------------------------- > > Following his death on Wednesday, there's a lot of > attention on Francis Crick, wco-discoverer with > James Watson of the double helix structure of DNA > and arguably the father of molecular biology. For > many around the world, though, Crick's remarkable > scientific insights have been overtaken by a > corporate juggernaut intent on pushing products > based on the crude unproven technology of genetic > engineering. > > The consequences echo around the globe. There is > growing controversy, for instance, in South Africa > over its lax biosafety system, constructed with the > 'help' of industry figures. This system has been > fast-tracking in a succession of GM crops and now > seems set to allow the growing of GM potatoes > similar to those that bombed in the US, as well as > crops engineered to contain an HIV/AIDS drug. (see > FOCUS ON AFRICA) > > In India a massive industry campaign is underway to > weaken its regulatory system so that GMOs can be > fast-tracked in in a similar way. The latest part of > this industry campaign is a big GM promotional > conference, " Ushering in the Second Green > Revolution " . And who will pay the price? As we noted > last week, 900 farmers have killed themselves in > India in just the last 2 months - victims of the > first green revolution. (see FOCUS ON ASIA) > > In Europe, all eyes are on the unelected European > Commission, which has a habit of approving GM crops > rejected by the member countries! Given the > duplicity and unaccountability of this body, it's no > accident that the UK's new Euro Commissioner will be > Peter Mandelsohn, a man famous only for spin and for > having to resign twice from the UK government in > discreditable circumstances. > > For those in the UK, don't miss an important > CAMPAIGN OF THE WEEK, an attempt to restore some > level of honesty to the government's consultation on > GM " co-existence " . Please take action. Campaigners > focusing on such consultations enjoy a strong > history of success in shaming the government into > doing the right thing. > > And finally, there have been two important reports > this week questioning GM food safety - one from the > US National Academy of Sciences and the other from > India's premier medical research body, the Indian > Council of Medical Research (ICMR). As one > commentator has pointed out, these type of safety > reviews should have been conducted in the early > 1990s, before we were all turned into guinea pigs! > (see FOOD SAFETY) > > Claire claire > www.lobbywatch.org / www.gmwatch.org > > --------------------------- > CONTENTS > --------------------------- > FOCUS ON ASIA > FOCUS ON AFRICA > FOOD SAFETY > QUOTE OF THE WEEK > EURO-NEWS > US > OTHER GLOBAL NEWS > LOBBYWATCH > CORPORATE TAKEOVER OF SCIENCE > PATENTS ON LIFE > CAMPAIGN OF THE WEEK - UK > DONATIONS > > --------------------------- > FOCUS ON ASIA > --------------------------- > > + INDUSTRY ASSAULT ON INDIA - FAST-TRACKING CAMPAIGN > CONTINUES, BIG PRO-GM CONFERENCE COMING > > PV Satheesh of the Deccan Development Society has > warned how, unperturbed by the problems already > inflicted on the country by GM cotton, " the powerful > industrial lobby in India has been instrumental in a > process that might completely dismantle the Genetic > Engineering Approval Committee of the Ministry of > Environment and Forests and hand over the control to > an industry dominated committee in the name of a > fast track approval " . > > As part of the biotech industry's campaign to weaken > India's regulatory system, the Federation of Indian > Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) will hold > a big GM promotional - an " International Conference > on Agricultural Biotechnology " entitled " Ushering in > the Second Green Revolution " at Federation House, > New Delhi, Aug 10-12, 2004. > > FICCI is operating in partnership with: > (1) The International Service for the Acquisition of > Agri-Biotech Application (ISAAA) - a U.S.-based, GM > promotion and 'transfer' agency whose board has > contained leading biotech industry executives and > which enjoys multi-million dollar funding from > Bayer, Cargill, Dow, Monsanto, Novartis, Pioneer, > Syngenta, in addition to funding from the > Rockefeller Foundation and Western governmental > funding agencies. > http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=66 & page=I > and > (2) The MS Swaminathan Research Foundation (MSSRF) > headed by the green revolution scientist, MS > Swaminathan, who has been in charge of a government > task force set up to revise India's regulatory > system. Swaminathan has a disturbing talent for > dressing up the industry's agenda in the rhetoric of > village India, women's empowerment, etc. > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4179 > > The main conference organisers, FICCI, has already > stated that it wants to see the Genetic Engineering > Approval Committee's powers curtailed by " changes in > rules relating to production and handling of > micro-organisms, cells and genetically modified > organisms (GMOs). " The conference is intended to > deliberate on such changes as well as being a GM > promotional. > > The biotech lobby's main concern is over what they > see as stagnation in the GM crop sector in India. > Shantu Shantaram spells it out with his complaint, > " all we have is one stupid Bt cotton to talk about. " > India's prominence within the developing world makes > what the biotech lobby sees as the slow introduction > of GM crops into India particularly frustrating. > > Significantly, Shantaram, who is a frequent > spokesman on these issues, presents himself simply > as " Dr Shantu Shantaram, Biologistics International > USA " . In fact, Dr Shantaram is an employee of GM > giant Syngenta. > > Go to a Syngenta website like that of Syngenta > Canada and the message is loud and clear: > > " Welcome! We're