Munlochy GM Vigil - What's New

GM potato trials will go ahead despite location withdrawal - Farmers Weekly, 22 December 2006
http://www.fwi.co.uk/Articles/2006/12/22/100371/gm-potato-trials-will-go-ahead-despite-location-withdrawal.html
On-farm trials of genetically modified potatoes will go ahead in 2007 despite the withdrawal of the proposed site near Borrowash in Derbyshire. The farm owner had agreed to host the trial of chemical company BASF's late blight resistant potatoes but he pulled out saying that he feared for his personal security. A spokesman for Derbyshire Police said the force was aware that the intense publicity surrounding the GM trial had made the farmer concerned about his family's safety. Although, the spokesman said, it was understood that no specific threat had been made to the farmer. BASF, the chemical company behind the potato trial, described the farmer's withdrawal as "disappointing and a setback" for the company.
'Procedures'
"It was particularly disappointing because we had got so far through the required procedures," a BASF spokesman told Farmers Weekly. He was angry that the farmer had felt pressured into pulling out and he criticised the requirement to publish Ordnance Survey map grid references for on-farm GM sites. "We have to provide four-figure grid references and later in the procedures a six-figure reference in the interest of openness and transparency.......That exposes anyone hosting the trial to publicity and makes it difficult for all concerned."
New site
But he announced that BASF was on the verge of agreeing a new site for the potato trial. "We have been searching for a new site and there will be an on-farm GM potato trial planted next spring," he told Farmers Weekly. "We will be making an announcement fairly shortly into the New Year," he added.
Anti-GM campaigner Pete Riley joined BASF in decrying those who used intimidation as a means of getting GM trials stopped. But he questioned that there was any need for blight resistant GM potatoes. "The trials are unnecessary because there are already many blight resistant potato varieties on the market and in the pipeline that are produced by conventional breeding," said Mr Riley of GM Freeze.....All GM potatoes will do is jeopardise consumer confidence in the British potato. Farmers do not need to have their market undermined. We don't need GM spuds."

Chip makers oppose GM potato trial - By Charles Clover Environment Editor - The Daily Telegraph, 2 December 2006
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/02/nchips02.xml
The Government's decision yesterday to allow trials of a new strain of genetically modified potato has been met with strong opposition by the potato industry and the country's largest maker of chips. The British Potato Council said its refusal to endorse trials of a potato modified to be resistant to late blight, which caused the Irish potato famine of the 1840s, was based on consumers' mistrust of GM technology. The council said it was "paramount" that public concerns over GM trials were addressed and fears about possible cross-contamination were allayed before the trials began.
The Government has given permission for five-acre plots of GM potatoes produced by the company BASF to be grown in Derbyshire and Cambridgeshire next year. The conditions stipulate that the plots must be left fallow after the five-year trial so that overlooked tubers can be destroyed and that none of the potatoes harvested enters the food chain. Helen Priestley, the BPC's chief executive, said: "While we welcome steps to further understanding of this technology, the public must be comfortable with whatever steps are taken to introduce it and we didn't feel the time was right. "However, there are rigorous procedures in place to ensure that commercial crops are not contaminated with GM material and that no GM material enters the human food chain. The public must be left in no doubt that the procedures are effective, that they are maintained and that the trials process is open and transparent....It is crucial consumers understand that potatoes on sale through retail or food service outlets will continue to be GM-free."
Bill Bartlett, the corporate affairs director of McCain Foods (GB) which is the largest manufacturer of chips in Britain, said: "McCain Foods is disappointed with this decision at a tie when consumer attitudes do not support GM foods." Lord Melchett, the policy director of the Soil Association, said that the Government is "ignoring what consumers want to eat and their health and safety". He said: "Even in America, McDonald's, McCain, Pringles and Burger King rejected GM potatoes years ago. The chances of anyone in the UK willingly buying GM potato crisps or chips are zero. This trial is a monumental waste of time and money." The association claims that GM potatoes are one of the few crops where there is any scientific evidence of potential risks to human health, though the Government-sponsored research which found stomach lesions in rats fed on GM potatoes was widely criticised in the scientific community. Experts say the use of a natural resistance gene, from wild relatives of the potato in Mexico to give a commercial strain resistance to fungal attack represents a new departure for the GM industry.
The first generation of crops submitted for trial in Britain either contained natural pesticides, such as BT toxin, or were herbicide resistant. Representatives of companies such as Monsanto were famously unable to think of any advantage to the public, other than cost savings for farmers, of the first generation of GM crops. Government field trials in 2003 showed that the herbicide use they encouraged was often worse for wildlife than current practices. Built-in resistance to disease for one of the world's staple crops, however, is one of the potential benefits of GM technology discussed before the means became widely available. Chris Leaver, Sibthorpian professor of plant sciences at Oxford University, said the spreading of genes was not a problem because potatoes do not reproduce sexually, but are propagated by using tubers. Prof Joe Perry, of Rothamsted Research, said: "Under EU law, GM crops can only be banned if scientists can find evidence of harm to human health or the environment. Trials are therefore the only way to gather evidence to demonstrate actual harm."

