Munlochy GM Vigil - What's New

Vandana Shiva takes fight against Monsanto to Hong Kong - WebIndia, December 14, 2005
http://news.webindia123.com/news/showdetails.asp?id=190783&cat=Business
Indian environment activist Vandana Shiva and French anti-globalisation crusader Jose Bove Wednesday launched a campaign against US food and seed giant Monsanto on the sidelines of the global trade talks here. The duo also handed a petition to officials of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) to oppose the trade dispute filed by the US, Argentina and Canada under the rules of the multilateral organisation on genetically modified (GM) food. The petition - which Shiva claimed has been signed by 135,000 citizens from over 100 countries and 740 organisations representing 60 million people - was to be given to WTO Director General Pascal Lamy, who instead sent a representative.
"The petition asks the World Trade Organisation not to undermine the rights of countries like the European Union to take appropriate measures to protect their ecology and environment from GM Food," Shiva said. The backdrop for the short event were placards and posters that read, "WTO: Hands Off Our Food" and "Monsanto Plunders and Kills Peasants and the Planet". The organisers - including Friends of Earth International chairperson Meena Raman and Member of the European Parliament Carolina Lucas - also delivered a box of organic food to the WTO official.
Concerned by the food related crisis in the 1990s, EU has regulations to control the GM food industry, which followed a four-year ban on such produce in 1999. The US, however, says it violated the WTO agreement. "This is not a case of US versus the EU, but clearly Monsanto versus the civil society," Shiva, registered as a representative of non-government organisations, told IANS. The EU and the US have a discord over a regulation of Brussels on genetically modified food. The US claims the regulation violates the WTO trade agreement, but the EU says free trade is not truly free without informed consent.
"The WTO has become a tool for big companies to patent seeds and even our lives since it allows such measures under the agreement on trade related intellectual property rights," Bove said. "GM foods make farmers dependent on big companies, threaten food security and take away consumer choice. A ruling that goes in favour of the US will have a major implications," he warned.
Shiva says her next course of action is to launch a satyagraha - the philosophy of non-violent protest adopted by Mahatma Gandhi - in India against Monsanto. "We have to protect the rights of Indian farmers and consumers."

Mali's David v Goliath GM stuggle - Joan Baxter - Bamako, Mali - BBC News, 7 December 2005 - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4445824.stm
The debate on genetically modified (GM) crops has erupted again in Africa, three years after Zambia refused genetically modified food aid. This time, however, the hot debate is not over GM food aid in southern Africa - it's about GM crops in Mali.
In 2004 in Mali, the national agricultural research institute, IER, began a five-year project with the US development agency, USAid, and the transnationals Monsanto and Syngenta to develop and introduce GM crops such as BT cotton, to the country. IER scientific coordinator, Siaka Dembele, supports the project. "A lot of BT cotton is produced in the United States and it seems to be productive there," he says. "And also in developing countries such as China, India and South Africa. We have been given some figures that show that generally BT cotton is more productive than conventional cotton because of the natural protection of this plant so there is no need for treatments."
Pesticides
Dembele says the use of less pesticide would have both economic and environmental benefits. "That's an absurd proposition," says Asseto Samake, a professor of genetics and biology at the University of Mali. "The claims they are making for this cotton are absolutely false." Samake explains that BT cotton has been modified with the introduction of genes of the bacteria Bacillus thuringiensi so it can secrete toxins to resist two or three major cotton pests. She says that in Mali there are thousands of cotton pests and that when a few are removed from the natural equation, others will flourish and farmers will still need pesticides. "If BT cotton is so profitable," Samake says, "why do they have to subsidise their cotton farmers with billions of dollars in the United States? Our farmers in West Africa achieve record production using just their digging sticks and regular seeds and they have great difficulty selling what they produce, because subsidies in America and Europe have made the world price for cotton fall. "So why do they come now with their GMOs and technology to solve a problem that they created? It's a big farce!" Samake is a member of the Coalition to Protect Mali's Genetic Heritage that formed when word leaked from IER about the USAid-funded project on BT crops.
Kind of door
Coalition member Mamadou Goita says the organisation has over 100 member associations of farmers, women, academics and NGOs. A similar regional coalition has formed for West Africa, where governments are currently developing bio-safety legislation. But he worries about genetic pollution of and eventual disappearance of local seed varieties if GM seeds are introduced. According to Goita: "Mali is a kind of door they need to open to reach some European countries", where there is still widespread public opposition to GM crops. He alleges USAid and the multinationals are encouraging Africa's researchers and government officials to accept biotechnology with lavish gifts of new computers and printers, office equipment, vehicles, and scholarships for study of biotechnology in the United States. "This is buying people," he says. Phone calls to USAid in Mali were not returned.
Corruption
Mali's Minister of Agriculture, Seydou Traore, dismisses suggestions of corruption. "I know of no bribes in Mali that have anything to do with biotechnology and GMOs," says Traore. "If there are cases of corruption elsewhere around the debate on biotechnology and GMOs, in Mali, at least for the moment, we don't know them."
GM crops would re-colonise us
In July 2005, Monsanto paid a $1.5 million fine for having bribed an Indonesian official $50,000 to try avoid an environmental impact study on its genetically engineered cotton in that country. Traore says that Mali needs to improve the quality and productivity of its cotton, and BT cotton could help do that. To reject biotechnology, he says, is "neither tenable nor reasonable".
Debt and dependence
The debate over GMOs is not limited to the capital city, Bamako. In the mud and thatch villages of Mali's cotton belt, many farmers express concern that BT cotton would increase debt and dependence. "Our problem is the low price and not cotton production," says 37-year-old Ladji Kone, in the community of Bohi in southern Mali. "GM crops would re-colonise us," says Sereba Kone, president of the cotton growers in Bohi. In the village of Petaka, 800 km northeast of Bamako, farmers express similar concerns. Here, they work on a project funded by the small Canadian NGO, USC, to develop and preserve their own seed varieties in community gene and seed banks. "I think GM crops are not a good principle for us," says project leader, Tienen Sylla. "These seeds we have here we inherited from our ancestors over generations and they fit our difficult climate. GM seeds would be a trap." "It's a part of Western culture to believe that technology is the solution to development," says Mana Diakite, who heads USC in Mali. "I don't think that in the area of food security that is true. Because once they introduce GM crops to Africa, farmers will only access the seed if they pay. "You know that when the rain fails, farmers here can seed and re-seed at least three times. And if they have to buy seeds three times a year to produce, I don't think that's a good policy for this country, or any country in West Africa."
Struggle
Some coalition members admit that theirs is a "David and Goliath" struggle, which they are not likely to win. "I think there is pressure coming from outside which they probably can't divert," says Mana Diakite. "It's very difficult for an African government to fight something being imposed by a super giant like United States or all these seed companies." The third West African ministerial meeting on biotechnology, supported by USAid, is set for Accra, Ghana, in June 2006.
Listen to GM Mali African perspective http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/meta/tx/nb/africanperspective_au_nb.ram

Consumers International intensifies anti-GM campaign - Angola Press, 30 Nov 2005 - http://www.angolapress-angop.ao/noticia-e.asp?ID=395699
Dakar, Senegal, 11/30 - Consumers International (CI), the worldwide federation of consumer organisations, together with the Foundation for Consumers, Thailand`s leading independent consumer group, has launched a global campaign against genetically modified (GM) crops and foods. A CI release said the "Consumers say NO to GMOs" campaign would "press governments and international bodies for a moratorium on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in seeds, crops and foodstuffs, while putting stringent safeguards in place for GM foods already in the market." Speaking at the launch in Bangkok, Amadou Kanoute, Director of Consumers International Africa Office (CI-ROAF), touched on efforts to introduce GM seeds and crops to African countries. He warned that "rather than solving hunger in Africa GM would further impoverish African farms by making them totally dependent on corporate giants, such as Monsanto, who would have a monopoly on seed supply." According to CI, about two-thirds of GM crops are grown in the USA, with the remainder in a few key countries. But most countries have not switched to GM crops, partly because of widespread consumer resistance to GM foods. Michael Hansen, from the Consumers` Union (United States) and an expert on the effects of biotechnology on agriculture, explained the basics of genetic engineering and some of the dangers it posed. He said some of the science that supposedly supported GMOs was dubious, stressing that precautionary principle must prevail. Saree Aongsomwang, Director of the Foundation for Consumers, outlined the current situation in Thailand and explained why it was so vital for Thai farmers to resist the pressure to adopt methods based on GM crops. She pointed out the inadequacy of labelling laws in Thailand, showing how some labels were hidden or inadequate, while others were missing altogether.

