French court acquits anti-GMO protesters - http://euronews.net/create_html.php?page=detail_info&article=325334&lng=1
A court in Orleans, France, has acquitted 49 people for having destroyed genetically modified crops in 2004 and 2005. The acquittal is the first of its kind, and although the plaintiff, American seeds giant Monsanto, is to appeal against the decision, the anti-GMO lobby is claiming the ruling is a great victory. Protestor Francois Dufour said: "There should be no GMO's in our fields, and the ruling confirms this. It encourages us to continue to influence the political debate and eliminate GMO's from agriculture," he said after the verdict.
The judges said the protesters "proved that they committed voluntary acts of damage on the goods of a third party in response to the needs of the situation ... a necessity driven by the uncontrolled release of modified genes that constitutes a real and present danger, and may be a source of undesired contamination and pollution". The protesters also claim France's position is illegal, as EU legislation has been incorrectly copied into French statutes, ignoring Brussels' demand that" detailed and accurate environmental risks" must be evaluated.

The 5-year moratorium is now part of the Swiss constitution.
SAG and Blueridge-Institute (www.gentechfrei.ch and www.blauen-institut.ch) - 29.11.2005 - by Florianne Koechlin and Daniel Ammann
Switzerland voted in favour of a 5-year moratorium for commercial cultivation of genetically engineered plants and animals on Sunday, 27.11.2005. The moratorium does not apply for research into GMOs, nor does it stop import of GMO-food or feed. It is a spectacular victory: 55,7% of voters accepted the initiative (people's referendum), as well as all 26 cantons of Switzerland. Even Basel, seat of Syngenta, Novartis and Roche, said Yes to the 5-year moratorium, with 50,8 %, while the canton Jura had with 75,9% the highest majority. 1'125 357 people voted for the initiative, 896'372 against it.
The Swiss 'initiative' is an instrument of direct democracy. A group launching such an initiative has to collect over 100'000 signatures, the request has to conform with Swiss constitution. Our initiative was submitted on 18.9.2003. After discussion in Government and Parliament it was submitted to the voters on 27.11.2005. Every Swiss person over 18 could vote. An initiative is won when a majority of all people as well as a majority of all cantons say Yes. If it is won, it becomes part of the Swiss Constitution.
In the history of Switzerland only 15 initiatives were won; it's a rare event, and if so, it's mostly very tight. In this light the extremely clear result of the moratorium-initiative is even more encouraging. Add to this that the Government, the Parliament, all conservative parties (having a majority in Switzerland), industry and mainstream science opposed the initiative, leading an aggressive and emotional campaign (the government announced: "The moratorium is poison for research", big adds claimed: "The moratorium is dishonest and superfluous")
A new and very broad coalition made this victory possible. All farmers organisations, also the conservative ones, joined in with ecological and consumer groups. (A few weeks before the vote a 'farmers committee against the moratorium' came up; managing director was an ex-Syngenta man). 96 scientists signed a declaration for the moratorium (while the opposition came up with a declaration of 171 scientists). A true grassroot movement campaigned for the initiative, in every village, in town districts, everywhere. Over 1000 Members of national and cantonal Parliaments were active for the moratorium, as well as retailers, groups of farmers, scientists, women.
The victors of the referendum ask the federal authorities to immediately put the implementation in hand:
1. The federation has to boost, encourage consistently a strategy of quality in agriculture (Agrarpolitik 2011), in processing of food as well as food trade. Switzerland has to lead the way in Europe for the production of gmo-free food and the breeding of gmo-free seed.
2. The federation may not make international agreements during the next five years that contradict a gmo-free agriculture (WTO, free trade agreement).
3. The gene technology law has to be concretised according to the will of the public: coexistence, GMO-monitoring and biosafety need clear regulation, that guarantee after expiration of the moratorium the protection of the gmo-free agriculture. Genetically modified plants of the so called "first generation", which are plants with tolerance of herbicides or which contain Bt-genes should not be cultivated.
4. The federal authorities should assure the international development of ecological as well as social problems caused by agro-biotechnology.
5. The research in agriculture has to orientate himself on the needs of society and agriculture. Research has to be strenthen in organic agriculture. Research based on genetic engineering in the area of agriculture has to face up criticism and scepticism of the public. A main focus has to be put on biosafety research.
6. Imports of genetically modified food and feed have to be documented in a public statistics. Imports as well as research with deliberate release have to be regulated, the gmo-free agriculture is in no way to be put at risk.

Austria to launch EU-wide GMO debate after Swiss referendum - By Lucia Kubosova - EUobserver.com, 29 November 2005
http://euobserver.com/9/20431
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - Austria is planning to hold a pan-European debate about genetically-modified (GM) farming, following strong Swiss support for a five-year ban on gene technology in a referendum on Sunday (27 November). Vienna will take over the EU's six-month rotating presidency in January and aims to host a conference about GM crops on 4-5 April, the country's agriculture minister Josef Proell has announced. Austria is one of the staunchest opponents of GM technology in the EU and is sticking to its own ban on modified plants within its territory. Along with Italy, Austrian authorities indicated they view the Swiss vote as strong proof of the European public's opposition to GM farming. Although Switzerland is not a member state of the EU, the result of the referendum will "make people think," Italian agriculture minister Gianni Alemanno commented.
Swiss citizens supported a five-year moratorium on the farming of genetically modified plants and animals, paving the way for introduction of the strictest restrictions yet in Europe. Over 55 percent of voters backed the moratorium, with a majority supporting the move in all 26 of the country's regions or "cantons." The decision forces the Swiss government to impose a full moratorium on the cultivation of GM crops and the import of animals whose genes have been modified in the laboratory, despite officials' pro-GM feeling. But the new law will not forbid import of genetically modified food or ban research into GMOs (genetically-modified organisms).
EU battle
Swiss campaigners say they co-operated with groups from the EU and expect the Swiss result to generate strong popular backing for similar moves across the EU. But the biotechnology sector fears that a Europe-wide anti-GMO trend could stifle research. The European Commission declined to comment on the result of the Swiss vote on Monday, but confirmed it would study its implications for future trade relations with the Alpine federation. The EU executive last year lifted a six-year moratorium on the sale of GM foods. Some of the bloc's member states, like Spain, the UK and the Netherlands argue that Europe has sufficient safeguards in place and should move ahead on GM farming. But several other countries insist new tests must be carried out before allowing widespread farming of GM crops. Spain is currently the only EU country with large areas given over to GM crops.

