Munlochy GM Vigil

Food production must not be controlled by a few corporations - Gyorgy Scrinis - The Age, August 17 2007
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/food-production-must-not-be-controlled-by-a-few-corporations/2007/08/16/1186857678139.html?page=2
(Dr Gyorgy Scrinis is a research associate in the Globalism Institute at RMIT University)
NEW report prepared for the Federal Government on genetically modified canola crops is being used to support the lifting of state bans on growing commercial GM canola. Federal Agriculture Minister Peter McGauran says this report confirms that GM canola would offer significant economic and agronomic benefits for Australian farmers. Yet the report contains no new revelations, and even acknowledges the possible market advantages of remaining GM-free and the continued strong public opposition to GM food. The introduction of moratoriums in most states that began in 2003 were largely based on economic and trade considerations, with farmers, farmers' organisations, processors and food marketers concerned about the loss of overseas markets and the loss of the price premiums being received for non-GM canola crops.
The report acknowledges that there may still be price premiums and greater market opportunities for non-GM crops. The European Union has maintained its ban on the importing of GM canola seeds, and many food companies prefer non-GM canola for human consumption because of consumer rejection of GM foods. Of the 20 canola-producing countries, only Canada and the United States grow GM crops and this amounts to just 17 per cent of global canola production. One problem with growing GM canola is that the engineered genes quickly contaminate the fields of non-GM canola, as has happened in Canada and the US. So many conventional non-GM farmers as well as organic farmers oppose the introduction of GM canola and other crops.
In 2003, the decision to impose state bans on GM canola was made in the context of strong and continuing public opposition to GM foods, with surveys around the world confirming that most citizens do not want to eat GM foods. The varieties of GM canola licensed to be commercially grown if the bans are lifted are herbicide-tolerant varieties. Monsanto, the world's biggest seed company, owns the Roundup-tolerant varieties and Bayer, the world's biggest agri-chemical, company owns the Basta-tolerant ones.
These GM crops are engineered to survive being sprayed with chemical weedkillers that would otherwise kill the crop itself. Herbicide-tolerant crops are thereby being used to expand the range of situations in which, and the doses of, chemical herbicides that can be applied. As weeds related to canola - radish, turnip and charlock - also become resistant to the herbicides, other even more toxic chemicals will be used. GM crops offer, at best, a Band-Aid solution to weed-management problems or other agro-ecological crises facing chemical-industrial farmers.
Aside from some narrow and questionable economic and agronomic benefits, the bigger question is what else we are committing to when we open the door to GM canola and other food crops. First, there are new health and ecological risks. The genetic modification of plants to introduce new agronomic traits may also induce other changes in the plant and the ultimate food product. Few independent studies have been conducted into the safety of GM foods, yet our food regulators continue to approve these foods for environmental release and human consumption largely based on data supplied by the companies that own these GM seeds. GM crops also introduce an entirely new form of pollution into the environment: genetic pollution.
Second, GM crops enable the continuation and extension of chemical-industrial agricultural practices, and may exacerbate some of the existing ecological problems associated with them. For example, GM crops introduce a higher level of uniformity into food crops, and accelerate the erosion of seed diversity and other forms of biodiversity. Genetic engineering is essentially a tool for finetuning chemical-industrial agriculture, rather than offering ecologically sustainable alternatives to it, and further locks farmers into this system of production.
Third, genetic engineering is allowing the further concentration in corporate ownership and control of the agri-food system. GM seeds are patented and controlled by a handful of global corporations. These corporations not only own the seeds, but also the chemical inputs that these seeds require to perform as intended. Farmers must pay "technology fees" on top of the price of the seeds, and are also asked to sign contracts that stipulate how these seeds are to be used. GM technology brings the total control of the global food supply within reach of this handful of global corporations.
To accept the introduction of GM crops is to allow what will amount to a significant shift in the structures and practices of agricultural production. I refer to this in terms of a broader shift from a chemical-industrial to a genetic-corporate system of agri-food production. The development of new nanotechnologies for agri-food production - such as nano-chemical pesticides - is likely to reinforce these agro-ecological and socio-economic trends. Opposing GM crops and maintaining the state bans on GM canola is a way of resisting the genetic-corporate and nano-corporate takeover of the global agri-food system, and of maintaining a space in which alternative, ecologically sustainable and socially equitable ways of producing and sharing seeds, crops and foods may flourish.

Howard Government GM canola push doomed - Gene Ethics Media Release - August 13 2007
"The Howard government's latest report on genetically manipulated (GM) crops is yet another doomed bid for re-election," says Gene Ethics Director, Bob Phelps. "A new federal government should adopt a more evidence-based, cautious and balanced approach to GM crops and foods," he says. "We expect the federal ALP and Greens to counsel state Labor Governments to extend their bans on GM canola until 2013 at least," he says. "Howard government policy is grossly biased by contracts for the research and development of GM organisms between bodies such as CSIRO and the GM giants, Bayer and Monsanto," he says. "Agriculture Minister McGauran sides with Bayer (the world's biggest agrichemical company) and Monsanto (the world's biggest seed company) to shove genetically manipulated (GM) crops and foods down our throats and into our environment against our will," he says.
"Claims that drought, salt and virus tolerant crops will soon be available are false and misleading as all the research is only at the 'good idea' stage of development and cannot be available within ten years, if ever," he says. "GM herbicide tolerant canola is the only GM crop on offer and, if fairly assessed on its own merits, Australia should leave it alone," he says. "For instance, McGauran's 'confidential' report leaked on Sunday fails to mention that over 80% of world canola production is GM-free and that only two of the twenty producing countries - USA and Canada - have adopted herbicide tolerant GM varieties," he says. "The acreage of GM canola grown world-wide stalled in 1999, so Australia would be adopting canola varieties that are rejected in most parts of the world. It's an absolute dud," he says.
"An EU review of GM crops published last December found that Bayer and Monsanto got 94% of the revenues from GM canola in North America, the farmers got 6%, and shoppers got nothing by way of reduced prices," Mr Phelps says. "The main plus for North American family farmers from GM crops is extra time to moonlight in an off-farm job, according to a review of the first ten years of GM," he says. "The GM canola goes into ethanol and animal feed but our GM-free canola oil is in strong demand for human consumption everywhere and we have earned premiums of up to $120 per tonne for it in Europe and Asia since January 2005," he says. "No-one anywhere is shopping for GM foods so why would we grow them?" he asks.
"Only fools would sacrifice our competitive advantage for GM-free in world markets by siding with our competitors - USA and Canada - to remove the GM-free choice of our many customers," he says. "Herbicide tolerant GM canola would mean more chemical spraying, more often, and at higher doses, leaving more residues in our food and our environment. No-one wants that," he says. "The latest survey showed strongest support for chemical and GM-free organic foods, with conventional second and GM a distant third in the race for public acceptance." he concludes.
More comment: Bob Phelps 03 9347 4500 or 0408 195 099 or 03 9889 1717 (H)

Government Push Polls on GM crops and foods - Gene Ethics Media Release, July 23 2007
"The Australian government push-polled Australians on genetically manipulated (GM) crops and foods to dishonestly inflate support for GM in its latest survey," says Gene Ethics Director, Bob Phelps. "It was unethical to falsely imply in the questionnaire that GM has solutions to key environmental problems when they do not exist now and are ten years from commercial reality, if ever," he says. "Most citizens support genuine solutions to air and water pollution, climate change and salinity on farms, but GM food crops are not the answer to these problems and probably never will be," he says. "Gene Ethics saw the draft questionnaire but Biotechnology Australia rejected our proposal that people be asked their opinions on the costs, risks and hazards of GM foods and crops, as well as their claimed benefits," he said, "Biotech Australia again showed itself to be a government-funded pro-GM lobbyist that promotes the interests of foreign GM giants ahead of Australian farmers and shoppers," he says. "Industry Minister Ian MacFarlane's comments were also designed to mislead the public by cherry-picking the survey results and ignoring their inconvenient truths," Mr Phelps says. "For instance, the Minister ignored Figure 25 on 'willingness to eat GM foods' that shows an average rating of 8.2 out of 10 for organic foods and 6.1 for non-organic," he says. "Food containing preservatives rated 5.2, with GM foods lower, depending on the kind of genetic manipulation involved," he says. "Food from GM crops was 5.1 and meat from cloned animals was last, at 3.6," he says. "Shifts in public acceptance of GM foods were the result of revised wording from the last survey two years ago," he says. "It's undemocratic and unfair to mould public opinion using biased surveys to justify GM policies that are nothing short of mad," Mr Phelps concludes.
More comment: Bob Phelps 03 9347 4500 or 0408 195 099
Minister's statement at: http://minister.industry.gov.au/index.cfm?event=search.showForm
Reports at: http://www.biotechnology.gov.au/index.cfm?event=object.showContent&objectID=DCE82A65-EBEE-A004-F1F274EB7E4B2577

