GMW: BT10 likely in human food chain/BT10 NOT THE SAME AS BT11

[Guest guest]

GMW: BT10 likely in human food chain/BT10 NOT THE SAME AS BT11

" GM WATCH " <info

Wed, 8 Jun 2005 20:05:13 +0100

 

 

 

 

 

GM WATCH daily

http://www.gmwatch.org

------

1.MORE INFO FROM SYNGENTA - Bt10 likely in human food chain

2.BT10 NOT THE SAME AS BT11

3.Kiwi International Seed Federation president opposes low minimum

thresholds for contamination

4.Australia Threatens Sanctions over NZ Biosecurity Measures

 

COMMENT

 

The Bt 10 contamination scandal grows and grows and at the heart of it

is Syngenta's inability to control its GM seed production and marketing

over a four year period and its persistent failure to release full and

adequate information once the scandal came to light.

 

It was exactly the same corporation that, we now know, was very active

in the Brazilian delegation in Montreal which played a key part in

helping global genetic contamination to escape unnoticed and unscathed.

http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5345

 

The very corporations that imperil are biosafety are calling the shots

when it comes to establishing international regulations over the

movement of GMOs around the globe.

------

1.BT10 SCANDAL -- MORE INFO FROM SYNGENTA

Bt10 is likely to be in the human food chain

 

In an Email to DEFRA, obtained by GM Free Cymru through the provisions

of the Freedom of Information Act, Syngenta has admitted that all of

the five Bt10 breeding lines involved in the infamous " contamination

incident " were yellow field corn lines. This type of corn is unlikely to

have been used as fresh corn on the cob or as canned or frozen

sweetcorn, but it is used in a wide range of processed foods with maize

ingredients intended for human consumption (see below).

 

This admission directly contradicts the assurances given by FSA in this

country and by the EC that all of the BT10 went into animal feed and is

therefore relatively harmless.

 

The company is still holding 19,000 sacks of Bt10 seed " in quarantine " .

Why this material has not been destroyed is a mystery -- maybe Syngenta

is waiting for all the fuss to die down before simply slipping the seed

into the food chain?

 

The Email confirms that one of the breeding lines " was commercialized

in a very small amount " -- which would have been illegal even in the

USA, since consent for Bt10 lines was never requested or given.

 

It also confirms that 37,000 acres of the Bt10 varieties were planted

over a four-year period; as we have pointed out earlier, that could

mean that around 185,000 tonnes of Bt10 maize has gone into the food

chain. Most will probably have been used in the US, and the biggest

export

quantities would have gone into South Korea and Japan. But in the

period 2000-2003 (when most Bt10 would have come into the food chain) a

total of c 685,000 tonnes of maize and maize products (excluding seed and

popcorn) was imported by the EU from the USA.

 

We cannot accept that the Bt10 maize will have been diluted evenly

through the food chain. Since maize is bought in the market place in

batches and shipped to food processors in Europe, there is a chance that

some food products on supermarket shelves will have high

concentrations of

Bt10 in them. Is any testing of human food products going on, or have

the food manufacturers and the EU food safety agencies simply accepted

the nonsense fed to them by Syngenta -- namely that all of the Bt10 has

gone into animal feed?

 

Source: Email from Syngenta to DEFRA, dated 5 April 2005

 

NOTES

 

1. Field corn (as distinct from sweetcorn) is picked at a mature,

predominantly starchy stage, dried to a more hardened state, and used

in a

multitude of ways--as livestock feed and, after refining, in a wide

array of processed foods and drinks, from cornstarch to whiskey (as well

as in many nonfood products, such as fuel, paper, and plastics).

 

2. The full range of manufactured maize products is enormous,

including packaged sweetcorn, corn on the cob, baby food, corn oil,

corn flour,

corn starch, polenta, maize meal, maize pasta, maize based snacks and

tortillas (including tortilla chips and tacos). How much will GM

components be " degraded " in these products?

