The Global Status of Genetically Engineered (GE) Crops: 10 years of continuing rejection
'INSULTED' ANDEAN FARMERS PICK GM POTATO FIGHT WITH MULTINATIONAL SYNGENTA
GE Crops Slow to Gain Global Acceptance
Bt cotton crop fails in Tamil Nadu
PROTECTION FROM TRANSGENIC POTATOES IN THE ANDES
GMOs - We Should Be Wary of Those Pushing This Agenda - John Mbaria - The Nation (Nairobi, Kenya), August 15 2007
http://allafrica.com/stories/200708141206.html
AS WE ALL SIT GLUED TO THE melodramatic antics of politicians, another very determined lot has been working tirelessly to ensure that the genetically modified organisms (GMOs) they have patented get a foothold in the country. In a subtle manner, giant biotechnology companies have been telling everyone that theirs is only a novel undertaking to ensure that hunger and famines are wiped out from the country. And they know where to go, for they have targeted underpaid scientists and gung-ho politicians ready to do their bidding without raising a question.
Even before MPs had come to back a haphazardly drafted Biosafety Bill, 2005, they were taken on a trip to Makatini, South Africa's GM-capital, in May. And ever since they came back, they have been waxing lyrical about GM products, with Muhoroni MP Ayiecho Olweny and his Mwea counterpart Alfred Nderitu publicly vowing to ensure GM crops are not only raised but also become part of Kenya's commercial agriculture. BUT WHY SHOULD THESE MPs be careful of publicly supporting GM crops? For one, most of us are not even aware of what genetically modified crops are' nor are scientists sure of their safety.
By definition, GM crops are those in which 'alien' material (or genes) have been introduced either for the sake of giving them in-built ability to fight off pests or to make them tastier, more productive or even able to withstand such weed-killing chemicals as Roundup. But our MPs ought to seek to understand not only actual and possible implications of planting and eating these crops, but also the hidden agenda of the giant biotechnology companies which jealously guard patents on these crops.
Pro-GM scientists say no food is 100 per cent safe, and that because of the heated reactions they have been attracting throughout the world, GM foods have now undergone thorough testing and are, therefore, probably safer than traditional foods. While Kenya does not have evidence to counter that assertion, it is curious that most countries in the European Union are not keen to embrace GM foods. The US and Canada may be growing these crops, but there, GM maize is not cultivated to be milled for ugali but to feed livestock, besides generating bio-fuels. Further, it remains unclear why the West is never keen to support the cultivation of GM wheat, which is a major staple there.
Those who have followed the matter closely say the Biosafety Bill is a product of a "boardroom" process rather than an all-inclusive one involving farmers, students, biology teachers, scientists, civil society, and other interested Kenyans. Scientists and MPs have not told the country who sponsored both the drafting process and the trip the MPs took to South Africa in May, and how all these activities fit in the ongoing developments fit in with Kenya's seed market. It is of utmost importance that we treat the Biosafety Bill with the seriousness it deserves. I am not saying everything in the Bill is awful. For one, it introduces the National Biosafety Authority, charging it with a host of regulative responsibilities. It also sets up a biosafety committee to be peopled by some of the best scientific brains in the country. But it is fashioned as if the question of whether or not the country ought to embrace GM foods is no longer a consideration.
Further, it is silent on such biosafety issues as how to handle outbreaks of viruses leading to the foot-and-mouth disease or birdflu that have recently led to total annihilation of millions of cattle and chicken in Europe, Asia and elsewhere. IT IS ALSO SILENT on how to deal with the safety of imported pharmaceutical products, or on whether the National Biosafety Authority ought to investigate the safety of food and seed aid to Kenya. Lastly, there is evidence that companies eager to manufacture vaccines and other drugs have been testing them in Africa. Although this has proved disastrous, the Bill offers no solution. This is dangerous. The Nigerian government has taken Pfizer, one of the world's largest pharmaceutical companies, to court over the deaths of unspecified number of children following the 1996 trials of Trovan, an unapproved anti-meningitis drug in the Kano area. Who will save us from such evils if our MPs and scientists rush to embrace laws that are not suited to our welfare?
MONSANTO PATENTS ASSERTED AGAINST AMERICAN FARMERS REJECTED BY PATENT OFFICE: PUBPAT Initiated Review Leads PTO to Find All Claims of All Four Patents Invalid
http://www.pubpat.org/monsantorejections.htm
NEW YORK - July 24, 2007 -- The Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) announced today that the United States Patent and Trademark Office has rejected four key Monsanto patents related to genetically modified crops that PUBPAT challenged last year because the agricultural giant is using them to harass, intimidate, sue - and in some cases literally bankrupt - American farmers. In its Office Actions rejecting each of the patents, the USPTO held that evidence submitted by PUBPAT, in addition to other prior art located by the Patent Office's Examiners, showed that Monsanto was not entitled to any of the patents.
Monsanto has filed dozens of patent infringement lawsuits asserting the four challenged patents against American farmers, many of whom are unable to hire adequate representation to defend themselves in court. The crime these farmers are accused of is nothing more than saving seed from one year's crop to replant the following year, something farmers have done since the beginning of time.
One study of the matter found that, "Monsanto has used heavy-handed investigations and ruthless prosecutions that have fundamentally changed the way many American farmers farm. The result has been nothing less than an assault on the foundations of farming practices and traditions that have endured for centuries in this country and millennia around the world, including one of the oldest, the right to save and replant crop seed." The lawsuits filed by Monsanto against American farmers include Monsanto Company v. Mitchell Scruggs, et al, 459 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2006), Monsanto Company v. Kem Ralph individually, et al, 382 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2004) and Monsanto Company v. Homan McFarling, 363 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Although Monsanto has the opportunity to respond to the Patent Office's rejections of the patents (U.S. Patents Nos. 5,164,316, 5,196,525, 5,322,938 and 5,352,605), third party requests for re-examination, like the ones filed by PUBPAT against the four Monsanto patents, are successful in having the reviewed patents either changed or completely revoked more than two-thirds of the time.
"We are extremely pleased that the Patent Office has agreed with us that Monsanto does not deserve these patents that it has used to unfairly bully American farmers," said Dan Ravicher, PUBPAT's Executive Director. "Hopefully, this is the beginning of the end of the harm being caused to the public by Monsanto's aggressive assertion of these patents, which threatens family farms and a diverse American food supply."
Monsanto loses claims for Roundup Ready genes - By Jane Roberts - Commercial Appeal, July 25 2007
http://www.commercialappeal.com/mca/business/article/0,1426,MCA_440_5643245,00.html
For the second time in five months, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has rejected patents key to Monsanto's dominance in bioengineered seed, casting suspicion on its science and weakening the argument that helped the company prevail in dozens of lawsuits against farmers. Tuesday, the Public Patent Foundation said that the U.S. patent office sided with it in its case against Monsanto, saying at least four patents should not have been granted because the gene technology was either not new or so obvious it wouldn't require patenting. "This is a significant decision," said Daniel Ravicher, executive director of the Washington nonprofit that is focused on rooting out undeserved patents and unsound patent policy. "Monsanto would be much more pleased if the patent office had found the patents were valid. "Instead, it found that every single claim is undeserved and invalid," he said. "It couldn't be going better for our challenge."
Monsanto dismissed the findings, saying rejection is a standard part of any patent re-examination process and that it plans to ask for a reconsideration. "Our commercial products are covered by multiple patents that are not the subject of this re-examination," said Lee Quarles, spokesman. "This poses no threat to our business or our ability to deliver innovative technologies to farmers." Opponents disagree, saying Monsanto has profited handsomely because the patents allow it to charge inflated prices for seed. They also say Monsanto has used its dominance to bully farmers into submission through a series of high-profile lawsuits that made examples of people who saved the patented seed for replanting. "Monsanto is the only company I know of that is suing individual farmers and putting them out of business," Ravicher said.
Monsanto has 60 days to ask for a reconsideration or reduce the breadth of the patents. The patents in question are part of its Roundup Ready arsenal, a series of genes it patented to make crops immune to the herbicide. With the modified seed, farmers can spray Roundup over their crops and kill the weeds but not the crop. The American Seed Trade Association says companies have every right to defend intellectual property. In this case, it's the brainpower that helps farmers produce better yields or provides solutions to reduce the impact of factors they cannot control, including drought. Monsanto says hundreds of thousands of farmers across the globe rely on the company for breakthroughs that help reduce the cost of raising a crop and the deleterious affects of chemicals on the environment. "Intellectual property is important because it encourages continuous innovation in an industry, regardless if you're on the farm or reading the newspaper or sitting at your computer," Quarles said.
Monsanto introduced the trait first in cotton in 1997. By 2000, a majority of cotton farmers in the Mid-South were using its genetically altered seed because it vastly reduced fuel and the use of other chemicals. It also saved them time and reduced soil compaction, making the choice hardly a choice at all. The lawsuits followed shortly later, including cases against Mitchell Scruggs, a farmer in Saltillo, Miss., and Homan McFarling, who farms near Pontotoc, Miss. Both were charged with saving the patented seed for resale or use on their own farms. In other cases, Monsanto sued farmers after wind blew the genetically altered seed into their fields.
With the patents now in question, attorney Jim Waide of Waide & Associates in Tupelo, Miss., expects the outcomes could be very different. "Logically, I would think the judgment is void if the patent is void," he said after talking with his clients. In the midst of the Scruggs case, Monsanto withdrew patent No. 435 because it was generating public scrutiny, he said, and began relying more on No. 605. That patent is now among the four rejected patents, although Monsanto did alter No. 435 enough to get reapproved.
