Guest guest Posted August 27, 2004 Report Share Posted August 27, 2004 > WEEKLY_WATCH_87 > " GM_WATCH " <info > Thu, 26 Aug 2004 22:49:09 +0100 > > --------------------------- > WEEKLY WATCH number 87 --------------------------- > from Claire Robinson, WEEKLY WATCH editor > --------------------------- > > Our main story this week is Thailand's apparent > capitulation to US pressure over the > commercialization of GM crops. However, after > massive opposition from just about everyone other > than US lobbyists, the biotech industry and > self-interested local advocates, the Thai government > appears to have put the decision on hold, at least > until next week. > > Meanwhile, the US's tedious pretence that it relies > solely on 'sound science' in its GM policy is given > the lie by its failed attempt to prevent the EU from > calling in scientific evidence in the WTO dispute > over the EU's moratorium on GMOs (EURO-NEWS). > > Claire claire > www.lobbywatch.org / www.gmwatch.org > > --------------------------- > CONTENTS > --------------------------- > THAILAND SPECIAL REPORT > OTHER NEWS FROM ASIA > GM ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTERS > FOCUS ON AFRICA > EURO-NEWS > FOOD SAFETY > THE AMERICAS > LOBBYWATCH > COMPANY NEWS > DONATIONS > > --------------------------- > THAILAND SPECIAL REPORT > --------------------------- > > + THAI GOVT GIVES GREEN LIGHT FOR GM - BUT CABINET > STALLS AS OPPOSITION MOUNTS > Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra on 20 August > bestowed the government's blessing on the planting > and trading of GM crops by promising to revoke an > earlier ban. The ban only permits GM crops to be > grown in laboratories for experimental purposes but > the revision would allow open planting and > commercialisation of GM crops. > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4242 > > However, the go-ahead has been stalled by protests. > The Cabinet was expected to ratify the policy at its > weekly meeting on Tuesday. But after encountering > strong opposition from exporters, farmers, > environmentalists and consumer groups, the Cabinet > put the issue on hold. > > Rushing to get their foot in the door, Monsanto on > 25 August sent delegates to meet senior officials > from the Agriculture Ministry. " The company's > representative from Singapore met with me seeking a > clear policy on field testing, " said Chawanwut > Chainuwut, the ministry's deputy secretary-general. > > " My reply will depend on the Cabinet, " he said. > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4262 > > + WHY THE THAI GOVT MADE ITS DECISION > The latest news from Thailand follows the > extraordinary trade pressures brought to bear ever > since Thailand introduced a modicum of GM food > labelling and its moratorium on growing GM crops. > > In 2001 the head of the Thai Food and Drug > Administration revealed how a visiting US trade > delegation had threatened trade sanctions against > Thai imports, worth about US$8.7bn a year, if > labelling went ahead. The threats to invoke Section > 301 of the US trade laws were made during an > official visit. > http://www.just-food.com/news_detail.asp?art=37810 & c=1 > > Then earlier this year, the Thai Environment > Minister publicly objected to the US's insisting > that Thailand grow GM crops as a condition of a > bilateral free trade agreement. > http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/service117.htm > > Now - surprise, surprise - the Thai Prime Minister > says he is going to revoke an earlier ban on the > commercial use of GM crops, in defiance of wide > opposition. > > This is reminiscent of what happened in Sri Lanka > after it introduced a ban on GM food in May 2001 in > order to allow time for the health risks to be > studied. At the time of the announcement, Sri > Lanka's Director General of Health Services said > that the safety of consumers was paramount and that > the ban would remain in place until worldwide > concerns about GM foods were settled. After intense > pressure from the US and the WTO, however, Sri > Lanka's ban was indefinitely postponed. > > The Thai PM's embrace of GM seems particularly > ironic in the light of Greenpeace's recent exposure > of GM contamination of papaya seeds. The seeds, > which have been sold to Thai farmers, appear to have > been contaminated by GM crop trials carried out at a > Thai research station in contravention of the > existing ban. > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4182 > > Yet the Prime Minister's response to what is > potentially one of the worst cases of GM > contamination of a major food crop in Asia, is not > to tighten the existing ban but to try and revoke > it! > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4242 > > + BAD-IDEA VIRUS GRIPS THAILAND'S PM > In a Philippines' newspaper, the Thai Prime Minister > Thaksin Shinawatra is quoted as saying, " If we > (Thailand) don't start [GM] now, we will miss this > scientific train and lose out in the world. " > > The Thai PM's announcement is then described as " a > move which may place the Philippines in the > 'laggard' category " for GM. The headline of the > article says it all: " Thailand may overtake RP > [Republic of the Philippines] in biotech race " . > > But in reality, outside the developing world, GM > crops are in serious retreat, as witnessed by > Monsanto's recent announcements that it will: > * " defer " all further efforts to introduce GM wheat > globally > *stop its GM canola breeding programmes in Australia > *and withdraw its cereal programmes from Europe. > > Other GM firms, like Bayer and Syngenta, have > suffered similar setbacks. But in the article, a GM > supporter is quoted as saying that the Philippines > " cannot afford to ignore the growing support for > biotechnology from various Asian governments. " Among > those cited are China, India and Indonesia. > > But Monsanto has pulled out of GM in Indonesia, > where it is under investigation for corruption, > China's political leaders appear ambivalent about > going further down the GM route, and India's > political leaders are under attack for being in the > laggard category! > > The GM supporter who is quoted in the article is > said to have " lauded the move by the Thai > government, saying this will 'send positive signals > across Asia...' " > > This is an industry that lives by hype and duplicity > and the " biotech race " provides Asia's leaders with > a handy distraction from the crude realities of US > mercantile power and the abysmal failure of > governments and international institutions to > address the problem of hunger. > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4257 > > + BIOTECH TRAIN MAY BE PANDORA'S BOX > An excellent article in Thailand's The Nation > newspaper by Varoonvarn Svangsopakul of Greenpeace > Southeast Asia is at > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4256 > > EXCERPT: > When Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra announced on > Friday that Thailand would embrace genetically > engineered (GE) crops, he declared that, " The > government won't let the country miss the > biotechnology train. " > > The message was clear: Thailand must adopt this new, > cutting-edge technology as a matter of national > competitiveness. But a closer look at the reasoning > behind the National Biotechnology Policy Committee's > decision suggests that the government knows very > little about this train, or even where it's going. > > Take for example Thaksin's claim that the EU is now > open to GMOs. Clearly he was trying to reassure > Thailand's farmers and food exporters that the > introduction of GE crops would not hurt exports. But > it's not very reassuring if it isn't true. The EU's > de facto moratorium on GMOs remains intact, and > approvals of GE crops remain blocked. > > Only one GE food crop - Syngenta's Bt11 sweet corn - > has slipped through, but Syngenta has now announced > that it will not be commercialised. More > importantly, the EU's new GMO labelling and > 'traceability' laws, requiring comprehensive > documentation of all every step, impose the > strictest possible limits on unintended GMO > contamination in food products - further indicating > that consumer rejection of GE food remains strong. > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4256 > > + FARMERS, ACTIVISTS TAKE TO THE STREETS > Organic farmers and other concerned groups from > around the country on 24 August held a protest in > front of Government House in an attempt to pressure > the Cabinet into rejecting a proposal to lift the > ban on the widespread testing of GM crops. > > BioThai and the Consumer Protection Network led the > protest. " If Thaksin chooses GM crops [today], he > won't receive any votes from our members at the > general election, " BioThai director Witoon > Lianchamroon said. " And we will also lunch hundreds > of measures to stop field testing, which would harm > the public and environment significantly. " > > Witoon added that some companies would benefit if > the policy was reversed and that was why the new > policy was being rushed through. > > Thaksin on 23 August said he stood by his decision. > " Criticism is acceptable but it does not mean I have > to believe it. I will make my decision based on > scientific information, even though it contradicts > what the critics are saying, " he said. " Sometimes > there are not many critics but they speak out loud > through the media. " > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4252 > > + PM's POLICY DRAWS IRE OF ACTIVISTS > Activists have slammed the government's recent > policy on GM crops. Meanwhile senators cast doubt > over whether its main motivations related to the > Thai-US free trade agreement (FTA). Two Senate > committees - the Committee on Social and Human > Security and the Committee on Foreign Affairs - will > jointly organise a special session to