------

2.BT10 IS NOT THE SAME AS BT11

 

THIRD WORLD NETWORK BIOSAFETY INFORMATION SERVICE

 

8 June 2005

 

Dear Friends and colleagues,

 

In mid-May, Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), responding to

increasing public pressure, released several documents that purport to

support the FSANZ view that Bt10 is virtually identical to Bt11,

according to Greenpeace Australia. Bt10, an unapproved and

experimental GM

corn, was inadvertently mistaken for Bt11, approved in some countries,

and released by Syngenta from 2001-2004.

 

FSANZ has argued that " the two varieties have been modified in the same

way and produce the same novel proteins. The presence of a

non-functional antibiotic resistance marker gene (BLA) in Bt-10 corn,

that is not

present in Bt-11, has no impact on the safety of food produced from

Bt-10 corn. "

 

FSANZ has argued that because Bt10 is for all intents and purposes the

same as Bt11 and Bt11 has been deemed safe for human consumption, then

FSANZ is justified in taking no steps to remove potential Bt10 products

from Australian supermarket shelves or to prevent possible continuing

imports of Bt10 corn products.

 

However, as the Syngenta documents released by FSANZ and the critique

by Dr Jack Heineman of the NZ Institute of Gene Ecology at the

University of Canterbury in New Zealand as well as the leaked documents

received by the Institute for Science in Society (ISIS) show, these

claims do

not hold water.

 

The Heinemann critique makes it clear that based on these documents

some differences between Bt10 and Bt11 can be established.

 

" The Syngenta documents you have provided indicate that there are

additional and possibly substantial differences between BT10 and BT11. "

 

Further, claims relating to the similarity of Bt10 and Bt11 cannot be

ascertained from the materials released.

 

" The report SSB-112-05 indicates that there were differences in the

profiles of PAT and Cry1Ab proteins and thus there may be other

undetected

differences. "

 

The Syngenta documents are now available on the Greenpeace Australia

website at

http://www.greenpeace.org.au/features/features_details.html?site_id=45 & news_id=1\

672

 

In a separate analysis, ISIS came to a similar conclusion after

studying leaked documents that Syngenta sent to the US Environment

Protection

Agency earlier this year. The data suggested that " Bt10 is completely

different from Bt11 " .

 

It also noted that the detection method for Bt10 which has been adopted

by the EU authorities is flawed.

 

Bt10 has been recently found in US shipments in Japan, the biggest

buyer of US corn, and in Ireland. Countries should demand that US corn

exports be tested before shipment, and for assurance that the

shipments do

not contain Bt10.

 

With best wishes,

 

Chee Yoke Heong

Third World Network

121-S Jalan Utama

10450 Penang

Malaysia

Email: twnet

Website: www.twnside.org.sg

.......

For Dr Heinemann's analysis

http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5286

For " Bt 10 Detedction Method Unacceptable "

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/BT10DMA.php

------

3.Kiwi chairs seed meet

Rural News, June 7, 2005

http://www.ruralnews.co.nz/article.asp?channelid=141 & articleid=8916

 

Seed traders want the level of genetically modified material allowed in

seeds set at a minimum threshold of 1%.

 

Agriseeds New Zealand managing director Selwyn Manning made the call at

the 2005 World Seed Congress in Chile last week.

 

Manning, the first New Zealander to hold the International Seed

Federation presidency, says for several years the ISF has argued the

case for

" realistic tolerance levels " .

 

However, Manning says that absence of official thresholds creates

uncertainty and has already caused some trade disruption between North

America and Europe.

 

" Some countries are proposing thresholds significantly lower than 1%

and this would adversely affect international seed trade, as achieving

those levels at a reasonable cost is extremely difficult, and not

practical for large quantities, " he says.

 

He urged ISF members to continue working for effective change, before

trade bans on the grounds of adventitious presence " become the norm,

rather than the exception " .

 

Manning says he is humbled to be the first ISF president from the

Southern Hemisphere.

 

" Traditionally, our industry has looked to the other half of the world

- the Northern Hemisphere - for much of its growth, direction and

influence. "

 

" But today developments in the Southern Hemisphere are increasingly

shaping our future. "

 

Manning says Chile's progress in the production and export of seed

during the past decade " clearly illustrates the growing potential of

countries in this region " .

 

The ISF oversees the world seed trade in cereals, cotton, oil crops and

forage.