Switzerland 'backs GM crop ban' - BBC News, Sunday 27 November 2005 - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4475044.stm
Swiss voters have approved a five-year ban on the use of genetically modified crops, partial results from Sunday's referendum suggest. Results from most of the country's 26 cantons show that more than 55% have voted in favour of the moratorium. Supporters of the ban include farmers, who believe that the introduction of GM crops would undermine organic produce. But the biotechnology industry had campaigned against the ban, saying the country must accept new developments. The BBC Imogen Foulkes in Berne says the Swiss have long been suspicious of genetically modified crops. Only one tiny experimental GM crop of wheat has ever been grown on Swiss soil, by scientists at the University of Zurich. Surveys show Swiss consumers would not buy GM produce.
The EU lifted its own moratorium on GM crops last year. Switzerland, although not a member of the EU, was under pressure to do the same.
Swiss agree to 5-year GMO farming ban - Reuters, Sun Nov 27, 2005
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyID=2005-11-27T135538Z_01_MOL749996_RTRIDST_0_SCIENCE-FOOD-SWISS-GMO-DC.XML&archived=False
ZURICH (Reuters) - Switzerland voted in favor of a five-year ban on the use of genetically modified plants and animals in farming on Sunday, putting in place some of the toughest measures in Europe. Results of the referendum, compiled by Swiss television SF DRS, showed that 55 percent of voters had accepted the proposal to place a five-year moratorium on GMO crops and the import of genetically modified animals. A majority of Switzerland's 26 cantons had also accepted the ban, SF DRS said. Officials are expected to confirm the national result later on Sunday. Final results take months to be published. The measures will force the Swiss government to put in place some of the toughest legislations on GMOs in Europe. In the 25-nation European Union that surrounds Switzerland, restrictions apply to specific crops only and are temporary in nature, rather than the blanket ban proposed by Swiss ecologists and consumer groups. The proposal is supported by Swiss farmers, many of whom are considering moving into the booming organic farming business in response to moves to cut traditional agricultural subsidies. Under the country's legislative system, the Swiss electorate is regularly asked to vote on major decisions. However, while the vote has a symbolic meaning, a ban will mean very little change from current practice, said those who opposed the motion. [because it was already so difficult to grow GMOs]
Swiss back GMO moratorium and labour law - swissinfo November 27, 2005 1:47 PM
http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.html?siteSect=107&sid=6270253&cKey=1133103805000
Swiss voters have backed a call for a five-year ban on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in Swiss agriculture. Near-final results show almost 56 per cent of voters approving a people's initiative for a temporary ban on GMOs. All the country's 26 cantons backed the proposals by environmentalists and consumer groups. The ballot on the GMO moratorium comes after parliament passed a new law in 2003, which allows GM crops in Switzerland under certain conditions. Supporters of the proposal argue GMOs are neither in the interest of consumers nor of Swiss farmers, and that a moratorium is an opportunity for farmers to improve their marketing for natural production methods.
Consumers and research
The government, the business community, as well as the main centre-right and rightwing parties, all came out against a temporary ban on GMOs. They argue the current law contains enough safety guarantees and a ban could be detrimental to biotechnology research in the country. But the lobby groups, supported by the Greens and the centre-left Social Democrats, say their aim is not to oppose research but to allow time to consider the potential risks of GMOs. The electorate overwhelmingly voted down a far-reaching ban on GMOs in 1998.

Commission authorises Danish state aid to compensate for losses due to presence of GMOs in conventional and organic crops
European Commission, PRESS RELEASE - 23 November 2005
http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/05/1458&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en
The European Commission has today authorised Denmark to pay compensation in cases where farmers with conventional or organic production suffer economic losses when genetically modified (GM) material is found in their crops. This is the first case where the Commission has authorised such state aid. The compensation will be granted only if the presence of GM material exceeds 0.9% and is limited to the price difference between the market price of a crop that has to be labelled as containing GM material and a crop for which no such labelling is required. The compensation is entirely financed by obligatory contributions from farmers who cultivate genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
The admixture of conventional crops with GM material may cause economic losses to the farmer with conventional crops if his products have to be labelled as containing GM material and he gets a lower price for them. This is in particular the case with products from organic farming. At this point no insurance products against this risk exist in the European Union. The Danish compensation scheme institutes a compensation fund, wholly financed by the producers of GM crops with an annual parafiscal tax of DKR 100 per hectare of land cultivated with such crops, to cover the economic losses due to admixture with GM material. The scheme is administered by the Danish authorities.
Compensation may be paid only to farmers and if the amount of GM material exceeds 0.9 % of the conventional or organic crop, which means that the product has to be labelled as containing GMOs, as provided by EU law (Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 on genetically modified food and feed). The amount of compensation is limited the price difference (based on official market prices) between the GM crop and conventional or organic crops. The payment of compensation does not free the GM farmer from any civil or criminal liability under Danish law. The Danish authorities will in all cases take action to recover the compensation paid from the farmer from whose fields the GM material has spread. The compensation fund will be replaced by private insurance as soon as such is available. The duration of the compensation scheme is limited to 5 years.
The Commission finds that such aid contributes to a successful co-existence of GM crops with conventional and organic crops, not the least because it is wholly financed by the Danish farmers with GM crops and ends when insurance products covering the risk of admixture become available on the Community market. Such aid appears to improve the structures of agricultural production in a way that is compatible with Community policy concerning such co-existence. Therefore the Commission has approved the aid on the basis of EU state aid rules (Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty).
The text of the decisions will shortly be made available on the Internet at http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/droit_com/index_en.htm#aides under the aid number 568/2004..

Ireland's role as biotech stooge - http://www.gmfreeireland.org/(scroll down the page)
In 1997, Fianna Fail issued a policy statement promising never to allow GMO crops in Ireland. But following a White House luncheon with US National Security Adviser Sandy Berger on St. Patrick's Day 1998, Bertie Ahern has actively supported the biotech industry's efforts to force GM food and crops into Europe. Ireland has never voted against legalising GM crops in the European Parliament against the wishes of 70% of consumers and the majority of Member States.
Just before leaving office in late 2005, EU President Pat Cox and EU Healh and Consumer Affairs Commissioner David Byrne ended the de facto moratorium on GM crops by legalising 17 varieties of Monsanto GM maize, to the great annoyance of other EU governments. In 2002, EU Joint Research Centre CEO Dr. Barry McSweeney attempted to suppress the publication of the EC's official Scenarios for Co-existence report on the feasibility of introducing GM crops in EU member states. The report concluded that GM crops inevitably contaminate conventional and organic crops and may cause 40% higher production costs for EU farmers. McSweeney wrote to the EC recommending that the report should not be made public, stating "given the sensitivity of the issue, I would suggest that the report be kept for internal use within the Commission only..". McSweeney's ties to the biotech industry include being a former Director of BioResearch Ireland and Biocon Biochemicals. In 2004, Tanaiste Mary Harney appointed him to the new post of Chief Scientific Officer of Ireland. In October 2005 it emerged that McSweeney bought his PhD from the so-called Pacific Western University, an online institution which US authorities describe as a diploma mill.
Food Safety Authority of Ireland CEO Dr. John O'Brien is a former Director of the International Life Sciences Institute, a Washington-based biotech & tobacco industry front group which infiltrated scientific commitees of the World Health Organisation and the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation in order to downgrade tobacco health warnings and downplay the evidence that high levels of sugar in junk foods cause childhood obesity and diabetes. Monsanto Ireland managing director Dr. Patrick O'Reilly told the Royal Irish Academy that it doesn't matter that GM crops would inevitably contaminate Irish farmers and put organic farmers out of business.
Why does the Irish Times repeatedly deny the evidence of GM health and environmental risks? Irish Times Trust chairman and TCD Genetics professor David McConnell is Co-chair of EAGLES (European Action on Global Life Sciences, an agri-biotech lobby group). Despite opposition by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health, the Food Safety Authority of Ireland has authorised the sale of GM animal feed and food. The Department of Trade and Enterprise has authorised 82 GMO patents. The Department of Agriculture's consultation procedure for a National Strategy on the "co-existence" of GMO crops excludes 80% of the stakeholders and fails to comply with the Aarhus Convention laws on public participation.
This government's fundamentalist pro-GM role as biotech industry stooge will condemn future generations to a perpetual biological colonialism with no possibility of liberation. The only way to prevent this government-led disaster is to deal with it now before it happens. As Margaret Mead said, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world!"

Greenpeace blocks ship in Poland - Staff and agencies - By Malgorzata Rakowiec - Reuters, 17 November, 2005
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2005-11-17T201037Z_01_SCH772582_RTRUKOC_0_US-FOOD-POLAND-GMO.xml&archived=False
GDYNIA, Poland (Reuters) - Rough seas on Thursday forced Greenpeace activists to give up a blockade of a ship they say carried 25,000 tonnes of genetically modified (GMO) Argentinian soya to Poland. In part of a campaign for a wider ban on GMO crops, protestors tied themselves and a rubber dinghy to the ship's anchor chain after it moored, preventing it from docking. They were forced to call off the protest after five hours as the weather worsened in the Baltic coast port and temperatures plunged to below zero. "The weather just got too bad and we couldn't risk the lives of the people attached to the anchor," said Polish official Maciej Muskat. "Unless the weather gets any better and we can try again, it seems like the boat will land its cargo."
Production of genetically modified crops is banned in Poland but imports are not, and Greenpeace wants firms, including U.S. hog and pork producer Smithfield, to stop feeding pigs with modified soya at its Polish farms. "It cannot be the case that Poles do not have an influence on what they eat," Muskat said. "GMO production harms people and destroys the environment and we must oppose it." Campaigners say gene-altered strains threaten to destroy local ecosystems through cross-pollination, and say they contribute to deforestation and lower soil fertility. The manufacturers say the products are safe.
The Warsaw office of U.S. firm Cargill, which Greenpeace identified as the importer of the shipment, had no immediate comment. GMO foods are gaining acceptance around the world [???], but have run into strong resistance in the European Union where many consumers fear what they view as "Frankenstein" foods. Greenpeace says the import of shipments of modified soya from Argentina to Poland, the largest food producer among the EU's new member states, has risen six-fold in the last five years. Warsaw's new government said last week it wanted to make Poland a "GMO-free" zone. "We are counting on this government, after the prime minister's comments, to be more sympathetic to what we are fighting for," Muskat said. "Certainly it is more so than the last government."