Scientists and others caution against biotech products - By Uduma Kalu - The Guardian (Lagos) - http://www.guardiannewsngr.com
SCIENTISTS and farmers were among some stakeholders at the weekend that cautioned against biotechnology products. The warning came as multinational corporations intensified efforts to introduce the products into Africa. But in Nigeria, a bill for the regulation of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) and related products has been sent to the National Assembly. Many Nigerians do not seem to be aware of the issues at hand and so little is known about the bill. To increase the understanding of the bill, government officials and the civil society have been asked to begin a public enlightenment campaign. The media have also been advised to live up to the responsibility of informing the public on modern biotechnology issues. These were some of the issues discussed last weekend in Abuja where international groups, including scientists, government agencies and ministries, farmer organisations, legal practitioners, academics, media practitioners and students met at a seminar organised by the Environmental Rights Action/Friends of the Earth, Nigeria (ERA/ FoEN) entitled: "National Workshop on Biosafety and the People: Towards a Strict GMO Law".
At the end of their one-day workshop, the participants drawn from Nigeria, Cameroun, Ghana and Togo recalled that Nigeria was a party to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and that the convention mandated the country to put in place effective biosafety laws. They, therefore, called for a moratorium on the introduction of GMOs in Nigeria until effective legislative, administrative and infrastrctural framework for the regulation of modern biotechnology was put in place. In a statement at the end of their one-day workshop, the participants expressed worry over the potential health and environmental hazards associated with modern biotechnology products and non-availability of evidence-based science to allay those fears. Calling for a comprehensive risk assessment and risk management plan before the introduction of modern biotechnology products, the group said there "should be clear provisions in the biosafety bill to guarantee an enforceable liability regime, unambiguous labelling on any GMO or product thereof because the consumer has to know". The statement also called for introduction of a section in the biosafety bill on "protected areas" or GMO-free-zones where the release of GMOs will be prohibited.
"As a start, all protected areas/forests/ community lands should be declared no-go-areas for GMOs. Communities, local councils, states and regions should immediately commence processes by which they can regulate or declare themselves GMO-free", the statement read. The group went on to call for a transparent and speedy process with full public participation in enacting a Biosafety Act that would be based on precautionary principle and would be effective for the protection of public health and the environment from the hazards of modern biotechnology products.
COMMNUNIQUE OF ONE DAY NATIONAL WORKSHOP ON BIOSAFETY AND THE PEOPLE, ABUJA, November 25, 2005
The Environmental Rights Action/Friends of the Earth, Nigeria (ERA/FoEN) on November 25, 2005 organized a "National Workshop on Biosafety and the People: Towards a Strict GMO Law" in Abuja, the Federal Capital Territory (FCT). The conference brought together civil society groups, scientists, government agencies and ministries, farmer organizations, legal practitioners, academics, media practitioners and students, to deliberate on the planned bill to regulate the introduction of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and related products in the country.
The participants:
Alarmed by intensified efforts of multinational corporations towards the introduction of modern biotechnology products in Africa despite the lack of existing legal, administrative and infrastructural frameworks to regulate the products;
Worried by the potential health and environmental hazards associated with modern biotechnology products and the non-availability of evidence-based science to allay those fears;
Concerned by the implication of introduction of GMOs on local livelihoods particularly local farmers that will be at the mercy of transnational seed manufacturing companies;
Acknowledging the fact that the solution to food security in Nigeria is not in GMOs as being promoted by modern biotechnology giants, but improved farming practices, good infrastructure, modern storage facilities and effective distribution networks for agricultural products;
Recalling that Nigeria is a Party to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and that the convention mandates the country to put in place effective biosafety laws;
Recognizing the efforts of the Federal Ministry of Environment in initiating a Biosafety bill to regulate modern biotechnology products in the country
The participants recommended:
Moratorium on the introduction of GMOs in Nigeria until effective legislative, administrative and infrastructural framework for the regulation of modern biotechnology is put in place;
Comprehensive risk assessment and risk management plan before the introduction of modern biotechnology products;
Clear provisions in the Biosafety bill to guarantee an enforceable liability regime, unambiguous labeling on any GMO or product thereof because the consumer has the right to know;
Introduction of a section in the Biosafety bill on "Protected areas" or GMO - Free - Zones where the release of GMOs will be prohibited. As a start, all protected areas/forests/community lands should be declared no-go areas for GMOs. Communities, Local governments, states and regions should immediately commence processes by which they can regulate or declare themselves GMO free;
Transparent and speedy process with full public participation in enacting a Biosafety Act that will be based on precautionary principle and is effective for the protection of public health and the environment from the hazards of modern biotechnology products, and
Government and civil society should make deliberate effort for public enlightenment and participation. The media should also live up to the responsibility of informing the public on modern biotechnology issues.

SAHABAT ALAM MALAYSIA - MEDIA RELEASE - 22nd November 2005
CAP And SAM Object To Inclusion of Genetic Engineering In International Symposium On Papaya
The Consumers' Association of Penang (CAP) and Sahabat Alam Malaysia (SAM) are concerned that the International Symposium on Papaya being held in Genting Highlands from November 22nd to 24th would be an avenue for biotechnology industries to promote transgenic papaya. The symposium is jointly organized by the Malaysian Agriculture Research and Development Institute (MARDI), International Society for Horticultural Science (ISHS), International Service for the Acquisition of Agricultural Biotechnology Applications (ISAAA) and the International Tropical Fruits Network (TFNet).
With the participation of the Papaya Biotechnology Network of South East Asia which is coordinated by ISAAA, the symposium would be an opportunity for the biotech industry to promote genetic engineering. ISAAA facilitates the partnership between Syngenta, Monsanto and five countries (Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam) on the development of genetically engineered papaya with the papaya ringspot virus (PRSV)-resistant and delayed ripening traits. Research findings in biotechnology applications in papaya is purported to be presented at this symposium.
We are very concerned that genetic engineering (GE) is being promoted and used as a solution to address disease problems of papaya and improving the fruit. This is because genetic engineering carries many risks and hazards, which potentially result in adverse health, environmental and socio-economic impacts. GE contamination is difficult to contain or avoid. There is already widespread contamination by GE papaya in Hawaii. Conventional varieties of papaya grown in Hawaii have tested positive for transgenic seeds, whilst contamination was also detected in the stock of non-GE seeds being sold commercially by the University of Hawaii. Closer to home, there has already been contamination from an experimental field trial of transgenic papaya in Thailand.
One of the concerns of GE food is the risk of allergic reactions. A recent scientific paper shows that the papaya ringspot virus coat protein is one of a number of transgenic proteins that had sequence similarity with known allergenic proteins. To our knowledge, no research has been done to further investigate the implications of this, and the long-term effects to humans are unknown.
SAHABAT ALAM MALAYSIA - (Friends of the Earth Malaysia) - No. 9 Solok Mas, 11600 Pulau Pinang. Tel: 04 ? 659 6930 Fax: 04 ? 659 6931
Email: sam_inquiry@yahoo.com Website ; www.foe-malaysia.org.my