Mothers rally against "GM" milk - Breaking Rural News : DAIRY - North Queensland Register, 19 June 2007
(SOURCE: Extract from full story in Stock & Land, Vic, June 21) - http://nqr.farmonline.com.au/news_daily.asp?ag_id=43211
Mothers and children will rally outstide the United Dairyfarmers of Victora (UDV) conference in Melbourne on Tuesday to voice their opposition to milk produced from cows fed genetically modified (GM) grain. Mothers Against GE (MAdGE) spokeswoman, Glenda Lindsay, said the group - a newly formed coalition of anti-GM mothers, grandmothers and children - wanted to show farmers, Victorian consumers didn?t want genetically engineered (GE) or GM milk.
"We want to feed our families food guaranteed to be safe, local and GM free," Ms Lindsay said. "There are no peer reviewed studies that prove it is safe to drink milk from cows fed GM products." Ms Lindsay said the group wanted the ban on GM canola in Victoria to be extended permanently. "It makes no sense to grow GM crops when most polls show shoppers don't want GM foods," she said.
UDV members will today vote on a resolution for the UDV to reverse its anti-GM position and support choice of GM technology in the dairy industry,"

GM Content a threat to market: farmer - ALEX JOHNSON - The Standard, June 7 2007
http://the.standard.net.au/articles/2007/06/07/1181089193898.html
A CONCERNED farmer said the future of Australia's dairy industry depended on whether farmers rejected genetically modified cattle feed. The Network of Concerned Farmers spokesman Geoffrey Carracher, who runs an irrigation property near Minimay growing white clover seed, called on dairy farmers not to use GM cotton to feed their cattle. The network is funded by a number of farmers and local councils, including West Wimmera Shire.
"The world is our market for Australia at the moment," Mr Carracher said. "With the introduction of GMs into Australia, our opportunities throughout the world will be reduced.....New Zealand will pick up our milk market if we do it." "There has been no testing of GM crops against non-GM crops so we don't know what their comparisons are, their yields (or) their agronomy." He said the crops, modified to be resistant to pests and diseases, might not bring the benefits some farmers expect. "They're set up for corporate profits, not farmers' profits."

GM MILK ANGER - TERRY SIM - The Standard, June 7 2007 - http://the.standard.net.au/articles/2007/06/07/1181089193892.html
MILK is being produced on south-west Victorian dairy farms using genetically modified feeds without the public's knowledge. Now consumers are demanding to know more. The Standard can reveal that a range of feeds with a GM content have been used on the region's farms. Feeds with GM content include cottonseed meal, soybean and canola meal. Consumers are concerned about the impact on milk and a lack of clear labelling. Studies found no impact on foods generated from GM-fed livestock or GM crops. Member for Western Province John Vogels said dairy factories should admit "the GM genie is long gone". Mr Vogels said it was time to scrap Victoria's moratorium on GM crops and ensure proper risk assessments were in place. He said south-west dairy farmers were using GM cottonseed to produce milk and other farmers were using GM canola and soymeal in cattle rations. "If 90 per cent of cotton grown is GM and I've seen farmers feeding cottonseed to their dairy cows, then the (GM) genie is long out of the bottle," Mr Vogels said. Mr Vogels' comments come as the Network of Concerned Farmers starts a media campaign against feeding genetically modified crops in animals' feed.
Anti-GM campaigner and director of the Institute of Health and Environmental Research Dr Judy Carman said it was a `"big leap in logic to open up the doors" because farmers were already feeding GM feed to their cattle. "If it was widely known that there was a milk company in Australia that was getting milk from cows being fed GM feeds I think you would find consumers would switch brands......There would be some concern - it is just that they (consumers) don't know." Dr Carman said there had been no long-term testing on livestock fed GM feeds, consumers eating GM foods or meat grown with GM feeds. There was inadequate crop segregation, product labelling and knowledge of contamination levels to protect consumers'
interests and cottonseed oil did not have to be labelled as a GM product in Australia, she said.
Anti-GM dairy farmer in Dixie, Andrea Balcombe, has decided not to give potentially GM feeds to her cows. She said labelling laws meant consumers were not able to choose non-GM over GM products. Mr Vogels said despite the "scare campaign" of the organics industry and anti-GM protesters, he did not believe consumers should be concerned about feeding GM feed to livestock. Research had shown there were no ill effects from people consuming GM foods, he said. The "hypocrisy" of the State Government's moratorium on commercial GM crops was exposed by the use of cottonseed oil in vegetable oil formulations for cooking, Mr Vogels said. About a third of vegetable oil is made from cottonseed, he said.
A spokesperson for Victorian Agriculture Minister Joe Helper said industry sectors could take their own steps to prevent farmers using GM feedstocks. "That a small amount of GM feedstocks are used for stock has relatively little bearing on the forthcoming review of the moratorium on GM canola," the minister's spokesperson said.

CSIRO 'dumps' anti-GM expert - William Birnbauer - The Age, May 27 2007
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/csiro-dumps-antigm-expert/2007/05/26/1179601737365.html
ONE of Australia's leading specialists on biological farming says he was dumped by the CSIRO because of his criticism of genetically modified crops. Dr Maarten Stapper, a principal research scientist, worked for CSIRO for 23 years and is an expert on soil health which, he says, is the key to better crops. He told The Sunday Age that senior CSIRO management bullied and harassed him and tried to gag his criticisms of GM crops. He left in March after his position with CSIRO's plant industry division was made redundant. "I could have continued working for the CSIRO but I would have to give up all my beliefs about good agriculture and keep my mouth shut about GM," he said. "I didn't want that because I have a connection with the farming community and they trust me."
Dr Stapper said experience as a farming systems agronomist had taught him that most problems started with the soil, and that was where the solutions were. "GM solutions won't solve our problems," he said. CSIRO disputed several assertions made by Dr Stapper, who has become something of a martyr among anti-GM groups since leaving the research organisation. The assistant chief of plant industry, Dr Mark Peoples, said Dr Stapper's redundancy had nothing to do with his views on genetic engineering. A project on the management of irrigated wheat he had worked on was now finished.
Dr Peoples said a mediator was used in 2004 to resolve a dispute between Dr Stapper and the then head of the plant industry division, Dr Jim Peacock, who is now Australia's chief scientist. "I guess it still preyed on Maarten's mind but it went through the due mediation process." Dr Peoples also denied that CSIRO's research was being hijacked by pro-GM groups. About $7 million, less than 1 per cent of the total budget, was spent on GM crops, compared with $45 million on sustainable agriculture. Co-investment with private corporations on GM crop research equalled about 0.2 per cent of CSIRO's total budget.
But Biological Farmers of Australia and the Gene Ethics group say Dr Stapper's dismissal is outrageous as his research is critical to the organic sector and to thousands of farmers developing better soil biology. "This travesty of justice shows again that priorities for taxpayer-funded research are grossly distorted by CSIRO contracts with companies that direct public funds to private profits," the director of Gene Ethics, Bob Phelps, said. "Stapper was sacked because GM giants like Bayer and Monsanto can't patent know-how on healthier soils." Scott Kinnear from Biological Farmers said: "We have for many years been concerned at the commercialisation of research within CSIRO whereby patentable technologies with income-generation potential are favoured. This applies to their research into genetically engineered foods which has cost CSIRO many tens of millions of dollars for no commercial food product to show."
Dr Stapper said he was sceptical about claims that GM plants improved crop yields and called for more studies on the safety of GM stockfeeds. "We can learn to use the power of nature rather than fighting it with synthetic chemicals and unproven new technologies in a war we can't win," Dr Stapper said.

VIC GM REVIEW PANEL: NO INDEPENDENCE OR EXPERTISE - Gene Ethics - News Media Release - Tuesday, 22 May 2007
Premier Bracks today announced a panel to review the ban on GM canola in Victoria [Australia]. "The panel announced today to review Victoria's ban on commercial genetically manipulated (GM) canola is neither independent nor expert," says Gene Ethics Director Bob Phelps. "The panellists are keen supporters of GM crops and foods who have promoted it for many years," he says. "And none are expert in trade or marketing issues, the main focus of the review," he says. "The panel has no expert capacity or experience to consider the impact of commercial GM canola release on producers and exporters," he says. "Their expertise and experience is in science, agriculture and rural and regional development issues - all outside the trade and marketing focus of the review," he says "The Bracks government has set up a panel to recommend fast tracking GM crops into our environment and onto our plates," he says. "They set the scene to end the GM canola ban over the objections of most Victorian farmers and shoppers, the vast majority of whom want GM-free foods on the farm, in the shops and on the dinner table," he says.
"An end to the Victorian ban would also upstage the bans in four other states and the ACT as GM canola contamination will be no respecter of state boundaries. GM-free Australia and the benefits that can bring would be finished," he says. "We call for a panel that fairly reflects the breadth of public views on GM and has real expertise in the topic, to redress the pro-GM bias of the group announced today," he says. "Panel chairperson Gus Nossal is a retired medical researcher who publicly advocates GM food and crops, and has done so for many years," Mr Phelps says. "Panel member Merna Curnow is from the Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC) which spends at least $100,000 a year to promote acceptance of GM," he says. "Merna was also an officer of the Victorian Farmers Federation when it actively campaigned against the GM bans," he says.
"As the ban is almost five years old, we also call for a review of new evidence on health and environment impacts of GM crops and foods since the licences were issued.," he says "Victoria's strong record on clean green GM-free foods will be in tatters if the GM canola ban ends," he says. "A new ban order should be signed to extend the ban till 2013, at least," Mr Phelps concludes.
More comment: Bob Phelps 03 9347 4500 or 0408 195 099