Poland parliament approves minority govt - www.chinaview.cn 2005-11-11 [shortened] http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-11/11/content_3764791.htm
WARSAW, Nov. 10 (Xinhuanet) - Poland's minority government under the leadership of Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz was approved on Thursday after winning a vote of confidence in parliament. The 460-seat lower house of parliament endorsed the newly-elected cabinet by 272 to 187 with no abstentions. The cabinet, mainly comprising members of Marcinkiewicz's conservative Law and Justice party, also received support from three other parties, the far-right League of Polish Families (LPR),the Samoobrona, and the Peasants' Party. The approval came seven weeks after parliamentary elections, which gave the Law and Justice party 27 percent of the vote. Analysts say the new cabinet, lacking a majority in the parliament, could be plagued by instability in the longer term. Marcinkiewicz appealed to other parties in the parliament to back his cabinet in a crucial policy speech before the vote. "If you back this ambitious program, which is important for Poland, then ... we will mend the state, we will change our country," he said. Marcinkiewicz promised in the speech to push forward the Polish economy with "pragmatic policies." The new leader also said his government aimed to develop agriculture and rural areas. He pledged Poland would remain a country free of genetically-modified crops while bio-fuel development would be given priority.

Germany plans illegal law on GMOs - Press Release - The Institute for Nature Protection and Nature Protection Law, Tuebingen
The future German government - a coalition of Social Democrats and Christian Democrats - on November 10th 2005 reached an agreement on a new German Genetic Engineering Law. The draft provisions de facto repeal liability for contamination of GMO-free agriculture and take away any incentive for GMO-farmers to take care of their GMO-free neighbors. But the new provisions contravene both German and European law:
1. Following the law of the WTO and EU-law the German Constitution favors a market economy basically free of state influence. The entrepreneur has the right to take the profit of his activities but also has to burden the risks of it. The corollary of this principle is that a company may not generate profits at the expense of the taxpayer. As regards the environment this tenet is even part of the EC-Treaty as Art. 174 explicitly stipulates the polluter pays principle. If the state via a fund bears the costs of GMO contamination inflicted on conventional or organic farmers, he infringes Art. 174 EC-Treaty. Apart from that, it also constitutes an illegal state aid according to Art. 87 EC Treaty because this subsidy distorts the competition between GMO and GMO-free produce.
2. But even a fund completely financed by private companies wouldn't be compatible with long standing tenets of German civil law. According to § 906 German Civil Code a polluter who inflicts damage to his neighbor has to pay compensation even if he complies with good professional practice or other civil obligation. The reason for that is simple: neighbors are bound together in a very special way .They depend in their personal and commercial existence on their plot of land. If there are incompatible uses of the adjacent properties they can't evade this conflict. So the only way to strike a just balance between two neigbors, who both carry out legally admitted activities but nevertheless harm each other is to allow the noxious activity but in turn grant the neighbor compensation claims. This strict liability has been a long standing tenet of German adjacent law right from the beginning until today. If the proposed law would change that in case GMOs are involved the legislator would act arbritrarily and thus breach the prinicple of equality stipulated in Art. 3 of the German Constitution. This unequal treatment specially designed to promote the GMO industry would be a severe discrimination against all GMO-free farmers.
3. But even if the proposed privilege for GMO farmes is not considered as foiling German adjacent law, there is an overwhelming chance, that the concrete design of the new liability rules will run against fundamental guarantees of the German Consitution such as the protection of property of GMO-free farmers (Art. 14) and the obligation of all state powers to protect the environment (Art. 20a). Besides it would also be a breach of Europen law such as the Convention on Biodiversity which the EU is contracting of or the precautionary principle as laid down in Art. 174 EC-Treaty.
The Institute for Nature Protection and Nature Protection Law, Tuebingen
Dr. Christoph Palme, environmental lawyer, Ursrainer Ring 81, D- 72076 Tuebingen www.institut.naturschutzrecht.net
Phone/Facsimile +49 7071 687038 Mobile 0163 435 4160 Christoph.palme@naturschutzrecht.net

International Coalition to Protect the Polish Countryside
We are pleased to be able to report that the board of Opole Province have just reached the decision to declare their Province a GMO Free Zone. This is another significant step forward for our campaign for a GMO Free Poland! It brings the total number of Provinces to have declared GMO Free status to 14 (around 90% of the total area of Poland)..... and leaves just 2 to go. We were active in Opole earlier in the year, addressing a public meeting and lobbying board members, so it is good to see that these actions have born fruit. There are many large farms in the Province and the area is a likely target for Monsanto and Pioneer, so this decision is particularly welcome.
With greetings, Jadwiga and Julian
International Coalition to Protect the Polish Countryside (ICPPC), 34-146 Stryszów 156, Poland tel./fax +48 33 8797114 biuro@icppc.pl
www.icppc.pl www.eko-cel.pl www.gmo.icppc.pl
In April 2002, ICPPC was awarded the Goldman Prize - Ecological Nobel. In June 2002, ICPPC's headquarter, were visited by H.R.H. the Prince of Wales.

Russia is cautious about GM foods - United Press International, October 25 2005 -

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20051025-020106-1996r
MOSCOW, Oct. 25 (UPI) -- Russian scientists say they must study the implications of genetically modified food before such food is widely introduced in their nation.
"Genetically modified plants and animals may cause completely unexpected processes and consequences," Irina Yermakova, a senior scientist at the Institute for Higher Neural Activity and Neurophysiology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, said. She made the statement during a seminar Tuesday at a science conference in Moscow. The scientist called for more extensive research into the impact of GM organisms on people, the Novosti news agency reported. She said an experiment, which involved feeding rats GM soy, had revealed high mortality rates and growth retardation among offspring. Yermakova also proposed a ban on imports of transgenic products. Those attending the seminar called for adoption of safety requirements for GM foods and mechanisms to verify compliance with such requirements, RIA Novosti said.