GM pea causes allergic damage in mice - Emma Young, Sydney - NewScientist.com news service, 21 November 2005
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8347
A decade-long project to develop genetically modified peas with built-in pest-resistance has been abandoned after tests showed they caused allergic lung damage in mice. The researchers - at Australia's national research organisation, CSIRO - took the gene for a protein capable of killing pea weevil pests from the common bean and transferred it into the pea. When extracted from the bean, this protein does not cause an allergic reaction in mice or people. But the team found that when the protein is expressed in the pea, its structure is subtly different to the original in the bean. They think this structural change could be to blame for the unexpected immune effects seen in mice. The work underlines the need to evaluate new GM crops on a case-by-case basis, says Paul Foster of the Australian National University in Canberra, who led the immunological work. He also calls for improvements in screening requirements for genetically engineered plants, to ensure comprehensive tests are carried out. Jeremy Tager, Greenpeace Australia's campaigner on genetic engineering, agrees. "These results indicate the potential for unpredicted and unintended changes in the structure of transferred proteins. And I'm not aware of any country that requires feeding studies as part of its approval process
Completely
Field peas (Pisum sativum) are susceptible to the pea weevil Bruchus pisorum, which lays its eggs on the pea pods. The weevil frequently devastates crops not only in Australia but across the developing world. The common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) contains alpha-amylase inhibitor-1, a protein that inhibits the activity of alpha-amylase, an enzyme that is used by pea weevils to help them digest starch. CSIRO Plant Industry researchers hoped the developing weevils would starve after eating the protein, before they could cause any real damage to the crop. Trials showed that the GM peas were almost completely resistant to the pea weevils.
Hypersensitive skin
Foster and his team then used mice to investigate whether eating the GM peas might have any undesirable immune impact. Generally, digested proteins do not create a specific immune system response. But researchers found that mice that ate transgenic pea seed did develop antibodies specific to the protein. Some of these mice were later exposed to the purified protein, either through injection into the blood, or by putting the protein into their airways. This approach is a standard "multiple immune challenge" procedure and is designed to determine if the immune system is tolerant to a protein. The injected mice showed a hypersensitive skin response, while the airway-exposed mice developed airway inflammation and mild lung damage. The effect was the same whether the protein was taken from raw or cooked peas - so whether the protein was active or denatured. "To my knowledge, this is the first description of inducing experimental inflammation in mice" with a GM food, Foster says. In the early 1990s, researchers engineered a more nutritious strain of soya bean by adding a gene taken from brazil nuts. But the project ended when it was discovered that the hybrid was likely to trigger a major attack in people with brazil nut allergies.
Human consumption
Further investigations by Foster's team revealed slight differences in the molecular structure of the protein when it was expressed in the bean and in the pea. They think this was caused by differences in the way the two plants produce proteins - particularly in a step called glycosylation, which involves adding saccharides to the protein. When expressed in the pea, the protein was glycosylated at different points - that's the only structural change we've been able to identify so far," says Foster. He adds that slight differences in protein synthesis might also occur in other plants with other genes, meaning each new GM food should be very carefully evaluated for potential health effects. "If a GM plant is to go up for human consumption, there should be a detailed descriptive list of how one should go about analysing that plant," he says. Tager agrees. It is rare for an investigation of the potential health effects of a GM product to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, he adds. "If it had been a private company doing this, it might never have seen the light of day," he says.
Journal reference: Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry (vol 53, p 9023)

Kenyan NGO to lobby MPs against GMO food - AngolaPress, Nov 19 2005 - http://www.angolapress-angop.ao/noticia-e.asp?ID=392722
Nairobi, Kenya, 11/19 - A nongovernmental organisation (NGO) in Kenya, Africa Nature Stream, plans to lobby and meet the country's parliamentarians to fight against the introduction of genetically modified crops in the country, ANS chairman Masoa Muindi said Friday here. Currently, Muindi observed, a draft bill to formulate biotechnology in the country was at the attorney general`s office waiting for parliament to pass it. Muindi, in a letter to the US ambassador to Kenya, alluded to a speech delivered by an embassy official, John Smith, at a recent function in Nairobi where the introduction of GMO foods were encouraged in the country. The NGO claimed that during the Africa Harvest International function, where the promotion of GMOs was widely acclaimed as best for the African continent, America was taking Kenyans and Africa for a ride by persuading them into the development of genetically modified crops. "By passing the bill, the government will be robbing Kenya of crops not being purchased in the world market as they will have been contaminated with the genetically engineered organisms," he added.
Muindi claimed that the US had now bribed scientists at the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) with the sole purpose of using them to protect multinational biotechnology companies to deliver GMO seeds to Kenyan farmers. He also accused KARI of "pretence" while delivering newly introduced seeds to the farmers from their research stations without declaring to farmers the consequences and the dangers of such inputs. "They have been lying to Kenyans that the new plants will save them from hunger," he charged. Muindi further said the GMO scheme has failed miserably in the developed countries such as Canada, Russia and Japan hence "the reason why they have decided to dump the technology and seeds in Africa". He requested the American government to stop financing and promoting any kind of food crops and seeds which would adversely affect African economies, adding that the continent, with its climate, fertile soils, rivers and natural water could easily feed its people "with proper management of resources."

Farmers hail PVP & FR Act notification - ASHOK B SHARMA, Financial Express, Bombay, India - Posted online: Monday, November 14, 2005 at 0000 hours IST
New Delhi, Nov 13 Farmers have hailed the government’s decision to notify the Plant Varieties Protection and Farmers’ Rights (PVP&FR) Act, 2001. They said that though the decision is belated, it would solve the farmers’ problems to a great extent. The legislation was passed by Parliament way back in 2001 and received Presidential assent in the same year, but was withheld from notification, which prevented its implementation over the past few years. The Act, apart from protecting farm bio-diversity, allows farmers to save and exchange seeds in unbranded form for use in the next crop season. The Act has also banned registration of seeds containing terminator technology vide section 18 (1) (C). The government has recently constituted Plant Varieties Protection and Farmers’ Rights Board under the chairmanship of Dr S Nagarajan for implementation of the Act.
Speaking to FE, executive chairman of Bharat Krishak Samaj (BKS) Dr Krishan Bir Chaudhary said: “The PVP&FR Act was long withheld from its implementation due to pressure from the interested lobby of seed companies. This law gives some leverage to farmers in matters of use of seeds, though not complete freedom. There had been recent attempts to nullify this meagre freedom given to farmers under this Act by the introduction of amendments to the Seeds Act in the Parliament. The farmers will not tolerate any such move and demand immediate withdrawal of the proposed amendments to the Seeds Act. Rather PVP&FR Act should be further amended to give more freedom to farmers.”
Dr Chaudhary had earlier expressed concern over Delta & Pine Land announcing its new plans to foray into the seed sector, after it got patent rights for its terminator technology in patent offices abroad. He now said that with the notification of PVP&FR Act, the country is better poised to deal with this situation. Dr Chaudhary was the sole farmers’ representative to the recently held global conference on biotechnology hosted by Asia-Pacific Association of Agriculture Research Institutions (APAARI) and FAO in Bangkok where he demanded that the seed multinationals compensate farmers for failure of Bt cotton.
http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=108540
Below is the press release from the Government of India:
PRESS INFORMATION BUREAU GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
CENTRE ISSUES NOTIFICATION ON PROTECTION OF PLANT VARIETY & FARMERS RIGHTS AUTHORITY
New Delhi, Kartika 20, 1927 - November 11, 2005
The Protection of Plant Variety & Farmers’ Rights (PPV&FR) Authority has come into being with the enforcement of the Act, 2001, and the Rules framed thereunder. A notification to this effect was issued today by the Department of Agriculture & Cooperation. The Authority would now regulate all matters pertaining to plants and seeds varieties of the country and would act as the national registry for documentation, indexing and cataloguing of all flora of the country, including extant varieties, farmers’ varieties and land races. The Authority will also be registering new varieties thereby protecting the breeders’ rights, inclusive of both farmers and the industry.
The Authority represents the interests of a wide spectrum of stakeholders, which include the scientific community, farmers’ organizations, women, tribal entities and State and Central Government as also the State Agricultural Universities.
The PPV&FR Authority is a major step forward in stimulating investment in the agricultural seed and plant sector and would greatly encourage development of new plant varieties. It will protect the interests and rights of farmers and the farming community and recognize their contribution to the selection and preservation of traditional varieties. The Authority also has the mandate to administer the National Gene Fund which ill help conserve and protect our plant genetic resources/biodiversity.
The PPV&FR Authority is presently functioning out of the premises of National Agricultural Science Centre at Pusa, New Delhi, and is headed by Dr. S Nagarajan, recently appointed as its chairman.