The Public Patent Foundation mounted its campaign against the company last fall, it said, after watching farmers across the country lose suits. In early March, it celebrated its first victory when the U.S. patent office rejected the first patent. Other rejections followed May 31, June 4 and July 17. "This poses a real serious challenge to Monsanto's intellectual property position on Roundup Ready crops," said Bill Freese, science policy analyst at the Center for Food Safety in Washington. He says the standards for issuing patents need stricter scrutiny, especially in molecular biology where the rush to capitalize on genetic breakthroughs leaves companies rushing to patent whole gene sequences before they know how useful they are. The problem, he said, is that it takes a lot of resources to mount a credible challenge because the patents are extremely technical. "We need folks to become aware that patents are being granted that are illegitimate," Freese said. "And how many more does Monsanto hold?"
Monsanto facts
Address: 800 North Lindbergh Blvd., St. Louis. Employees: 17,000 Maker of Roundup, the world's best-selling herbicide. Bought Delta and Pine Land cotton breeders this spring for $1.5 billion
Peruvian region says no to GM potato - July 18, 2007
http://www.checkbiotech.org/green_News_Genetics.aspx?Name=genetics&infoId=15154
A major region of Peru has banned genetically modified (GM) varieties of a crop that has been grown there for thousands of years and which helped to fuel the ancient Inca empire. The Cusco regional government's Order 010 is intended to protect the genetic diversity of thousands of native potato varieties. It forbids the sale, cultivation, use and transport of GM potatoes as well as other native
food crops.
The potato originated in the highlands of South America. Peru and its Andean neighbours are the crop's centre of diversity - with more than 4,000 distinct varieties that farmers have developed over generations. Local farmers' organisations fear that genes from GM potatoes could transfer into local varieties and alter their unique properties.
The head of the regional government's environmental office, Abel Caballero, proposed the ban "in recognition of the historical, cultural, social and economic importance of the potato and other native crops to the Cusco Region." The Order was passed in response to proposals submitted by a network of local potato-farming communities and Asociacion ANDES, an indigenous nongovernmental organisation based in Cusco, in collaboration with the sustainable agriculture, biodiversity and livelihoods program at the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED).
"This is unprecedented for Peru and a great victory for the communities of Cusco," says Alejandro Argumedo, director of Asociacion ANDES. "It will protect the region from contamination with GM varieties that can threaten the diversity of the potatoes and other important native food crops that are critical for food security and the economy."
Dr Michel Pimbert, director of the sustainable agriculture, biodiversity and livelihoods program at IIED says: "With this decision to keep GM crops out of one of the world's most diverse centres of potato and other Andean crops, the regional government of Cusco has acted wisely and with courage. " "Responding to citizens' concerns, it has put issues of food security, human well-being and the environment first and foremost at a time when most national governments persist in their failure to implement international agreements to protect the environment and human rights." "This, and a growing number of other examples throughout the world, suggests that much can de done by working with local governments that are not captive to national elites and transnational corporations," says Pimbert.
More than 1.2 million people live in the Cusco region. Many are small-scale farmers for whom the potato is the most important crop. The region's capital Cusco is the oldest, continuously inhabited city in the Americas and, along with nearby Machu Picchu (the 'Lost City' of the Incas which was recently named as one of the new seven wonders of the world), is a UNESCO World Heritage Site.
Duma Drafts Tough GM Food Bill - Kommersant (Russia's Daily Online), June 20 2007
http://www.kommersant.com/p775721/Duma_GM_Food/
The Russian Duma's Security Committee has drafted a bill banning production and sale of genetically modified food. Moscow authorities threw their support behind the legislation. Moscow Duma deputies were among the drafters while Mayor Yuri Luzhkov called on President Vladimir Putin to address the GM food issue head-on.
Kommersant has got hold of a draft federal law on biological safety and circulation of genetically modified food. The Russian Academy of Science currently permits the use of 13 sorts of genetically modified sources - three sorts of soy, five sorts of corn, two sorts of sugar-beet, two sorts of potato and one of rice. A possible harmful influence of transgenic products has not been scientifically proved as yet.
The draft bill bans the production of GM plants used for food, sale of GM food to children under 16 and at hospitals. The army and navy are also banned from purchasing GM food. The legislation binds producers to indicate the amount of genetically modified components on the packaging irrespective of the GM share in the product while currently products with the GM share less than 0.9 percent are not to be labeled as GM.
Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov, an ardent supporter of the move, has sent a letter to Russian President Vladimir Putin, suggesting setting up a governmental commission to research the GM issue. "We will do all it takes to ban the uncontrolled circulation of GM food in the country and transgenic imports to Russia," says Lyudmila Stebenkova, head of the Moscow Duma's health care committee and drafter of the federal bill.
www.kommersant.com - All the Article in Russian as of June 20, 2007
How much Bt toxin do genetically engineered MON810 maize plants actually produce? - Antje Lorch and Christoph Then - via Genet, 11 May 2007
Executive Summary - http://www.gene.ch/genet/2007/May/msg00060.html
Original as a pdf file: http://www.greenpeace.de/fileadmin/gpd/user_upload/themen/gentechnik/greenpeace_bt_maize_engl.pdf
Executive Summary
In the growing season 2006, Greenpeace took leaf samples of commercially cultivated MON810 maize plants in Germany and Spain to determine the Bt toxin (Cry1Ab) concentration. A total of 619 samples from 12 fields were analysed using ELISA tests. MON810 maize is genetically engineered to produce a modified insecticide (Cry1Ab) that naturally occurs in the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). The production of this toxin is supposed to protect the maize plants from European corn borer larvae (ECB, Ostrinia nubilalis).
This Greenpeace study shows a surprising pattern of plants that contained only very low Bt toxin levels. However, high levels could be observed in some plants. The variation found on the same field on the same day was considerable, and could differ by a factor of as much as 100. This is in agreement with the results of a new study published in April 2007 that concludes that "the monitoring of Cry1Ab expression [of MON810 plants] showed that the Cry1Ab concentrations varied strongly between different plant individuals."
In total, the Bt concentrations were much lower than those available from Monsanto for cultivation approval in the US and the EU, with a arithmetic mean of 9.35g Bt/ g fresh weight (fw; standard deviation 1.03; range 7.93-10.34g Bt/g fw). Here, our data also corroborate the results of Nguyen and Jehle (2007), who also found lower Bt concentrations (with means between 2.4 and 6.4g Bt/g fw) than those known from the literature. The data recorded by Greenpeace, however, deviate even more from the data published so far. The means ranged from 0.5 to 2.2g Bt/g fw, while Bt concentrations ranged from a minimum of no or 0.1g Bt/g fw to concentrations of about 14.8g Bt/g fw.
The results presented here raise far-reaching questions about the safety and the technical quality of the MON810 plants as well as some fundamental methodological questions.
1. The variation of Bt concentrations
Since the Bt concentration on the field can vary greatly even between neighbouring plants, the MON810 plants do not appear to be sufficiently stable in their biological traits. The reasons for the high variation in Bt contents could be related to genetic or environmental factors (e.g. weather or soil conditions), or both. Nguyen & Jehle (2007) not only found high variation between plants on a field, but also statistically significant differences between different locations in Germany. Since the reasons for such differences and the range of variation cannot be identified, the commercial cultivation of the crops should be stopped to avoid interactions with the environment that could lead to adverse and
unpredictable effects.
To investigate these questions further, studies should be conducted under contained conditions (such as glasshouse experiments) to study the environmental effects (e.g. drought, moisture, temperature, soil, nutrients) on the plants. Next to no studies of this type have yet been published.
2. The risk assessment of the plants
Risk assessment studies with non-target organisms or feeding studies in which the actual Bt concentration has not been determined appear to be of little use. Studies in which the toxin concentration is unknown cannot be used to give approval for the commercial growing of these plants.
3. The actual Bt toxin concentrations
If the Bt toxin in GE Bt plants were more effective in considerably lower concentrations than previously described, this would not be identical with the naturally occurring Bt toxin. This would annul a central aspect of the EU cultivation approval, which is based on the assumption that the Bt toxin in plants could in general be equated with the natural Bt protein from soil bacteria.
However, if the toxin is not effective in such low concentrations as we have recorded, then serious concerns about the effectiveness of the plants in controlling ECB larvae need to be raised.
Additional problems would then also concern insect resistance management, as resistance development could be accelerated by sub-lethal toxin doses.
4. The methods for determining Bt concentrations
The methods used by Monsanto to determine the Bt concentration of their original MON810 plants are not available from the publicly available documents. In order to make a reliable comparison of new data with Monsanto's data, it is essential that the test protocols as well as the original data are published. All interested laboratories need unrestricted access to relevant sample material. The authorities need to define standardised and sufficiently reliable methods for determining Bt concentrations in plants for risk assessment studies and for post-market monitoring.
Until the open questions regarding risk assessment, monitoring and product quality have been satisfactorily answered, the commercial cultivation of MON810 needs to be stopped, because the legal basis for approving MON810 for cultivation has not been fulfilled.
Rice exports could hit 8.8 mln tonnes - Bangkok Post, 12 May 2007
http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/breakingnews.php?id=118698
DPA - Natural calamities elsewhere in Asia and a GMO scandal rice in the US and Australia could push Thailand's rice exports up to 8.8 million tons this year, up from 7.4 million tons in 2006, industry sources said Saturday. Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines are not expected to reach their rice production targets this year because of natural disasters, said Chookiat Ophaswongse, president of the Rice Exporters Association. Meanwhile rice production in the US and Australia is decreasing this year due to reports of discovereries of GMO-strains of the grain there, resulting in import bans in some markets such as Europe. That's all good news for Thailand, the world's largest rice exporter, that is expected to ship between 8.5. to 8.8 tons this year, Chookiat told a seminar on the world outlook for the rice trade.