 

It has 70 member countries representing approximately US$30 billion in

international trade.

 

About 1000 delegates attended the congress.

------

4.Australia Threatens Sanctions over NZ Biosecurity Measures

 

GE free NZ press release, 7 June 2005

 

New Zealand's future is at risk as a result of Australia's threats of

sanctions over biosecurity measures designed to prevent new pests

gaining a foothold here.

 

A report in Farmers Weekly says that NZ Government ministers have

admitted Australia had threatened New Zealand with punitive sanctions if

steps were taken to prevent inadvertent imports of glyphosate-resistant

ryegrass as contamination in grain. [Australia has the worst resistance

problems in the world]

 

The letter signed by Jim Sutton's press secretary said that in

rejecting the testing the Australians pointed out there were more weed

seeds in

grain imports from New Zealand, and said that " no country in the world

has measures for Roundup-resistant plant seeds. If we took measures

against them these measures would be unfair (aimed only at one country)

and unprecedented (nowhere else in the world).They (the Australians)

proposed punitive measures on New Zealand products in response " .

 

" The measures they proposed for our exports to Australia were

potentially disastrous for our industry here and so further steps were

not

taken, " the Minister's letter is reported to have stated.

 

" If this kind of blackmail is allowed it will make a shambles of our

bio-security standards, " says Jon Carapiet from GE Free NZ in food and

environment.

 

It is a cause of great concern that growers were told some years ago

that the biosecurity measures were being put in place but were grossly

misled.

 

It is also damaging to international relations that New Zealand

representatives have betrayed our national interests by playing a

'spoiler'

role at the recent Conference on the Cartegna Protocols and blocked moves

for an international system of similar protections around GMO's.

 

" It makes it hard for New Zealand to defend it's own biosecurity needs

when we are trying to block other countries from doing so, " says Jon

Carapiet. " Basically this shows what a mess is being made of balancing

New Zealand's biosecurity and trade interests. "

 

ENDS

 

Jon Carapiet 0210 507 681

 

REFERENCES

contact details: NZ FARMERS WEEKLY 0 800 85 25 80

www.farmersweekly.co.nz

letters to editor: tim

fax: 06 323 7101

 

http://www.country-wide.co.nz/a-man/view.php?content=cgi-bin/viewArticleExt.

cgi & articleID=3568 & emailLink=1

 

MAF failure to act on ryegrass threat exposed

by Annette Scott

 

Categories: Lead Story;Animal Health;

Publication: NZ Farmers Weekly; 2031-05-20

 

NOT HAPPY: Grain growers are surprised and disappointed MAF did not

stop herbicide-resistant ryegrass entering the country when it was

notified

of the biosecurity threat in 2003, Grain Council chairman Hugh Ritchie

says.

 

Agriculture leaders have back-tracked over a biosecurity threat from

herbicide-resistant ryegrass which could decimate sectors of New

Zealand's

agriculture industry.

 

Grain growers are angered by the discovery the Ministry of Agriculture

and Forestry (MAF) is allowing Roundup-resistant ryegrass into the

country.

 

This is because two years ago MAF gave assurances action would be taken

on the issue.

 

Stakeholders in the New Zealand arable industry have serious concerns

about all weeds exotic to New Zealand, and in particular to the

herbicide

resistant strains of Lolium rigidum found in Australia.

 

They fear a gut-wrenching outcome if the threat from the

herbicide-resistant strain of imported grasses is not taken seriously.

 

Despite a series of letters in August 2003 between MAF and plant

biosecurity authorities in Australia, and the assurance to the NZ Grains

Council

thataction was being taken - nothing was followed through.

 

The Government now says it is dangerous for New Zealand to make its own

rules, while the Grains Council says weed seeds are at risk of entering

as a contaminant in imported grain used for processing into animal

feed, flour and other products.

 

The herbicide-resistant grass is a widespread problem weed in

Australian wheat crops and could decimate New Zealand's herbage seed

industry if

it became established here.

 

Livestock farmers would also have difficulty spraying out ryegrass

paddocks with glyphosate, forcing them to use more toxic, expensive

and in

many cases less effective alternatives such as paraquat. Wheat and

barley growers would

also face increased costs and weed competition from the vigorous

ryegrass strains.