Wilting of Bt cotton in Madhya Pradesh - farmers demand ban on companies - Kerala, 14 Nov 2005 http://www.newkerala.com/news.php?action=fullnews&id=52326
Bhopal: The genetically modified Bt cotton crops in over two lakh acre area in Nirmar region in western Madhya Pradesh suffered partial or complete wilting causing a loss of more than Rs 400 crores, the affected farmers said today. The farmers, who held a public hearing last month at Kukshi in Dhar district, urged the state government to ban multi-national Monsanto and other companies which sold Bt cotton seeds in the state and sought compensation. Several varieties, which had been banned in Andhra Pradesh for similar reasons, had been allowed to be marketed in Madhya Pradesh. ''Instead of banning these varieties, the state government gave extension to these companies for another three years'', Mr Mohanlal Patidar, President of Kukshi Mandi Samiti, told reporters today. ''The 'banned' varieties were causing huge losses to the farmers in MP, the state government should have been vigilant and banned it'', said Agriculture scientist Dr Debashish Banerji, who was among the panelists at the public hearing attended by about 500 farmers....The experience of the farmers of Nimar has shown that there is an urgent need to review the genetically modified technology as the effects of this technology on agriculture, farmers, environment and human health has not been properly evaluated'', Dr Banerji said. During the public hearing, a health report presented by Mr Amulya Nidhi showed that Bt cotton was causing severe to moderate allergy to people coming in contact with it.

THE INDIGENOUS TERRITORIES OF ZENU, CORDOVA AND SUCRE WERE DECLARED GE FREE
San Andres de Sotavento, October 7th 2005
More than 300 indigenous leaders and authorities, from the indigenous territories of Zenu in San Andres de Sotavento, which belong to the Municipalities of Cordova and Sucre, together with 5 organizations of organic producers, declared their territory GE FREE. The decision was based in the important role of corn in their culture, productive systems and food sovereignty. At the moment they conserve more than 25 different varieties of corn with a very rich culinary culture. The corn is a sacred food, and this is why they call themselves "sons and daughter of corn". There is a centre of diversity of corn in the Zenu territory, and close to it, the Government has established some plantations with GE corn, and the people think that there is a big threat of genetic contamination They demand from the local authorities to respect this decision and urged them to take necessary actions to control and monitor all the corn that enter into the territory. They also asked the authorities to promote programs in support of the small farmer agriculture and demand the government to stop any food aid with GMOs.
They also rejected the intention of the Colombian Government and Monsanto and Dupont to introduce GE corn in Colombia, but specially the the Caribbean region, since it is centre of diversity of this crop. In their declaration they made they called the civil society, the mass media to respect and support the declaration of the Zenu territory as GE Free. They invite other indigenous and afro descendent organizations to declare their territories GE Free. On the other hand they committed themselves to conserve and defend their seeds, productive systems, their food sovereignty based on agroecological sustainable systems.
The Zenu indigenous peoples are preparing an internal rule to control and protect their traditional seeds against biopiracy, genetic contamination and the introduction of GMOs inside their territory.
Guipipia, Santa Cruz declared GE Free- Press Release
The Municipal Council of Santa Cruz in the Province of Guanacaste in Costa Rica, declared itself GE Free the 24th of October. This is the second GE Free Municipality in Costa Rica, after the decision of the Council of Paraiso de Cartago The decision to ban any GE crop inside Santa Cruz, was taken by all the members of the Council unanimously. The decision was taken after the demand of the local communities inside the Municipality because of the possibility that their crops became contaminated by GMOs, declared Roger Matarrita, one of the members of the Council, which is also coordinator of Environment of the Municipality.
According with Matarrita the people of Guanacaste enjoy their meals based on traditional corn, and they do not want their varieties to be contaminated with transgenes. The Council committed itself to promote agroecological initiatives in the region.
According with Fatima Montealegre, member of the community of Santa Barbara de Santa Cruz, the decision of the Council is the result of a process of study and deep analysis of all the members of the Municipality. It is not just the decision of the Members of the Council, she added, but is a process promoted from the grassroots of Santa Cruz. She asked the international community to send letters of support to the decision of the Santa Cruz Council. If you want to congratulate and support this decision, you can send a Fax to:
Concejo Municipal de Santa Cruz - Fax (506) 680-0629. For more information notransgenicos@racsa.co.cr Tel: (506) 2836128

Corporates gain control over nature's seeds as the Terminator patent is granted
Amsterdam, 25 October 2005 - Greenpeace today exposed details that the patent for the controversial "Terminator technology" was granted in Europe on 5 October 2005. The Terminator patent (1) has been approved for all plants that are genetically engineered so that their seeds will not germinate. Further research by the "Ban Terminator Campaign", a network of farmers' unions and environmental organisations revealed that a patent was also granted in Canada on 11 October 2005.
Plants created using Terminator technology will produce sterile seeds, creating a monopoly and unnatural control of the seeds. Farmers will not be able to use seeds from such plants for the following season's cultivation. The seeds will rot \in the soil without producing new plants. If this technology is introduced in crops such as soya, wheat, canola and cotton it will force farmers to buy new seeds every year from the same company.
"Farmers should be aware that corporations all over the world are ready to take control of their seeds with genetic engineering (GE). These corporations will control the entire food chain with the help of monopoly patents and Terminator technology," said Christoph Then, Greenpeace International GE campaigner. "We need a global ban on this technology and on any patents on seeds. These corporate instruments will disrupt the backbone of global food supply, making it impossible for the farmers to reuse their own harvest for planting."
So far, the market introduction of the Terminator technology-which was already developed about ten years ago-was successfully prevented through worldwide protest of several groups and stakeholders. But many observers believe that the GE industry will drive towards the legalisation of this technology at the meeting of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity in March next year. The grant of the patent could push even harder for market introduction.
"These new patents confirm that corporations are once again actively pursuing Terminator technology and an international ban on the technology is urgently needed," said Lucy Sharratt, Coordinator of the new global Ban Terminator Campaign, which involves farmers unions, environmental and Indigenous peoples organisations (2).
Although the GE industry claims that Terminator technology will help contain the spread of GE contamination, Greenpeace believes otherwise. "GE technology can not be controlled by Terminator seeds. On the contrary, it is likely that farmers will find their harvest being contaminated with this Terminator technology, if introduced. This is a real threat for estimated 80% of the farmers all over the world who save their seeds for cultivation."
Greenpeace is an independent campaigning organisation that uses non-violent creative confrontation to expose global environmental problems to force solutions that are essential to a green and peaceful future.
For further information, contact:
Christoph Then, Greenpeace International GE Campaign, +49 171 8780832
Judit Kalovits, Greenpeace International Communications, +31 621 296914
Lucy Sharratt, Ban Terminator Campaign, +1 613 2412267, mobile: +1 613 2226214
Notes to Editors:
(1) The Terminator patent, EP 775212B, was granted to US-based Delta &Pine and the United States of America, represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. According to further data bank research the patent was already granted in similar versions in USA, further applications were filed in Australia, Brazil, China, Hong Kong, Japan, Turkey and South Africa.
(2) www.banterminator.org

Genetically modified soy affects posterity: Results of Russian scientists' studies - http://www.regnum.ru/english/526651.html
On October 10, during the symposium over genetic modification, organized by the National Association for Genetic Security (NAGS), Doctor of Biology Irina Ermakova made public the results of the research led by her at the Institute of Higher Nervous Activity and Neurophysiology of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS). This is the first research that determined clear dependence between eating genetically modified soy and the posterity of living creatures.
During the experiment, doctor Ermakova added GM soy flour to the food of female rats two weeks before conception, during conception and nursing. In the control group were the rat females that were not added anything to their food. The experiment was formed by 3 groups of 3 female rats in each: the first one was control group, the second one was the group with GM-soy addition, and the third one with traditional soy addition. The scientists counted the number of female species to give birth and the number of born and died rats.
After the result of the first stage, the second part took place. Now the rats were divided into two groups - one with GM-soy addition in their food, and other without the GM- soy. In three weeks the scientists received results best seen as a table at http://www.regnum.ru/english/526651.html According to these results, the abnormally high level of posterity death has been detected at the posterity of the female species with GM-soy added to their food. And 36% percent of born rats weighed less than 20 grams that is an evidence of their extremely weak condition.
"The morphology and biochemical structures of rats are very similar to those of humans, and this makes the results we obtained very disturbing," said Irina Ermakova to NAGS press office. According to NAGS Vice-president Aleksey Kulikov, the data received by Dr.Ermakova confirm the necessity of full scale tests of GM-products influence over living creatures.