Syngenta. Syngenta is the world's > leading agribusiness company " . > http://www.syngenta.ca/ > > But when it comes to Syngenta's man Shantharam, the > message is non-existent! > > At Syngenta, Shantaram developed the corporation's > PR strategies for biotech projects, including Golden > Rice. Prior to that he worked for the US Department > of Agriculture. Biologistics International is > Shantaram's " consulting firm " on biosafety. No doubt > he will be putting that expertise to good use to > help India usher in its " Second Green Revolution " . > > Much of the drive to reform India's regulatory > system has its roots in a forum on regulatory > development set up by Syngenta, in which MS > Swaminathan took a prominent part. Syngenta's forum > established many of the principles behind the > proposals for regulatory reform now being brought > forward. > > The aim seems clear: to weaken India's regulatory > system and then use it as a blueprint to sell to > other Asian countries - just as South Africa's > fast-track system is now being promoted as a model > for the entire continent. > > See: > Ushering in the Second Green Revolution - > International conference in New Delhi > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4179 > Clipping the wings of India's regulators > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4183 > Industry asault on India > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4193 > > + THAILAND: GM PAPAYA SCANDAL - MAJOR FOOD CROP > CONTAMINATED > Packages of papaya seeds being sold by the > Department of Agriculture's research station in the > province of Khon Kaen have tested positive for GM > seeds. " This is potentially one of the worst cases > of genetic contamination of a major food crop in > Asia as this station is one of the largest suppliers > of papaya seeds in the country, " said Varoonvarn > Svangsopakul, Greenpeace's GE campaigner in > Southeast Asia. > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4182 > > Greenpeace Southeast Asia identified one of the > fields at the research station as the source of the > GE seeds. The group said the experimental field was > only segregated from the other papaya by barbed wire > and banana trees. > > Greenpeace Southeast Asia raided and sealed off the > research station, accusing the government of > breaking a ban on GMOs. Greenpeace executive > director Jiraporn Gajaseni said lab checks from Hong > Kong confirm the research station distributed GMO > papaya seeds to farmers. " This is a huge violation > of the GMO ban, " she said. > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4184 > > --------------------------- > FOCUS ON AFRICA > --------------------------- > > + GM WATCH INTERVIEWED IN AFRICAN REGULATORY SCANDAL > An article in South Africa's Mail & Guardian reports > growing concern that some experts advising the > government on permits for GM products have serious > conflicts of interest. Particular concern, the paper > notes, is focused on a state official, Muffy Koch, > who advises the government on whether to grant > permits to companies to test GMOs, while consulting > for the companies during the subsequent trials. > > Koch's company, Golden Genomics, is consulting on > biosafety standards in field trials of potatoes that > are genetically modified to resist attack by tuber > moth. She is also a member of the pro-GM > " stakeholder group " , AfricaBio, and helped draft > South Africa's GMO Act. > > According to the Mail & Guardian, " International GM > pressure group GM Watch, together with other groups > such as Biowatch and the African Centre for > Biosafety, view the GMO Act as deeply flawed. > 'Shoddy research was done in the drafting, while the > experts involved were not independent,' said Mariam > Mayet, the director of the African Centre for > Biosafety.' " > > Jonathan Matthews of GM Watch is quoted as saying > that many South African advisers are too close to > the GM industry to rule objectively on trials. > " Koch's career raises important questions about > where the lines are drawn between regulation, > lobbying and private companies, " Matthews said. > > He also complained that owing to lax biosafety > controls South Africa's intake of GM crops was more > rapid than that of any country besides the US. " The > fact that our biosafety controls readily allow GM > imports and GM crop releases into the environment is > no accident. It is the result of its having been > shaped from an early stage by influential proponents > of GM like Koch. " > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4178 > > + AFRICA FORGES AHEAD WITH GM POTATOES > The South African government has approved a > US-funded project to grow GM potatoes in six secret > locations. Similar potatoes were first grown in the > US but were withdrawn from the market due to > consumer resistance. > > (See http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?ArcId=2405 > for more on the dismal story of the rise and fall of > Monsanto's New Leaf GM spuds) > > The announcement of South Africa's authorisation for > the project was made on Monday through a press > release issued by the USAID and US Department of > Agriculture-funded International Service for the > Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA). > ISAAA also receives funds from a who's-who of > multinational chemical and seed companies: Bayer, > CropScience, Monsanto, Pioneer Hi-Bred, Syngenta, > Cargill, Dow AgroSciences and KWS SAAT AG. > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4185 > > The GM potato project is being hyped by Muffy Koch > (see previous item). Koch said that the country has > shrinking farmland and an expanding population. To > address this problem, " smarter farming methods " need > to be used. South Africa has been conducting field > trials with tuber moth resistant potatoes for the > last three years. > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4176 > > For more on Muffy Koch: > http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=271 & page=K > > + WHY GM IS A HARD SELL IN AFRICA - WAMBUGU > Africa Harvest CEO, Dr Florence Wambugu, told global > leaders attending the World Economic Forum (WEF) > Summit in Davos, Switzerland, that GM crops were a > hard sell in Africa because private sector players > were not dealing with other factors affecting > hunger, poverty and malnutrition: " Although Africa > supports biotechnology, there is increasing concern, > especially from political leaders, that private > companies merely view it as a market. " > > Wambugu said African leaders would support biotech, > hence speeding up its adoption, if major industry > players began to look holistically at the problems > facing the continent. > > GM WATCH comment: Since GM is the least holistic > technology in history and would count for nothing in > any holistic approach to Africa's problems, the > industry will not be able to change its practice > without self-destructing - though it may well change > its tune in PR blitzes. > > Wambugu, whose lobby group Africa Harvest is > supported by industry federation CropLife > International, was on sparkling form at the World > Economic Forum in Davos, claiming, " Our focus as > Africa Harvest has been to provide factual > information to Africans. Our experience is that they > are not as gullible as the anti-GM lobby groups make > them out to be. " > > This Pants on Fire award winner (2003-2004) wouldn't > know factual information if it bit her. Her lies are > legendary, not least those she used in promoting the > failed GM sweet potato project to the media as the > saviour of hungry Africans. > > Note especially here how she just slips in the line: > " Africa supports biotechnology " . And like the > industry as a whole, Wambugu is adept at confusing > biotechnology in general, which is often > uncontroversial and so has wide acceptance, with > genetic engineering. > > For more on Wambugu: > http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=131 & page=W > For her PANTS award: > http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=131 > For CropLife International > http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=159 & page=C > > + KENYA EMBRACES GM TREES FROM SOUTH AFRICA > Under severe pressure to increase its forest cover > from less than 2% of total land area to the > internationally accepted canopy minimum of 10%, > Kenya has embraced what are described as " clonal > trees " first introduced in the country from South > Africa. > > Africa Harvest CEO, Dr Florence Wambugu apparently > brokered the technology. > > The Minister for Environmental, Natural Resources > and Wildlife, Dr Newton Kulundu thanked ISAAA > AfriCenter, and Lord Sainsbury's Gatsby Charitable > Foundation, as well as Mondi Forest of South Africa, > for their commitment and determination to ensure > that Tree Biotechnology Project succeeds. (The > Project was started under the leadership of Wambugu > when she was a director of the ISAAA AfriCenter). > > GM WATCH comment: Funny how the biotech industry > doesn't give a damn about deforestation - see, for > example, " ARGENTINA FOREST PROTEST BEGINS " , below, > on the destruction of Argentina's forest for GM soy > - until they have some GM trees to flog (if these > " clonal trees " actually are GM trees). What a > brilliant market strategy: deforest a country with > GM herbicide resistant crops and then 'solve' the > problem of deforestation by selling it GM trees! We > wonder whether the obvious question of genetic > impoverishment inherent in cloning ever arises in > the minds of the *idiots savants* of biotech. But > doubtless they stand ready to clone a few more > varieties of GM trees. > > For more on: > Lord Sainsbury's Gatsby Charitable Foundation > http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=116 > Florence Wambugu and A Harvest > http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=131 > ISAAA > http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=66 > > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4169 > > + ROW OVER MUTANT AIDS DRUG > South Africa is to become the guinea pig for the > production and testing of an HIV/Aids vaccine that > will be grown in GM plants. But local environmental > activists have warned they will fight the project, > for which the European Union has granted 12 million > euro (about R80-million) over five years. > > The first field trial of the GM vaccine is likely to > be carried out in South Africa because there are > fears that crops might be vandalised in the United > Kingdom, Britain's Independent newspaper reported. > The trial will be carried out by the Centre for > Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), based in > Pretoria. Possible host plants for the drug include > maize and tobacco. > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4185 > > The irony of this proposal to genetically engineer > an anti-HIV drug into plants will not be lost on > those who have read Leonard Horowitz's seminal book, > Emerging Viruses: AIDS and Ebola - Nature, Accident > or Intentional? (Tetrahedron, 1996). Horowitz > follows a scientific paper trail which concludes > that the HIV virus was either accidentally or > deliberately created through genetic engineering in > US laboratories. > > --------------------------- > FOOD SAFETY > --------------------------- > > + MAJOR US REPORT RAISES CONCERNS > The following comments come from Craig Winters, > Executive Director of The Campaign to Label > Genetically Engineered Foods, in the US: > > A major new report from the National Academy of > Sciences was released this week titled " Safety of > Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to > Assessing Unintended Health Effects. " > > This project was funded by the Food and