While China is now the biggest importer of Thai rice, Chookiat expects Indonesia to become a major market in 2007 because of declining production in the archipelago nation. The world's top five rice exporters are Thailand, Vietnem, India, US, and Pakistan, in that order. Vietnam's rice exports during the first four months of 2007 reached 1.3 million tons, worth 400 million dollars, a 18.8 per cent decrease in volume and 7.0 per cent decrease in value, said Huynh Minh Hue, Deputy Secretary General of Vietnam Food Association. Hue blamed the declines on limited supply, delays in the winter- spring crop harvest and difficulty in contracting vessels.
GM foods must be labelled: Malaysia to US - April 17, 2007
http://www.checkbiotech.org/green_News_Genetics.aspx?Name=genetics&infoId=14460
Malaysia has insisted in free trade talks with the United States that imports of genetically-modified food must be labelled, reports said Tuesday. Natural Resources and Environment Minister Azmi Khalid said Malaysia was demanding mandatory labelling even though the United States had suggested American companies only make voluntary declarations. "Without the label, we will not know the contents of the food," Azmi was quoted as saying by the Sun newspaper. "We will not allow our population to consume without being able to assess what they can or cannot take as food and medicine," he said.
Malaysia is a majority Muslim nation where there is strong awareness about consuming only foods that are considered halal, or permissible under Islam. Under the concept of halal, pork and its by-products, alcohol and animals not slaughtered according to Koranic procedures are all "haram" or forbidden, as are any products derived from the animals.
Azmi said Malaysia had decided on compulsory labelling despite US opposition during trade negotiations on the basis it would hamper access to US imports, the state Bernama news agency reported "In this aspect, our stand is consistent with that of Australia and the European Union," Azmi was quoted as saying. The minister said proposed legislation on biosafety was expected to be passed by parliament and come into force by year's end, and that compulsory labelling would start after that.
Malaysia and the US embarked on negotiations for a free trade agreement in June last year, but talks became bogged down in February. The two countries failed to work out a deal by a crucial March 31 deadline which would have allowed the agreement to be fast-tracked through the US Congress.
Copyright 2007 FRANCE 24
CIC orders govt to divulge toxicity of GM foods - Manoj Mitta - The Times of India, 14 April 2007
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/NEWS/India/CIC_orders_govt_to_divulge_toxicity_of_GM_foods/articleshow/1907423.cms
NEW DELHI: If a genetically modified (GM) food causes allergies or contains toxins, can the government refuse to disclose such bio-safety information on the grounds that it involves "commercial confidence" or "trade secrets" and that it will compromise the "competitive position" of the bio-tech company concerned? Central Information Commission (CIC) said no on Thursday and ordered the department of biotechnology to disclose toxicity and allergenicity data on transgenic food crops that are being field-tested across the country. In a far-reaching interface between RTI and environmental protection, the head of CIC, Wajahat Habibullah, directed the government to make public within 10 working days all the relevant data on genetically engineered brinjal, okra, mustard and rice which have been approved for multi-location trials.
The order came on an appeal filed by a Greenpeace activist, Divya Raghunandan, against government's refusal to disclose the data saying it was covered by Section 8 (1)(d) of RTI Act which exempts from disclosure "information, including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party". While arguing for the disclosure of the toxicity and allergenicity data, Raghunandan cited a recent rat-feeding study in Europe by three French scientists who, despite the efforts of bio-tech major Monsanto to keep the matter under wraps, established that a genetically modified maize brought out by that company was not a safe food. Raghunandan also drew attention to an alarming admission made by the government in response to her RTI application. Although it has approved their multi-location field trials, the government said that the data on rice, okra and mustard was "under development" and "yet to be evaluated" by it. Such laxity in regulation, she said, could lead to genetic contamination in the areas where field trials were being held even before the toxicity and allergenicity data had been analysed.
Given the obvious public interest in the health risk assessment of genetically modified foods, CIC observed that the government should be, under Section 4 of the RTI Act, proactively putting out all the relevant data without waiting for applications for their disclosure. But CIC declined Raghunandan's plea for making public the minutes of the meetings of the Review Committee on Genetic Modification (RCGM), which approved the various proposals of multi-location field trials of genetically modified food crops. Since RCGM's minutes mention details of the proposals made by each of the bio-tech companies, Habibullah chose to leave it to the government to take a call on whether those confidential documents could be made public.
manoj.mitta@timesgroup.com
Info body gives bio-tech dept a RTI power-punch - ASHOK B SHARMA - Financial Express, April 14 2007
http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=161059
NEW DELHI, APR 13: In a verdict which may have a far-reaching consequence in the future, the Central Information Commission (CIC) on Friday directed the department of bio-technology (DBT) to make public the data generated from the tests carried out on transgenic crops by agro-biotech companies. Chief commissioner Wajahat Habibullah delivered this right to information (RTI) power-punch, in response to an petition filed by Greenpeace India, after the review committee on genetic modification (RCGM) under DBT consistently refused to part with this closely guarded secret for over a year.
Striking down the DBT's contention that the data falls under Section 8.1.(d), Habibullah pointed out that the request of the applicant for toxicity and allergenicity tests on genetically modified (GM) rice, mustard, okra and brinjal cannot be refused under the RTI Act. Any further grounds for non-disclosure are invalid even if the data in reference are in the process of development. The information was also directed to be disclosed under section 4. (1). (d) of the RTI Act, which states "provide reasons for its administrative or quasi judicial decisions to affected persons.
Supreme Court advocate Prashant Bhushan who pleaded before the CIC on behalf of Greenpeace India said, "The Commission's order is significant as past experience shows that RCGM has not used the right kind of protocols for bio-safety testing". In February, last year, Greenpeace India had requested the RCGM to make public the toxicity and allergenicity data for four GM crops alongwith the minutes of the meeting. "Our victory today is in keeping with the spirit of the RTI, and has only strengthened the RTI as a tool to building a participatory democracy, " Divya Raghunandan of Greenpeace India.
Zambia takes steps towards biosafety law - Michael Malakata - SciDev.Net, 12 April 2007
http://www.scidev.net/gateways/index.cfm?fuseaction=readitem&rgwid=4&item=News&itemid=3549&language=1
[LUSAKA] Zambian policymakers have adopted a biosafety bill that paves the way for legislation to deal with issues surrounding genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The bill was drafted by the Parliamentary Committee on Education, Science and Technology, and submitted to parliament on 3 April for scrutiny and adoption. Minister of Science and Technology Brian Chituwo said the bill was needed because GMOs were bound to find their way into Zambia.
Currently, Zambia does not have a regulatory framework to regulate biotechnology issues, including the research, development, application, import, export, transit and use of genetically modified products. If enacted into law, the bill will establish a National Biosafety Authority (NBA) and Scientific Advisory Committee. The NBA will ensure the bill is adhered to and provide guidelines on its implementation. The Scientific Advisory Committee will oversee the operations of the NBA. The bill will promote public awareness of biosafety with information and consultation services. It also seeks to provide a mechanism for liability and redress for any harm or damage caused to human and animal health, non-GMO crops, socio-economic conditions, and biological diversity by any GMO or product.
Minister of Justice, George Kunda, said the Zambian government was eager to have the bill passed and made into law to allow for the domestication of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, to which Zambia is a signatory. The international agreement aims to provide protection in the transfer, handling and use of living modified organisms resulting from biotechnology. Kunda said Zambia needs the legislation to avoid becoming a 'dumping ground' for such products, as it currently does not have the technology to test imported material for GMOs. Saviour Chishimba, chairperson of the Education, Science and Technology Committee said, "The bill is aimed at ensuring that Zambia remains a GMO free country." Zambia is one of several countries in southern Africa that prohibit the growing or consumption of GMO foods. Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique and Swaziland have taken a similar stance.
Vigilance Still Needed on GM Rice Contamination
GM Freeze is calling on the Food Standards Agency, as well as food retailers and manufacturers, to be on maximum alert to prevent further imports of GM contaminated US long grain rice after Swedish authorities announced yesterday finding Bayer’s unauthorised GM LL601 in pre-packed US rice.
Sweden imported the rice in January 2007, five months after the US authorities informed the EU of the contamination they had first discovered in January 2006. Earlier this year another important variety of long grain rice in the US, BASF's non-GM Clearfield, was found to be contaminated with 4 GM traits developed by Bayer.[1] GM contaminated rice was available for purchase in UK shops as late as January 2007, more than two months after the FSA claimed no contaminated rice remained on the market.
Commenting Pete Riley of GM Freeze said: “It is pretty clear that the GM contamination of US rice has not yet run its course. The whole of the UK's food industry, from supermarkets to catering establishments, needs to be very vigilant to prevent further contamination of our supply chains. The Food Standards Agency must ensure that the food chain is being adequately monitored to ensure that no contaminated lots get through and contaminated stocks are removed from the market.”
Calls to Pete Riley 07903 341065
[1] See http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/content/2007/03/CL131update3-9-07.shtml
Eve Mitchell, Co-ordinator, GM FREEZE CAMPAIGN, 94 White Lion Street, London, N1 9PF - Tel: 020 7837 0642 - Fax: 020 7837 1141
eve@gmfreeze.org - www.gmfreeze.org
Asian peasants and scientists: NO to Genetically-engineered Rice; YES to Genuine Land Reform! - By Ilang-Ilang D. Quijano
Manila, Philippines - Peasants and scientists celebrated Asia?s most treasured rice culture by issuing a strong statement that they hoped would reverberate among peoples for the challenging years to come: NO to genetic engineering; YES to genuine land reform. In culmination of the Week of Rice Action (WORA) led by Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific (PAN AP), more than 300 participants attended a forum on genetic engineering (GE) and rice in Balay Kalinaw, University of the Philippines last April 3. The event also became a local highlight when a prominent Filipino activist and lawmaker, newly released from political detention, visited to extend solidarity to WORA participants.