Sustainable farming can feed the world - swissinfo, October 16, 2005 - http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.html?siteSect=107&sid=6157727&cKey=1129451815000
On World Food Day, Swiss agricultural specialist Hans Rudolf Herren tells swissinfo that hunger can be overcome if farming practices are improved. Herren, who won the World Food Prize in 1995 for helping to save cassava crops throughout much of sub-Saharan Africa, says rich countries need to support education and to do more research.
The theme of this year's World Food Day, promoted by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), is "Agriculture and intercultural dialogue". The FAO says that the intercultural movement of crops and livestock breeds revolutionised diets and reduced poverty. The organisation adds that these exchanges are still necessary to fight hunger and protect the environment. But this dialogue could be under threat with pressure on governments and farmers to adopt technologies such as genetic manipulation to increase productivity.
Herren, however, says that agricultural specialists should step back and consider all the options before taking the plunge.
swissinfo: A large part of the world's population suffers from malnutrition. Can intercultural exchanges as promoted by the FAO help alleviate hunger?
Hans Rudolf Herren: I think it can help us understand better how hunger works and help overcome this problem. Plenty of food is grown, but not always in the right places.
Those who overproduce actually make it difficult for those who underproduce to increase their output and supply the food that is preferred and required by the people who are going hungry.
swissinfo: One of the UN Millennium Goals is to reduce hunger around the world. Are rich countries like Switzerland doing enough?
H.R.H.: Not enough is being done. Just the fact there are so many hungry people proves my point. Enough is not being done to alleviate poverty and provide jobs and income options for hungry people. They are hungry because they don't have the money to buy food or there is not enough incentive for farmers to produce. If there is a market, farmers can and will produce food. Dealing with poverty will help us deal with hunger and this is where governments can do more. They don't have to give money away but can create options and means for people to earn a living. There should be an emphasis by rich countries on developing capacities in poor nations. Farmers need to be trained properly because there is no genetic predisposition for being one. So more funding for education and research is needed for sustainable agricultural systems.
swissinfo: Do you feel the right economic or agricultural research is already being done to deal with these issues?
H.R.H.: What is needed is more research that is tailored to the different needs of different regions. I don't think we need to do more research into how to grow maize, for example, but we should consider diversifying our food base. Africa is a good example where there could be crops other than corn that would grow better under precarious conditions such as limited rainfall. More research could help revive traditional crops that have been abandoned and that would generate income for farmers. There's a lot of research to be done in reviving and improving traditional crops, including vegetables, fruits and nuts, and bringing them back into the mainstream. This would also help improve nutrition and health in developing countries.
swissinfo: In Africa, some countries have accepted the introduction of genetically-modified (GM) crop varieties, others haven't. Is this really an issue, particularly in developing countries?
H.R.H.: We need to see if there is real need for these crop varieties. We already have plant varieties that can produce far more than they produce today. The real constraints are elsewhere, such as soil fertility or the agronomic system. So what is really needed is more research in agronomy and sustainable farming practices. An improved seed will not produce more unless it is planted in the right conditions, and we seem to have forgotten that. So we need to promote agriculture in developing countries that helps maintain a healthy soil rather than industrial farming that impoverishes it. If biotechnology is part of a more sustainable agricultural system, I don't have a problem with that, but we have to resolve many other issues before we spend millions on something that won't necessarily produce more food.
swissinfo: So, does the adoption of GM technology in developing nations have more to do with politics?
H.R.H.: It has a lot to do with politics and economics. American companies are pushing for the adoption of GM technology and there are lobbyists hard at work in Africa and other continents. Maybe this technology does some good, but there are alternatives that are much cheaper. We have done our research on this and have shown you can apply other technologies that are far more farmer-friendly. African farmers can't afford GM technology - they can't even afford fertiliser. So I don't think it is the right thing in the right place at the right time. We need to address the needs of farmers, find solutions that actually help and attain sustainable agricultural production as promoted by the FAO.
swissinfo-interview: Scott Capper