Farmers critical of scientist - Network of Concerned Farmers (NCF)
http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=2312
In response to the pro-GM statements made by Australian Academy of Science president, Dr Jim Peacock during a televised address at the Press club, the Network of Concerned Farmers (NCF) are asking farmers not to trust scientists that have a vested interest. "It is rubbish to say that GM crops are going to feed the world when non-GM varieties appear to be yielding more," said Julie Newman, National Spokesperson for the Network of Concerned Farmers....Over 90% of the worlds crop is non-GM despite the huge push for these patented GM crops over the last decade. The truth is being modified more than the genetics and farmers aren't gullible enough to be conned for long." "The last people farmers should be listening to for direction and advise is the scientists and industry players that have a vested interest in this patented product. We need to listen to our marketers who clearly state the advantage of being GM-free."
The NCF claim Mr Peacock should have revealed the financial ties that scientific sectors such as CSIRO have with companies such as Monsanto. Mr Peacock stated in his address the science sector had failed to win public support for transgenic crops. Mrs Newman explained that a major reason for failing to gain support from farmers is because the reluctant public buy farmers products, the sums don't add up to a profit and the costs are too high on those that do not want to adopt GM crops. "Farmers need to be aware that the real yields fall well short of what has been promised and this has been proven by independent trials. We should be very suspicious that further independent trials have been rejected by the GM companies until there is an unhindered clear pathway for commercialisation. It is obvious they don't want us to know the truth until it is to late to salvage our GM-free status."
The NCF claim there is some support for GM but it is based on farmers being frightened of the future and want to urge farmers to base decisions on facts, not unsubstantiated claims. The NCF believe that GM may soon be an outdated technology superseded by better non-GM biotechnology advances. Mrs Newman gave an example of non-GM biotechnology techniques capable of short-cutting the breeding processes by crossing arctic grasses with cereal crops for frost tolerance. The NCF believe that because scientists will financially benefit more from GM technology, they are reluctant to explain these better non-GM alternatives.
"If GM is released commercially, it is highly unlikely that we will be able to market as GM-free so we need to listen very carefully to our markets. It is clear that market rejection is worsening and we need to be extremely cautious to ensure we have risk management to prevent non-GM farmers being affected." Mrs Newman explained that consumers prefer a non-GM product and non-GM farmers were expected to be liable for testing costs, duplicate storage and handling and trying to keep GM out of their product. If segregation failed, non-GM farmers were to be liable for the cost difference if the product is downgraded to GM or for economic loss experienced if the product can not be sold. The NCF believe it will not be possible to control contamination to satisfy market and legal demands. "Those pushing GM crops must realise that non-GM farmers will not accept any contamination if we are expected to be liable for the economic loss caused by it," insisted Mrs Newman. "A strict liability regime is essential to ensure the polluter pays, not the polluted."

Control of volunteer cotton key to CBT disease fight back - Australia
SOURCE: Cotton Catchment Communities CRC and Queensland Country Life weekly rural news service, updated daily by FarmOnline. - 10 April 2007
The rising incidence of cotton bunchy top (CBT) disease is causing concern. Control of volunteer cotton, by cultivation or herbicides, is central to the fight back, a R&D field has been told. In central Queensland, it has been found that CBT is increasing and is most obvious in fields where Roundup Ready cotton had been planted, the field day was told. The concerns over CBT were espressed at a Cotton Catchment Communities (CRC) research and development field day. While we don't know yet whether CBT is increasing on the Darling Downs, we can take some preventative action to control volunteer cotton, the field day was told.
The CRC reports that volunteer cotton can cause problems for resistance management of Bt cotton, reduce seed purity and act as early hosts for insect pest. It also provides a conduit for carry over of harmful plant pathogens into the next season. Volunteer cotton can be controlled by cultivation or herbicides. In the past, the broad spectrum herbicide glyphosate was commonly used to control volunteer cotton seedlings but this is not effective on Roundup Ready cotton. Herbicide options to control seedling cotton include Spray.Seed and Hammer. These herbicides are also effective on Roundup ready seedlings.
The control of established cotton is far more difficult with herbicides but experimental data has shown good results after two applications of glyphosate + 2,4 D amine or Starane. Note, however, that these options are not registered and involve two applications which can make it costly compared to the costs of mechanical control. Ratoon cotton can only be controlled by mechanical means as no effective herbicides have been identified.

New GM food study reveals safety fears - Government of Western Australia media statement, 21 March 07
Agriculture and Food Minister Kim Chance today said a recent French university study that had revealed the potential harm of GM food was further support for Western Australia's moratorium on the commercial production of GM crops. Mr Chance pointed to an independent study conducted by French researchers and scientists from the universities of Caen and Rouen, which found that rats fed on Monsanto's MON863 genetically modified corn had significant reductions in growth and adverse effects on liver and kidney function after 90 days of consumption. The Minister said the GM corn under scrutiny was not grown in Australia, however Australian people may have consumed the product through imported foods such as corn chips, tacos and products made with corn meal and corn syrup. "Until we know more about GM crops, especially GM food crops, I believe it is a wise move to continue with the moratorium," he said. "We want to take some time to understand the effect of GM crops and leave our options open. Advocates for adopting the technology now perhaps do not realise it, but by doing so we would close those options. This is because GM technology is effectively irreversible."
Mr Chance urged Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ) to undertake thorough testing of the GM corn, and other GM products themselves, before they are approved. "FSANZ should stop relying on the data supplied from the GM companies and conduct their own independent feeding trials and stringent analysis of the GM products that are proposed for human consumption in Australia and New Zealand," he said. "The lack of independent data is the reason why the WA Government has funded its own independent long-term animal feeding trial to gain data on the safety or otherwise of GM food crops." The Minister said the State Government was in the process of working through the full range of issues associated with GM technology with industry through the GMO Industry Reference Group.
The State Government's moratorium on GM crops runs for the term of Government and will, as with all government policies, be reviewed. "The moratorium on GM crops supports the State's 'clean and green' status and will look after the lifestyle of our farming communities by protecting our overseas markets and environment," Mr Chance said. "It will also ensure that WA consumers continue to have a choice about the food they wish to eat."
Media contact: Alicia Miriklis - 9213 6700 or 0428 911 240
Statements available on the Government's regional website: http://www.regional.mediastatements.wa.gov.au and you can also subscribe to have media releases emailed automatically from the Government's website: http://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au

Concerns that FSANZ is compromising food safety - 09 Feb 2007
http://www.checkbiotech.org/root/index.cfm?fuseaction=news&doc_id=14391&start=1&control=218&page_start=1&page_nr=101&pg=1
The recommendation from Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) to approve a genetically engineered High-Lysine Corn LY038 for animal and human use, is a warning sign that the Authority is inappropriately influenced by trade-related issues and the interests of overseas businesses like Monsanto's. This decision comes just weeks after New Zealand officials declared they want to adopt the same loose policies for cloned animal products that have been proposed in the US by the FDA. Like their US counterparts the NZFSA intends no testing, monitoring or labelling of products from clones because differences are expected to be minimal and products "substantially equivalent."
But such a policy on cloned food ignores the fact that small differences can have significant impacts. "Substantial equivalence is closer to bureaucratic spin than sound science", says Jon Carapiet from GE free NZ in food and environment. "On this basis animals with mad cow disease could be deemed fine to eat because they only have a small difference in the shape of one protein: prions."
Though the FSANZ admit LY038 is different, once again there seems to be unacceptable and detrimental pressure from business to open up New Zealand's and Australia's food system to inadequately tested (and largely unwanted) products. LY038 is produced by seed giant Monsanto, and is genetically modified to contain levels of the amino acid lysine at substantially higher levels than found in other corn. The application for approval for human food is "just in case" it gets mixed in from animal feed by accident, as has already happened in the past.
FSANZ seem to have ignored warnings that when foods with high levels of lysine are cooked in combination with sugars, compounds called AGEs are produced which have been implicated in causing Alzheimer's disease, diabetes and other serious conditions. In a submision to FSANZ, The Centre for Research in Biosafety at Canterbury University identified different ways that animal feed could either inadvertently or deliberately end up being consumed by humans, and warned them of the possible effects.
GE Free NZ in food and environment support calls by the Green Party for a Ministerial veto of the decision, and want new protocols on food testing to be developed and introduced before any further approvals are made for 'novel foods'. The Centre for Research in Biosafety reports in its submission that the testing procedure for this corn deviated from the recommendations of international food safety bodies, including the World Health Organisation. "This is unacceptable. We need the best standards, not the ones that best suit business or overseas investors," says Mr Carapiet. Consumers are being exposed to unwanted and unnecessary risks because officials meant to protect them have a wider agenda than providing genuine choice and safety.The bias to meeting the interests of industry and agri-business risks compromising the integrity off the food chain.
Copyright Scoop