Drug > Administration (FDA), the U.S. Department of > Agriculture (USDA), and the Environmental Protection > Agency (EPA). > > The Institute of Medicine and the National Research > Council are the divisions of the National Academy of > Sciences that released the report. The > report was conducted by the " Committee on > Identifying and Assessing Unintended Effects of > Genetically Engineered Foods on Human Health. " > > This report from the nation's leading scientific > organization raises many red flags about the safety > of genetically engineered foods. > > You can read and/or purchase the entire 254-page > report online at the National Academies Press web > site. There is also a 16-page executive > summary. Here is a link to the web site: > http://books.nap.edu/catalog/10977.html > > [When reading about the report] please allow me to > point out a few things to keep in mind: > > 1) Most of the people who served on this committee > are very pro-biotech. Many earn their livings in > this field and stand to profit significantly if > this technology is adopted on a larger scale. > > 2) This type of safety review should have been > conducted in the early 1990's, before we made guinea > pigs out of the American public. > > 3) Since genetically engineered foods are currently > being eaten on a daily basis by millions of U.S. > citizens, there was great pressure on the committee > to not alarm the public by suggesting that the > current foods are in any way not safe. > > 4) The biotech industry is trying to say that this > report indicates genetically engineered crops are > safe when the findings clearly raise many > significant safety concerns. > > 5) The report emphasizes the value and importance of > post market tracking of genetically engineered foods > that have been approved for human consumption. The > easiest way to facilitate post market tracking would > be to label the genetically engineered foods. Yet > the committee chairwoman is downplaying the need for > post market tracking, undermining this important > safety review that the report emphasizes. > > 6) As the report points out, the technology does not > even currently exist that is necessary to adequately > safety test genetically engineered foods. It could > cost many millions, if not billions, of dollars to > develop such technology, and take many years. In > the meantime, people are being fed these risky foods > that have never been adequately tested. > > 7) Based on the track record of the government > agencies that commissioned this report, it is > unlikely they will suddenly change the way they have > been dealing with genetically engineered foods. So, > the status quo will likely remain. And under the > current regulations, if a biotech company has a new > genetically engineered product to bring to market, > they are not even required to inform the FDA they > are bringing it out. > > Again, this type of analysis on the safety of > genetically engineered foods should have been done > BEFORE allowing the American public to be made > guinea pigs. > > Now that this report has been released indicating > the potential for health problems is real, will the > government agencies finally start adequately > regulating genetically engineered foods? Probably > not. Most likely it will take Congressional action > to force the agencies to act. This report provides > compelling evidence on why such action from Congress > is needed. > > Safety testing and labeling should be required for > ALL genetically engineered foods. As the report > points out, the current system is inadequate to > assure safety. > > + COUNCIL OF MEDICAL RESEARCH RAISES QUESTIONS OVER > GM FOOD SAFETY > The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) has > raised concerns over the safety of GM food and has > urged overhaul of the existing regulatory mechanism. > The ICMR study, " Regulatory Regime for Genetically > Modified Foods: The Way Ahead " , said " the case of GM > potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin gene > for insecticidal properties is an example of the > potential of GM foods to cause toxicity. In a group > of rats fed with GM potato damage to immune system > and stunted growth was observed and the experiment > had generated considerable controversy. " > > In case of the GM rice, soyabean and rapeseed the > study said " currently developed plants with improved > nutritive value include GM rice with enriched > vitamin A and GM soyabean and rapeseed with modified > fatty acid. The impact of such intended modification > in nutrient level in a crop plants can affect > nutritional status of the individual. There is also > the potential for unexpected alteration in nutrients > as was observed in the case of GM rice (accumulation > of xanthophylls, increase in prolamines). Such > changes can affect nutrient profiles resulting in > nutritional imbalances in the consumer. " > > The ICMR study has been circulated among concerned > ministries and departments of the government. The > study noted that 73 per cent of the GM crops are > developed for herbicide tolerance while 18 per cent > are developed for resistance to insects and 8 per > cent developed contain both traits. Only 0.1 per > cent of GM crops are for the traits that are the > most hyped: yield improvement and vitamin > enrichment. > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4177 > > + MALAWI EXPERTS BLAME GM FOODS FOR RISE IN CANCER > The Malawi National Cancer Registry (MNCR) has > warned that consumption of GM foods can contribute > to cancer cases. MNCR reports that cancer is > dramatically increasing in Malawi, recording up to > 2,900 cases annually. MNCR director, Dr Charles > Dzamalala said there might be a linkage between the > increasing cancer cases and the proliferation of GM > foods on the local market. > > Controversy over GM food flared in 2001/2002 farming > season when