Rejection of GE Food Spreads in Eastern Europe - http://www.commondreams.org/news2005/1018-06.htm
MOSCOW, Russia - Greenpeace today published evidence that consumers and food producers in Poland and Russia have become strong opponents against genetically engineered (GE) food. In Poland, an opinion poll commissioned by Greenpeace shows that 76% of Polish consumers do not wish to eat food products that contain GE ingredients, such as GE soya and GE maize (1). The Russian Consumers' Guide (2) reveals more than 450 food companies in the country that have adopted a GE free policy, among them are well known international brand names, such as Nestle and Coca-Cola. The data reinforces earlier reports of consumer rejection of GE food, such as the study by the European Commission showing that only 14% of the European population believes that GE food is safe (3). "Consumers all over Europe, east and west, are applying common sense and rejecting the genetic experiment with their food," said Geert Ritsema of Greenpeace International GE campaigner.
Greenpeace also published a statement by the Russian Soy Union stating that at present there is no commercial production of GE soya on Russian territory and that the Union "supports a moratorium on the cultivation of transgenic soya in Russia" (4).
Maciej Muskat, Greenpeace Central Eastern Europe campaigner in Poland said: "The food industry has to respect the wishes of Polish consumers and take risky and unwanted GE products off the shelves." Some international retailers, who operate in Poland, such as the French Geant, have double standards. In Western Europe they have a GE free policy, but in Poland their consumers get no such guarantees. "Such double standards for GE food are inexplicable and unacceptable. Companies must act immediately and apply the same policy across the whole of Europe," said Muskat.
Greenpeace will also step up its campaign against GE food in Russia. Over the last ten months the environmental organisation managed to get 40 Russian food companies to commit to a GE free policy. However, there are still more than 500 companies on the Russian red list in the market. Greenpeace will continue to put pressure on these companies to change their GE policy. Natalia Olefirenko of Greenpeace Russia said: "The Russian Consumer's Guide will be mailed free of charge to every Russian citizen who contacts Greenpeace."
Greenpeace is an independent campaigning organisation, which uses non-violent, creative confrontation to expose global environmental problems, and to force the solutions that are essential to a green and peaceful future.
Notes to editors
(1) Opinion poll done by PBS on September 10-11th, 2005, on a representative sample of 1079 citizens: available in Polish and English from Greenpeace International
(2) Russian Consumers' Guide: www.greenpeace.ru
(3) European Commission, Special Eurobarometer: Europeans, Science and Technology, June 2005, page 62-64: http://europa.eu.int/comm/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_224_report_en.pdf This Eurobarometer was conducted between 3 January and 15 February 2005 in 32 European countries: the EU 25, the candidate countries (Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania and Turkey) and the so called EFTA countries (Iceland, Norway, Switserland).
(4) In a statement signed by their President Anatoly Ustyuzhanin the Russian Soy Union confirms that "There is currently no commercial production of genetically modified soya on the territory of the Russian Federation. The Soy Union supports a moratorium on the cultivation of transgenic soya in Russia, and promotes the development of production of foodstuffs manufactured from non-genetically modified plant raw materials cultivated in Russia": full statement in Russian and English available from Greenpeace International.
CONTACT
Geert Ritsema, Greenpeace International GE campaigner +31 646 197 328 Maciej Muskat, Greenpeace CEE campaigner in Poland: + 48 509 058 651 Natalia Olefirenko, Greenpeace Russia campaigner +7 903 739 4956 Mhairi Dunlop, Greenpeace International Communications +44 7801 212 960

Food Producers Assail Greenpeace Blacklist - By Anastasiya Lebedev - Special to The Moscow Times, Issue 3277 - Wednesday, October 19, 2005..
http://www.moscowtimes.ru/stories/2005/10/19/043.html
Food companies targeted by Greenpeace Russia for allegedly providing false information about genetically modified, or GM, ingredients denied on Tuesday that they had misled consumers. Earlier this week, the environmental group issued a list of companies whose products it said had tested positive for GM content despite the absence of a warning on their packaging. The list included food industry giants like instant soup maker Rollton and Cherkizovsky meat factory Greenpeace based its findings on its own testing as well as data from the Federal Consumer Protection Service. "We're not sure that Greenpeace has any proof because we know that there are no such components," said Alexander Sokoloverov, a Rollton spokesman. He said the firm was going to ask Greenpeace for evidence of GM ingredients in its products.
Yelena Firsova, a spokeswoman for Cherkizovsky, said that the meat factory was making a "huge effort" to ensure its products were GM-free. Greenpeace claimed that Cherkizovsky's products were frequently found to contain GM soy as a protein additive "The products made by our holding are very frequently imitated," said Firsova. She complained that Greenpeace was uncooperative in providing proof that the tested sausages were indeed produced by Cherkizovsky
Natalya Olefirenko, the coordinator of Greenpeace's GM campaign, defended the organization's testing procedures. The Test-Pushchino lab commissioned by Greenpeace meets European Union standards, she said. As for the data from the consumer protection service, Olefirenko said that "if we're going to say that [government] centers aren't qualified to conduct such investigations, we'd have to question the whole system of control over GM products." Olefirenko said Greenpeace was prepared to present results from the labs that performed the testing.

CAMPAIGN FOR GMO-FREE FINLAND STARTED
GMO-free Finland –campaign - www.gmovapaa.fi
Four Finnish NGO's launched on October 18th a long waited campaign to defend GMO-free Finland. The Union of Organic Farmers in Finland, The Biodynamic Association in Finland, Friends of the Earth Finland and People's Biosafety Association in Finland were the first to join the movement. Others are warmly welcomed.
Although the Finnish Government has been one of the foremost supporters of the EU Commission on GMOs there are only two test fields of gm-plants and no commercial growing of gmo's in Finland.
"The campaign has a clear vision to encourage people to stand up for their GMO-free environment. We offer Finnish farms, gardens, food stores, restaurants, food manufacturers, municipalities and other communities a forum to register themselves as GMO-free and get involved", explains campaign coordinator Hannes Tuohiniitty.
The NGOs started by demanding a thorough discussion on gmo's in agriculture once the Government review on agricultural policy is presented to the Finnish Parliament next week. Local initiatives, influencing the decision making process and gaining public support for the strategy without gmo's are some of the objectives of the campaign.
More information: www.gmovapaa.fi/en
Hannes Tuohiniitty, campaign coordinator, mobile +358443452111 / e-mail gmovapaa@gmovapaa.fi
Leo Stranius, Friends of the Earth Finland, mobile +358407547371 / email leo.stranius@maanystavat.fi
Carmen Olmedo, GMO Campaign & Bite Back Campaign Assistant, Friends of the Earth Europe, Rue Blanche, 15, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium
Tel: 0032 (0)2 542 61 00 Fax:0032 (0)2 537 55 96 carmen.olmedo@foeeurope.org http://www.foeeurope.org http://www.bite-back.org

GM crop 'ruins fields for 15 years' - By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor - The Independent o Sunday, 09 October 2005
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/environment/article318238.ece
GM crops contaminate the countryside for up to 15 years after they have been harvested, startling new government research shows. The findings cast a cloud over the prospects of growing the modified crops in Britain, suggesting that farmers who try them out for one season will find fields blighted for a decade and a half. Financed by GM companies and Margaret Beckett's Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the report effectively torpedoes the Government's strategy for introducing GM oilseed rape to this country. Ministers have stipulated that the crops should not be grown until rules are worked out to enable them to "co-exist" with conventional ones. But the research shows that this is effectively impossible.
The study, published by the Royal Society, examined five sites across England and Scotland where modified oilseed rape has been cultivated, and found significant amounts of GM plants growing even after the sites had been returned to ordinary crops. It concludes that the research reveals "a potentially serious problem associated with the temporal persistence of rape seeds in soil." The researchers found that nine years after a single modified crop, an average of two GM rape plants would grow in every square metre of an affected field. After 15 years, this came down to one plant per square metre - still enough to break the EC limits on permissible GM contamination. Last night Pete Riley, the director of GM Freeze, said; "It is becoming clearer and clearer that it is going to be impossible to grow GM crops in Britain."