investigate > FTA influences in setting GM policy. The session is > planned for next Wednesday at Parliament. > > A number of activists interviewed by The Nation > expressed strong disappointment over the GM crop > policy launched last Friday by Prime Minister > Thaksin Shinawatra that allows farming and trading > of the controversial crops. Said Saree Ongsomwang, > coordinator of the Foundation for Consumers, " Which > part of the brain did they use to make such a > decision? How can the government put the lives of > millions of Thai people into the hands of a group of > scientists like this? " > > " Hasn't the government learned anything from its > mistake at our home? " asked an activist from the > Northeast, referring to the recent spread of > GM-contaminated papaya in the region. > > Senator Niran Phitakwatchara said the government > should reconsider the controversial policy. " It is > obvious that the past ban on GM crops was to prevent > their potential impact on consumers and the > environment. Why change the policy now? What other > reason could there be if not pressure from the FTA? " > he asked. > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4250 > > + US BULLIED THAILAND THROUGH FREE TRADE AGREEMENT > Banthoon Setsirote of the National Human Rights > Commission said that one of the articles in the > draft freetrade agreement with the US stated that > Thailand had to remove any limitations or obstacles > relating to biotechnology goods. > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4252 > > + GREENPEACE CONDEMNS NEW POLICY > Greenpeace has condemned the Thai government's > decision to open Thailand to GM crops as leading the > country into disaster. At a time when the basic > principles of genetic engineering are under > challenge from new scientific research, the > government seems to be deliberately ignoring the > warnings of many scientific institutions around the > world. > > Whereas the policy assumes that GMO and natural > crops can co-exist, evidence from around the world > shows that there is no way to prevent contamination. > The latest example is in the province of Khon Kaen > where the government's GMO papaya field trials have > been identified as the source of contamination of a > farmer's papaya farm 60 kilometers away from the > field trials. > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4255 > > + ALARMED RICE EXPORTERS JOIN ANTI-GMO MOVE > The country's leading rice exporters have joined > activists, farmers and environmentalists to oppose > the prime minister's decision to allow open-field > trials of GM crops, saying it was a big mistake > which would jeopardise Thailand's rice markets > overseas. > > " None of our customers wants to buy GM produce,'' > said Wanlop Pichpongsa, a company executive. > " Importers, particularly in European countries, > always ask for the GM-free labels or non-GMO > certificates for rice and farm products from > Thailand.'' > > The country was likely to lose several markets in > Europe if it promotes open-field trial and > commercial plantation of genetically modified crops, > said the executive, who called Prime Minister > Thaksin Shinawatra's move " unreasonable''. > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4252 > > + NOT WISE FOR THAILAND TO GM TAG JASMINE RICE > The National Biotechnology Committee of Thailand > plans to use GM technology to " improve " the quality > and productivity of jasmine rice, ordinary rice and > rice for food processing. The plan for jasmine rice > is to use genetic engineering and molecular breeding > to introduce resistance to flood and drought. Suman > Sahai of Gene Campaign says this is not a wise move. > Flood and drought tolerance can be more easily > achieved by conventional breeding than by genetic > engineering and the price for adding the GM tag may > be too high. > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4245 > > --------------------------- > OTHER NEWS FROM ASIA > --------------------------- > > + INDIA: ICRISAT AND ISAAA TRAIN MEDIA ON GM > The inter-governmental research body, International > Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics > (ICRISAT), has become proactive in promoting GM > technology in India. The main agenda of ICRISAT is > to generate awareness among the media about the > possible benefits of GM technology. > > ICRISAT has recently, in collaboration with the > US-based International Service for the Acquisition > of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), launched a > 'knowledge centre' in India. This 'knowledge centre' > will be housed in ICRISAT's liaison office in Delhi > and will become operative from mid-September, this > year. > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4251 > > ICRISAT is the only organisation of the Consultative > Group of International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) > headquartered in India (in Hyderabad, Andhra > Pradesh). In 2002, without prior