Malawi was severely hit by famine that > inflicted several countries of southern Africa due > to prolonged dry spells. > Donor states, notably the US, ferried tonnes of > biotech maize to the starved region. But Zimbabwean > and Zambian governments refused to distribute the > maize to hungry populations for fear of its dangers. > Malawi, however, accepted the GM maize. But former > agriculture minister Aleke Banda expressed fears in > Parliament that some farmers were planting the GM > food. He dispatched officials from his ministry to > uproot such maize crops. > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4190 > > Only time will tell if the experts of the Malawi > National Cancer Registry are right about this. > That's the nature of a " massive human experiment " : > > " [uK Prime Minister] Blair's chief scientific > adviser denounced the United States' attempts to > force the technology [GM] into Africa as a 'massive > human experiment'. In a scathing attack on President > Bush's administration, Professor David King also > questioned the morality of the US's desire to flood > genetically modified foods into African countries, > where people are already facing starvation in the > coming months. " > - The Observer, UK, Sep 1, 2002 > http://ngin.tripod.com/forcefeed.htm > > ------- > QUOTE OF THE WEEK > ------- > > + GM IS THE THREAT > " First, we were told we had to eat GM whether we > liked it or not, because soon there would be nothing > else on the supermarket shelves. > > " When it became clear we wouldn't eat it, we were > told starvation in the third world would only be > solved if Europe agreed to eat GM. > > " When the main overseas aid organisations scotched > that myth, we were called anti-science Luddites. > > " When we proved thick-skinned, we were told GM was > good for the environment. > > " Now that reports of increasing pesticide use on GM > crops with time and the results of the farm scale > evaluations have put that idea into a different > perspective, we are told we will all be in the " grip > of a food crisis in as little as 15 years, perhaps > even ten " unless we embrace GM. > > " We have moved from coercion, through moral > imperative, insults and environmental concern, to a > direct personal threat. > > " In 1996, pro-Natural Food Scotland forecast global > famine within 30 years if our staple crops were > allowed to be progressively weakened by artificial > genetic intrusions. Since then, revelations about > the molecular instability of the DNA in transfected > plants, plus the ease with which our staple crops > are being contaminated with genes which generate > toxins, have served to strengthen this opinion. > > " We will wake up one day to find entire sections of > our food supply have failed or become unfit for > human consumption. " > - Joanna Clarke of Glasgow, Scotland, in a letter to > The Scotsman, July 26, 2004, in response to Prof > Mike Gale's claims in that newspaper that we'll all > starve without GM food. > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4189 > > --------------------------- > EURO-NEWS > --------------------------- > > + EUROPE IN STALEMATE OVER GM WHILE SPAIN > RECONSIDERS > When EU agriculture ministers gathered 19 July, they > were again unable to come to a decision about > whether to authorize imports of Monsanto's GM > " NK603 " maize for human consumption. However, on the > same day, the European Commission (EC) approved the > marketing of the product for animal feed. > > The corn received a safety approval by the European > Food Safety Authority last year. Even though the EC > approved the import of this corn for animal feed, > implementation of this decision must wait until > approval has been granted for human consumption. > > That decision is now in the hands of the EC. > According to the EU's decision-making process, if > the ministers of member states fail to agree on > allowing a new GMO, then the EC may decide on an > authorization. The commission wants to approve the > corn for sale. > > Not everyone is happy with this process. " This > pattern of decision making by default is starting to > expose the lack of credibility of [EU] authorization > procedures, " said Greenpeace's Eric Gall. " Most > consumers don't want [GM crops], and member states > have not agreed to approve them. The commission is > defying democracy by pushing through these approvals > to satisfy the biotech lobby and its US backers. " > > Spain, which had charged ahead with GM crops, is now > reconsidering its position. Spain is the only EU > country to have planted significant numbers of GM > crops. > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4173 > > + FRANCE: PROTESTORS DESTROY GM CROP > Hundreds of protesters, including a Mayor and other > public officials, have destroyed a field of GM maize > in a field owned by Pioneer Hi-Bred International at > Menville, near Toulouse in south-west France. The > activists were led by French farmer Jose Bove, who > said the protest was made in the interests of > consumers. About 15 policemen watched the > destruction and took photographs of those involved, > but did not intervene. > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4175 > > ------- > US > ------- > > + MONSANTO AGAIN SUES RIVAL SYNGENTA > Broadening its legal feud with Syngenta, Monsanto > has filed two new lawsuits accusing its Swiss > agribusiness rival of breach of contract and patent > infringement - its third such action in less than > three months. > > The St Louis-based company asked a federal court in > Rockford, Ill., to block Syngenta from developing, > using and selling Roundup Ready corn seed, including > Monsanto's GA21 Roundup Ready variety. The filing in > US District Court in Rockford, Ill., alleges > Syngenta infringed patents held by Monsanto's DeKalb > Genetics Corp. > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4193 > > + CALL FOR BAN ON PHARMA CROPS > Consumer and environmental organizations called on > California state agencies to conduct a rigorous > investigation of the potential hazards posed by a > biotechnology firm's plan to produce pharmaceutical > drugs from GM rice. The groups say such novel crops > inevitably will contaminate the food supply. > > A new 22-page report describes some of the serious > health and environmental concerns in relation to one > such crop proposed for cultivation in California. > According to Dr Michael Hansen, senior research > associate with Consumers Union, " Californians cannot > rely on the federal government to protect the > state's consumers, farmers, and environment from the > potential harms of this experimental and unproven > pharmaceutical rice " . > > The EU-based Pharma-Planta group plans to grow these > crops in South Africa - a country which has a > biosafety system every bit as weak as that of the > US. > View Full Report > http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/pubs/CARiceReport7.2004.pdf > View Executive Summary > http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/pubs/CARiceReportExecSumm7.2004.pdf > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4171 > > + LAWSUIT THREATENS GM DRUG CROPS' FUTURE IN HAWAII > Even though they are far from winning in court, > opponents of GM drug crops have succeeded in > shutting down the industry in Hawaii. Experiments to > alter sugar cane and corn to produce drugs began > last year in Hawaii at eight mostly-secret sites. > > All drug crop field tests in Hawaii stopped within > months of lawsuits claiming the crops threatened the > environment and food supply. The companies said > their crops are harmless, but fear what would happen > if the lawsuits revealed their locations. " Whether > there are going to be demonstrations; whether people > are going to attempt to pull out the existing > plants; that means millions of dollars in research > could be lost, " attorney for biological agriculture > companies, Margery Bronster, said. > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4188 > > ------- > OTHER GLOBAL NEWS > ------- > > + ARGENTINA FOREST PROTEST BEGINS > Greenpeace launched a protest this week in > Argentina's north western forests, in response to > Monsanto using the land to plant GM soya. The > activists found bulldozers in Salta, by the Great > Chaco and Yungas forests. They chained the > bulldozers, immobilising them. > > Combined, the two forests are largest in South > America, behind the Amazon. Millions of people live > in the Great Chaco and Yungas, and rely on the > forest's natural biodiversity for their livelihoods. > The forests are also home to numerous vulnerable > animal species such as jaguars, and contain rich > plant life. > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4192 > > + HOW THE US HELPED BIO TO LOBBY THE VATICAN > An interesting snippet from the Biotech Industry > Organisation's website shows that the US Government > organised a meeting between the Vatican and BIO! > " Global outreach included a visit to the Vatican to > discuss agricultural biotech issues, such as the > potential of biotechnology to lift food production > and ease hunger in developing countries. In a trip > arranged by the U.S. Department of State, BIO's vice > president for food and agriculture, Val Giddings, > met with Vatican officials and gave public lectures > to the Vatican diplomatic corps and the local > community. " > http://www.bio.org/speeches/pubs/milestone04/foodandag.asp > > The US Government previously got pro-GM Archbishop > Martino to attend its big " feed the world " GM > promotional in Sacramento, California - an event > boycotted by all EU countries. > http://www.sacbee.com/content/business/agriculture/story/6907586p-7857123chtml > > One of the official speakers at the US Dept of > Agriculture event in Sacramento was CS Prakash of > pro-GM listserv AgBioView. Recently Prakash's group > of pro-GM " Scientists and Scholars " denounced the > Catholic Institute for International Relations for > raising questions about GM crops. > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4151 > > This is part of a sustained campaign. Three years > ago Prakash met one of the Vatican's leading experts > on bioethics Bishop Elio Sgreccia to try and head > off concerns over safeguards on GM foods. > http://www.catholicnews.com/data/briefs/20010706.htm > More on Prakash's lobby assault on the Catholic > Church: > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4180 > > + LORD ROBERT WINSTON SAYS GM IS AS SAFE AS NUKES! > During a recent tour of New Zealand, TV fertility > boffin Lord Robert Winston, who has warned the > scientific community against over-confidence, > exaggeration and a black and white denial of > uncertainty in science, has been telling his > audience: " we've been using nuclear power with > *complete safety* for 50 years " and " There's *not > the slightest evidence* that GM food is dangerous " > (emphasis added). > > This is an extraordinary faux pas in a country that > has always proudly proclaimed itself nuclear-free. > Dr Robert Anderson challenged Winston's comments in > a letter to SCOOP news service: > > ON NUKES: " Quite apart from the Chernobyl disaster > which killed tens of thousands and crippled many > more, or the narrowly averted melt-down at Three > Mile Island, I have before me a calendar of - not > yearly, nor even monthly but - daily accidents in > the virtually world-wide nuclear power industry. One > also wonders if he is familiar with the latest > environmental pollution figures, from the vast > nuclear waste storage containers, as leakage occurs > into ground water and surrounding soils. > > ON GM FOOD: " He may well have expertise in human > fertility matters, but he is certainly not an expert > in every field of genetics. .. An enormous