GLOBAL GM CROP REPORT A BEAT UP - GENE ETHICS: NEWS MEDIA RELEASE - JANUARY 20 2007
Industry's annual review of genetically manipulated (GM) crops shows they stalled a long time ago. An International Service for Acquisition of Agro-biotechnology Applications report was published today. (www.isaaa.org/Resources/Publications/briefs/default.html) "ISAAA makes unsupported claims, inflates its figures and ignores the negative impacts of GM crops," says Gene Ethics Director, Bob Phelps. "For instance, Iran is again wrongly listed as growing 50,000 hectares of commercial GM rice, which is not approved and is not being grown," he says. "Romania is also listed as growing 100,000 hectares of GM soybean but this crop is now banned and the country is being decontaminated to return it to GM-free," he says. "ISAAA claims commercial GM crops are a global industry but their own figures show 99% grew in just eight countries last year - USA 53.5%; Argentina 17.6%; Brazil 11.3%; Canada 6%; India 3.7%; China 3.4%; Paraguay 2%; and South Africa 1.4%," he says. "The range of GM crops also stalled in 1996 when four broad-acre commercial crops - soy, corn, cotton and canola - were first grown. Not one has been added since," he says. "And these crops still have just two commercial GM traits - tolerance to being over-sprayed with weed killer and making their own insect toxins. Both add more chemicals to our environment and foods," Mr Phelps says. "Australian governments would be foolish to allow commercial GM canola into Australia because, even in this weak field, GM canola runs a distant last since 1999," he says.
"The report emphasizes that 10.3 million farmers grew GM crops in 2006, but this is just 0.7% of farmers world-wide. And just 600,000 farmers grew 85% of all GM crops on industrial farms in North and South America. Small third world farmers are misused as fodder in the ISAAA's PR war," he says. "GM technology has been overtaken by smarter, more precise and successful genetic science - genomics and proteomics - in tandem with traditional breeding,' he says. "The ISAAA is flogging a dead horse," he says. "Shoppers and farmers will ensure that genetically manipulated seeds, crops and foods are rejected around the world," Mr Phelps concludes.
More comment: Bob Phelps 03 9347 4500 (O) 03 9889 1717 (H) 0408 195 099 (Mob)

GM-food ingredient label laws for review - by Anne Calverley - The West Australian, 7th December 2006
The Federal Government plans to review food labelling laws amid fears that consumers are unwittingly eating genetically modified foods. Parliamentary secretary for health Christopher Pyne said yesterday he would follow up concerns raised by The West Australian this week that seemingly tough Federal laws demanding that food labels list all GM ingredients did not extend to highly refined products such as sugars and oils. State Agriculture Minister Kim Chance backed a change to the laws to take into account that some people would not buy food with any GM ingredients to discourage production of them.
The Office of Gene Technology Regulator does not require labels on refined food products because makers claim that GM ingredients are not evident in the final product. Shoppers have no way of knowing whether items such as baked goods and dairy products are made from GM products, which critics dub Frankenstein food. And consumer advocates say more GM-derived food will be imported because of the drought. GM canola from Canada recently landed on the east coast.
Mr Pyne said the GM labelling issue could be raised at the Food Ministers' Council next April. Mr Chance said he did not believe any changes would put any great cost on food makers. "It may be time to change the laws from an ethical point of view to address any resistance from the public to eating GMOs," he said. "I would rather not eat GM oil that has come from a GM commodity, not because I believe it's unsafe, but so as to not encourage the production of GM products."

South Australian Govt extends genetically modified crop ban - Sydney Morning Herald - Friday, November 17, 2006
http://www.checkbiotech.org/root/index.cfm?fuseaction=news&doc_id=13873&start=1&control=190&page_start=1&page_nr=101&pg=1
The South Australian government has extended a ban on genetically modified (GM) food crops until the end of April, 2008. The ban, first imposed in 2004, was due to have ended in 2007. But Agriculture Minister Rory McEwen said the extra time would allow for a review of the current legislation. "The review will explore whether the conditions that resulted in the 2004 act are still valid or whether there are any alternatives to legislation to achieve the best outcomes," Mr McEwen said. The minister said the state government remained committed to protecting the state's clean and green reputation by preventing the introduction of GM crops until it was clear they could co-exist with conventional crops.
© 2006 AAP

Call for Federal Government to reject GM cotton in northern Australia at campaign launch
The Northern Australia Environment Alliance today launched a campaign calling on the Federal Government to reject applications to introduce Genetically Manipulated (GM) Cotton into Northern Australia. The launch coincides with the Australian National Committee for Irrigation and Drainage (ANCID) conference in Darwin, where GM cotton is a hot topic.
"The ANCID Conference claims to be: "the best opportunity for industry participants, policy makers and researchers to deliver their key messages of relevance to Australia" and so is the appropriate platform from which to warn policy makers and the public about the risks posed by GM crops in Northern Australia," said Cairns and Far North Environment Centre spokesperson Steve Ryan.
"Extensive land clearing, over consumption of water and excessive chemical use are by-products of this industry. We do not want to be the testing ground for risky new genetically manipulated cotton that could kill our wildlife, leave us with insecticide resistant insects, contaminate soil and water and create superweeds," said Maria Mann from Environs Kimberley.
The Office of the Gene Technology Regulator recently gave approval for the commercial release of Liberty Link Cotton anywhere in Australia. The Regulator is now considering another application, this time from Monsanto, for the commercial release of Bollgard II/Roundup Ready Flex GM cotton into northern Australia.
"Any approvals will overturn a 2002 decision by the Regulator not to allow the commercial introduction of GM cotton north of 22ºS. This decision was made in view of weed threats posed to northern Australia by large scale irrigated agriculture based on GM cotton. It is our view that the risks remain and further approvals should not be given by the Regulator," said Larissa Cordner from The Wilderness Society.
As part of the campaign the Northern Australia Environment Alliance launched 'The Great Northern Cotton Takeover!', a brochure outlining the serious threat to northern Australia posed by the introduction of GM cotton. The brochure outlines the scope of the proposed agricultural developments and provides advice on how to take action to prevent it. The Briefing Paper Genetically Manipulated Cotton in Northern Australia was also released.
Media contacts: Maria Mann, Environs Kimberley: 0427 935052; James McLellan North Queensland Conservation Council: 0403 685308; Larissa Cordner, The Wilderness Society: 0433 681445; Peter Robertson, Environment Centre Northern Territory: 0409 089020; Bob Phelps, GeneEthics: 1300133 868.
Background Brief - Genetically Manipulated Cotton in Northern Australia - To assist the community, media, Indigenous and other groups to understand conservation opposition to the release of genetically manipulated cotton into northern Australia.

Australian State Ag minister slams Fed GM call - Friday, October 13, 2006 - The West Australian
http://www.checkbiotech.org/root/index.cfm?fuseaction=news&doc_id=13673&start=1&control=183&page_start=1&page_nr=101&pg=1
The Federal Government’s call for all States to lift their moratorium on the growing of commercial GM crops has been labelled premature by the State Government, with Agriculture Minister Kim Chance defending the maintenance of the WA State moratorium. Federal Agriculture Minister Peter McGauran called for the States to lift their moratoriums as part of a response to the drought that now encompasses most of the agricultueral regions of Australia. He said if Victoria and NSW moved to allow GM crops, the move could persuade other States to drop their opposition. The recommendation was one of the 35 adopted by the Government out of a total of 55 contained in a report on agriculture and food in Australia for the next generation. The review was prepared by a team led by NFF president Peter Corish. Mr McGauran argued overseas experience showed GM crops could offer cost efficiencies for producers as well as environmental benefits, and he described Tasmania and WA as the two States that had an outright ideological objection to GMO, while other State governments were softening their positions.
Mr Chance this week responded by saying there was mounting evidence from Canada, the world’s largest GM canola producer, of substantial payments to grain farmers to compensate for rising input costs and lower commodity prices. He said he had been surprised to hear Mr McGauran’s claim that overseas experience showed GM crops offered cost efficiencies. “The evidence from Canada suggests otherwise,” Mr Chance said. “Mr McGauran obviously has not read about the Canadian experience, and I would like to know which countries he believes are enjoying financial and environmental benefits for GM crops, particularly GM canola.” The Minister said that in 1998 the difference between Australian and Canadian canola prices was about $70 a tonne in favour of Canada. “However, by May 2006, Australian prices had exceeded Canadian prices by some $50 a tonne,” he said, quoting a Department of Agriculture and Food WA report. “I do not want to see a situation where our State and Federal governments have to spend millions of dollars to help our farmers because they cannot sell their GM crops. “I wonder if Mr McGauran has discussed the possibility of future farm subsidies with the Federal Treasurer.”
West Australian Newspapers Pty Ltd 2006

FROM THE MINISTER FOR INNOVATION, MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE - August 9, 2006
http://www.dpc.vic.gov.au/domino/Web_Notes/newmedia.nsf/35504bc71d3adebcca256cfc0082c2b8/c405c362f8a2148aca2571c60001df36!OpenDocument
VICTORIAN SCIENTISTS DEVELOP DROUGHT TOLERANT CANOLA
Victorian scientists have developed a new species of drought tolerant canola that could make up to 1.5 million hectares of drought prone farmland in Australia more productive and profitable, the Minister for Innovation, John Brumby, announced today. Mr Brumby said Department of Primary Industry (DPI) scientists, together with collaborative international partners, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool have used enhanced traditional breeding and molecular marker assisted selection to refine the yield and quality of juncea canola. Announcing the research as part of the Agricultural Biotechnology International Conference (ABIC) 2006 currently being held in Melbourne, Mr Brumby said the scientific breakthrough had come at an opportune time for Australian primary producers. "The drought is hitting the Australian community very hard, but this development is another example of how Victoria's scientists are working with international scientists to provide biotechnology solutions to serious problems," Mr Brumby said.
Commercial arrangements are currently being finalised and seed plantings for the first two juncea canola cultivars bred for Australia are also underway, with a view to releasing commercial quality seed to farmers next year. The Minister for Agriculture, Bob Cameron, said recent trials of Brassica juncea across Australia equalled and in some cases exceeded standard Brassica napus canola yields by up to 30 per cent. "Juncea canola has more vigorous early growth, better drought and heat tolerance than conventional canola, and quality characteristics ideal for the current canola market," Mr Cameron said. "In dry areas such as the Mallee, juncea canola shows much better early vigour than traditional canola, which means it gets up and competes better with weeds......It is of course still susceptible in extreme dry like we are experiencing this season, but the product's durability in drought prone conditions should enable it to survive in regions receiving as little as 275mm of rainfall annually......Juncea canola offers growers rotational benefits in their current cereal rotations by allowing them to control grass weeds and cereal diseases and pests......DPI is currently continuing to trial juncea canola at a series of dryland sites across the Mallee, including Beulah, Birchip, Hopetoun, Walpeup, Ultima and across Australia in New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia."