Transgenics and Indian Agriculture: Where are the benefits?
- A paper presented in a meeting of National Commission on Farmers on 22nd Sept.2005 by Dr.Krishan Bir Chaudhary, Executive Chairman, Bharat Krishak Samaj (India's premier farmers' organisation) and patron of Indian Society for Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development -
In India, transgenic crops are being experimented with and even released, without a coherent approach to the whole matter. It is not clear why transgenic agriculture is considered “frontier” or indispensable by numerous agricultural research bodies both in the public sector and private sector. Given below are our strong objections to transgenic crops in Indian agriculture and the reasons for the same.
Firstly, when it comes to transgenic agriculture, it is not clear how research and commercial release priorities are being set in this country. It seems that agencies are free to choose what suits and benefits them most, rather than what farmers need. No consultation with farmers and their organizations on whether they want GE as a technology in Indian agriculture at all is visible. There is no assessment witnessed of various options – including safer, more inexpensive and politically right decisions that would uphold farmers’ interests – before zeroing in on transgenic technology as the option for a given crop or problem. Herbicide resistance is a trait that is being worked on by many agencies, including public sector bodies! What implications would this have for the poor agricultural workers of this country, not to mention the environmental implications with increased herbicide use? Similarly, major food crops are being worked on without any thought to environmental and health repercussions! This includes our staple food, Rice. Public monies are being spent on expensive research on crops like tobacco! How are these research priorities being set? What are the accountability systems here, given that public sector research is much more than private sector when it comes to transgenic crop experimentation in India? Also, how have agencies, especially in the public sector, zeroed in on research on transgenics, rather than research on safer, ecological alternatives? These public sector bodies shy away from even validating such ecological practices that are being adopted by farmers on the ground. They would rather spend expensive resources sitting in their laboratories and campuses developing an imprecise technology.
On top of this are complications related to IPRs which have not been worked out at all. The UAS, Dharwad has a case to illustrate where they had developed a Bt Cotton variety with a gene donated by Ford Foundation only to discover later that that gene is a proprietary technology owned by Monsanto!
Civil society verification and research shows several bio-safety violations in all such experiments – the products from field trials are allowed to enter the food chain routinely before all bio-safety tests are completed. Seeds from such field trials are routinely allowed to contaminate the other seed stock either physically or biologically, much before such crops are allowed for commercial cultivation. The Navbharat Bt cotton fiasco would have happened in such a manner too though no detailed investigations were undertaken on the matter. Similarly, field trial permissions and seed production permissions are given and no monitoring takes place to check what happens to the seed stocks if commercial approval is not granted in the next season. There have also been instances in the past where attempts have been made for clandestine imports of GE foods into the country or when they have actually been imported. The Soya imports into this country from countries like the US must surely be GM-contaminated – however, no permission for such imports are being sought from the GEAC nor is GEAC pro-actively stopping such imports. All of these are clear indications of the complete failure of bio-safety regulations or risk assessment procedures in the country.
Coming to the experience of Bt Cotton in India, the first transgenic crop to be commercially cultivated, there are many lessons to be learnt including the fact that the technology is very imprecise and imperfect. Government’s own studies have shown that Bt Cotton, a technology imported from the US, was fit for the American conditions and their major pests rather than ours. There has been an extremely uneven performance, predictably, of the technology on the ground – the primary claims have been belied with regard to pesticide use coming down along with bollworm incidence coming down. There are several other problems reported by farmers which need deeper investigations – this is however not being done despite repeated requests. The country has not stopped to pause to take stock of the situation so far, before more varieties are released all the time. Worse, biosafety assessments are being done away with, with the argument that the “event” has already been approved for its bio-safety. This is a highly questionable claim. Bt Cotton cultivation in this country has also shown all the shortcomings and lacunae in our regulatory functioning. The post-approval surveillance is extremely unscientific and erratic. The cases of falsification of actual experience on the ground point to corrupt elements entering the picture. Monsanto’s bribing of several Indonesian officials for obtaining a clearance for a GE crop is well-known and is a good reminder to us about the extent the industry would go to push its markets.
The most important shortcoming in the story of Bt Cotton in India has been the lack of accountability mechanisms. Farmers who have incurred losses due to the cultivation of Bt Cotton have been left to fend for themselves while the companies involved in the commercialization are laughing all the way to the banks. Farmers’ interests have definitely been shown to be the last priority in this fiasco.
Resistance management plans are non-existent and faulty where they exist. Even in a country like Australia, there is a 30% limit to Bt Cotton cultivation. Why do Indian scientists only talk about experiences from elsewhere and adverse results from their own studies, instead of doing something to influence the decisions? Is scientific research by specialist bodies like CICR meant only for academic interest?
India should also take cue from the developments across the world. Worldwide, starting from 2003, GM crops research is drying up, even in countries like the US. Companies like Bayer Crop Science have announced that they are going back to conventional breeding. Companies are also voluntarily withdrawing products that have been in the pipeline like GM Wheat due to enormous consumer and farmer pressure against these crops. India should consider why it wants to tread a path that could be inimical to the interests of its farmers and definitely prove hazardous to its environment.
Let us look at the situation worldwide – In 2004, the biotech industry and their allies celebrated the ninth consecutive year of expansion of genetically modified (GM) crops. The estimated global area of approved GM crops was 81 million hectares in 22 countries. Corn and soya, the two most widely grown GE crops are grown mostly for animal feed or enter the human food chain mostly as minor ingredients or derivatives. The GM industry would like to tell us that it has delivered benefits to consumers and society at large through more affordable food, feed and fiber with less pesticide usage. It is difficult to imagine how such benefits have been achieved given that more than 70% of the global area under GM crops is devoted to Monsanto’s Roundup Ready herbicide-tolerant crops. Even yield increase claims are questionable since studies from the US show that yields were suppressed with crops like RR Soybean cultivars. Other studies from North America on Roundup Ready Soy and Bt Maize found that the returns from these crops essentially equaled those of non-GE varieties.
The social costs of displacement of small farmers and agricultural workers from their farming are well documented and enormous. In Argentina, the situation is quite dramatic as 60000 farms went out of business while the area of Roundup Ready Soybean almost tripled. In countries like Brazil, GM soybean-led deforestation of the Amazon forests is also well-documented. These developments only point out towards the very hollow impact assessment studies and risk assessment studies that are taken up before the introduction of the technology. Often, such studies are not taken up at all and India cannot be allowed to go the same way. Please note that there are strong reasons as to why only 22 countries in the world have so far approved GM crop cultivation.
The environmental costs of the transgenic technology in agriculture are irreversible and unaffordable. Degradation of soils, loss of sustainable farming practices, loss of biodiversity, huge monocultures to the detriment of the sustainability of resources, impact on other living organisms, increase in secondary pests’ damage to the crops etc. have all been well-documented. Equally well-documented are the positive impacts of many sustainable agriculture practices which are non-pesticidal and non-GE.
The use of chemicals has only increased after the introduction of GE-led agriculture in countries like the US. In 2004, farmers sprayed an average 4.7% more pesticides on GE crops than on identifical conventional crops. In the case of herbicide resistant crops, the usage of herbicide goes up and in the case of insect-resistance crops, insects are known to adapt themselves given the enormous selection pressure on them which once again translates itself into higher chemical use for their control. The increase in chemical usage not only has environmental implications in terms of groundwater contamination, super-weeds etc., but also raises important questions on food safety.
Coming to the much-forwarded principle of co-existence of GM and conventional crops, regulators and scientists should understand that co-existence is an impossibility in India. Experiences from world over including the Mexican maize contamination case are an illustration. “Adventitious presence” or contamination of conventional seed with biotechnology traits is a known phenomenon which has adverse environmental and economic implications. In a country where there are millions of small holdings right next to each other and where traditional seed exchange systems are vibrant to this day, both genetic and physical contamination of seed stocks is inevitable. Failure of regulation is more than well-established in the case of a non-food crop like Cotton. The disaster waiting to happen if GM technology is introduced in food crops cannot be overstated.
GM foods are known to cause a variety of human health problems. There are numerous studies on GM tomato, GM potato, GM corn, GM soy and other crops which show that these foods constitute a definite hazard to health. Monsanto’s secret GM Maize study findings also point to the same facts. There is also the issue of antibiotic resistance building up through GM crops. There can be no easy management solutions to these issues. In developed countries too, segregation was known to have failed as the Starlink corn contamination case reveals. Many long term human health impacts might not even start showing in the health assessment studies being taken up right now. How can India afford to tread this path, when it has agreed to enshrine the Precautionary Principle when it signed up to the Cartagena Protocol? How can the precautionary principle guide us for international trade decisions but not when it comes to domestic production and trade decisions?
1Has India begun assessing the possibilities of market rejection for its agricultural products if it opts for GE any further? Many large companies in the mainstream food industry already have a non-GE policy in response to consumer demand in many countries in the West. What will be the economic implications for Indian farmers of such market rejection? What kind of an analysis is available for the farmers so that they can make an informed choice on the matter?
The organic food industry, which has a great potential for growth will definitely be closed to us by our pro-GE decisions and this will once again mean a great economic loss to Indian farmers. Organic farmers have their own rights which need to be protected too. In Canada, a class action suit is under way demanding lost organic canola profits due to contamination. Similarly, Germany has a law that makes farmers who plant GE crops liable for contamination of other crops. Many other countries in Asia are treading cautiously and have moratoriums, or bans, or pro-active organic farming policies in addition to strict labeling regimes for regulation of their agriculture and food industry. India however seems to be moving in a very ad-hoc and anti-farmer manner in this regard.
India often talks about emulating the USA without considering that the social and agro-ecological conditions are vastly different between the countries, not to mention the regulatory mechanisms. India has to evolve solutions for its agriculture indigenously and an enormous number of successful alternatives to various situations exist with the farmers themselves in various pockets of the country. It is time that the agricultural research establishment, the agricultural education establishment as well the agricultural policy-makers first look at these options before chasing technologies that are unsustainable and anti-farmer.