number of > eminent scientists making up the Union of Concerned > Scientists, PSRG, and the UK Independent Science > Panel, among others, have all condemned it as > untested and dangerous, quite apart from exposing > fatal flaws in the regulatory process. > > " Only recently, the French newspaper Le Monde, > revealed secret documents showing health impacts of > GM corn described as 'very disturbing' by French > scientists. These included kidney malformations, > increases in white blood cells in male rats and high > blood sugar and reduced immature red blood cells in > female rats. Last year, up to 100 Philippine > villagers suffered debilitating illnesses when > nearby GE corn came into flower. Professor Terje > Traavik found antibodies produced by the GM corn in > the blood of 39 villagers. Reports have come in of > the same illnesses this year. " > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4186 > > + SCIENTISTS SUPPORT PRINCE ON NANOTECH > The Independent has an article on a new report by > the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of > Engineering which says tough new rules must be > brought in to guard against dangers to health and > the environment from nanotechnology. The report also > urges ministers and scientists to adopt a more open > approach to the public over the technology than it > has over GM. > > The report marks an abrupt change of attitude by the > Royal Society, which has been one of the principal > cheerleaders for GM crops and foods, and > demonstrates how severely the scientific > establishment has been shaken by successful public > resistance to them [GM WATCH: Hmmm... or is it just > that the nanotech firms haven't yet co-opted the RS > in the same way as GM firms seem to have done?]. > > It vindicates Prince Charles who has warned of the > risks of the technology - which manipulates > microscopic materials 80,000 times smaller than the > thickness of a human hair. Particles of normally > harmless materials such as latex become toxic when > produced in such minute form. > > The report also wrong-foots leading scientists such > as Lord Winston who accused the prince of raising > " science scares " and of being " a classic woolly > thinker " . > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4186 > > --------------------------- > LOBBYWATCH > --------------------------- > > + GM HAS " HUGE POTENTIAL " FOR MANKIND, SAYS BULLSH*T > AWARDEE > Claiming that scientists should be neither for nor > against GM technology, but instead for " scientific > methodology " , the Institute of Food Science & > Technology (IFST) asserted in a statement that GM > has a " huge potential for mankind in medicine, > agriculture and food " . > > " Genetic modification will not solve poverty or wars > but with 30,000 people dying from diet deficiency > diseases every day, foods of the future will not be > solved without GM, " Prof. J Ralph Blanchfield, chair > of external affairs at the IFST, said to > FoodNavigator.com. > > Back in 2000 Blanchfield was the recipient of Prof > Bullsh*t's 'Best Bull' award for the following > statement: " IFST is neither root-and-branch pro-GM > or anti-GM, indeed as an independent objective > scientific professional body it cannot be > " root-and-branch " about anything... The development > of GM technology holds out such valuable, indeed > indispensable, prospects for the future of humanity > that any other approach would be indefensible. " > http://ngin.tripod.com/fav.htm > > In making the award, one of the panel offered the > following comment on Blanchfield's statement: > > Doctor Halftruth: " A classic of its kind and a model > one can confidently recommend for training purposes. > Start by making it absolutely clear that as a wholly > independent objective scientist you are very far > from being unequivocal about this technology. Having > emphasised your avoidance of any overcommitment, you > are then at liberty to sell biotech for all it's > worth, saying any other approach isn't even worthy > of consideration! A useful variant on this popular > strategy is to say you wish to escape from an > unnecessarily polarised debate. You can then happily > give over the rest of your time to the usual GM > promotional, confident that your remarks will be > reported as a plea for greater balance in the GM > debate! " > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4191 > > --------------------------- > CORPORATE TAKEOVER OF SCIENCE > --------------------------- > > + US: USDA HIJACKED BY AGRIBIZ, SAYS REPORT > A new report finds that regulatory policy at the > U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has been > " hijacked " by the agribusiness industry, which has > seen to it that many key policymaking positions at > the agency are now held by individuals who > previously worked for the industry. > > The report, titled USDA INC., was commissioned by > the Agribusiness Accountability Initiative (AAI), a > network of family farm and public interest groups. > The report can be found online at > www.agribusinessaccountability.org/page/325/1 > > " In its early days, USDA was known as the People's > Department, " said Fred Stokes of the Organization > for Competitive Markets, which first proposed the > paper. " Today, it is, in effect, the Agribusiness > Industry's Department, since its policies on issues > such as food safety and fair market competition have > been shaped to serve the interests of the giant > corporations that now dominate food production and > distribution. " > > In addition to working for agribusiness companies > such as ConAgra and Campbell Soup, top USDA > officials came to the Department from industry trade > associations (such as the Food Marketing Institute) > and producer groups (such as the National > Cattlemen's Beef Association and the National Pork > Producers Council), which are closely aligned with > big