South Australian Govt defends planned GM crop ban extension - ABC, September 18 2006
http://www.checkbiotech.org/root/index.cfm?fuseaction=news&doc_id=13517&start=1&control=167&page_start=1&page_nr=101&pg=1
The South Australian Government has defended its plan to extend a moratorium on growing genetically modified (GM) crops, saying it has benefits in the global market. A ban is in place until 2007, but the Government wants to extend it by a year to bring the state in line with the rest of the country.
The former head of the South Australian Farmer's Federation, John Lush, has called for the ban to be overturned. He says drought-resistant GM crops could save farmers millions of dollars. "We have the technology that we could increase the potential of that crop by about three-fold on a year like this and it would be a viable crop and we're not using that technology," he said.
Agriculture Minister Rory McEwen says being GM-free opens up markets. "We must not put markets at risk and that is very important, that Australia continue to build a clean green image," he said. "It might be the differentiation we need in a global market place, that gives us the extra returns. "There actually might be significant market benefits by being the odd one out."
Centre for Plant Functional Genomics plant geneticist Mark Tester says the ban makes no sense. "The Canadian farmers don't have any [problems] selling their GM crops," he said. "The US farmers have no problems exporting their GM crops and I think the Australian farmer is seeing that. "If there are markets out there to purchase GM crops ... we will be able to sell GM crops. There's a clear benefit."

WA Parliament votes down commercial GM trials - ABC News, September 14 2006 - http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200609/s1740755.htm
A WA Liberal Party proposal to allow commercial trials of genetically modified canola has been defeated in Parliament. The Opposition wants GM canola grown in a pilot program next year with a view to full commercial release. However, the Government does not support lifting the moratorium on GM crops, saying WA farmers are able to attract higher prices for their crops because international markets have reservations about genetically modified food.
The Nationals leader Brendon Grylls has told Parliament he cannot accept the argument that all GM crops should be banned so a few tonnes of canola can be sold at premium prices. "Ten per cent of the canola exported from Western Australia is sold into that market," he said. "We're not talking about enough to rule out GM cotton in the north, about the expansion of the oil feed industry into biofuels, and the other gains that could be made with frost-tolerant and salt-tolerant crops going into the future." Mr Grylls has called for the area around Esperance to be used as a natural biosphere in which GM crops are tested. "I think that you should make a biosphere around Esperance because Esperance is separated from the rest of the agricultural region," he said. "That way the rest of the state could get a clear indication of what GMO [genetically modified organisms] could do in that particular region, on a full size commercial scale, and then we'd actually be having a debate on what had actually happened, rather than what might happen."

Genetically modified crops will cost - James Norman and Louise Sales - Online Opinion (Australia's e-journal of social and political debate), 14 August 2006
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=478
One need only look through the conference overview for the Victorian Government funded Agricultural Biotechnology International Conference (http://www.abic2006.org/index2.html), which kicked off last week in Melbourne, to get a sense of the true agenda driving the pro-GE lobby talk-fest. Aside from the predictable workshops on the commercialisation of GE (genetic engineering or modification) technologies and the translation of scientific advances into commercial application and using genes to 'improve' food crops - one of the last workshops was titled 'Communications in Ag Bio - How do we get the right message out?' The workshop covered the fraught territory of how to positively spin GE food to an increasingly sceptical public. The irony being that at over $500 a ticket to gain entry to the conference, ordinary members of the public were denied the opportunity to have any input.
Public attitudes to genetically engineered food are now universally negative, reflected in the fact that key markets in the EU, Japan and China are now removing GE products from consumer products, meaning organic and non-GE products are attracting increasing premiums. For example, the Weekly Times last week reported that Australian canola is selling at a premium of $65 a tonne because of its GE-free status. Simultaneously, in countries that have embraced GE crops such as the US, Canada and Argentina, existing markets have been seriously damaged.
Currently non-GE farmers are forced to bear the majority of costs and risks associated with the introduction of GE crops. The Australian Bureau of Resource Economics (ABARE) has estimated that segregation costs associated with the introduction of GE canola would cost non-GE farmers 5-15 per cent of the farm gate value of their crop. That's why the farming community is increasingly speaking out against embracing GE. In a scenario of GE being accepted by Australia's agricultural sector; non-GE farmers would also be forced to bear the inevitable contamination costs. A recent West Australian Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs inquiry into GE formed the view that 'contamination of non-GM crops by GM crops is inevitable, segregation is not practical and that identity preservation can be achieved, but at a significant cost'.
The GE industry has argued that contamination at levels of up to 1 per cent should be considered an appropriate standard for Australia. This level of contamination may be acceptable to the GE industry but it remains unacceptable to the vast majority of Australian consumers who don't trust GE food for consumption. The WA Standing Committee further recommended, 'The non-GM market should not be sacrificed at the expense of the GM market'. Subsequently, the WA wheat board has noted: 'the introduction of GM wheat in Australia could jeopardise many of our existing export markets.'
In North America, there is a strong movement against GE crop expansion due to concerns about its negative economic impacts. Referring to an incident when a GE maize crop engineered to produce a pharmaceutical product contaminated soybean crops the following year, a spokesperson for Grocery Manufacturers of America said, 'Incidents like these can have ripple effects. We don't want to lose international markets because we can't assure the safety and integrity of food supply.'
Even putting the dangers and costs associated with cross-contamination aside, the economics of embracing GE in Australia still don't add up. The WA Standing Committee acknowledged the 'unpredictable nature of world commodity markets' thus concluding that, 'there exists no certainty in the market acceptability of GM foods, with consumer attitudes being both varied and unstable on the issue.' And that was putting it mildly. A plethora of other Australian public attitude surveys have reached similar conclusions. A recent Australian study, from the Australian Centre for Emerging Technologies and Society at Swinburne University in Melbourne found that 'Australians are very uncomfortable with genetically modified plants for food'. And a 2002 Taylor Nelson Sofres poll found that the majority of Australians (68 per cent) are less likely to buy or will actively seek to avoid GE food. Indeed, consumer resistance to GE crops remains the strongest argument against its introduction. To date, Japan, China and the EU have instituted strict rules regarding the import and labelling of GE products, reflecting strong resistance to GE in those regions. Canada has already paid dearly for embracing GE in its canola industry. Canada currently produces 97 per cent of the world's canola, yet in 1998 (two years after it switched to GE crops) Canada lost its US$300-400 million annual canola sales to Europe because of European consumer resistance to GE.
If Australian farmers were to embrace GE canola, they would risk losing their export markets to Japan, China and the EU. Between 2001 and 2004 these markets collectively accounted for 65 per cent of our canola exports with a combined market value of A$829 million. It is little wonder then that the focus of the ABIC Conference is on looking at ways to convince a sceptical public to embrace GE in Australia. But the question that taxpayers might be asking is why is the Victorian Government funded a pro-GE conference when the economics and risks associated with GE just don't add up.

Private agribusiness conference, public funding - GeneEthics Network - Media Advisory - August 3 2006
http://www.leftwrites.net/2006/08/02/private-agribusiness-conference-public-funding/
Victorian taxpayers are the top sponsors and funders of the private agricultural gene technology conference (ABIC2006) in Melbourne 6-9 August. Bracks Government funding of private GM projects is undermining the state's moratorium on genetically manipulated (GM) crops. "Premier Bracks is pushing through his government's expensive pro-GM agenda without the consent of Victorian taxpayers," says Bob Phelps, Executive Director of GeneEthics Network. "The interested public was denied any role in planning or running the ABIC2006 conference, designed to promote the views of GM companies," he says. "Citizens with genuine concerns about GM are effectively excluded from the conference by the $500 a day attendance fee, while the promoters of gene technology will all be there - government officials, GM researchers, representatives of GM companies, and the PR companies," he says. "Yet this conference will undermine Australia's reputation as a GM-free food supplier and risk our favoured access to overseas markets," he says.
Richard Koch of Profarmer newsletter reports that, "Where Australia has been benefiting is that our rapeseed (canola) is GM-free - free of genetically modified organisms - so we have been the preferred supplier into that EU market for the past 18 months or so," enabling a major price recovery for canola. www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6801
"People world-wide want clean, green GM-free food, as shown by the annual rise of 20% in demand for organic foods," Mr Phelps says. "There is no demand for GM foods here or overseas so most farmers don't want to grow them, despite enormous pressure from the GM industry," he says. "A Swinburne University National Survey* of public opinion just published shows only 30% of Australians accept GM food crops and just 18% would accept GM animals," he says.
Media conference and GM-free Fiesta - Monday August 7 at 1 pm, Batman Park, opp. Melbourne Convention Centre, venue for ABIC2006. A celebration of GM-free and organic food, street theatre, speeches, displays and music. Show ABIC2006 that Victorians want a GM-free future.
More comment: Bob Phelps 1300 133 868, 0408 195 099 info@geneethics.org
* Australians still wary about GM food - ABC, 30 June 2006