Europe's Food Safety Authority challenged as new stakeholder initiative begins
Brussels/Parma, 6th October 2005 - Consumer, environmental and health groups have today challenged the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to put public and environmental safety before commercial interests. The call comes as the EFSA begins a new Stakeholder Platform in Parma, Italy.(1) The organisations welcome the initiative by EFSA to listen to the views of stakeholders but urge EFSA to make serious changes in its work and procedures. In particular the groups are highly critical of the EFSA's work on genetically modified foods (GMOs). The consumer, environmental and health groups have today published ten demands for the EFSA (2), calling on it to:
* Fulfil its legal obligations to take into regard the long term safety of foods as well as the scientific uncertainties
* Review its scientific panels to make them impartial and independent from industry
* Improve its transparency and implement its Code of good administration behaviour
Greenpeace have also issued today a new report into the failings of the EFSA's scientific work on genetically modified foods. (3) In November last year Friends of the Earth published a detailed critique of EFSA, accusing it of industry bias. (4) Both organisations call on EFSA to stop releasing any further opinions on GMOs until the problems identified have been sorted out.
According to the European Environmental Bureau, the establishment of the Stakeholders Platform is a welcome step towards improving the relationship between civil society organisations and the Food Safety Authority. However the Authority has to improve its work and procedures to contribute to ensure a high level of protection of health and environment.
Adrian Bebb of Friends of the Earth Europe said: "The European Food Safety Authority has clearly made its mind up that genetically modified foods are safe and ignores any evidence or views that question that position. Its opinions to date have constantly supported the biotechnology industry and it disregards voices of concern from either the public or the national member states. It is time there was a major review of the scientists working for the EFSA to make the Authority impartial and independent of industry."
Christoph Then of Greenpeace said: "Potential risks of GM plants have too often been groundlessly dismissed by the EFSA, despite scientific concerns. Our new report on GM maize Bt11 shows that it fails to carry out a full risk assessment of GMOs, as required by EU legislation."
EURO COOP hopes that the Stakeholder Forum will help EFSA in gaining credibility as a risk assessor in the eyes of consumers and food operators.
CONTACTS:
Adrian Bebb, Friends of the Earth Europe +49 1609 490 1163
Christoph Then, Greenpeace International +49 171 8780832
Francesco Montanari, EURO COOP +322 285 00 74
Notes to editors
1. For information on the Stakeholder Platform see: http://www.efsa.eu.int/stakeholder_stakeholder_consultative_platform/consultative_platform/1058_en.html
2. The ten demands are supported by the European Public Health Alliance, Eurocoop, the European Environmental Bureau, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. The demands can be downloaded from here: http://www.foeeurope.org/publications/2005/EFSA_stakeholders_challenge.pdf
3. Greenpeace have published today a new scientific report on the risk assessment by the EFSA of a GM crop made by Swiss-based Syngenta, called Bt11. The Authority gave the green light in May 2005 to the cultivation of this maize, which could become the first GM plant allowed for growing in the EU since 1998. A gene from a soil bacteria was introduced in the maize genome to make it produce an insecticidal toxin. . The new Greenpeace report shows that no serious investigation was conducted on the toxicity of this GM maize or its impact on the environment, such as detrimental effects on useful or protected insect species. Furthermore, already published scientific results on possible negative environmental consequences of this GM maize were widely ignored by EFSA. The report can be downloaded at: http://eu.greenpeace.org/downloads/gmo/Bt11reportOct05.pdf
4. In November 2004 Friends of the Earth published Throwing caution to the wind, a detailed critique of the EFSA and its work on GM foods. The report can be downloaded here: http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/publications/EFSAreport.pdf

PRESS RELEASE - IMMEDIATE RELEASE 30th September 2005 - GM Oilseed survives longer in soil - new blow to EU coexistence plans
New research [1] has found that GM oilseed rape could contaminate non-GM crops 15 years after it was grown - longer than previously thought. This represent a major set back to plans to commercialise the crop and EU plans to introduce coexistence rules for growing GM and non-GM crops.
The research [2] looked at how long oilseed rape seeds can survive in the soil and then germinate after they were spilt at harvest. Previously it was thought that GM oilseed seed would persist in the soil for ten years [3]. However the new research on 5 sites across the England and Scotland predicts that one in twenty spilt seeds could survive in the soil for 9 years and 1% could still germinate fifteen years after the GM crop was harvested. The researchers found that some crops dropped 10,000 seeds per square metre (3575 per square metre average) compared with a normal sowing rate for oilseed rape of just 100 seeds per square metre.
The researchers concluded:
“Even at 95% loss of the mean 3575 seeds per square metre shed at harvest, would still leave nearly 200 seeds per square metre. Such numbers would be highly likely to result in the presence of more than two volunteer plants per square metre in a rape crop sown 9 years after the HT crop. This density would exceed the European Union threshold of 0.9% adventitious presence of GM seeds in a non-GM crop, if the subsequent crop was ‘conventional’”.
The European Commission Coexistence guidelines require measures to prevent contamination in non-GM crops exceeding 0.9% [4]. However, the EC advice to adopt the high threshold of 0.9% has been challenged by the opinion of a leading QC as “fundamentally flawed” and “wrong in law” [5].
In fact, two plants per square metre would result in around 2% contamination. One plant per square metre, after 15 years, would still mean that the 0.9% threshold could be breached.
These results follow the publication of new results by DEFRA this week showing harmful effect on wildlife from GM herbicide tolerant crops found in the Farm Scale Evaluations persisted for at least two years [5].
Commenting for GM Freeze, Pete Riley said:
“These research findings show that it will be impossible to grow GM oilseed rape without long term contamination problems – the concept of coexistence is looking like dream land . Farmers would not be able to predict what level of GM they could find in their non-GM crops. Their land would be blighted for 15 years or more by a GM crop grown by a previous owner. The Government should announce the end all GM oilseed rape experiments in the UK immediately so that farmers can get on with providing UK supermarkets and food and animal feed manufacturers with the GM-free products they are demanding”.
ENDs
Calls to Pete Riley 07903 341065.
Notes
1.Lutman PJW et al , 2005. Persistence of seeds from crops of conventional and herbicide tolerant oilseed rape (Brassica napus). Proc.R.Soc B (2005) 272, 1909-1915 22nd September 2005.
2. The research was part of the BRIGHT project, published in 2004, which investigated the environmental and agronomic impacts of herbicide tolerant crops in typical arable rotations.
3. Scientific Committee on Plants SCP/GMO-SEED-CONT/002-Final 13th March 2001 Opinion of the Scientific Committee on plants concerning the adventitious presence of GM seeds in conventional seeds.
4. 2003/556/EC dated 23 July 2003, Commission Recommendation on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming
5 Legal opinion by Paul Lasok QC for The Five Year Freeze, Friends of the Earth, Which?, GeneWatch UK, The Soil Association and Greenpeace January 2005. For summary see http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefing_notes/summary_of_legal_opinion_o.pdf
6. The full report http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk. and further information visit
http://defra.gov.uk/environment/gm/research/epg-cpec28.htm
GM FREEZE 94 White Lion Street, London N1 9PF Tel: 020 7837 0642 Fax: 020 7837 1141
Email: enquiry@gmfreeze.org Website: www.gmfreeze.org

EUROGM: Small victory against Monsanto
Earlier this summer Monsanto had brought a case against the German government trying to force through a fast track decision which would force the German government to add the GM maize MON810 to the German seed list. Monsanto argued that MON810 was inscribed to the EU common catalogue and that therefore it could be legaly grown anywhere in Europe. The German government disputes that MON810 has the necessary authorisation for growing in Europe.
The court rejected Monsanto's bid for a fast track decision on September 23rd. The court did not share Monsanto's view that a win in the main case was "highly likely" and that a fast track decision would therefore be justified. The court also argued that a fast track decision would create irreversible facts (the release of GMOs into the environment) and would
therefore foreclose the main case. The decision of the main case is still open though.
Monsanto had pressed for a fast track decision in order to be able to produce the necessary seeds for next year in Chile. The German government's GMO expert Alexander Müller expressed the opinion that the decision puts in question the legality of MON810 growing anywhere in Europe (e.g. in Spain, where it is already been grown).
Following links all in German:
http://www.transgen.de/aktuell/meldungen_europa/
http://www.verwaltungsgericht-hannover.niedersachsen.de/master/C13476405_L20_D0_I3748247.html
http://archiv.tagesspiegel.de/archiv/26.09.2005/2079713.asp
http://www.fr-aktuell.de/ressorts/wirtschaft_und_boerse/wirtschaft/?cnt=731178&
Kenneth Richter, European GMO Campaign, Friends of the Earth, 26-28 Underwood Street, London N1 7JQ
Tel + 44 20 7566 1671 (Contactable in the office 9:30 -17:30 Tuesdays and Thursdays)