Scientist-peasant partnership
In her welcoming remarks, Dr. Angelina Briones, board member of Magsasaka at Siyentipiko Para sa Pag-unlad ng Agrikultura (MASIPAG) or Farmer-Scientist Partnership for Development, Inc. said that scientists are one with farmers in celebrating the rice culture of Asia, one "that preserves traditional rice varieties, knowledge and practices." She recounts that as a chemist, she used to conduct scientific researches that were estranged from the real plight of Filipino farmers, until the NGO community made her aware of the destructive effects of the Green Revolution. "In my barrio, the farmers used to have decent living, they had seed granaries and plenty of food for the people. After I finished my studies, I came back and saw little huts and farmers no longer have plenty of food," she said.
Dr. Giovanni Tapang, chairperson of AGHAM or Advocates of Science and Technology for the People, gave participants an overview of the threats of GE rice, the movement against it, and the objectives of the WORA. "This is not only about protesting GE and transnational corporations (TNCs), but also about celebrating the commonalities of the people in Asia," he said.
GE threats and TNC control
Sarojeni Rengam, executive director of PAN AP, made a presentation on "GE and TNC control in agriculture". She explained the consolidation of power of seeds and agro-chemical TNCs, only three of which will control the market in 5 years. These TNCs, led by Monsanto, DuPont, and Syngenta, reap around $21 billion in profits per year. She warned that because of collusion between U.S. and other governments in the world, GE seeds are gaining market share, even wit the lack of public acceptance. Rengam told of how Monsanto controls most of GE soybeans, maize, cotton, and canola, and how these seeds are linked with particular herbicides that Monsanto also produces. She told of the recent contamination of U.S. rice stocks with Liberty Link 601 GE rice, the way the U.S. Department of Agriculture rushed to help Bayer by deregulating it, and how Bayer refuses to pay compensation for affected farmers. She also said that health and safety questions have not been addressed by Bt rice and Golden Rice. She cited a study by Charles M. Benbrook that shows that GE crops did not lessen but instead increased the use of pesticides, contrary to the claims of TNCs. According to the study of GM crops in U.S. from 1993 to 2004, pesticide use has increased by 4.1%. Rengam also talked about the International Rice Genome Sequencing Project, which is a TNC endeavour to own the rice genome that rightfully belongs to everybody. "To stop the destruction of our rice culture, the spirit of WORA has to continue throughout the years," she said.
Meanwhile, Dr. Michael Hansen of the Consumer Policy Institute in the U.S. talked of the potential problems associated with each step of the GE process, the possible health and environmental issues associated with GE rice, and the economic impact caused by GE contamination. Dr. Hansen cited a household survey of 481 farming families in 5 provinces in China, which showed that farmers of Bt cotton spent 40% more on pesticides for secondary pest outbreaks. "GE is acting like a classic pesticide-a silver bullet that fails in the long term," he said. He presented studies which show that GE crops non-target organisms like pollinators and earthworms. Studies that prove GE's high allergenicity potentials on consumers and adverse health among farmworkers was also shown. He told Filipino farmers that the Philippine government will be a fool to approve Bayer's 2006 application to import LL 62, because no other country has accepted the GE product. He said that there are already 41 major rice-producing countries in the world which has declared a "no-GE rice" policy.
Resounding resistance
Afterwards, WORA participants from Cambodia, Japan, South Korea, Pakistan, U.S., Indonesia, and Thailand gave solidarity messages and an account of highly successful WORA activities in their own countries. "We will go home with hope and confidence that we are doing the right and good thing," said Montawadee Krutmechai of the Foundation of Reclaiming Rural Agriculture and Food Sovereignty Action (RRAFA). Yi Kim Than of the Cambodian Center for Study and Development in Agriculture (CEDAC) said that 1,700 farmers joined in their WORA activities. Aside from strengthening the network against GE rice, Cambodian farmers also shared their experiences in seed collection and seed preservation, he said. Haekyung Woo of Consumers Korea said that the WORA campaign in South Korea, mainly of symposia and petition campaigns, were a triumph. Keisuke Amagasa of the NO! GMO Campaign in Japan said that they were able to stop the field tests of GE crops. He acknowledged that the Japanese government is one of the leading supporters of the International Rice Research Institute and had to be stopped. Muhammad Asim Lasin of the Lok Sanjh Foundation in Pakistan denounced their government's approval of Bt cotton and said that their farmers do not have the capacity to implement "biosafety measures" put into place. "I congratulate all the farmers who participated in the WORA, especially Filipino farmers-you have made the leap and for that I salute you!" he also said. Frederick Fajardo of Gita Pertiwi in Indonesia told of the promising sustainable agriculture efforts in their country and said that the WORA activities raised public awareness on GE rice.
Afterwards, Dr. Gene Nisperos, chairperson of the Health Alliance for Democracy, presented on basic issues and concerns on health and GE rice. He said that while GE rice has mainly been promoted as a solution to hunger, illness, and malnutrition, it will achieve the opposite. Dr. Nisperos stressed the unmonitored consequences of GE rice such as diseases, and cited several studies to prove his point. He scored the lax government regulation on GE rice. "We are eating it without computing how much of those fortifications stay in our body and how it will exit," he said of the so-called Vitamin A rice. He also said that GE rice for oral rehydration is an "unnecessary distraction" from existing solutions such as providing access to safe water and improved sanitation.
Finally, Danilo Ramos, secretary general of Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP) or Peasant Movement of the Philippines, said that imperialist globalization, through the World Trade Organization, is the driving force behind the promotion of pesticides and GE. Yet he said that the campaign against GE and TNCs is getting stronger in the grassroots level, with the farmers protecting their community through various means, such as direct uprooting of Bt crops, mass protests, lobbying and policy advocacy, and adopting sustainable agriculture. According to Ramos, the primary solution to ending hunger and exploitation of rice farmers in Asia is genuine land reform, especially in a semi-feudal and semi-colonial country like the Philippines where the vast majority of land is controlled by local landlords and foreign agri-businesses. "The struggle for land reform can only be won by strengthening the mass movement in Asia," he said.
Peasant leader and congressman Rafael Mariano of Anakpawis (Toiling Masses) party-list delivered the closing remarks, saying that the "resounding voice of resistance" heard throughout the WORA gave much hope to millions of rice farmers and other rural peoples. Afterwards, a solidarity dinner of various Philippine rice cakes and vegetables were served. An invigorating cultural performance was also held, wherein participants sang, danced, and recited poetry to celebrate rice culture and the people?s struggle.
From Jail to WORA
In an unexpected but much welcome visit, newly released congressman Satur Ocampo of Bayan Muna (People First) party-list took time out to express support of the WORA campaign. Ocampo, only that morning, was granted bail by the Supreme Court after finding a murder suit filed against him by the Arroyo government highly dubious and ill-motivated. Bayan Muna, Anakpawis, and other progressive party-lists have consistently upheld the struggle against feudal and imperialist domination of Third World agriculture. With a membership deeply rooted in the Philippine mass movement, they have been victims of intense political repression, even extra-judicial killings. "We are one with your campaign to liberate farmers from all forms of exploitation. Long live international solidarity!" said Ocampo. With everyone in high spirits, a toast of local rice wine served in bamboo cups formally ended the event.
The Week of Rice Action (WORA) 2007 brings together farmers, rural communities, and other sectors of society to celebrate and protect rice culture. To be officially launched on March 13 in Bangladesh, the main WORA events will take place in 13 countries across Asia from March 29 to April 4. Culminating in India and the Philippines, WORA will be an unprecedented mobilization of Asians "Celebrating and Protecting Rice Culture"! A key feature of WORA will be its one-million signature campaign calling on policy-makers to take immediate steps to save the rice of Asia. WORA is organised by Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific (PAN AP) and its partner organisations in thirteen countries in the region. Anyone interested in being a part of WORA 2007 can log on to the WORA page at www.panap.net
Contact at PAN AP: Ms Anne Haslam, PAN AP at wora2007@panap.net
PESTICIDE ACTION NETWORK ASIA AND THE PACIFIC (PAN AP), P.O. Box 1170, 10850 Penang, Malaysia. Tel: 604-6570271 or 604-6560381 Fax: 604-6583960
E-mail: panap@panap.net Home Page: www.panap.net
Pesticide Action Network (PAN) is a global network working to eliminate the human and environmental harm caused by pesticides and to promote biodiversity based ecological agriculture. PAN Asia and the Pacific is committed to the empowerment of people especially women, agricultural workers, peasant and indigenous farmers. We are dedicated to protect the safety and health of people, and the environment from pesticide use and genetic engineering. We believe in a people-centered, pro-women development through food sovereignty, ecological agriculture and sustainable lifestyles.
Indigenous Communities Pledge to Protect Rice in Sabah! - By Jennifer Mourin
They are the four last known remaining 'Bobohizan' or Rice Priestesses actually practicing rice rituals and rice related spiritual activities in the Penampang District in Sabah. Dressed in the traditional black of the Kadazan Dusun people, the Priestesses perform the sacred 'Monogit' ceremony of thanksgiving for the previous rice harvest and put forward prayers for good harvest for the coming year. Besides being the last guardians of the rice rituals, these women-Inai Livani, Inai Gusiti, Inai Luvining and Inai Silip-are truly precious treasures because they also have the distinction of being the only people left in the community with the ability to speak the special and distinct language related to the Rice Rituals. Once they are gone, it is not only the rituals that will die with them, the language of the 'Bobohizan' rice rituals and traditions will be gone forever. Participants and curious visitors to the WORA event in Penampang State Library, last 31st March, got a rare glimpse at the Bobohizans performing the Monogit in the 'Celebrating and Protecting Rice Culture' photo exhibition that greeted one and all as they made their way into the WORA Meeting Hall.