 

The MAF letters, which Farmers Weekly has sighted, acknowledge

resistant ryegrass is a notifiable weed and should not be allowed into the

country under any circumstances.

 

MAF advised Australian authorities in a letter dated August 20, 2003

that glyphosate-resistant strains of ryegrass were immediately regarded

as

being new organisms to New Zealand and would be treated as regulated

weed seeds or contaminants unless additional entry conditions were met.

 

The letters stated MAF was going to urgently modify standards to

reflect the new status.

 

A letter was duly forwarded to Grains Council chairman Hugh Ritchie on

August 27, 2003 advising of the remedial action which was to be

followed.

 

MAF assured Ritchie it would not permit entry of consignments of the

chemical resistant seeds.

 

But industry stakeholders have discovered the glyphosate resistant

strain of ryegrass is still not on the New Zealand list of regulated weed

seeds

and Australian grain continues to arrive uncleaned.

 

That discovery is at odds with the advice provided in the August 27,

2003 letter.

 

" It is with surprise and disappointment that we learned recently that

MAF did not add the weed to the list. The grains council was never

officially

notified of this, " Ritchie said.

 

The first step now was to obtain more information on the risk imposed

by the weed, he said.

 

The Grains Council had formally requested Biosecurity New Zealand

assess the risk by undertaking a " grow out " test of weed seeds in

imported

grain processes into finished products.

 

" This will allow us to better understand the actual risks imposed by

this

import pathway, " he said.

 

South Canterbury Grains Council vice-chairman Jeremy Talbot in a letter

to

agriculture minister Jim Sutton this month called for immediate action

by

MAF to gain guarantees all grain exported from Australia to New Zealand

would be cleaned prior to shipping.

 

Talbot questioned why MAF was allowing wheat and barley contaminated

with

wild oats and chemically resistant weeds and grasses to be imported

from

Australia.

 

He also asked why New Zealand was not allowed to export feed and

milling

grains to Australia.

 

" Surely Mr Sutton we need to have fair-trading before free trade, "

Talbot

suggested.

 

Sutton sidestepped the issue, with Talbot receiving a letter of reply

from

associate agriculture minister Damien O'Connor.

 

The letter from O'Connor was brief, stating the current import health

standards were considered to be effective by MAF in managing the risk

of

establishment of regulated pests including weed seeds.

 

On questioning the reply with the minister's office, Talbot expressed

his

disappointment Sutton himself had not replied and indeed that the reply

was

not acceptable given the circumstances of the 2003 MAF letters.

 

He was advised from the office he had received the wrong letter, even

though

it was correctly addressed and referred to Talbot's questions.

 

Within two days Talbot received another reply.

 

This time communications from the minister revealed Australia had

threatened

New Zealand with punitive sanctions if steps were taken to prevent

inadvertent imports of glyphosate-resistant ryegrass as contamination

in

grain.

 

The letter signed by Sutton's press secretary Cathie Bell said when

approached the Australians pointed out there were more weed seeds in

grain

imports from New Zealand.

 

" Also no country in the world has measures for Roundup-resistant plant

seeds. If we took measures against them these measures would be unfair

(aimed only at one country) and unprecedented (nowhere else in the

world).

They (the Australians) proposed punitive measures on New Zealand

products in

response.

 

" The measures they proposed for our exports to Australia were

potentially

disastrous for our industry here and so further steps were not taken, "

the

letter stated.

 

Despite the Australian threats, MAF has contracted AgResearch to study

the

risk to the New Zealand industry from herbicide-resistant seeds.

 

The letter stated the government was working hard to get the rules of

the

international trading system to be fairer and to be based on honest

science.

 

" We don't believe the best way to react is by making our own rules

unfair and not science-based. "

 

Growers are prepared to fight to the end.

 

" We will not give up on this now. We have been grossly misled once and

we will get this sorted this time. We will fight until we get what was

promised because the consequences of not are unthinkable, " Talbot said.

 

Ritchie said the Grains Council did not want to see this weed become

established in New Zealand and would take whatever steps were necessary

to ensure the risk was as close to zero as possible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---------------