consultation, > CGIAR's chairman appointed Syngenta Foundation to > CGIAR's board. > More on CGIAR: > http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=295 > > + INDIA: SWITCH OT ORGANIC NEEDED AS PESTICIDES > CAUSE CANCER DEATHS > A study conducted by the Chandigarh based Post > Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research > (PGIMER) on behalf of the Punjab government has once > again revealed that excessive use of chemical > pesticides is the cause of a series of deaths due to > cancer in Talwandi block in Bhatinda district in > Punjab. > > Bhatinda district grows largely cotton and rice and > is infamous for excessive use of chemical > pesticides. > > The PGIMER study conducted under the leadership of > Prof Rajesh Kumar, head of the department of > community medicine, cytology and gynecological > pathology confirms the findings of the earlier two > studies conducted by the local NGO, Kheti Virasat - > one in collaboration with Greenpeace India. Kheti > Virast is convincing farmers to switch over to > organic farming. > > The IPIMER study compared Talwandi Saboo in Bhatinda > district with the control area, Chamkaur Sahib in > Ropar district. The study covered a population of > 85315 in Talwandi Saboo and 97928 in Chamkaur Sahib. > A total of 7,441 deaths were recorded in the last 10 > years (1993-2003). Age adjusted cancer death rate > per 1,00,000 population per year at Talwandi Sahib > was 51.2 while that at Chamkaur Sahib was 30.3. Age > adjusted prevalance of confirmed cancer cases per > 1,00,000 was 125.4 in Talwandi Saboo and 72.5 in > Chamkaur Sahib. Five most common sites in confirmed > cancer cases were breast, uterus, leukemia/lymphoma, > oesophagus, skin and ovary. > > There were 107 confirmed cancer cases in Talwandi > Saboo out of which 27 were males and 80 were > females. There were 71 confirmed cases of cancer > deaths in Chamkaur Sahib out of which 25 were males > and 46 were females. Death rate in Talwandi Saboo > was 4.48 as compared to 3.69 per 1000 in Chamkaur > Sahib. > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4254 > > --------------------------- > GM ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTERS > --------------------------- > > + GM CROPS HURTING MONARCH LARVAE > The number of milkweed plants in the Upper Midwest > carrying the monarch butterfly's larvae is in its > third consecutive slump, due to factors that elude > researchers, a local monitoring project shows. > Research by the Monarch Larva Monitoring Project at > the University of Minnesota shows that the numbers > are below average and at their lowest level since > 1998. Milkweed is the only plant on which monarchs > will lay their eggs, and also serves as the sole > food source for larvae. > > In 2002, the project found that about 7 percent of > milkweed plants examined in the Upper Midwest > carried larvae. In 2003, that number was about 8 > percent. This year, volunteers are finding that > slightly fewer than 5 percent of milkweed plants > carry larvae. That's extremely low, said Karen > Oberhauser, the project's founder and an assistant > professor in the university's Department of > Fisheries, Wildlife and Conservation Biology. > > In 2001, nearly 25 percent of all milkweed plants > carried larvae. Since the project began keeping tabs > in 1996, the average has been 13 percent. > > Although a link has not been proved, Oberhauser > said, one factor in the decline in the number of > egg-carrying plants could be the growing use of > herbicide-tolerant soybeans, which are genetically > engineered to permit larger amounts of weed-killing > chemicals to be applied without hurting the crop. > This may have increased the spraying of herbicides > and thereby the destruction of milkweed. The > project's findings show that the use of > herbicide-tolerant soybeans grew from 50 percent in > 2000 to 85 percent in 2003. > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4241 > > + ROUNDUP RESISTANT WEEDS CAUSE BIG TROUBLE IN US > Report from Agricultural Research Service, USDA [uS > Dept of Ag's chief scientific research agency]: > > Like the plant in " Little Shop of Horrors " a > little-known weed is growing fast. Tropical > spiderwort, inconsequential for seven decades, has > recently spread in alarming proportions in fields in > Georgia, Florida and North Carolina. > > First detected in the US in the 1930s, the weed has > made major gains in Georgia, according to > Agricultural Research Service agronomist Theodore > Webster of the Crop Protection and Management > Research Unit in Tifton, Ga. Webster and his > colleagues--Michael Burton and Alan York of North > Carolina State University, and Stanley Culpepper and > Eric Prostko of the University of Georgia - are > monitoring the weed's advances. > > In 1999, it was found in five counties in southern > Georgia. By 2002, 41 Georgian counties reported > tropical spiderwort was present, and 17 listed it as > moderate to severe. > > A 2003 survey revealed that tropical spiderwort was > entrenched in Georgia, affecting 52 counties, with > 29 counties listing the weed as moderate to severe. > More than 195,000 acres in Georgia are infested. > It's now widespread in Florida, and has been > discovered on about 100 acres in Goldsboro, N.C. > > Tropical spiderwort, Commelina benghalensis, is now > the most troublesome weed in Georgia cotton and the > second most problematic weed in peanut. The weed > competes with crops for water and nutrients, and > smothers the crops at the same time. > > One reason for the surge in the weed's growth is its > resistance to the commonly used herbicide > glyphosate. Conservation tillage [undertaken in > conjunction with the use of GM glyphosate-resistant > crops]. > > For more on this and 2 other serious outbreaks of > glyphosate resistant weeds see: > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4263 > > --------------------------- > FOCUS ON AFRICA > --------------------------- > > + UGANDA: FARMERS, CIVIL SOCIETY STILL AGAINST GM > Farmers and civil society organisations in Uganda > are still sceptical about plans to introduce GMOs in > the country. At a national GMO symposium in Mukono > recently, farmers groups expressed fear that GMOs > might be destructive to the environment and harmful > to human health. > > They argued that GMO methods do not take into > consideration the interests of small-scale farmers > because the multinational biotech companies are > targeting large-scale farms where huge quantities of > seeds and agro-chemicals are required. > > Rather than embracing GMOs, participants resolved > that the solution lies in rectifying the structural > problems facing agriculture in the country. They > said the existing technologies and crop varieties, > including the ones developed by National > Agricultural Research Organisation (NARO) centres, > could yield better than GMOs. > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4258 > > + KENYAN FARMERS AGAINST GM TOO > Farmer leaders in Kenya came out against GMOs in > agriculture in a strongly-worded statement which > expressed their fears that patented GM crops will > threaten their livelihoods, indigenous seeds, > environment, and human and animal health. > > The Kenya Small Scale Farmers Forum, a coalition of > regional small-scale farmers groups, were responding > to the Kenyan government's apparent enthusiasm for > GM crops, and the investment of millions of dollars > into GM research. Farmers accused multinational > companies of arm-twisting the government, and called > for the inclusion of small-scale farmers in policy > formulation on agriculture research. > > Kenyan farmers were particularly worried by > anecdotal stories from around the world of animal > health being affected by GM feed (in particular, the > reported sterility of GM-fed sheep in Germany). For > small-scale farmers, livestock is a crucial aspect > of mixed farming. > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4258 > > + TWELVE REASONS FOR AFRICA TO REJECT GM CROPS > An article in Seedling magazine (published by GRAIN) > lists 12 reasons why Africa should reject GM crops. > These are: > 1. GM Crops will contaminate non-GM crops; > co-existence is not possible > 2. GM crops will foster dependence on a corporate > seed supply > 3. GM crops will usher in 'Terminator' and 'Traitor' > technologies > 4. GM crops will increase the use of chemicals > 5. GM crops are patented > 6. GM crops favour industrial agriculture systems > 7. GM crops threaten organic and sustainable farming > 8. The biosafety systems required are unrealistic > for African countries > 9. GM crops will not reduce hunger in Africa > 10. GM crops will not resolve problems with pests > 11. GM crops will encourage the arbitrary > destruction of biodiversity > 12. GM crops are a threat to human health. > You can read more details on each point at > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4248 > > + GM AFRICA: AN A-Z > A guide to GM in Africa from Seeding magazine > provides a useful A-Z of the diverse involvement and > policies towards GM crops of countries in Africa. > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4249 > The map is available in the pdf version of the > article: > http://www.grain.org/seedling_files/seed-04-07-04.pdf > > + SA JUDGE ORDERS SYNGENTA TO STOP DISTRIBUTING GM > MAIZE SEED > The Pretoria High Court has ordered Syngenta not to > distribute GM maize seed until a Dept of Agriculture > appeal board has considered Biowatch South Africa's > contention that Syngenta should not have been > permitted to grow the maize in the first place. > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4244 > > ------- > EURO-NEWS > ------- > > + EU MORATORIUM STILL APPLIES > According to an article on AgBioView, what was > heralded as a turning point for accepting GM crops > in the EU now appears to be " a farce " . When the