POLISH MARSHALS WANT GMO FREE POLAND
On the 9th of September 2005 the Assembly of Marshals of the Polish Provinces (*) accepted a statement concerning the planting of genetically modified plants (GMO) in Poland. In this statement the Assembly of Marshals of the Polish Provinces has, among other things, agreed that:
(...) approval for cultivation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can damage the public image of the Polish countryside which nowadays is considered as the source of healthy, ecological and high quality food (...)
(...) man will never be able to have total control over the biology of life and therefore cannot ensure that the uncontrolled release of GMO's will not happen.
It has to be underlined that the goal of providing genetically modified organisms is to increase the efficiency in farming. The main problem, however, for farmers in Poland as well as in other EU countries, is not to raise efficiency but to be able to sell their produce on the present market
(...) it is necessary to take action for the preservation of the environment and for crop protection against the introduction of genetically modified plants that could cause irreversible change (...)
(...) in accordance with the statements of consumers, who seek safe and healthy agricultural products, it is necessary to support production of food using environmentally friendly methods (...)
(...) the big number of protests by local governments in 13 provinces in Poland, as well as other European regions, haven't been taken into account by European Union authorities. The European law (Directive 2001/18, 2002/53) benefits the producers of genetically modified seeds, or is interpreted as doing so (...)
The Assembly of Marshals of the Polish Provinces concluded that it is necessary that:
a) The Polish Government should prepare a motion to the European Commission to ban the import of genetically modified products in all areas of the country,
b) this problem is introduced through the Polish MEPs for debate in the EP in order to achieve a ruling which will allow all EU countries to make their own decisions in this very important matter (...)
(*) The Assembly of Marshals of the Polish Provinces is the opinion-making and advisory body representing the interest of all provinces (Poland is divided for 16 provinces). The Assembly has been holding regular meetings analyzing propositions for changes in the governments' acts and other regulations as well as discussing the problems of provinces. Each meeting is concluded with common statements that must be accepted by all Marshals.
Whole statement (in Polish): http://icppc.pl/pl/gmo/index.php?id=129 - International Coalition to Protect the Polish Countryside (ICPPC), 34-146 Stryszów 156, Poland tel./fax +48 33 8797114 biuro@icppc.pl - www.icppc.pl - www.eko-cel.pl - www.gmo.icppc.pl - http://www.icppc.pl/pl/gmo/eng_index.php
In April 2002, ICPPC was awarded the Goldman Prize - Ecological Nobel. In June 2002, ICPPC's headquarter, were visited by H.R.H. the Prince of Wales.

EU Governments Block Approval of Monsanto Hybrid Corn Variety - http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000082&sid=a3B2XgigKm64&refer=canada
Sept. 19 (Bloomberg) -- A committee of European Union national experts blocked approval of a Monsanto Co. genetically modified corn variety for animal feed, passing the dossier on to ministers for further consideration.
Monsanto's hybrid MON863 x MON810, altered to provide resistance to corn pests, failed to win over a majority of representatives from the EU's 25 governments. Seven countries voted in favor of the product's use, 12 voted against, five abstained and one nation didn't vote, European Commission spokeswoman Barbara Helfferich said in Brussels today.
The EU's policy of requiring scientific and political backing for new genetically altered products has been challenged by the U.S., Argentina and Canada before the World Trade Organization on the grounds that it inhibits trade. The EU grows less than 1 percent of the world crop, compared with the two-thirds share of the U.S.
Nine countries, including the U.S., Argentina and Canada, last year grew 11.2 million hectares (27.7 million acres) of modified corn of similar types to that blocked today by the EU, according to Merrickville, Canada-based Agbios, which collects information on biotechnology crops.
To contact the reporter on this story:
Duncan Hooper in Brussels at dhooper@bloomberg.net.

Appeal to EC and world for caution over GMO contamination - Bologna, Italy, 9 September 05
Consumers International (CI) made an appeal for caution over genetically modified organism (GMO) contamination. David Cuming, CI GM Campaign Manager, said: 'Stop GMO contamination - it can happen quickly and over vast areas and is irreversible. In places, like Italy, where there are a lot of small farms with traditional and organic crops, "co-existence" is probably impossible without removing the freedom of consumers and farmers to choose.'
Speaking at a conference in Italy, organised by CI and RegioneEmilia-Romagna, David Cuming advised 'All countries worldwide must introduce strict rules to prevent contamination, and allow for GM-free zones, before allowing GMOs in their countries. The EC must wait until they have completed the full review of "co-existence" in Europe before approving new GMO crops.'
Prof. Ignacio Chapela, leading expert on GMOs told the conference '"Co-existence" of GMOs and GM-free plants is biologically impossible. If we keep thinking like this it won't be a question of - if contamination will occur: It will be a question of when and how much? We do not have the political will, the technical capacity or the independence of thought to deal with "co-existence"; neither to monitor its development, nor to remedy its consequences. Proposed biosafety and bioethical frameworks will not prevent contamination.'
GMO and consumer experts from Canada, USA, Brazil, Thailand, Zambia, Austria, Italy and UK presented their position on "co-existence", contamination and GM-free zones at the conference in Bologna. Recent examples of GMO contamination cases are: canola fields in Australia and Canada, shipments of maize to Japan and New Zealand, and illegal rice in China.
Note to editors
The EC are making decisions on whether to allow several new GMO crops into Europe and the Commission is preparing a report on how EU states are dealing with 'co-existence' expected at the end of this year.
The GM-free zone movement is growing in the EU and in the USA, with increasing interest in developing countries.
Pressure from the biotech industry is mounting in Africa for countries to grow GMOs.
Summaries of speeches made at the conference will be made available on CI website.
International conference open to the public
organised by Regione Emilia-Romagna and Consumers International
'Co-existence', contamination and GM-free zones - Jeopardising consumer choice?
http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=93963&int1stParentNodeID=89650&int2ndParentNodeID=89677

Farmers call for ban on imports of GM rape-seed oil - 2005-09-05 - http://www.online.ie/news/viewer.adp?article=3272573
The Irish Cattle and Sheepfarmers Association has called on the Government to ban the importation of genetically modified rape-seed oil into Ireland. The European Commission decided last month to allow imports of GM rape-seed oil made by the US multinational Monsanto. The decision was made after the 25 EU member states failed to come to a consensus on the matter. The ICSA has slammed the Irish Government for abstaining from a vote on whether to allow the imports, saying Irish consumers were vehemently opposed to GM foods. Spokesman John Heney said: "Any time there's a survey of consumers, they say they do not want GM food on their plate, so it's totally inexcusable that our Government should go down the road of facilitating its introduction."