processing companies and are partially funded by > them. Even Secretary Ann Veneman, who has spent most > of her career as a public official, served on the > board of directors of Calgene Inc., a biotech > company later taken over by Monsanto. > > The report illustrates the hijacking of USDA > policymaking through five case studies: > *USDA's refusal to adopt strict safety and testing > measures for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), > despite the appearance of a case in Washington State > last year. > *USDA's refusal to vigorously enforce rules against > anti-competitive practices in the cattle industry, > despite the growing tendency of the big meatpacking > companies to force independent ranchers into > so-called captive supply arrangements. > *USDA's promotion of weakened slaughterhouse > inspection practices in the face of a resurgence of > health hazards such as E.coli bacteria and listeria. > The Department also continues to promote dubious > " solutions " such as irradiation. > *USDA's continuing boosterism for agricultural > biotech, despite a lack of consumer acceptance and > the plunge in exports due to international > resistance. > *USDA's support for concentrated animal feeding > operations, despite the growing evidence of serious > public health effects of these factory farms. > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4172 > > ------- > PATENTS ON LIFE > ------- > > + NATURALLY SELF-REPLICATING GM CROPS NOT PATENTABLE > - JUDGE > CropChoice editor, Robert Schubert, notes how a US > federal judge has finally taken note of the issues > surrounding the self-replication of patented > processes in nature - and has decided that such > organisms are not patentable. This is a concern that > farmers and scientists have observed with the spread > of GMOs in crops. > > Judge Arthur J. Gajarsa gave his opinion on April 23 > in the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit > in the case of SmithKline Beecham Corp. vs. Apotex > Corp. Gajarsa said concerning the company's > synthetic compound paroxetine hemihydrate, which can > reproduce itself by natural processes, " ...patent > claims drawn broadly enough to encompass products > that spread, appear, and 'reproduce' through natural > processes cover subject matter unpatentable under > Section 101 - and are therefore invalid. " > > Gajarsa referred to a distinction in patent law: > Products or processes that humans create are > patentable, while those of nature are not. The > Supreme Court affirmed this in two cases - Diamond > v. Chakrabarty in 1980, and Pioneer Hi-Bred Int'l, > Inc. v. J.E.M. Agric. Supply, Inc. in 2001. > > But even if more judges at the district and > appellate court level were to consider Gajarsa's > reasoning, that wouldn't do much in the short term > to help farmers who are having to defend themselves > against a biotech or seed company. > > " Does this [decision] mean that American farmers are > protected from accusations of patent infringement > for plants containing patented genes from stray > pollen? " said Peter DiMauro, director of the > PatentWatch Project at the International Center for > Technology Assessment. " Heck no! We are not even > close to such a just situation. However, the Gajarsa > opinion ought to inform other judges and policy > makers that the problem can exist, and that the > solution is not a strict literal enforcement of > draconian patent laws, but, rather, an equitable > application of flexible patent laws, either the laws > we have now or ones legislated in the future. " > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4181 > > --------------------------- > CAMPAIGN OF THE WEEK - UK ONLY > --------------------------- > > + ASK DEFRA TO BROADEN CONSULTATION BEYOND 'THE > USUAL SUSPECTS' > The UK government is trying to restrict its latest > consultation on GM crops to a narrow range of > " stakeholders " . Please write to DEFRA, the > government's dept of environment and agricultrure, > now to make sure they also listen to your views. > > BACKGROUND: > In March, when Margaret Beckett announced the > Government's policy on growing GM crops in the UK, > she promised further consulation on: > * How to ensure the co-existence of other crops with > GM crops; > * A liability regime to compensate non-GM farmers > whose crops become contaminated; > * How to establish GM-free zones. > > This consultation is beginning now and will include > workshops in the summer and autumn. However, the > Government plans to limit it to a narrow range of > " stakeholders " . Unless the consultation is widened > now, there is a danger that: > * a high threshold for GM contamination could be > set; > * biotech companies will not be made liable for > compensation, and liability will not extend to > environmental damage; > * GM free zones could become unworkable. > > WHAT YOU CAN DO: > Please write to DEFRA saying you want to be > consulted about the proposed new co-existence and > liability regime for GM crops. Include some reasons > why you will be affected by the decision that they > make (e.g. you are a farmer, beekeeper, gardener, > you want to eat GM-free food). Ask to be sent > information about the consultation process and any > documents they produce and to be invited to any > meetings or workshops that they hold. Please ask > other individuals or organisations to write to DEFRA > too. > > ADDRESS TO SEND YOUR LETTER: > GM Crops Policy Team > DEFRA > Ashdown House > 123 Victoria St > London > SW1E 6DE > > ------- > DONATIONS > ------- > Our thanks to all of you who have donated to GM > WATCH. You can donate online in any one of five > currencies via PayPal, at > http://www.gmwatch.org/donate.asp OR by cheque or > postal order payable to 'NGIN', to be sent to: NGIN, > 26 Pottergate, Norwich, NR2 1DX, UK. We appreciate > your support. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.