EU > decided to allow imports of Syngenta's biotech Bt-11 > sweet corn last spring, the industry breathed a sigh > of relief. It was the first biotech approval in six > years. Was the EU finally making strides to end its > five-year moratorium on approval of new biotech > crops? It seems not. > > According to WTO rules, says Kim Nill, technical > issues director for the American Soybean > Association, " If the EU approves one new biotech > product, they're no longer considered to be blocking > biotech's progress. In this case, they (EU) knew > Syngenta wasn't going to actively market sweet corn > there. " > > The fallout is that the EU has as much as two to > three more years before they'll have to approve > another biotech product to remain in compliance with > WTO rules. Since the EU approved the sweet corn, it > essentially ends the offending action which ends the > moratorium. " The farce of Bt-11 approval has given > them (EU) breathing space, " says Nill. " This whole > approval issue has taken a step backward. It's a > joke. " > > Currently, there are about 30 GM products and foods > in the pipeline awaiting approval for import into > the EU. " Even if they march forward at one every six > months, it's just too slow, " says Nill. " The > products are already outdated in the US by the time > they get through the approvals. " > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4260 > > + GM TRADE WAR DELAYED: US FIGHTS TO PREVENT > SCIENTISTS BEING CALLED IN > The outcome of the transatlantic trade dispute on GM > foods has been substantially delayed as scientists > are called in to debate the safety of GM foods and > crops. The move is a blow to the Bush Administration > who fought to stop any debate over scientific > safety. > > The US had argued in its WTO submission 'Comments on > the EC's final position whether to seek scientific > advice', that there is " no need or value in > consulting experts " . See > http://www.foeeurope.org/biteback/US_comments_whether_seek_expert_advice.pdf > > The US, Canada and Argentina started proceedings > last year in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) over > Europe's position on GM foods. The WTO set up a > three-person Panel to meet in secret to decide on > the case. > > In recent months the US Government has been fighting > to prevent the Panel from calling in scientists and > has argued their case on narrow trade rules. The EU > however has questioned whether the WTO is the > appropriate place to settle such disputes and has > been pushing for scientists to be involved in the > debate. In a previous case over the use of beef > hormones the scientific debate lasted for over 600 > days. > > In May this year campaigners delivered a petition to > the WTO signed by more than 100,000 citizens from 90 > countries and more than 544 organisations > representing 48 million people. The signatories, > including Archbishop Desmond Tutu and French small > farmers' leader Jose BovŽ, have called on the WTO > not to undermine the sovereign right of any country > to protect its citizens and the environment from GM > foods and crops. > > Adrian Bebb of Friends of the Earth Europe said: > " The first round of this dispute may have gone to > Europe but the long term implications of this case > could be devastating for everyone. The World Trade > Organisation is a secretive and undemocratic > organisation and should not be deciding what we eat. > The long term effects of GM foods and crops are > unknown. Every country should have the right to put > public safety before the economic might of the > biotechnology industry. " > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4264 > > TELLING QUOTE: " GM lobbyists accuse us [anti-GM > campaigners] of being anti-science Luddites. But we > are the ones who are asking for more science. " - > Jeffrey Smith, author of Seeds of Deception, on a > 2004 UK lecture tour > > + PLEASE SUPPORT DUTCH INITIATIVE FOR GM-FREE TOWN > A group of Dutch activists would like support in > their initiative to make their town, Lelystad, a > GM-free zone. Please send an e-mail to Miep Bos, > info saying that you support this > initiative. Lelystad is a Dutch town with many > organic farmers. On 16 September the local council > will vote on whether or not to ban GM crops in the > area. If you live anywhere in Europe, you probably > eat food grown in the Netherlands, so you have a > legitimate interest. > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4259 > > + UK: SAINSBURY'S SUCCESS WITH NON-GM MILK > Supermarket giant Sainsbury's announced on 26 August > that it would be expanding its trial of non-GM milk > to over 190 stores by Christmas 2004. > > Earlier in the summer Sainsbury's announced plans > for a limited trial of non-GM milk in 105 stores in > the South of England to examine how well the product > sold. The decision to almost double the size of > trial comes as a result of " very encouraging " sales > of