UN World Food Day - Asians Call for Ban on GE Rice
BANGKOK - A coalition of 17 organisations from across Asia today issued a World Food Day statement calling for a global ban on the introduction of genetically engineered (GE) rice. "Rice is the world's most important staple food crop and we simply cannot allow a small number of biotech companies and GE scientists to determine the future of rice development," said Varoonvarn Svangsopakul of Greenpeace Southeast Asia. "GE rice is not a solution to world hunger. It poses unacceptable risks to health and the environment, as well as people's livelihoods."
The aggressive push from biotechnology companies wanting to introduce GE rice in Asia is facing increasing criticism from civil society organisations concerned about negative impacts on farmers, on the environment, health and agricultural sustainability. The theme of this year's World Food Day sponsored by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) is Agriculture and intercultural dialogue - celebrating the contribution of different cultures to world agriculture.
"GE rice poses threats to the centre of origin and diversity of rice in Asia, as well as the cultural diversity of rice-growing communities across the region. The introduction of GE rice is contradictory to the theme of this year's World Food Day celebration," said Dr Suman Sahai from Gene Campaign, India. "The real way forward for sustainable agriculture and solution for hunger is through the protection and use of biodiversity rather than genetic engineering, and the promotion of ecological agriculture based on the traditional knowledge of farming communities," said Paul Borja, SEARICE, based in the Philippines. "Bangladesh farmers have a long tradition of maintaining local rice diversity and they are resisting Syngenta's move to introduce Golden Rice," said Palash Baral, from UBINIG Bangladesh. "With breeding and growing local rice varieties, Thailand farmers are able to enjoy nutritious food and stabilize their income," said Supanee Taneewut, RRAFA, Thailand.
Following a 2-day meeting outside Bangkok, representatives from 10 rice growing countries wearing traditional dresses will today deliver the GE-Free Rice Declaration to the FAO headquarters in Bangkok, along with a collection of rice varieties as a demonstration of the importance of maintaining rice diversity. In the declaration, the group called for a ban on the development and cultivation of GE rice, and called upon the FAO to cease support for GE crops, and to instead support the development of sustainable, ecologically sound farming systems."
GE-Free Rice Declaration - Supanburi, Thailand, October 14th, 2005
We the participants representing organisations from 10 rice growing countries across Asia, having come together for a discussion on rice and genetic engineering, hereby declare that:
1. Rice is the world's most important staple food crop and forms the basis of the diet for over 3 billion people. It has played a central role in the cultural, social and spiritual life of communities throughout Asia for thousands of years;
2. Tens of thousands of rice varieties have been developed by farmers over millennia and farmers continue to develop and breed new varieties adapted to diverse ecosystems, economic and cultural requirements. GE rice threatens to undermine this diversity;
3. Women play a significant role in the conservation and development of seeds and as holders of traditional knowledge. With the advent of GE crops the role of indigenous knowledge and community led farming systems is likely to be destroyed;
4. GE rice cannot be a solution to hunger since the causes of hunger are the lack of access to productive resources to produce food, or lack of income to buy food.
5. Genetically engineered rice poses unacceptable risks to human and animal health and to the environment, particularly the contamination of gene pools in the centres of origin and diversity of rice in Asia;
6. The segregation of genetically engineered from non-genetically engineered rice cannot be implemented. Therefore co-existence is impossible;
7. The undue influence of transnational corporations such as Monsanto, Bayer and Syngenta on international agricultural production, trade and policies serves to undermine local access to food and the right of peoples and nations to democratically determine the use of their food resources;
8. Corporate influence is further directing public sector agricultural research away from public and towards commercial interests;
9. The future of our world's most important staple food crop will be secured through the protection and use of biodiversity rather than genetic engineering, and through ecological agriculture based on the traditional knowledge of farming communities;
For World Food Day 2005, we therefore call for a ban on the development and cultivation of genetically engineered rice, and call upon the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) to cease support for genetically engineered crops and food, and to instead support comprehensive research and development of sustainable, ecologically sound farming systems.
Signatory organisations:
Biotani Indonesia Foundation Cenesta (Centre for Sustainable Development and Environment), Iran Consumers' Association of Penang, Malaysia Friends of the Earth Malaysia / Sahabat Alam Malaysia (SAM) Gita Pertiwi Foundation, Indonesia Gene Campaign, India Green Net, Thailand Greenpeace Khao Kwan Foundation, Thailand No! GMO Campaign, Japan Save Our Rice Campaign (PAN AP) Reclaiming Rural Agriculture and Food Sovereignty Action (RRAFA) Thailand South East Asian Council for Food Security and Fair Trade (SEACON) Southeast Asia Regional Initiatives for Community Empowerment (SEARICE) Third World Network (TWN) UBINIG (Policy Research for Development Alternative), Bangladesh VECO Vietnam

WTO Ruling On EU GMO Laws Delayed - American Soybean Association Weekly Update - 10 October 2005
A World Trade Organization dispute panel ruling on the EU's alleged moratorium on market authorizations for new genetically modified products is being put off until after the WTO's Hong Kong ministerial conference in December. The panel has informed the EU and the three complainants in the dispute - the United States, Argentina, and Canada - that its preliminary ruling, which had been due October 10, will now be postponed until the first week of January 2006. No date was given for the release of the final ruling to the parties, although that normally takes place a month after the preliminary findings have been issued.
The panel cited scheduling conflicts as the reason for the delay. The chairman of the panel, Christian Haberli, is a senior negotiator on agriculture for the Swiss government. Although the panel did not explicitly link the delay with Hong Kong, it has been noted that the postponement will allow the WTO to avoid having the dispute become an issue at the ministerial conference, which is expected to be targeted by thousands of anti-globalization protestors.
The panel, which was established back in August 2003, has been asked by the three co-complainants to rule on what they claim is the EU's illegal de-facto moratorium on the approval of products containing GMOs. The three also accused Austria, France, Greece, and Italy of prohibiting the importation and marketing of GMO products, even though those products have already been approved for sale within the EU.

MP wary of GM crop trials - Standard Correspondent - Standard (Kenya), September 28 2005
http://www.eastandard.net/hm_news/news.php?articleid=29616
An MP yesterday asked the Government to suspend trials on Genetically Modified (GM) crops, pending development of strong biosafety policies and legal framework. Mr David Nakitare (Saboti) also said further field trials on genetically engineered crops should be stopped until the technology was proved safe to the environment. He said many people in Africa would be affected if the technology was found dangerous to man and the environment. "At least 85 per cent of people in the continent practice small-scale agriculture. This is why it is important to tread cautiously on GMO crops," he said He praised the Government for ordering the destruction of GM maize under field trial. The MP added that the same policy should be implemented against genetically modified cotton, cassava and sweet potatoes. Nakitare pointed out that this was necessary because the country did not have bio-safety laws. He also urged stakeholders, farmers and consumers "to take more interest to understand the issues around GM crops and participate in the debate on genetic engineering of crops."
The MP was speaking at a civil society strategy workshop on GMOs in African Agriculture at the Kenya School of Monetary Studies, Nairobi. "I urge you to explore other practical and sustainable alternatives to increase food production in Africa and, most important, how the increased food can be brought to the table of poor people in Africa." The meeting was attended by representatives of over 20 countries in Africa and international organisations.