Friends of the Earth Europe - Press Release - 31 August- For immediate release
EUROPEAN COMMISSION OPENS DOOR TO GENETIC CONTAMINATION: Member States' concerns ignored
Brussels August 31 2005 – The European Commission today approved the import of Monsanto’s genetically modified (GM) oilseed rape for human food and animal feed [1]. The decision came despite opposition from a majority of Member States and a loophole that could lead to illegal seed spills into the environment. Friends of the Earth condemned the decision and is calling on Member States to impose national bans on the GM seed.
The GM oilseed rape (GT73), is resistant to Monsanto’s own herbicide. The majority of EU Member States voted against the application last year, or abstained, because of unanswered food and feed safety questions [2]. These included the effects on the liver weights of rats fed the oilseed rape [3] and the likelihood of seed spills into the environment.
In addition, recent UK government research has reported the discovery of the first genetically modified ‘superweed’ – the result of GM oilseed rape cross-breeding with a common weed (Charlock) in the UK farm scale trials [4].
However, the Commission ignored these concerns and pushed the approval through on the basis of an opinion by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). And although the Commission accepted that seed spills are an area of concern, it failed to specify measures to safeguard against this [5]. Instead it has included a simple recommendation that US company Monsanto will be free to disregard.
Friends of the Earth is calling on Member States to use the provisions in EU law to impose national bans on the GM seed [6].
Helen Holder, GMO coordinator for Friends of the Earth said: “Not only has the Commission ignored the opinion of 19 Environment Ministers and recent scientific findings, but it is also allowing Monsanto to decide whether our environment is contaminated. Member States are left with no choice but to take matters into their own hands and impose national bans on this GM seed.”
FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Helen Holder, Friends of the Earth Europe - +322 542 01 82 - +324 74 857 638 (mobile)
NOTES:
[1] GT73 was previously authorised for processing in oils under the 1997 Novel Foods regulation (Regulation 258/97) which has since been replaced by Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. Today’s decision covers industrial processing and animal feed.
[2] In December 2004, EU Environment Ministers voted with a simple majority against the approval of GT73. Since a qualified majority was required to prevent the approval, the decision reverted to the European Commission.
http://www.foeeurope.org/press/2004/GR_20_Dec_Monsanto.htm
For: SK, SE, FR, PT, FI, NL (78 votes)
Against: IT, GR, DK, PO, MT, BE, HU, LT, LV, CY, AT, EE, LU (135 votes)
Abstention: IE, SI, ES, DE, CZ, UK (108 votes)
[3] The official UK government advisors on GM foods and feeds - ACRE and ACAF - have said that they are not satisfied with the explanation that Monsanto has provided for the observed increased liver weight in rats fed GT73. They are are not convinced by EFSA's assurance that GT73 ''is as safe as conventional oilseed rape for humans and animals, and in the context of the proposed uses, for the environment.'' ACAF says it can only draw such conclusion "on receipt of satisfactory data from a further rat-feeding study using 15 per cent. oilseed rape meal." Source: Statement by Mr. Elliot Morely, UK Minister for the Environment and Agri-Environment. In: minutes of the UK’s European Standing Committee A, Tuesday 2 November 2004
[4] http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/government_study_finds_uks_25072005.html
[5] Official Journal of the European Union, June 2005 (L-164 page 57)
[6] The safeguard clause - Article 23, Directive 2001/18/EC European Commission press release:
http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/05/1077&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en
Friends of the Earth Europe campaigns for sustainable and fair societies and for the protection of the environment, unites more than 30 national organisations with thousands of local groups and is part of the world's largest grassroots environmental network, Friends of the Earth International
Helen Holder, European GMO campaign coordinator, Friends of the Earth Europe, Rue Blanche 15, 1050 Brussels, Belgium
Tel: +322 542 01 82 Fax: +322 537 55 96 - Helen.Holder@foeeurope.org www.foeeurope.org

BRITISH RETAIL CONSORTIUM POSITION ON BRAZILIAN NON-GM SOYBEAN - Friday 26 August 2005

British Retail Consortium (BRC) members do not currently stock own label brands sourced from Genetically Modified (GM) materials and ingredients. This decision is based solely on customer demand, as the general public remains highly critical of potential health effects from consuming GM products. For this reason, UK retailers are determined to maintain a non-GM stance for products for as long as practically and commercially possible.

THE PROBLEM

GM has failed to convince

Research data from across the UK indicates that customer demand for non-GM remains as strong now as it was in the late nineties when widespread opposition first emerged. A 2003 survey by NOP World revealed the following:

78% of people remain unconvinced that GM is safe to eat
79% would not knowingly buy food containing GM ingredients
Even if GM food could be proven safe to eat, 61% of customers would still not consume these products
55% were against GM food and crops with 38% yet to be convinced of its benefits

OUR RESPONSE

Working with suppliers

In order to help suppliers of commodity crop provide non-GM soya and maize to our market, British retailers and manufacturers have worked together to produce a standard for identity-preserved systems in the supply of non-GM products, based on current best practice. The standards acts as a guide for use at appropriate points along the supply chain, from seed supply to the use of derivative ingredients in the manufacture of final food products.

Informed choice

Retailers are committed to giving their customers informed choice. Retailers support the 0.9% de minimis threshold for the accidental mixing of non-GM material, below which labelling will not be required. Without such a threshold to allow for such low level mixing, manufacturers and retailers would have no incentive to ensure non-GM supply lines as any error would mean presentation. That scenario would have businesses acting defensively, labelling 'containing GM' which is not what most customers want.

Maintaining Brazil’s non-GM supply

It will be enormously difficult to maintain trust in the food chain should Brazil’s supply of non-GM soybean dry up. It is therefore essential that Brazil remains a continued source of non-GM soybean and halts the progression at the current level of 35% GM.

We urge the Brazilian industry to resist further growth of GM planting. This would send a disastrous signal to UK consumers and could seriously damage trust and confidence in the food chain across the board.

Dairy Farmers warned over GM feed - Northern Ireland dairy farmers were today warned their industry could suffer if genetically modified feed is allowed into the country.
Press Association, 25/08/2005 - http://u.tv/newsroom/indepth.asp?id=64217&pt=n
Sinn Fein agriculture spokesperson Michelle Gildernew called on the farming industry to vigorously oppose moves to introduce genetically modified feed through an EU loophole and voiced concerns about the effect on milk quality and consumer reaction if it is fed to herds. "The reality is that there is a very real risk of contamination of the food chain," the Fermanagh and South Tyrone MP said. "Across Ireland and throughout Europe consumers have consistently rejected food that is genetically modified....The result is that there are very few GM labelled products on the market. Indeed many companies make a point of labelling food GM free....However, there is a loophole in EU labelling regulations. Milk, eggs, meat and other animal-derived foodstuffs do not need to be labelled if the animals were fed GM foodstuffs.....The majority GM maize grown in Europe is used as animal feed, meaning that consumers could unknowingly consume GM derived products, such as milk.....Through advertising their products as pure and natural, they are misleading their consumers as their products risk being contaminated from the GM crops grown by their dairy farmers."
Ms Gildernew noted in Switzerland and Sweden, food manufacturers had ensured that GM animal feed was not used there. In Austria, she also reported one large dairy company, NOEM AG, ensured its entire range of fresh milk products were GM free. "Despite the debate about Monsanto's GM maize (MON 810) still ongoing, the European Commission gave approval for the GM maize to be grown in the EU in 2004," she said. "As a result Austria, Greece, Hungary and Poland all have banned the maize. This is currently the only GM plant permitted to be grown throughout the EU although other GM maize and GE soya varieties, cultivated outside the EU, are authorised for import as animal feed......Sinn Fein believe that the milk industry, as well as those producing eggs and other livestock for the market, needs to take a stand on this issue and take steps to ensure that it is not using GM meal feed.....There is a valuable competitive edge to be gained in producing foods for market that are genuinely GM free.....We will also be working to ensure that the legal loophole that allows for the introduction of GM products into our food chain is closed."

GM Maize Fight Goes to Court - US seed firms want to grow in Germany - Deutsche Weller, 10 August 2005
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,1564,1675080,00.html
American biotech firms want to use legal action to force Germany to approve their genetically modified maize for cultivation. The America seed companies Monsanto and Pioneer are trying to get provisional approval to cultivate their pest-resistant maize, Mon 810, in Germany, according to German consumer protection authorities. But Alexander Müller of the consumer protection office says he doesn't believe that Mon 810 can be legally approved as seed. "It is not allowed under European law," he told the German public broadcaster ARD. For the past seven years, Mon 810 has been approved in the EU only as feed and as food. Cultivation of the crop was explicitly excluded. But the EU Commission, in contrast, says that Mon 810, also as seed, is legal and must be allowed to be used in Germany, a commission spokeswoman told ARD. The maize has been included in the collective EU catalogue of allowable imports since 2004, authorizing its use. "It must be allowed to be imported into Germany," a spokeswoman for the European Commission said.
Spanish use contentious maize
Last year, the EU Commission approved 17 types of maize in the Mon 810 line after Spain experienced no problems with its cultivation. But according to Müller, that approval might need to be examined by European Court of Justice, Müller said. "If our legal interpretation is correct, the Spanish will have to see if their approval was legitimate." The environmental watchdog group Greenpeace is one of the groups opposed to the cultivation of Mon 810, saying that the crop can harm butterflies. Greece, Austria, Poland and Hungary have not given the go-ahead for the cultivation of Mon 810. Still, German regulators have been testing the line for several years. Regardless of the legal fight, the crop is already being cultivated in Germany on a trial basis.
EU still wary
On a global scale, the use of genetically modified (GM) crops is increasing, with the world?s overall area of approved GM crops now at well over 80 million hectares (8 billion acres). So far, maize, soybeans, rapeseed and cotton account for the bulk of biotech crops on the market. But most EU member countries, including Germany, have remained extremely wary of biotech crop technologies. Concerns include giving multinational corporations control of basic food products through gene patents, the possibility of spreading allergens through genetic manipulations and the spread of resistance to antibiotics used in genetic engineering -- concerns that are shared by non-governmental organizations such as Greenpeace. "There's not much research done on the risks of GM plants on the environment or on human health," Ulrike Brendel, a Greenpeace spokesperson for the GM issue, told DW-WORLD.
Germany approved the growing of genetically modified crops in Germany last year under a controversial law that imposes strict penalties for possible violations of food-safety regulations. The law also requires the labeling of foodstuffs produced with genetically modified organisms and allows conventional farmers to file for damages if other growers contaminating their fields with GM seeds.