The threats facing the 'Bobohizan' epitomize the threats facing rice farming in the Penampang district, and Sabah as a whole, as massive land development projects for housing, industrial sites, tourism and plantations (namely palm oil) have literally eaten up acres and acres of rice lands. "To us, Indigenous Peoples, rice is very important. A lot of our culture and beliefs are centred around rice tradition", states Anne Lasimbang, Executive Director of PACOS (Partners of Community Organisations), host for the WORA event in East Malaysia. "Issues on land are also related to rice, because land is needed to plant rice for survival and if land is taken away the question of survival is at stake. So at many times when communities fight for their land, it is because they need it for their survival, for planting rice and other food crops".
The impacts of urbanization and influences of globalisation which have drastically affected the social and cultural lives of indigenous peoples has meant that many young people are no longer interested in the adat (traditions) and culture of their communities, least of all in rice culture and cultivation. "Our mother tongue is also very much tied up with rice cultivation and rice culture, therefore if we give up the rice culture many of our words in our language will be lost with it. One of PACOS main work is environment and biodiversity, this is one reason why we wanted to take part in WORA. These issues need to be highlighted and addressed!" asserts Anne.
Participants to the 'One Day Farmers' Seminar in conjunction with WORA', in Penampang, consisted of over 100 local farmers, representatives from the Agriculture Department, the Fisheries Department, Consumers and Environmental NGOs, and the general public. The event was organised to promote biodiversity-based ecological agriculture, as a basis for people centred economic development and independence of farming communities; and to educate the public and create a broad awareness of pesticides problems; as well as GE crops in general and GE Rice in particular-targeting farmers, women, consumers and other relevant sectors.
While presenting an overview on the regional WORA events, Jennifer Mourin of the Pesticide Action Network (PAN) Asia and the Pacific, highlighted concerns of how the Malaysian government aimed to remedy its 13 billion Ringgit Malaysia food import expenditure by re-focusing attention on agriculture and food production, and aimed to overturn the food deficit by 2010 to make Malaysia a net exporter of food. She also noted how, fuelled with this new focus, the government's 9th Malaysian Plan aimed to develop 'New Agriculture' programmes by "giving focus on enhancing the value chain, cultivating high value added agricultural activities and large-scale commercial farming, utilising ICT as well as exploiting the full potential of biotechnology".
She questioned such a development that prioritised so-called "high-value" cash crops, such as palm oil, for export markets instead of prioritising local food self sufficiency. She also pointed out that promotion of large scale commercial agriculture would mean taking over large areas of land for the intensive cultivation of such commercial and export crops. Finally she asserted that such commercial oriented agriculture would require large amounts of chemical pesticides and fertilizers; mechanization, and valuable resources such as water-the kind of agriculture known to badly affect human health, pollute the environment, and deplete valuable natural resources. Following this session, Jennifer was invited to provide an orientation on pesticides and their hazards. During the question and answer session she strongly challenged the government officials present to promote organic agriculture and alternatives to chemical pesticides.
Providing the participants with an in dept orientation of Genetic Engineering (GE), Wilhemina 'Didit' Peregrina the Executive Director of SEARICE (Southeast Asia Regional Initiatives for Community Empowerment) debunked the myths and propaganda of the so called benefits of GE being promoted [by] the GE industry and pro-GE scientists. She pointed that they have claimed that GE will ensure food security and will save the world from hunger; and GE will improve the nutrient quality of crops. "In reality GE crops have been in the market since 1996 but hunger and malnutrition persist" she noted. About 35 per cent of GE crops in the market are soyabeans, 20 per cent corn), 10 per cent cotton and 5 per cent canola-all key export crops of industrialized countries, not food crops. "Most of the soya and corn traded worldwide are not meant as food, but as animal feeds," she pointed out ironically. Furthermore, 50 per cent of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) had been developed for herbicide tolerance. Didit also ran through the gamut of known evidence of health and environmental hazards of GE, as well as the consumer and ethical concerns over GE food products.
She really shocked participants with the section on GE rice development, in which she shared on 'Biopharmaceutical Rice', where she noted that "rice is being developed as a drug factory, to produce human lactoferin and lysozyme (bacteria fighting compounds in breastmilk and saliva) for commercialisation in the U.S." She explained how this, "GE rice or 'mothers' milk rice is being developed for children with diarhhoea (extracted for oral rehydration and other uses), and Ventria Bioscience application to USDA has gotten the preliminary green light for commercial release in Kansas, even though USFDA refused approval of recombinant pharmaceutical!"
Other disturbing GE rice development noted by Didit included: transgenic hay fever rice due to be commercialised by 2007 in Japan; and rice with human insulin like growth factor (hIGF) which researchers claim will be useful to treat growth deficiencies for children, osteoporosis and even AIDS, while significantly not discussing the cancer promoting qualities of hIGF. She also noted the controversial Liberty Link Rice which faced huge resistance in the European Union but was only, "one signature away for approved importation in the Philippines". Produced by Bayer Cropsience, LL62 is genetically-modified to resist the herbicide glufosinate, which is meant to be used in conjunction with the genetically modified crop. "There are fears that with LL62, glufosinate use by farmers will increase", she noted. Glufosinate has been observed to cause adverse health effects in animals, causing nervous system and numerous birth defects.
She concluded by citing yet more worrying GE developments, including GURTS (Genetic Use Restriction Technologies) namely the now infamous 'terminator seeds' (sterile) and trait restriction; and the spectre of 'Nano rice' using nanotechnology in rice breeding being developed at Chiang Mai University); and a slew of other examples that included tungro resistant transgenic rice, Bt rice (for yellow stem borer, striped stem borer, and rice leafhoppers), rice with E. coli for starch biosynthesis; nitrogen fixing rice, Beta carotene rice (for indica) or 'Golden Rice' and saline tolerant rice.
The WORA event ended with a workshop session to discuss follow up activities. Participants came up with a range of activities to protect rice, including requests for more information and workshops to share on the issues highlighted at the WORA event and to take these to a wider audience in the villages; village level rice seed conservation projects; community campaigns to resist GE rice; promotion of alternatives to pesticides and ecological/organic agricultural practices.
The Week of Rice Action (WORA) is organised by Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific (PAN AP) and its partner organisations in thirteen countries in the region. Anyone interested in being a part of WORA 2007 can log on to the WORA page at www.panap.net
Contact at PAN AP: Ms Anne Haslam, PAN AP at wora2007@panap.net - Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific (PAN AP), P.O. Box 1170, 10850 Penang, Malaysia. Tel: 604-6570271 or 604-6560381 Fax: 604-6583960 E-mail: panap@panap.net Home Page: www.panap.net
Pesticide Action Network (PAN) is a global network working to eliminate the human and environmental harm caused by pesticides and to promote biodiversity based ecological agriculture. PAN Asia and the Pacific is committed to the empowerment of people especially women, agricultural workers, peasant and indigenous farmers. We are dedicated to protect the safety and health of people, and the environment from pesticide use and genetic engineering. We believe in a people-centered, pro-women development through food sovereignty, ecological agriculture and sustainable lifestyles.
JAPANESE FARMERS FIGHT TO PROTECT THEIR LOCAL VARIETIES OF RICE FROM GE RICE - By Sarojeni Rengam
Niigata Organic farmer, Tsuru Maki and his group has launched a protracted campaign and a legal suit to protect the rice variety Koshi-Hikari from contamination from GE rice. Speaking at the Forum on WORA in Tokyo, Japan on 29th March 2007, Mr Tsuru Maki said, "We had to stop the open field experiments of GE rice in Niigata before it contaminates our local rice varieties and destroys our livelihood." He continued, "Two years ago we undertook a legal suit to stop The National Hokuriku Research Center from undertaking open field testing of GE rice." The legal suit empowered the farmers and they were able to get the support of many groups and academicians, scientists, farmers all over the country and even musicians who joined their campaign. Tsuru emphasised, "We did not realise that much of the information that was being put out by the Hokuriku Research Center was really biased. It was a shock to us that a government research centre would get this so wrong".
They had one victory when the local Judge presiding over their case ordered that the open field experiments be stopped. The Hokuriku Research Center now continues the experiments but it has ensured that the experiments are undertaken in a closed system. But another case is still pending in the courts on the question of the impact of these GE rice experiments on soil bacteria that surfaced as a result of the first legal case. The campaign has also spearheaded the support from many Local Governments (the Town Assemblies) to vote against the open field testing of GE crops. According to Mr Tsuru the campaign has also raised many pertinent issues and farmers, consumers and scientists are questioning the meaning of these experiments. He also added that the public disclosure of information was another major issue and has raised concerns about the credibility of the information on GE rice from a government research center.
Koshi-Hikari is a local variety that Niigata is famous for and an important variety for organic farmers since it does well with little use of fertilisers. "The taste of this variety is special, it is wonderful", said Prof Koa Tasaka of PAN Japan when asked the reasons for the popularity of this variety. Finally Mr Tsuru ended with a strong message of unity to farmers, he said, "Farmers must stand up together and be independent! We have to look for the information and make our own conclusions and take action. We cannot just depend on the information from the government." The network of organic farmers, consumer cooperatives and a Niigata environmental group together formed the "Niigata No Kome to Shizen wo Moamoru Renraku-Kai" or the "Protect Niigata's Rice and Natural Environment Network" and together with Consumers Union of Japan launched a campaign to stop GE field testing. In the process they were able to involve many farmers all over the country, academicians, scientists and musicians in their campaign.