the non-GM milk. > > Sainsbury's own-brand milk currently comes from cows > fed on imported GM animal feed. Although the company > claims to lead its rivals in providing quality food, > Sainsbury's is supporting the import of thousands of > tonnes of GM feed into the UK every month. Yet the > company is in a position to take the lead in making > the UK entirely GM-free by ditching GM feed for > sustainable non-GM alternatives. > > --------------------------- > FOOD SAFETY > --------------------------- > > + REPORT TAKES AIM AT FDA > An excellent article by North Dakota farmer Todd > Leake recognizes that assurances of GM food safety > are baseless. > > EXCERPTS: > A recent report from the National Academy of > Sciences revealed gaping holes in the regulation and > safety testing of genetically engineered foods. This > should give us pause, considering we in the United > States have been producing GE crops, such as > soybeans, corn and canola, that wind up in many of > the foods that we put on the table. > > The academy, a science advisory body chartered by > Congress, prepared the report for the federal > agencies that regulate biotech crops and foods. The > report says that those agencies and the Food and > Drug Administration are falling behind the times and > are not keeping up with advances in science. > > It says they are not capable of spotting unplanned, > manmade, adverse changes brought about in biotech > foods or determining the human health effects of > those changes. It concludes that we need more > rigorous premarket testing and post-market > surveillance. > This is what many other countries in the world have > told the US for years and is why they regulate, > restrict or ban the importation of GE crops and > foods from the US. > > The FDA's current regulatory process is a voluntary > consultation between the biotech company that > produced the genetically engineered crop or food and > the FDA. Biotech companies voluntarily submit > information of their choosing, and the FDA may ask > questions about the material. > > The FDA does no independent testing or analysis and > makes no independent finding. The determination is > based on the companies' own findings of safety and > nutritional assessment. The FDA has no authority to > deny or restrict the release of GE crops. > > The report supports the argument that the FDA's > process is worth less than a rubber stamp. The > process makes no sense. The company makes all the > decisions. The FDA cannot request or conduct its own > specific scientific studies. In the end, it's just a > recording mechanism for the biotech industry's > approval of itself. > > The FDA's process does not determine safety of GE > foods. It does not conduct independent, > science-based tests. In fact, in a recent St. Louis > Post-Dispatch story, a FDA spokesperson was quoted, > " A safety declaration is not something we make " in > regard to the review of GM crops. > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4246 > > --------------------------- > THE AMERICAS > --------------------------- > > + FARM GROUPS OPPOSE GMO REFERENDA > Worried that county bans on biotech crops could > spread throughout the state, mainstream farm groups > from the California Cattlemen's Association to the > national Farm Bureau are marshaling their resources. > The California Rice Commission is developing a > 'communications plan' to influence Butte County > voters along with a backup litigation plan in case > the [anti-biotech] measure passes. Following votes > to ban biotech crops in California's Mendocino and > Trinity counties, biotech backers are widely rumored > to be shopping legislation that would stop counties > from regulating biotech crops. Even the US > Department of Agriculture reportedly is scouring > county initiatives to build a legal case against > them. > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4259 > > --------------------------- > LOBBYWATCH > --------------------------- > > + PROF JOHN PICKETT DISPLAYS IGNORANCE OF > DEVELOPMENT ISSUES > In the UK, the Royal Society and other science > research councils have called for better use of > science in third world development. In the journal > Nature (429, 492; 2004), John Lawton, of the Natural > Environment Research Council, described the UK > govt's Dept for International Development (DfID) as > " complacent, rather arrogant and ill-informed " about > science. > > Far be it from us to defend DfID, which has a > shocking history of imposing GM and other > high-input, high-dependence technologies on third > world countries. But Lawton's tirade does seem to be > a case of the pot calling the kettle black. In a > letter to Nature, development expert Edward Allison > of the Univ of East Anglia reveals pro-GM scientist > Prof John Pickett's ignorance about overseas > development issues. > > Excerpt from Allison's letter: > > At the same parliamentary inquiry at which Lawton > addressed DFID's