COMMISSION OPENS DOOR TO IMPORT OF CONTROVERSIAL GM MAIZE
Brussels August 8 2005 - The European Commission today approved the import of a controversial genetically modified (GM) maize, MON863 for use as animal feed [1]. Friends of the Earth has condemned the decision, which once again ignores Member States’ concerns over safety. Monsanto’s animal feed application failed to get support at the June 24th EU Environment Council when the majority of Member States abstained or voted against it [2]. As a qualified majority was not reached, the final decision reverted to the European Commission. MON863 maize has been genetically modified to resist certain insects by producing a toxin in the plant. It has caused controversy due to food and feed safety concerns, the fact that the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) disregarded these concerns, and Monsanto’s refusal to publish documents that are crucial to assessing the application. These include:
* Food safety studies: the results of a feeding study of the GM maize on rats showed significantly different levels of white blood cells, kidney weights and kidney structure, as well as lower albumin/globulin rate in the rats fed the GM maize.
* Scientists’ criticism of the maize: a number of scientists from different Member States, including the French Commission for Genetic Engineering (CGB), were therefore concerned and severely criticized to maize.
* EFSA’s disregard of member state scientists: the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) rejected all concerns raised by Member States when reviewing the application, and delivered a positive opinion
* Monsanto’s refusal to publish key documents: Monsanto refused to publish the initial rat study, having requested when it filed the application, that crucial documents including the rat study be classified as confidential.
* German court rules against Monsanto: in June 2005, the German government won a court ruling against Monsanto and the documents where made public.
* The documents released in June seem to confirm that there is cause for serious safety concern. Helen Holder, GMO campaign coordinator for Friends of the Earth said: “Once again, the Commission has ignored serious concerns raised by Member States over the safety of GMOs. The Commission has authorized this maize despite attempts by Monsanto to hush up the food safety results. Member States have another chance to block this maize at the September Agriculture Council: they must use the opportunity to protect their citizens, stand up to the Commission, and reject it once and for all.”
Contact: Helen Holder, GMO campaign coordinator, mobile: +32 4 74 857 638
NOTES:
[1] This is a decision on animal feed: EU Ministers will vote on the food application for the same maize this coming September. Under EU legislation, no import, including that of animal feed, is allowed until the food application has been authorized. In this case, no imports will be able to start unless the MON863 food application is authorized. EU Ministers are scheduled to vote on this in September 2005.
[2] RESULTS OF THE VOTE ON MONSANTO’S MON863 MAIZE - Environment Council 24 June 2005
In favour: DE, EE, FR, NL, FI, SE, UK
Against: DK, EL, IT, CY, LV, LT, LU, HU, MT, AT, PL, PT, SI, SK
Abstention: BE, CZ, ES, IE,
[3] European Commission press release: http://europa.eu.int/rapid/showInformation.do?pageName=middayExpress&guiLanguage=en
Friends of the Earth Europe campaigns for sustainable and fair societies and for the protection of the environment, unites more than 30 national organisations with thousands of local groups and is part of the world's largest grassroots environmental network, Friends of the Earth International
Helen Holder, European GMO campaign coordinator. Friends of the Earth Europe, Rue Blanche 15, 1050 Brussels, Belgium - Tel: +322 542 01 82 - Fax: +322 537 55 96 Helen.Holder@foeeurope.org - www.foeeurope.org

NEW SET-BACK FOR GMO CROPS IN EUROPE - Bayer withdraws GMO oilseed rape
Brussels/London, 26 July 2005 - The German biotech giant Bayer has withdrawn its applications to grow genetically modified (GM) oilseed rape in the European Union, Friends of the Earth revealed today. The move comes as public calls for GM-free zones spreads across Europe and follows a series of research findings which have uncovered environmental damage resulting from the GM crop being grown.
Bayer is the only biotech company to have applied for permission to grow GM oilseed rape commercially in Europe, but it was revealed this week that their applications have been withdrawn [1].
Earlier this year, results from the world's biggest environmental trials confirmed that growing GM oilseed rape, which has been modified to make it resistant to a weed killer, reduced the level of wildlife in the field [2]. New research by the UK Government, revealed yesterday, showed that the GM crop had also crossed with wild plants to produce herbicide-resistant 'superweeds' in the UK [3].
While pressure to grow and import GM crops in Europe has grown, so has resistance from local authorities and communities. There are now GM-free initiatives virtually in every European country; 164 European regions and over 4500 local governments and smaller areas have declared themselves GM free or want to restrict commercial growing of GM crops [4]. Last month European countries voted to allow France and Greece to maintain their national bans on the import and cultivation of GM oilseed rape [5].
Friends of the Earth Europe's GM Campaigner, Adrian Bebb said:
"Bayer's decision to withdraw its oilseed rape is a major step forward to protecting Europe from genetically modified crops. If this oilseed rape was grown commercially in Europe it would have been a disaster for consumers, farmers and wildlife. It is now time to move forward and for Europe to support the type of farming and food production that people want and trust."
CONTACT - Adrian Bebb +49 1609 1163 (mobile) - Clare Oxborrow (UK) +44 7712 843211 (mobile)
Notes:
[1] Bayer's about turn on GM oilseed rape was revealed in correspondence from the UK Department of the Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and confirmed by the German authorities handling the applications. Received in an email from DEFRA, 25 July 2005. "On our DEFRA web site we say that these applications are pending transfer from a 90/220 and 2001/18 application to a 1829/2003 food and feed application. Our understanding is that the applications have actually been withdrawn by Bayer."
[2] www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/gm_crop_trial_blow_to_biot_21032005.html (March 2005)
[3] www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/government_study_finds_uks_25072005.html
[4] www.gmofree-europe.org
[5] www.foeeurope.org/press/2005/AB_24_June_vote.htm

GM crops created superweed, say scientists - Modified rape crosses with wild plant to create tough pesticide-resistant strain
Paul Brown, environment correspondent - The Guardian, Monday July 25, 2005 - http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,1535428,00.html
Modified genes from crops in a GM crop trial have transferred into local wild plants, creating a form of herbicide-resistant "superweed", the Guardian can reveal. The cross-fertilisation between GM oilseed rape, a brassica, and a distantly related plant, charlock, had been discounted as virtually impossible by scientists with the environment department. It was found during a follow up to the government's three-year trials of GM crops which ended two years ago. The new form of charlock was growing among many others in a field which had been used to grow GM rape. When scientists treated it with lethal herbicide it showed no ill-effects. Unlike the results of the original trials, which were the subject of large-scale press briefings from scientists, the discovery of hybrid plants that could cause a serious problem to farmers has not been announced.
The scientists also collected seeds from other weeds in the oilseed rape field and grew them in the laboratory. They found that two - both wild turnips - were herbicide resistant. The five scientists from the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, the government research station at Winfrith in Dorset, placed their findings on the department's website last week. A reviewer of the paper has appended to its front page: "The frequency of such an event [the cross-fertilisation of charlock] in the field is likely to be very low, as highlighted by the fact it has never been detected in numerous previous assessments." However, he adds: "This unusual occurrence merits further study in order to adequately assess any potential risk of gene transfer."
Brian Johnson, an ecological geneticist and member of the government's specialist scientific group which assessed the farm trials, has no doubt of the significance. "You only need one event in several million. As soon as it has taken place the new