Also speaking at the Forum was Sarojeni V. Rengam who called on the participants to sign on to the statement of WORA and to join the thousands who are saying NO to GE! She also emphasised the campaign against International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) which is now having partnerships with transnational corporations, such as Syngenta to develop GE rice for Asia. She stressed that, "These partnerships are motivated by profits and not for humanitarian purposes". Rengam also said "IRRI has still to acknowledge the failures of the Green Revolution technologies which it promoted from the 1960s and compensate and provide health care to its poisoned workers particularly the workers who applied hazardous pesticides in its field sites. It has abandoned any responsibility to these workers who are suffering the impacts of pesticides until today".
Mr. Amagasa of the NO! GMO Campaign in Japan shared information on the Japanese situation focusing on GE rice experiments while Ms Ryuku also from the Campaign outlined the WORA in Japan. The Week of Rice Action (WORA) 2007 brings together farmers, rural communities, and other sectors of society to celebrate and protect rice culture. To be officially launched on March 13 in Bangladesh, the main WORA events will take place in 13 countries across Asia from March 29 to April 4. Culminating in India and the Philippines, WORA will be an unprecedented mobilization of Asians "Celebrating and Protecting Rice Culture"! A key feature of WORA will be its one-million signature campaign calling on policy-makers to take immediate steps to save the rice of Asia. WORA is organised by Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific (PAN AP) and its partner organisations in thirteen countries in the region. Anyone interested in being a part of WORA 2007 can log on to the WORA page at www.panap.net
Cambodian farmers Say No to GE Rice - By Gilbert M. Sape
Phnom Penh, 30 March 2007 - More than a hundred Cambodian farmer leaders have added their voices to the growing opposition against genetically engineered (GE) rice in Asia. In a workshop in Cambodia's capital Phnom Penh, farmers from 11 provinces were joined by supporting NGOs, government officials from the Department of Agriculture and students from agricultural colleges in celebrating the Week of Action Rice (WORA) that is taking place in 13 countries in Asia. Organised by the Cambodian Center for Study and Development in Agriculture (CEDAC) together with 25 more NGOs, the two-day workshop kicked off on March 30 with discussions on the threats of GE rice to the Cambodian paddy farmers and ways to strengthen their ecological agriculture practices.
Keam Makarady of CEDAC said WORA provided the farmers an opportunity to reaffirm their commitment to protect their traditional rice seeds. He added that the involvement of the government officials from the department of agriculture in the WORA in Cambodia could help in strengthening the existing agricultural laws on GE and pesticides. While by law, GE crops and seeds are supposedly not allowed to be grown in Cambodia, the reality says otherwise. CEDAC reported that despite the ban, GE cotton and corn are commercially grown in Kampongcham province. Farmers in the area suspect that these GE crops came from neighbouring China and the harvests, at least for cotton, are brought back to China to feed the hungry textile companies in the mainland. As with most countries in Asia, rice means life for Cambodian farmers. Rice is part of their culture and identity. According to CEDAC, 2004 data shows 75% of Cambodian farmers depend on rice farming for their survival; there are 1.8 million families involved in rice production and 90% of the rice crop in the country is planted with farmer-saved seeds.
The alarming news on the farmers' suicide in Andhra Pradesh in India has reached the Cambodian farmers. Indian farmers who planted Monsanto's GE cotton went bankrupt after a series of poor yield and being caught in the cycle of indebtedness to finance the great promises of bollgard (Bt cotton). "We don't want GE rice as it will affect our livelihood just like what happened to the cotton farmers in India," said rice farmer Ngin Sokha from Takeo province. Ngin has been growing rice in her small farm using the ecological agriculture system. She has been championing seed-saving in her community. Seed saving has been practiced by Cambodian farmers for centuries. As custodians of these precious seeds, they have improved their traditional rice varieties through cross-breeding. With the possible commercialisation of GE rice in Asia, Cambodian farmers are afraid that once GE rice finds its way into the country, seed-saving would be gone and they would have to buy seeds every planting season and eventually depend on agrochemical TNCs which own the patents to GE rice.
In the two-day workshop on WORA, farmers have showed and shared their skills with other farmers on how to be the best custodians of seeds using ecological agriculture practices. From paddy field preparation to seed selection, from maintenance to harvesting, these farmers shared their first-hand knowledge with other farmers, government officials from the department of agriculture and students from agricultural colleges. "Farmers should organise themselves to protect local varieties against GE," adds Ngin. "Farmers have to reject GE rice!" she concluded.
The Cambodia WORA is part of the regional WORA that is being organised by the Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific (PAN AP) with the aim of celebrating and protecting rice culture in Asia. The Week of Rice Action (WORA) 2007 brings together farmers, rural communities, and other sectors of society to celebrate and protect rice culture. To be officially launched on March 13 in Bangladesh, the main WORA events will take place in 13 countries across Asia from March 29 to April 4. Culminating in India and the Philippines, WORA will be an unprecedented mobilization of Asians "Celebrating and Protecting Rice Culture"! A key feature of WORA will be its one-million signature campaign calling on policy-makers to take immediate steps to save the rice of Asia.
WORA is organised by Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific (PAN AP) and its partner organisations in thirteen countries in the region. Anyone interested in being a part of WORA 2007 can log on to the WORA page at www.panap.net
Contact at PAN AP: Ms Anne Haslam, PAN AP at wora2007@panap.net
PESTICIDE ACTION NETWORK ASIA AND THE PACIFIC (PAN AP), P.O. Box 1170, 10850 Penang, Malaysia. Tel: 604-6570271 or 604-6560381 Fax: 604-6583960
E-mail: panap@panap.net - Home Page: www.panap.net
Pesticide Action Network (PAN) is a global network working to eliminate the human and environmental harm caused by pesticides and to promote biodiversity based ecological agriculture. PAN Asia and the Pacific is committed to the empowerment of people especially women, agricultural workers, peasant and indigenous farmers. We are dedicated to protect the safety and health of people, and the environment from pesticide use and genetic engineering. We believe in a people-centered, pro-women development through food sovereignty, ecological agriculture and sustainable lifestyles.
GM Potato Controversy - A case with disturbing implications for present day science - By Dr. Arpad J. Pusztai - FoodConsumer.Org, Mar 28 2007
http://foodconsumer.org/7777/8888/L_aws_amp_P_olitics_42/032810282007_GM_Potato_Controversy_-_A_case_with_disturbing_implications_for_present_day_science.shtml
Two years after the release of the first GM plant, the FLAVR - SAVR tomato in the USA in 1995, there was still not a single publication in peer-reviewed journals probing into the safety of GM foods. As this was of public and scientific concerns..the Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department (SOAEFD, as it was called then) called for research proposals to investigate the safety of GM foodcrops; their possible effects on the environment, soil, microorganisms, animals, and whether they presented any risks for human consumers.
Of the original 28 proposals received by SOAEFD, ours was accepted as scientifically the most sound after peer-review by the BBSRC (Biological and Biotechnological Sciences Research Council). In our research plan we specified in detail what we wanted to do and how, with the design of all the experiments, and what we were going to deliver and when, etc.. The tasks of the project were divided between the three research units involved: The Scottish Crop Research Institute (SCRI), University of Durham, Department of Biology and the Rowett Institute in Aberdeen. At the request of the scientists participating in the programme, I co-ordinated it.
In our research to find suitable methods for the risk assessment of GM crops we used GM potatoes as a model for GM crops. These have been developed in Durham by scientists of Axis Genetics, a Cambridge biotechnology company and field-grown at Rothamstead Experimental Station for two years. The Rowett had a profit-sharing agreement with Axis Genetics should the GM potatoes be commercially released.
Artificial feeding trials with aphids at Durham and SCRI have established that the gene product, GNA (snowdrop bulb lectin) expressed in the potatoes did interfere with both the development and mortality of one of the main potato pests, the potato aphid. It was also revealed from previous nutritional-physiological studies that GNA would not pose major health problems for the animals.even at 800-fold concentration of that expected to be expressed in the potatoes. So we started off with a gene coding for a lectin that appeared to control insect damage but wouldn't harm the rat..
Nevertheless problems soon appeared. First, no correlation between the expression level of GNA in the potato plant and the protection against the aphids was found. This was worrying and difficult to understand. There were also disturbing indications that GM potatoes not only harmed the aphids but also non-target and beneficial insects, such as the two-spotted ladybirds which, in nature, control the aphid population.
At the same time the results of the feeding studies at the Rowett did not fit the ideas on which genetic engineering was based. Thus, although the gene product was safe when it was sprinkled on to the diet, it was not when expressed in the GM potatoes. The GM potato-based diets retarded the growth of the rats, particularly on long-term feeding, interfered with the normal development of vital internal organs and depressed the humoral immune system All.these suggested that there must be something wrong with this supposedly precise technology, for which it has been claimed that one can change the phenotype by inserting one gene by a 'neutral' technology. We had two successful lines of GM potatoes coming from the same transformation event, done at the same time and in the same vessel; yet they were different. We were beginning to suspect that the problems were likely to originate from our inability to direct the transgene to sites where it would not interfere with the potato's own gene expression.
These were controlversial ideas at the time. However, after my 150 sec TV interview in August 1998 the Rowett was first happy with the publicity and the Director congratulated me. The Rowett Press Releases on 10 and 11 August and by the Institute Governing Body Chairman to M. Jacques Santer and Frank Dobson were full of praise for our work "of strategic importance to our country and European Union consumers". "A range of carefully controlled studies underlie the basis of Dr Pusztai's concerns". "The testing of modified products with implanted genes needs to be thoroughly carried out in the gut of animals and humans if unknown disasters are to be avoided".