Report of a Fact Finding Team's Visit to Warangal District to investigate an unusual disease on Bt Cotton on September 9, 2005
Kavitha Kuruganti - Centre for Sustainable Agriculture - 09393001550
A newspaper report appeared recently in the Warangal edition of Eenaadu (a telugu daily) titled Pathiki Anthu Chikkani Tegulu ("An unknown disease on cotton - Losses in 50,000 acre of Warangal district") which mentioned that more than 50,000 acres of cotton crop in Warangal district has been affected by an unknown disease. The media report also mentions that this problem appears to be higher in Bt Cotton than on cotton other than Bt Cotton [non-Bt Cotton]. This was confirmed by government agriculture scientists who visited several villages of the district to investigate into farmers' complaints. Farmers, who have had a good season so far, are panicking at this adverse development at the flowering and fruiting stage on the crop. These reports came from Hasanparthi, Hanmakonda, Atmakur, Dharmasagar and Geesukonda blocks.
A fact finding team consisting of Mr Ramprasad, Agriculture Scientist, Centre for Sustainable Agriculture (CSA), Ms Kavitha Kuruganti, Researcher, CSA and Mr Damoder of Sarvodaya Youth Organisation visited the fields in a few villages in Atmakur and Geesukonda blocks of Warangal district on September 9, 2005 along with farmers from the villages. The villages visited include Sthambhampalli in Geesukonda mandal, Durgampeta and Gudeppad in Atmakur mandal.
In Sthambampalli village, we visited the field of Mr Shankar Rao, who had sown RCH2Bt on one acre. He had so far sprayed Confidor for sucking pests and Boron and Magnesium Sulphate for the peculiar problem that had appeared on the crop. Here, while about 10% of the plants were completely stunted and seemed to be fully affected, another 20% of plants were affected in the upper canopy almost completely. The top leaves of the plant are wrinkled with non-uniform expanded and unexpanded areas. These leaves have inter-veinal red tinge. These plants also seem as if they will not recover. The squares are drying up and falling down. The leaves have a reddish color all over and are curling downwards. The plant however not dried out, no browning found in the dissected stem and wilt has been ruled out. There is high attack of Spodoptera also on this plot with leaves and shoots having been eaten. He also says that he was told that Bt Cotton would be effective against all pests while he is discovering now that this is not the truth. The incidence of sucking pests is quite low - we found however low incidence of mites, thrips and jassids on some leaves. White flies are absent. This could also be because he had taken action to control the initial incidence of sucking pests.
We also looked at the cotton plants with this problem in Mr Doosayya Veeraswamy?s land which was also sown with RCH2 Bt. The problem was similar spodoptera was present in this field too. We also visited Mr Sambayya?s land planted with Bunny Bt ? here it was much lesser but still present. Mr Gundekari Ramesh, who had sown 3 acres of his land with RCH2 Bt showed us his Bt Cotton plants which were similar. They were stunted and more than 35% of his field was affected by this disease like phenomenon. While we were walking through the fields, other farmers including women started complaining about the same problem and started asking for a remedy. Some of them were farmers who had sown illegal Bt Cotton.
We went to at least two plots that we were told were Bt Cotton plots - however, we discovered that there is no non-Bt Cotton sown in this village this year. It was all either approved or unapproved Bt Cotton. One of the explanations provided for the spread of Bt Cotton was that farmers who wanted to opt for non-Bt Cotton feared that they will lose out if there is only Bt Cotton all around them and therefore opted for Bt Cotton too. While some of the farmers had sown Bt Cotton last year also, others are growing it for the first time this year. Refuge system is not being followed on the ground.
The villagers here reported that after feeding on Bt Cotton, several goats got killed last year. Asked why they have opted for Bt Cotton despite the problems that they are reporting (they mentioned that the Mahyco varieties of Bt Cotton failed badly last year with very low yields and that goats got killed), they said that they hope that pesticide usage would come down with Bt Cotton now that they are trying other Bt Cotton varieties and that farmers who form a majority of the village cannot afford to think about the negative repercussions on some shepherds who rear animals like sheep and goats. However, several of the farmers met also mentioned that they have to re-think their decision about Bt Cotton now that they are witnessing the new disease on the crop.
We then visited the field of Mr Chelpuri Chandraiah of Durgampet village. He had sown one acre of RCH2 Bt, one acre of Bunny Bt and one acre of Mallika Bt Cotton. His field, several kilometers away from Sthambampalli village, had the same problem. Many plants with stunted growth with leaves reddish in color and curled downwards were present. The problem was more prevalent on this land. The IIIT people, who are running an information extension service in this village, had suggested that he apply boron for treating the problem. Chandraiah had done so 20 days ago, with no improvement in the situation. He had sprayed Contaf and Confidor so far. At the time that we visited him, he was spraying curacron with a power sprayer for the spodoptera attack. He chose to opt for Bt Cotton this year since he got about 10 quintals with RCH2 Bt last year with around Rs. 3000/- spent on pesticides. However, a non-Bt variety that he had sown last year called Pratham had given him 12 quintals with Rs. 5000/- or so spent on pesticides. He said that he had not been able to compare his crop with non-Bt fields since there aren't any such fields around his plot. He thinks that the problem could be because of spurious seed supplied to him by the company coupled with the current weather conditions.
We visited the fields of Mr Chelpuri Narsayya who had sown RCH2 Bt Cotton on 2 acres of his land, with one row of non-Bt refuge all around. In this field, we found high attack of spodoptera as well as Helicoverpa in addition to the unknown disease and leaf curling due to a high incidence of sucking pests. Narsayya had sprayed Confidor and Actara so far in addition to Boron to take care of the new disease. Bollworm damage to squares and buds was quite high in this field.
We also met Mr Chelpuri Laxmaiah here, who had sown RCH 20 Bt in six acres. He has faced the new disease as well as high incidence of sucking pests, Spodoptera and Helicoverpa. He has so far sprayed Confidor, Monocrotophos, Pride, Actara and Avaunt now to control Helicoverpa. When he consulted the Rasi company representatives about the various problems in his field, he was told that it was because he lacked irrigation!
We then visited the field of Mr Lakkidi Channa Reddy who had sown MECH 12 Bt this season. Helicoverpa incidence as well as spodoptera incidence was high here even as the peculiar disease was present at equal levels here. Even though there were not many stunted plants here, the upper canopy of almost a third of his plot was affected with the disease. This farmer also reported higher incidence of skin allergies in all Bt Cotton fields this year. All the other farmers concurred with this observation and experience of this farmer.
We finally visited a non-Bt plot of Mr Chelpuri Mogili, who had sown a non-Bt Cotton hybrid called Sudarshan. In this plot, Helicoverpa damage was at par with the Bt cotton plots we had seen so far, but the disease was definitely much lower. The farmers accompanying us (around 6-7 of them) found the difference marked too. So far, he had sprayed Actara and Cypermethrin for the control of Helicoverpa. His seed cost per packet was Rs. 430/- as opposed to around Rs. 1700/- on an average paid by the others.
We found that in village Gudeppad, where we met with Mr Bommineni Rajireddy, a well-known progressive farmer, who has given his land for some Rasi field trials on Bollgard this season too, that the problem was present on these trial plots too. The Rasi company personnel, including their entomologist Mr Venkat from Salem, could not diagnose the problem - they felt that it was a viral disease that was probably being spread by thrips. We found that the incidence of thrips was quite low in all the fields that we visited - however, both mites and thrips were present at a low level in almost all the fields visited while the presence of jassids and white fly was low this year.
The fact finding team, from its field visits and consultations with other experts (plant pathologists and entomologists), concludes that this might be a new disease unusual for the cotton crop in this state, being spread mostly by the higher incidence of sucking pests on Bt Cotton, that too of thrips.
The main points that emerge from this fact-finding trip are:
1.The government allowed the spread of Bt Cotton, especially of unapproved varieties too to such an extent that it has become very difficult to find control plots to check the actual situation of whether this viral attack was common to all cotton plots or was prevalent more on Bt Cotton (as a result of some unpredictable result of the genetic technology employed here).
2.Beyond academic reasons, such a monoculture of Bt Cotton also means a great deal of damage if this disease is indeed peculiar to Bt Cotton hybrids, which seemed to be the case from our own verification of Bt and non-Bt plots. The government scientists have a similar observation to make, as per media reports. The dire future of cotton farmers in a monoculture situation with such susceptibilities of Bt Cotton cannot be overstated.
3.It is known that Bt Cotton has higher incidence of sucking pests and for the first time, the possibility of viral diseases spreading through these sucking pests mostly on Bt Cotton because of its higher vulnerability is becoming clear. Therefore, it is not only a vulnerability to higher incidence of sucking pests but a vulnerability to greater spread of diseases through these sucking pests.
4.Bt Cotton plots, especially of RCH2 Bt variety, have higher prevalence of this disease. This disease has mixed symptoms of boron deficiency as well as mite attack and the visiting government officials are recommending treatment for both these causes. However, this has not improved the situation, though the spread of the disease has been controlled in the first two plots visited.
5.The damage is upto 30% of the Bt Cotton plots visited. While some plants have become stunted with no growth at all, in other plants which are affected, the upper canopy is displaying the symptoms of leaf reddening and curling downwards with a dried rim even as the squares are drying up and falling down.
6.There is high incidence of Spodoptera on all the plots visited including the non-Bt cotton field. The spodoptera larvae were found to be feeding on leaves as well as buds and flowers. This brings into question the claims of the Bt Cotton companies that damage to flowering and fruiting parts is protected well through this technology. Bt Cotton is clearly not effective against Spodoptera and this is the major pest damaging buds and flowers right now!
7.There is equal incidence of Helicoverpa damage on Bt Cotton and non-Bt Cotton plots. This brings into question the efficacy of the very technology with which Bt Cotton was introduced.

	www.munlochygmvigil.org.uk INTERNATIONAL 2003-2005