GM-free intentions defended - The Mercury, 29 June 06 - http://www.themercury.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,19622882%255E3462,00.html
TASMANIA must maintain its freedom from genetically modified technology or risk valuable agricultural exports, the Primary Industry Minister has told a Budget estimates hearing. Rowallan MLC Greg Hall asked Minister David Llewellyn whether the state was considering a policy of coexistence between genetically modified and traditional crops, as part of a national review of GM technology. Mr Llewellyn said he could not support coexistence as it had major ramifications for Tasmania. "We are positioning Tasmania as GM-free and we don't want to fall in with those who would target less-than discerning buyers," Mr Llewellyn said this week. "There is a push at a national level to move the issue on by saying coexistence policies should be adopted by each state. I don't believe it's a viable alternative. I don't want us to lose our competitive advantage." Mr Llewellyn said the managing director of a major Japanese importer of Tasmanian products said if the state moved down the GM line, it would cut its ties with the state. Mr Hall said the potential for losses to Tasmania from the moratorium on genetically modified organisms had to be fully assessed by Mr Llewellyn. "I urge the Minister to keep an open mind on GMOs and put Tasmania's future prosperity above politics in the lead-up to making a decision when the moratorium expires," he said. But Mr Llewellyn said there was nothing stopping research, it was the application in the environment that the Government was concerned about.

$851,890 Government handout to GM companies - Media release, GeneEthics Network, May 1, 2006
Commonwealth Government grants of $851,890 for gene technology studies, announced last Friday by Agriculture Minister McGauran, are designed to justify the fast tracking of genetically manipulated (GM) crops and foods into Australia. The money is from the $3.8 million Biotechnology Strategy for Agriculture, Food and Fibre, part of the National Biotechnology Strategy, a government misallocation of scarce resources needed for higher priorities.
"This cash cow for corporate interests is the opening salvo in another wasteful taxpayer-funded government/industry PR campaign to trash the GM-free values held by most Australian family farmers and shoppers," says GeneEthics Network Director, Bob Phelps. "These in-house studies, by the Bureau of Rural Sciences, the Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and the private sector, exclude the public and independent experts," he says. "The eight reports will be published only after they are massaged in secret with a GM-friendly corporate spin that justifies the marketing of GM seeds and foods, and 'the introduction of GM canola' by Bayer and Monsanto," he says. "The disinformation strategy will target the popular state and territory moratoria which have been placed on commercial GM canola until 2008 at least, to effectively create a national ban on this contaminating crop," he says.
"The study of economic threats to organic farming from GM contamination is just window-dressing, as the biggest challenge of GM canola would be to conventional GM-free growers who do not have the organic industry's closed-loop marketing and identity preservation systems to protect them," he says. "The GM industry wants to release commercial GM canola immediately and then force conventional GM-free canola growers to market their crop as GM, by burdening them with extra costs to test, segregate and market as GM-free," he says. "Like the North American experience, Australian farmers are now discouraged from saving and replanting their own seed. Once committed, if GM canola arrives the commercial GM-free varieties will soon become unavailable. Choice would end but there would be no escape," he says. "A Rural Industry Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC) report has already found that GM canola contamination would end Australia's competitive advantage for GM-free canola in Europe and Asia, and that other grain and oilseed markets would also be at risk," he says. "RIRDC also concluded that the maximum likely benefit from GM canola would be just A$28 million per year. That's a lot of pain for little gain," he says. "The National/Liberal Coalition government rides roughshod over GM-free sentiments and plans to sell out family farmers and shoppers to corporate interests, at public expense," Mr Phelps concludes.
More comment: Bob Phelps 03 9347 4500 (O) 03 9889 1717 (H) 0408 195 099 (M)
Agriculture Minister Peter McGauran has announced $851,890 for eight major gene technology studies to cover:
1. the value of biotechnology for insect pest and weed control in the cropping sector, including experiences with GM cotton;
2. the potential for GM crops to serve as factories for pharmaceutical and industrial compounds, including a review of recent developments world-wide;
3. examining the implications of using gene technology in the oilseeds industry;
4. developing an overview of the value of using biotechnology tools (excluding those GM organisms that are final products) in Australia's primary industries;
5. developing an up-to-date information package on GM canola that covers the particular concerns of government, industry and the wider community;
6. reviewing international market access for GM canola, including regulatory arrangements in countries important to the world canola trade;
7. a pathway to market for GM canola, including identifying the measures needed to address concerns about its commercial introduction; and
8. the economic impact on the organic farming industry of introducing GM crops into Australia, including the treatment of GM organisms in organic certification systems.

Gene Technology Act Review: a failed report - Media release, GeneEthics Network, May 1, 2006
The Gene Technology Act 2000 Review Panel report, issued on Thursday, ignored most of the 280 submissions made to them and instead recommended weaker laws on Genetically Manipulated Organisms (GMOs). The report backs the GM industry's agenda, despite many flaws in the regulatory system and its implementation which we asked the panel to fix.
"We reject the recommendations that: 'the Act be amended to include powers for the relevant Minister to issue a special licence in an emergency' (Rec 4.2) and 'provide capacity for the Commonwealth to declare a thing a GMO by regulation for a limited period in an emergency.' (Rec 9.3)," says Director of the GeneEthics Network, Bob Phelps. "Responding to emergencies is important, but the report makes no recommendations on the need to prevent GM disasters before they arise, even though there have been many instances of mismanagement, accident and unauthorised GMO releases in the past twenty years," he says. "If these recommendations were enacted, infringements of GM laws would be regularised and excused retrospectively without penalty, making the monitoring and compliance provisions of the Act even more meaningless and poorly enforced than they are now," he says. "For instance, the proposed changes would fully legitimise the governments' decision last year to legalise GM contamination after it was found in conventional canola, by retrospectively adopting contamination thresholds of .9% in grain and .5% in seed," he says. "Governments should have ordered canola testing, a product recall, an environmental cleanup and the quarantining of all contaminated canola seed supplies, to ensure that GM contamination did not recur, but nothing was done," he says.
The Statutory Review also recommends that all governments, 'reconfirm their commitment to a nationally consistent scheme for gene technology, including a nationally consistent transparent approach to market considerations.' (Rec 9.1) "This is an unwelcome intrusion into state and territory powers on behalf of the GM industry. The popularly supported state and territory moratoria on commercial GM canola, which will continue until 2008 at least, fall outside the scope of the Gene Technology Act," he says. "The regulator insists that the environment and public health are the only issues within the scope of her Act and the review recommends the scope of the Act remain unchanged," he says. "A policy principle under Section 21 of the Act legitimises the moratoria, by allowing the establishment of GM and GM-free zones on commercial crops while all market issues are resolved," he says. "Diverse GM laws in each state address their differing market needs, so the moratoria in no way undermine the consensus behind strong national uniform gene technology laws," he says. "We encourage the states and territories to fully consult their communities and critically assess the impacts of the report's recommendations before they change anything," Mr Phelps concludes.
More comment: Bob Phelps 03 9347 4500 (O) 03 9889 1717 (H) 0408 195 099 (M)
Copies of the report can be found at: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/wcms/publishing.nsf/Content/gtreview-report.htm

Watchdog fails on GM food: Chance - Eloise Dortch - West Australian, pg 11 - http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=2711
Agriculture Minister Kim Chance has attacked the national food safety watchdog, claiming it does not adequately assess health impacts of genetically modified crops. He said more information was needed about the effects of GM food for public health and to inform WA Government policy, which currently includes a moratorium on commercial GM crops. Mr Chance opened fire in defence of the Governments move to fund one of only a few trials to be held worldwide into the effect of feeding animals genetically modified crops.
The plan has attracted criticism from pro-GM scientists and Food Standards Australia New Zealand because the work will be conducted by a research group which is openly opposed to GM products. The trial, due to start mid-year, will see laboratory rats or mice fed GM and non-GM crops over a six month period. Their blood and organs will then be analysed to see if there is any significant difference between those fed different crops. The Government has given a South Australian group, the Institute of Health and Environmental Research, $92,000 to conduct the trial. Institute director Judy Carman said previous trials, generally focussing on one function such as reproductivity, had shown rodents fed GM crops were significantly less healthy  with greater infant mortality, slower growth rates and lower immunity.
Mr Chance said that after announcing the trial in November he had received letters from US scientists criticising the move. All the scientists received research funding from GM companies. Mr Chance said Dr Carman was a "world-class scientist. In addition, the trial would be overseen by an independent steering committee of respected scientists and the results peer-reviewd for publication in a scientific journal. NZ's approach was inadequate (Testing by FSANZ) is not rigorous at all. What they do is review information sent to them by the GM companies and the review is fairly superficial and they don't look at the raw data," Mr Chance said.
FSANZ spokesperson Lydia Buchtmann agreed FSANZ did not conduct trials involving feeding animals or people GM foods. She said FSANZ used product data from GM companies and compared it with data about conventionally grown food of the same type in deciding to approve products. The decisions were extensively peer-reviewed by Australian and international scientists. "To date no studies have shown any problem with the foods we have approved and we are well regarded internationally," she said.