Unfortunately, the Director did not keep to our agreement of not releasing scientific details to the media and disastrously never checked with me about the accuracy of the press releases. He dealt with all enquiries and gave all the interviews resulting in major mistakes. Apparently, when the government instructed him on the afternoon of 11 August that as our results were against the government's pro-GM policy they should be suppressed and I must be silenced, he tried to extricate himself from the responsibility of telling the world about experiments which in fact had never been done. He claimed that I got "muddled" or that I "took" data from an absent colleague. In a further twist he hinted that we have never done any GM-potato experiments but just supplemented our ordinary potato diets with the poisonous Concanavalin A. The Director suspended me on 12 August, gagged me and instituted an illegal Audit even though I was not accused of scientific fraud. All our data were confiscated. My phone was re-directed to his office and my e-mails were intercepted. The Director then wrote a series of letters in which he explicitly threatened me with legal action if I spoke to anyone in or outside the Rowett about our work. Not only the Audit was illegal but also without a nutritionist on the board the composition of the Audit Committee was inappropriate to assess a mainly nutritional work on GM potatoes. The audit was over in less than 10 hours and I was not given a chance to explain our work to them, or the Governing Body or my scientific colleagues at the Rowett. None of the data in the Audit Report was primary and no statistical analyses were carried out by the Committee to validate the data. All this was so upsetting for some members of the international scientific community that 24 of them published a signed Memorandum (without giving away confidential data) and asked for my re-instatement to carry out further work into the safety of GM-foodstuffs. This publication in February 1999 dramatically re-kindled the GM debate.
After my TV interview I was violently criticised by the scientific establishment, including the Royal Society even though I gave no experimental details in the 14 sentences of the interview. However, I made a strong plea for proper scienific risk assessment to be done before the GM crops are released, so we should not need to use our own unwilling citizens as guinea pigs. Despite this, the Royal Society's main attack line was that our results were unreliable, obtained by a flawed experimental design and execution and as they were not peer reviewed they could only be 'publiished' on TV. Incidentally, the Royal Society never had the design of our experiments or the methods used by us. They only had an edited internal Rowett Report which, against my wishes, had been passed on to them by the Director. In any case, the Royal Society has never before peer-reviewed scientific results. Moreover, against natural justice, the Royal Society did not publish our data but only their criticism of it, that The Lancet Editorial called a 'breathtaking impertinence' against a senior scientist. As there was no work done on GM potatoes by the Royal Society or anyone else, their report must be regarded as a collection of opinions. However, in science opinions that are not based experimentation and published after peer-review have no scientific validity even if they come from the President of the Royal Society.
Our paper was accepted on both scientific merit and public interest, as explained by The Lancet Editor after having been refereed by six referees, instead of the usual two, and published in The Lancet (Ewen and Pusztai, 1999). As the Rowett still had the right to scrutinise our papers, the publication was a little delayed, that gave an opportunity for pro-GM people to try to stop it. The scientific establishment had to find some reason for rubbishing the paper to justify their rejection of our work. So that was probably the reason why the President of the Royal Society said, 'We still cannot accept this publication because Dr Pusztai did not use the right low protein controls'. But surely the six referees could not have missed something as important as this? You needn't be a Nobel Prize winner to read our paper and see that all diets contained the same amount of protein and energy. According to The Guardian, a senior fellow of the Royal Society who was involved with the biotech industry phoned Richard Horton and threatened him if he dared to publish our paper. Interestingly, when this became public the Royal Society washed their hands of the whole affair. Another Royal Society fellow told the Independent that the Lancet editor must have had political motives for publishing the paper, because 'the referees' did not accept it. Although not a nutritionist he claimed that the design of our experiment was so terrible that if it was presented by one of his students, he would fail him/her 'because what we did was wrong, by changing horses in midstream' i.e. started the feeding with the control diet and then we switched to GM and vice versa. It is difficult to judge whether he was scientifically incompetent or did he knowingly misrepresent our experiment? It appears that peoples' attitude profoundly changes when their interests are jeopardised or threatened by some scientific findings.
Unfortunately, ethics have low priority in science nowadays. Powerful scientific committees, such as the Nuffield Council on Bioethics take the side of the establishment most of the time, regardless the merit of the case. Additionally, most of the important decisions are taken by the wrong people who have long retired from active scientific work and these people on the committees have little time to properly read anything. Many of them also either directly or indirectly receive funding from the industry and/or the allied scientific establishment. It is thus not surprising that the whole industrial and political complex came down so heavily on me and on our findings. However, it may have become obvious by now even to those who condemned our work at the time because it was against their interest that suppression of 'unpleasant' but true facts uncovered by independent scientists is not only against the interest of society but in the long run also of their own. Hopefully, it is now generally realized that when academic freedom is denied to professional scientists progress in science becomes impossible .
References
1. Ewen SWB, Pusztai A. Effects of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine. Lancet 1999; 354: 1353-1354.
2. Flynn L, Gillard MS. Pro-GM food scientist 'threatened editor'. Guardian 1999; Nov 1: 1-2.
Editor's note: We thank Dr. Arpad J. Pusztai very much for his article. Dr. Pusztai has been directly involved as a principal investigator in the researching of GM potatoes and what he told here is absolutely an insider story.
Importers Question Purity of U.S. Crops - The Wall Street Journal, 26 March 2006
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117486230219448287.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Recent breakdowns in the system meant to keep experimental genetically engineered plants from contaminating the hundreds of millions of acres of crops grown in the U.S. has farmers and import markets questioning the purity of U.S. goods. Mexico, the largest foreign market for U.S. rice, sent tremors through the U.S. sector midmonth when it stopped shipments on the border out of concern the U.S. can't keep its experimental transgenic long-grain rice out of commercial crops. California's medium-grain rice growers have demanded a statewide moratorium on any biotech field trials to avoid the contamination recently plaguing long-grain growers in the south. Those contaminations, California Rice Commission spokeswoman Beth Horan said, prompted farmers and millers to say, "Whoa, this isn't as isolated as we thought and really the system isn't working the way that we thought."
California relies on countries such as Japan and South Korea to buy as much as 30% of the state's harvest each year, and producers want to keep the experimental crops as far away from their fields as possible. That's getting harder, if not impossible, to do with so many field trials going on, said biotechnology experts at nonprofit consumer groups.
The U.S. is the largest producer of biotech crops in the world, with 135 million acres planted last year, according to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. European Union countries, which were big long-grain buyers, stopped importing when they realized the U.S. couldn't keep biotech rice out of exports.
Thirty Thousand People in Nepal Raise Their Voices for Rice! - WORA News - 26 March 2007 - By Sarojeni Rengam, PAN AP
The All Nepal Peasant's Association (ANPA) announced that to date 30,000 people have signed the WORA (Week of Rice action) statement, Save OUR RICE. Balram Banskota of ANPA declared that out of the 30,000 signatures, 80 members of the Nepali Parliament including the Speaker of the house have signed on to the demands of WORA and the statement. He added, "This will send a strong statement to the Asian countries and particularly SAARC countries that we need to protect our rice culture and biodiversity from the onslaught of corporate control of rice production."
ANPA launched the WORA programme in Nepal at the inaugural event of South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) People's Forum on 23 March and called on the 1000 delegates from different parts of the region to sign on to the WORA statement. Immediately after the announcement, the Chief Guest of the function, the Speaker of Parliament, signed the WORA statement.
Banskota stressed, "We, peasants are strongly asserting food sovereignty in Nepal. We do not want nor need genetically engineered (GE) rice and we do not want any technologies that deplete our rice diversity and culture". He spoke at the WORA seminar at the People's SAARC Forum to explain the 13 country campaign that is taking place throughout Asia to protect and celebrate rice diversity and culture. Banskota stressed that rice is important for the culture of Nepal, and related how when a child is born the mother will celebrate her child's birth with the consumption of rice and when someone dies, rice is placed on the chest of the dead person and cremated.
At the culmination of the People's SAARC Forum three thousand people marched for justice, peace, and democracy on 25 th March 2007. At this rally, PAN AP Executive Director, Sarojeni V. Rengam, brought the strong message of WORA and called on the crowd to "Resist imperialist globalisation" that is driving peasants off their lands and reminded them of the struggles of rice peasants defending their land rights in Singur and Nandigram in West Bengal, India. She also called for South Asians to "Say no to GE rice" and "to assert our food sovereignty". She emphasised, "All SAARC countries and their governments must uphold the rights of food sovereignty and the right of peasants to land and productive resources". The People's SAARC Forum was a gathering of South Asian people's movements, NGOs and civil society organisations raising their voices against the policies of the governments pursuing neoliberal policies. The forum took place from 23-25 March in Kathmandu, Nepal. On the evening of 23 March, the participants were entertained by cultural dances and songs celebrating rice: the Chandinath dance, the harvest dance of the Rai, an indigenous community from the highlands of Eastern Nepal. Dynamic dancers also performed The Dhan dance related with the Newr community. During the Forum, the indigenous and local varieties of rice from across Nepal were displayed.
WORA 2007 will bring together farmers, rural communities, and other sectors of society to celebrate and protect rice culture. The main WORA events will take place in 13 countries across Asia from March 29 to April 4. From art competitions to seminars, food festivals to rallies, a myriad of activities will take place to showcase rice culture, farmers' wisdom and ecological agriculture, as well as the threats of landlessness and GE Rice. WORA will make a concerted stand against corporate control of rice and rice lands, unfair trade and laws, and genetically engineered (GE) Rice in Asia. Culminating in India and the Philippines, WORA will be an unprecedented mobilisation of Asians "Celebrating and Protecting Rice Culture"!