shortcomings, John Pickett, of the > Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research > Council, described how, on a visit to Malawi, his > team was " whisked off " to view " some kind of DFID > programme in which very, very small bags of seed and > very, very small bags of fertilizer were being given > out.... This seemed to be a totally unsustainable > and non-scientific based [sic] piece of development > work which you would not really expect of an > organisation like DFID " . > > The programme Pickett refers to is known as the > Malawi Starter Pack Programme, which, in the 1998 > and 1999 planting seasons, aimed to supply Malawi's > 2.8 million smallholder farming households with > sufficient inorganic fertilizer and hybrid maize > seed to plant 0.1 hectare (the average land-holding > in southern Malawi is 0.3 ha). These " very, very > small " inputs were intended to provide a short-term > safety net, to enable Malawi's farmers to survive > the consequences of the International Monetary > Fund's Structural Adjustment Programme. This had > withdrawn subsidies from agricultural inputs > (including fertilizer), ordered a dramatic currency > devaluation and caused (through withdrawal of state > services) the collapse of the agricultural credit > system. As a result, most farmers were unable to > afford the inputs needed to grow enough food for > household consumption (see > http://web.africa.ufl.edu/asq/v6/v6i1a8.htm). > > Far from being unscientific, the Starter Pack > programme was based on a thorough knowledge of the > constraints faced by farmers and the production > dynamics of Malawian agriculture. ... > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4253 > > More on Pickett: > http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=102 & page=P > > + THE FRANKENFOOD MYTH: HOW PROTEST AND POLITICS > THREATEN THE BIOTECH REVOLUTION > GM lobbyists Greg Conko and Henry Miller are > bringing out a book at the end of this month with > the above title. Barely anyone will read it because > it's in hardback and costs forty bucks. > > Excerpt from publisher's blurb: > > [The authors] explain how a " happy conspiracy " of > anti-technology activism, bureaucratic over-reach, > and business lobbying has resulted in a regulatory > framework in which there is an inverse relationship > between the degree of product risk and degree of > regulatory scrutiny. > > The net result, they argue, is a combination of > public confusion, political manipulation, > ill-conceived regulation (from such agencies as the > USDA, EPA, and FDA), and ultimately, the obstruction > of one of the safest and most promising technologies > ever developed - with profoundly negative > consequences for the environment and starving people > around the world. > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4247 > > For a profile of Conko: > http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=31 > Profile of Miller: > http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=84 > > ------- > COMPANY NEWS > ------- > > + FOOD COMPANIES FAIL TO DISCLOSE SHAREHOLDER RISK > OF GM CROPS > Ninety-five percent of the top food companies in the > US fail to properly inform shareholders about the > risks posed by GE ingredients, according to Duty to > Disclose: The Failure of Food Companies to Disclose > Risks of Genetically Engineered Crops to > Shareholders, a new report released 19 August by the > US Public Interest Research Group (US PIRG). > > While one mistake involving GM crops is estimated to > have already cost the food industry over one billion > dollars, and more shareholder resolutions have been > filed regarding GM issues than any issue since > apartheid-era South Africa, only two of the top 35 > publicly traded food companies mention GE > ingredients in their Annual Reports as required, > according to Duty to Disclose. > > " Shareholders need to know about the products their > company makes, " said US PIRG Safe Food Advocate > Richard Caplan. " By not disclosing the many risks > posed by genetically engineered crops, food > companies are failing to meet their legal duty to be > fully honest with shareholders. " > > " Duty to Disclose " describes the risks posed to food > companies from GM ingredients, including product > liability lawsuits, loss of insurance coverage, > damage to reputation, consumer rejection, > international renunciation, cross contamination, and > economic loss due to sudden regulatory changes. > While federal regulations require that investors > receive full disclosure of any material facts about > the companies in which they own shares, only Kraft > Foods Inc. (KFT-NYSE) and Interstate Bakeries > (IBC-NYSE), makers of Hostess Cupcakes and > Wonderbread, disclosed to shareholders that GM > ingredients might pose a material risk to > shareholders. > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4243 > > ------- > 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.