Democrats will maintain GM ban - Eyre Peninsula Tribune, Australia - 23 February 2006
http://www.cleve.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=news&subclass=local&story_id=460969&category=General%20News&m=2&y=2006
The South Australian Democrats have announced they will move to support the State's ban on genetically modified (GM) crops when the Parliament resumes after the State Election. Democrat Ian Gilfillan said one of the reasons behind the move is some markets are still extremely cautious about genetically modified foods. "Recent premium prices paid by Japan for Kangaroo Island GM-free canola is clear evidence that markets still strongly prefer GM-free produce to produce that has been contaminated," he said. "To abandon our GM-free status now risks losing access to some of the world's best and most sensitive markets.....This would be disastrous for our state economy, which relies heavily on agriculture......The South Australian Democrats believe that as more and more producing countries lost their GM-free status, we stand to benefit increasingly from our ability to guarantee GM-free products."
Member for Flinders Liz Penfold believes farmers should be involved in making any decision on an extension to the GM ban in SA and will "be led by them." "We've had a five-year moratorium and now it's up to the farmers," she said. "The first decision has to be whether we will join with the rest of the State and then it's up to everyone whether we go down the (GM) path." Mrs Penfold said she thinks people are more aware of all the issues surrounding GM crops and believes more people are now in favour of growing GM crops.
The current ban expires in April 2007.

Australian Government backs Terminator technology - ancient practice of seed-saving under threat - News Release, 22 February 2006
The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) adopted a de facto moratorium on Terminator (sterile seed) technologies, in 2000. Terminator technology, sterilises crop seeds, prevents the ancient practice of seed saving and gives patent owners monopoly control of seed fertility. At the next CBD meeting in Brazil (20-31 March 2006) the Australian Government delegation appears set to help lift a global Terminator ban.
"It's outrageous that the Australian Government is backing Terminator seeds on behalf of the gene technology industry, and the US government which is not a party to the CBD so cannot vote," says GeneEthics Network Director, Bob Phelps. "The Australian government would undermine food security and the biodiversity on which all life depends, for interests which act in bad faith by not even joining the Convention," he says. "Australia is doing the dirty work for Monsanto and the US government which are hostile to biodiversity conservation and have no place at CBD meetings," he says.
Terminator technology was developed to prevent farmers from saving and re-using harvested seed, forcing them to buy new seeds each season. After global protests, in 1999 Monsanto CEO Robert Shapiro said, "We are making a public commitment not to commercialise sterile seed technologies, such as the one dubbed 'Terminator'." But now, Monsanto says it will only keep Terminator out of food crops - opening the door to Terminator cotton, tobacco, pharmaceutical crops and pastures - and says, "Monsanto does not rule out the potential development and use of one of these technologies in the future. The company will continue to study the risks and benefits of this technology on a case-by-case basis."
"Monsanto's revised pledge resonates closely with the actions of the Australian, Canadian and New Zealand delegations that are promoting Terminator at the UN on a case-by-case basis," says Bob Phelps. "Australia must not back an end the Terminator ban, by echoing the languageof Monsanto's weak new promise on suicide seed technology," he concludes.
Contact: Bob Phelps: Tel: 03 9347 4500 {Int Code +613} Mob: 0408 195 099
Three Hundred Organisations Back Terminator ban
The International Ban Terminator campaign today announces that over 300 diverse civil society organisations worldwide demand a permanent ban on Terminator technology, which sterilises crop seeds and prevents the ancient practice of seed saving. See: http://www.banterminator.org/endorsements
"A total and permanent ban on Terminator is needed so we urge all governments to dismiss Monsanto's watered down case-by-case approach when the CBD meets in Brazil next month," says Lucy Sharratt, Coordinator, Ban Terminator Campaign.
"The gene technology companies want nothing to be grown without a licence making them the masters of sterility and reproduction," says Greenpeace International's Benny Haerlin. "They are pursuing a step by step strategy - tagged 'case by case' - to gain control of the global food supply and undermine the integrity and fertility of nature."
The technology threatens agricultural biodiversity and could destroy food production for the 1.4 billion people who depend on farm-saved seed. "The world's farmers and Indigenous peoples cannot trust Monsanto," says Alejandro Argumedo from Asociación ANDES - Potato Park in Cusco, Peru. "Monsanto's broken promise is a deadly betrayal because Indigenous peoples and farmers depend on seed saving for food security and self-determination."
"Terminator is a direct assault on farmers, Indigenous cultures and on the food sovereignty and well-being of all rural people, especially the poorest," said Chukki Nanjundaswamy of La Via Campesina in India, which represents tens of millions of peasant farmers worldwide. "If Australia and Monsanto bully the UN into allowing 'case by case' acceptance of Terminator, developing world farmers will be carried off the land coffin by coffin."
Ends
For more information contact:
Canada:
Lucy Sharratt, Coordinator, Ban Terminator Campaign; Pat Mooney, ETC Group Jim Thomas, ETC Group T: +1 613 241 2267
lucy@banterminator.org - jim@etcgroup.org - www.banterminator.org
USA:
Hope Shand, ETC Group T: +1 919 9605767 - hope@etcgroup.org - www.etcgroup.org
Peru:
Alejandro Argumedo, Asociación ANDES. T: +51 84 245021 - andes@andes.org.pe - www.andes.org.pe
Malaysia:
Chee Yoke Ling, Third World Network. T: + 60 4 226 6159 - twnet@po.jaring.my - www.twnside.org.sg
India:
Chukki Nanjundaswamy, La Via Campesina. T: +91 80 860 4640 - chukki_krrs@yahoo.co.in - www.viacampesina.org
International:
Benedikt Haerlin, Greenpeace Int T: +49 30 27590309 - bhaerlin@extra.greenpeace.org
Notes to editors:
1. Monsanto's new pledge on Terminator and GURTs is online at http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/content/media/pubs/2005/pledgereport.pdf. A full copy of their new and old pledges is available at www.banterminator.org
2. Delta and Pine Land refer to Terminator as Technology Protection System (TPS). Terminator is currently being tested in greenhouses and Delta and Pine Land vowed to commercialize it within the next few years.
3. In February 2005 at a meeting of the CBD's Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Assessment (SBSTTA) in Bangkok, Canadian government delegates made a surprise attempt to overturn the moratorium by allowing Terminator to be field tested and commercialized. Last month, at another preparatory meeting in Granada, Spain (known as the Working Group on 8j), the Australian government, coached by a US State Department representative, also attacked the moratorium. See ETC Group news release on 27th January 2006: "Granada's Grim Sowers Plow up the moratorium on Terminator" available at http://www.etcgroup.org/article.asp?newsid=542

GM CANOLA FACT SHEET - A PROFIT OR A LOSS? - http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/documents/factsheet.doc
GM canola is the least popular of the GM crops with only 18% global adoption rate and almost all of that is grown in Canada. While both Canadian and Australian canola yields experienced a gradual increase in yields as farm practises improved, statistics show that Canadian yields did not increase as GM canola was introduced. Australian and Canadian canola yields are very similar and there is no evidence of the 10-40% yield claimed.
Over 20% of Canadian farmers grow a non-GM variety called Clearfield and yet that same variety is available, but not popular in Australia. There is also now very clear evidence of a price penalty associated with GM or GM contaminated produce. Attempts to segregate in Canada failed and almost all canola is sold as GM. Canada lost their premium over Australian canola of $US32.68/tonne and are now faced with price penalties up to $US30/tonne and are experiencing large carryover stocks despite their major market being US which is not GM sensitive.
With little benefit, higher costs and lower commodity prices and an inability to segregate, there is a risk, not a benefit associated with GM canola.
DOWNLOAD FACTSHEET AT: http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/documents/factsheet.doc
http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/