WORA is organised by Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific (PAN AP) and its partner organisations in thirteen countries in the region. Anyone interested in being a part of WORA 2007 can log on to the WORA page at www.panap.net. For more on the 1-million Signature Campaign - "People's Statement on Saving the Rice of Asia", see: http://www.panap.net/221.0.html
Contact at PAN AP: Ms Anne Haslam, PAN AP at wora2007@panap.net
PESTICIDE ACTION NETWORK ASIA AND THE PACIFIC (PAN AP), P.O. Box 1170, 10850 Penang, Malaysia.
Tel: 604-6570271 or 604-6560381 Fax: 604-6583960 - E-mail: panap@panap.net - Home Page: www.panap.net
Pesticide Action Network (PAN) is a global network working to eliminate the human and environmental harm caused by pesticides and to promote biodiversity based ecological agriculture. PAN Asia and the Pacific is committed to the empowerment of people especially women, agricultural workers, peasant and indigenous farmers. We are dedicated to protect the safety and health of people, and the environment from pesticide use and genetic engineering. We believe in a people-centered, pro-women development through food sovereignty, ecological agriculture and sustainable lifestyles.
GM crops cause 'breakdown' in Indian farming systems - By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor - The Independent on Sunday (London), 25 March 2007
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article2390920.ece
Genetically modified crops have helped cause a "complete breakdown" in farming systems in India, an authoritative new study suggests. The study threatens to deal a fatal blow to probably the most powerful argument left in the biotech industry's armoury, that it can help to bring prosperity to the Third World. Professor Glenn Davis Stone, professor of anthropology and environmental studies at Washington University in St Louis, Missouri, has spent more than 40 weeks on the ground in the biotech industry's prime Developing World showcase, the Warangal district of the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh.
The industry claims that local farmers have adopted GM cotton faster than any other agriculture technology in history. It argued at the prestigious Biovision conference in Lyon this month that the rapid spread proves that the technology is working for farmers. Professor Stone's study, published in the February issue of the journal Current Anthropology, demolishes this argument. Extensive interviews with the farmers proved that they are plumping for the GM seeds because they are new, hyped and locally fashionable, without having time to see if they produce better crops. "There is a rapidity of change that farmers just can't keep up with," he says. "They aren't able to digest new technologies as they come along." He adds that the rapid uptake "reflects the complete breakdown in the cotton cultivation system".
Is Monsanto Going to Seed? - By Alyce Lomax - The Motley Fool, March 23 2007
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2007/03/23/is-monsanto-going-to-seed.aspx
Many people like to consider Monsanto part of the brave new world of biotech. However, the company has long been shrouded in controversy, and there could be more in store. Several recent news headlines referring to its genetically modified products should give investors some reason to contemplate the risks that face this company. Consumer sentiment against Monsanto's artificial-growth hormone, Posilac, seems to be increasing. Not only have many dairy co-ops notified their farmers that they want an increasing supply of rBST-free milk, but Starbucks (Nasdaq: SBUX) recently said it was also bowing to consumer pressure and discontinuing the use of dairy produced with the substance.
Monsanto's latest 10-K disclosed: "We believe low milk prices and some processor requests for 'r-BST-free' milk are limiting our future sales" of Posilac. While Posilac doesn't represent a significant chunk of Monsanto's overall business, it's an interesting change in tune for the company. Also, a federal judge has blocked Monsanto's genetically modified alfalfa, ordering that sales of the seed be halted and banning planting of the crop after March 30. The judge stated that the manner in which such crops have been approved by regulators has been a "cavalier" approach. Yep, the lack of an environmental impact statement before approval does sound pretty cavalier. (In fact, it's more than cavalier -- this actually violated the law, according to the judge.) And, of course, environmental activist organization Greenpeace said recently that data shows that a strain of Monsanto's genetically modified corn has shown toxicity in rats, and some researchers have said GM potatoes are linked to cancer in the rodents. These are the kernels of a controversy with no easy answers - but I've got one that is simple enough for the way I feel about it: Monsanto's too risky for my money.
Critical masses
Fans of genetically modified crops contend that there is no scientific evidence that the practice yields crops that are any different from conventionally grown ones. And of course, the blessing of regulatory agencies like the FDA and USDA gives more credence for their standpoint. Critics aren't so sure about the safety of genetic modification. They contend that not enough time has elapsed for them to truly know what the ultimate implications might be in terms of the environment or human health. Some believe that the influx of GM corn and soybeans has contributed to increased allergies in our population. (Soybeans and corn are in a lot of processed foods - for example, high-fructose corn syrup is an extremely prevalent sweetener and preservative because of its low cost.) Some contend that perhaps these foods may contribute to cancer. Last but not least, the ease with which genetically modified crops can cross-pollinate into conventionally grown crops could endanger genetic diversity. And many fear that since Monsanto has patents on its technology, it could force unwitting farmers to pay up if its strains show up in their crops even by accident. Meanwhile, Europe has historically been very averse to genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in its food supply. There's also the organic movement, which is gaining increased interest in the U.S., too - and certified organic foods, by definition, do not include GMOs.
When consumers don't comply
Monsanto and its fans seem to sniff at the lack of scientific discrimination in some consumers' distaste for some of these products, calling it the effect of deceptive marketing. However, I find that an ironic stance in the grand scheme of things. First of all, Monsanto may be dismayed, but it probably shouldn't be surprised that consumers react to its products with distrust. (Monsanto's already a poster child for left-wing scrutiny of big corporations, although companies like Halliburton share the spotlight.) The manner in which genetically modified crops have been introduced into the American food supply doesn't exactly elicit confidence. I get frustrated when I see references to the U.S. as a market that's open to genetically modified foods - if by "open," one means "greeted with open arms by corporations and regulators," then sure. Surveys last year revealed that many American consumers didn't even know GM foods were already on grocery shelves, and I can only imagine that many still don't.
Corporations haven't been amenable to labeling their products as containing GM ingredients; if there was every reason to believe that these crops are safe, the right thing to do would be to label them as such and launch public education campaigns, perhaps. Given the stealthy way these crops have been introduced here in the States, is consumer distrust that surprising?
As for the regulatory argument, history shows that sometimes time will tell. Merck's Vioxx was approved by the FDA, and it was a common medication until deadly side effects came to light. Evidence that the company went out of its way to hide the risk of cardiovascular problems associated with the drug gave lawsuits credibility. And of course, how long did the tobacco companies insist there was no proof there was anything risky about their products?
Even if the only reason for a consumer backlash against a technology like genetic modification or cloning is that consumers deem it distasteful, unnatural, or suspicious, that's just part of the risk of the marketplace, isn't it? It's unreasonable to force consumers to choose a product that doesn't appeal to them. Whole Foods Market is a good example of a company that has capitalized on many consumers' decisions to switch to organics (it has advocated for labeling of GM ingredients, too). Obviously, there's plenty of demand for such choices. Companies that sniff about consumers' unscientific approach risk sounding like they're all about sour grapes.
Corporate culture shock
Last year, I wrote a commentary about Monsanto, wondering if maybe there's something unsavory in its corporate culture, given its history of controversies - not to mention what appear to be cozy relationships with high-ranking government officials and regulators. I doubt consumers can be blamed for wondering if this is a company where the unspoken motto is the Machiavellian "the end always justifies the means." Perhaps critics' fears about GMOs will prove unfounded, but given the big risks pertaining to possible regulatory changes and stepped-up oversight - not to mention signs of increasing consumer backlash - Monsanto strikes me as a risky investment.
Of course, regardless of any of these news headlines, investors remain excited about Monsanto's possibilities and seemingly unfazed by negative headlines or criticism of some of its business practices. It's not like any negativity has made it a beaten-up value - Monsanto shares are up 26% this year alone, and its P/E is 42; over the past five years, its shares have appreciated 235%. And of course, it would be remiss not to mention that there are ancillary trends at work here, such as the interest in corn-based ethanol. Also, Monsanto just announced a partnership with BASF to develop more genetically modified crops, notably for the hot biofuel area, which CEO Hugh Grant described as akin to connecting a "fire hose" to the company's pipeline.
Fire hoses sure can come in handy - sometimes, of course, to put out fires. Do what you will, but this Fool prefers investments with less bad mojo than Monsanto.
For related Foolishness, see some commentary from last year:
There's a genetically modified conundrum at hand. http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2006/04/24/the-genetically-modified-conundrum.aspx
Catching up with Monsanto's interesting history. http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2006/03/23/monsanto-monster-stock-or-just-plain-monster.aspx
Whole Foods Market and Starbucks are Motley Fool Stock Advisor recommendations. To find out what other companies David and Tom Gardner have recommended to subscribers, take a free 30-day test drive. Alyce Lomax owns shares of Whole Foods Market and Starbucks. Merck is a former Income Investor pick. The Fool has nothing to hide - it's got a disclosure policy. http://www.fool.com/help/index.htm?display=about02
COLLAPSING COLONIES - Are GM Crops Killing Bees? - By Gunther Latsch - Der Spiegel (edited)
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,473166,00.html
A mysterious decimation of bee populations has German beekeepers worried, while a similar phenomenon in the United States is gradually assuming catastrophic proportions. The consequences for agriculture and the economy could be enormous. Is the mysterous decimation of bee populations in the US and Germany a result of GM crops? Walter Haefeker is a man who is used to painting grim scenarios. He sits on the board of directors of the German Beekeepers Association (DBIB) and is vice president of the European