NGOs hit out at Australia, Canada and New Zealand for opening the door to GM Terminator Technology
From: The UK Campaigning Group on Terminator Technology
An alliance of leading environment and development organisations has condemned Australia, Canada and New Zealand for attempting to open the door to Terminator technology, a form of genetic-modification that would make seeds sterile and threaten the livelihoods of small-scale farmers. The alliance, which is known as the UK Campaigning Group on Terminator technology, has sent letters of protest to the High Commissioners of all three countries to raise concerns over proposals to weaken the global moratorium on Terminator technology, which would effectively give Terminator the green light. The alliance's response follows a meeting of the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) in Spain from 23 to 27 January, which was attended by representatives from Australia, Canada and New Zealand, among others. The meeting reaffirmed the CBD moratorium on Terminator technology, but recommendations were made for case-by-case risk assessment. This would ignore the serious concerns raised globally by Indigenous peoples and small-scale farmers on the negative potential impacts of Terminator. Instead, these recommendations would mark a move towards assessing applications of Terminator on a country-by-country basis.
The alliance is also concerned about the influence of the US on decisions around Terminator. The US refused to sign the Convention on Biodiversity but works through other countries to influence decision-making at crucial meetings. The alliance fears that the governments of Australia, Canada and New Zealand are working in collusion with the US administration and the biotechnology industry. Elisabet Lopez from the UK Campaigning Group on Terminator Technology, said today: 'We are deeply concerned that the US can still influence the result of CBD meetings despite not being Party to the Treaty. The recommendations coming from last week's meeting open the door for Terminator to be introduced. As signatories to the first Millennium Development Goal to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger by 2015, Australia, Canada and New Zealand cannot justify their support for Terminator technology in the face of massive opposition from Southern countries and farmers around the world.'
Terminator technology is a technology designed to make seeds sterile. As a result, it would prevent farmers from saving seeds from their own crops each year. This would threaten global food security and the livelihoods of 1.4 billion small-scale farmers who depend on seeds they save or exchange with neighbours and other communities. This traditional practice of seed saving has the twin benefits that seeds are adapted to local conditions and are free of charge. Terminator is being developed to stop farmers from saving seeds and to ensure that biotech companies can gather royalty payments and technology fees from farmers each year. The US Department of Agriculture is a joint patent holder for one type of Terminator patented in the US, Europe and Canada. The major biotechnology corporations have also obtained patents for their versions of Terminator technology. The issue now moves to the major CBD meeting in Brazil from 20 to 31 March.
Notes to editors
1. The UK Campaigning Group on Terminator Technology includes UK Food Group, Progressio (formerly CIIR), Friends of the Earth, GM Freeze, GeneWatch UK, The Gaia Foundation, Econexus and Munlochy GM Vigil. Link to www.eco-matters.org for free copies of a leaflet on Terminator Technology.
2. The global moratorium is CBD Decision V/5 section III agreed in 2000. This decision states that products incorporating Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (GURTs) should not be approved for field-testing or commercial use.
3. The fourth meeting of the Working Group on the implementation of Article 8j of the CBD (concerning the preservation and use of Traditional Knowledge for the conservation of biodiversity in indigenous and local communities) was held in Granada on 23-27 January.
4. The official name for Terminator is Varietal Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (V-GURTs). Terminator prevents seeds forming embryos and therefore they fail to germinate. Seeds are soaked in particular chemicals to switch on the Terminator gene before they are sold to farmers.
5. Terminator is a biological way to protect patents on GM crops "The goal of (the Terminator technology) is to increase the value of proprietary seed owned by US seed companies and to open up new markets in Second and Third World countries," Willard Phelps, USDA spokesperson, March 1998.
6. The US Department of Agriculture jointly holds the patent for one version of Terminator technology with the US corporation Delta & Pine Land in the USA (1998) and Europe and Canada (October 2005).
7. On Tuesday 14 February (3:30-4:45pm) Joan Ruddock will chair a parliamentary briefing on Terminator technology in the House of Commons (Committee Room 6). For invitations see contact details below.
8. Cross party Early Day Motion 1300 Terminator technology has to date been signed by 57 MPs from all major parties.
Press enquiries to: Finola Robinson, Progressio's Press Officer, on 0207 354 0883 or via email at: finola@progressio.org.uk
(See also the leaflet on Terminator at - http://www.progressio.org.uk/Templates/AssociatesHome2.asp?NodeID=91487)

AUSTRALIA CHALLENGES GLOBAL BAN ON GE TERMINATOR TECHNOLOGY AT BIODIVERSITY CONVENTION MEETING IN SPAIN
Gene-Ethics Network - MEDIA ALERT 27/1/06
Australia is doing dirty work for the USA and its genetic engineering industry at the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) meeting in Granada, Spain, this week. Advised by the US, Australia is trying to end the de facto global ban on GE terminator technology which will be used tomake seeds infertile, to prevent seed saving and enforce corporate seed
patents. "Though Monsanto, Delta and Pine Land, and other GE seed companies publicly promised to halt the development of Gene Use Restriction Technologies (GURTS) after a global outcry in 1999, our government now seeks to lift the ban," says Bob Phelps, Director of the GeneEthics Network. "Terminator seeds are the most immoral and controversial use of agricultural genetic engineering, yet an axis of evil governments - Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the USA - are brow-beating the rest of the world to end the terminator ban," he says. "The Howard government is clearly assisting GE companies to get a stranglehold on the world's food supply," he says. "Industry promises to 'feed the world' are shown to be a total lie, created for the purpose of getting monopoly control of the food we all eat," he says. "Our government has not consulted the traditional farmers and seedsavers who would be directly affected, nor the Australian public whose food security will be at risk," he says. "Developing country governments oppose terminator seed as it threatens the tried and true methods developed by their farmers and indigenous peoples over aeons," he says. "Our own farmers would lose their choice of crop varieties and production methods too," he says.
"Terminator technology would make it impossible for farmers to re-plant saved seed, tightening GE company control over patented seed varieties which must be purchased each season at whatever price the companies decide to charge," he says. "Farmers world-wide would be shackled to buying new seed each season and unable to replant saved seed as they've been doing for thousands of years," he says. "The spread of terminator genes to other crops and wild plants through pollen transfer could make their seeds sterile too," he says, "threatening the natural environment as well as farm sutainability." "The farmers' selection of seed that is adapted to changing environmental conditions and local practices would end, so that global food production and security may fail," he says. "We call on the Australian government to immediately terminate its advocacy for terminator technology, and inform the Australian public of its outrageous behaviour," Mr Phelps concludes.
For meeting reports see:
http://www.iisd.ca/biodiv/wg8j-4/
http://post-office.clara.net:8080/cgi-bin/webmail/login/patrickmulvany.auth mysql/3F13783DE52010A6519F7D04E35B4642//cgi-bin/webmail?redirect=http%3A%2F% 2Fwww.iisd.ca%2Fbiodiv%2Fwg8j-4%2F&timestamp=1138353864&md5=f71QgFU4 9JBMQOUQLl8Rug%3D%3D
and background
http://www.banterminator.org/
http://post-office.clara.net:8080/cgi-bin/webmail/login/patrickmulvany.auth mysql/3F13783DE52010A6519F7D04E35B4642//cgi-bin/webmail?redirect=http%3A%2F% 2Fwww.banterminator.org%2F&timestamp=1138353864&md5=f71QgFU49JBMQOUQ Ll8Rug%3D%3D
More comment: Bob Phelps 03 9347 4500

GM-canola in lab tests - By Linda Sharman - Countryman December 1 2005 page 5 - http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=2574
Genetically modified canola varieties Roundup Ready and Invigor are likely to be assessed under an animal feeding trial to be funded by the State Government. And Topas 19/2, the Bayer variety found in non-GM canola recently, may also be added to the trial. Agriculture Minister Kim Chance anounced the trial earlier this week, which aims to gain independent data on the safety, or otherwise, of GM food crops. The Government has approved a proposal from the Institute of Health and Envirronmetal Research in Adelaide, a not-for-profit research institute which describes itself as having a scientific interest in the safety of GM organisms. The announcement follows news that a study on a variety of GM pea caused inflammation of the lungs of mice.
IHER director Judy Carman told Countryman that in the initial proposal put to the Government a few months ago, she had recommended two canola varieties - Monsanto's Roundup Ready and Bayer Cropscience's InVigor - and three corn varieties, probably Bt varieties, be investigated. But Dr Carman said she would recommend that now be expanded to three varieties to include Topas 19/2, also produced by Bayer Cropscience. "We're wanting to pick a few key GM plants where there are some significant concerns about the safety of them, do the independent, thorough, long-term safety testing and see if there are any concerns or not," she said. Dr Carman said while IHER believed there was a need for independent safety testing, with Food Standards Australia and New Zealand not requiring any animal testing before determining if a GM product was safe to eat, she stressed the research was not setting to get a pre-determined result. "We're trying to work out if there are problems or not," she said.
And Mr Chance is of a similar view, saying the trial would be an independent study of GM food crops so that the WA government could gets its own data on GM foods, with much of the research usually done or funded by the companies promoting the product. Rats will be used in the feeding studies, which will be conducted over several months to allow for any ill health to become apparent. The study will examine the rats for any cancerous or precancerous growths, and assess the potential for GM DNA to enter their bodies, although Dr Carman expects the finer details of exactly how the trial will be conducted and assessed to be run by a sterering committee. This is expected to be formed by the end of the year, and will be made up of 8-10 people from animal and human health and agriculture backgrounds to oversee the work and ensure the experiment is conducted properly.

WA to fund independent health testing on GM foods - State GM study splits farmers - The West Australian, 28 November 2005
http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=2563
The State Government has announced it will fund laboratory testing on rats to determine the safety of genetically modified food crops, sparking a rift between farming groups. Agriculture Minister Kim Chance said most GM research in Australia was done by or funded by companies with a vested interest in promoting GM food, prompting community concern about its safety. Mr Chance said the study by Adelaide's Institute of Health and Environmental Research would give the Government independent data. But the announcement has divided farming groups.
Anti-GM lobby group Network of Concerned Farmers welcomed the decision, but WAFarmers fears the announcement will stall the formation of a high-level advisory group to examine a path for commercialised genetically modified crops in WA. Concerned Farmers spokeswoman Julie Newman said an independent study was vital considering GM crops could not be recalled if they later proved dangerous."We cannot rely on voluntary testing done by companies focused on promoting GM crops," Mrs Newman said."They only give the public information that supports their case and are unlikely to release any information that would damage their ultimate goal of having GM crops in Australia."
WAFarmers president Trevor DeLandgrafft suspects the study will duplicate testing already done. "At the end of the day, all testing has to get past the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, which is a Federal office for determining the safety of foods," Mr De Landgrafft said."It may be useful, in that it could allay fears in the minds of people who don't trust existing studies but may trust an independent study."If it did this it could be useful, but it could end up just d