Fury as genetically modified potatoes given go-ahead in UK - GM trial given go-ahead, but first food crop is 10 years away
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=419808&in_page_id=1770&ct=5
Ministers have been accused of ignoring consumers and risking contamination of the countryside after giving the green light for genetically modified potatoes to be grown in the UK. The Government granted permission for the GM variety to be cultivated at two trial sites, prompting claims that they are stealthily trying to reintroduce the technology after previously being forced to back away from it by public opposition.
Plans to grow Britain's first commercial GM crop - a bioengineered maize - were abandoned two-and-a-half years ago in the face of consumer protests. Dr Arpad Pusztai, the nutritionist who prompted the initial furore over GM crops said the move showed Britain was a 'soft touch' because Tony Blair believes the 'moon shines out of the backside of the biotech industry'. Campaigners said the new trials were pointless because food firms had already rejected GM potatoes.
But the Environment Department said trials of a new GM potato would go ahead at two sites - one in Derbyshire and one in Cambridgeshire. The crop has been engineered so that it includes a gene from a wild species of potato in a bid to make it resistant to blight, a disease that costs growers £70m a year.
Although the GM potatoes have been trialled in Germany and Sweden, they have yet to be planted here. German biotech company BASF Plant Sciences will start growing the GM potatoes in spring 2007. As many as 450,000 GM potato plants can be cultivated at the two sites near Borrowash, Derbyshire, and Girton, Cambridgeshire, over the course of the five-year project. The first commercially available crops could be on the shelves within a decade.
Chris Wilson, of BASF, said: 'The trial is to evaluate the new blight-resistant GM potato under UK farming and climate conditions. 'Nothing from these trials will be eaten. The potatoes grown will be tested under carefully controlled conditions and then destroyed. 'The possibility of a food crop from it is maybe ten years down the line.'
Ministers said independent experts had advised that the trials posed no risk to human health or the environment. GM potatoes present a low risk of contaminating other plants because they cannot cross with any wild species present in the UK, they said. The land will be left fallow and unploughed for two years after the trials in an attempt to prevent the GM varieties contaminating an ordinary crop grown later on the same site. But Lord Melchett, of the organic industry body the Soil Association, said: 'The Government is ignoring what consumers want to eat and their health and safety. 'Even in America, McDonald's, McCain, Pringles and Burger King, rejected GM potatoes years ago. The chances of anyone in the UK willingly buying GM potato crisps or chips are zero. This trial is a monumental waste of time and money. 'Worse than that, GM potatoes are one of the GM crops where there is scientific evidence of potential risks to human health.'
Friends of the Earth GM campaigner Clare Oxborrow said despite the reassurances, the trials posed a 'significant' contamination threat to future potato crops. 'We don't need GM potatoes and there is no consumer demand for them,' she said. 'The Government should promote safe and sustainable agriculture, not this half-baked GM potato plan.' For the Tories, shadow environment secretary Peter Ainsworth said: 'Given that the public shows no appetite at all for GM food, this trial seems somewhat academic.'
Ministers were also accused of letting biotech companies off the hook over any environmental harm caused by GM crops. Campaigners said proposed protections also unveiled yesterday were the 'weakest possible' and would fail to protect many important sites and species, including butterflies and moths. Dr Sue Mayer, director of the pressure group GeneWatch, said: 'These proposals are too weak to be effective and are dangerous because they create the impression that laws exist when they are a sham. 'It is highly unlikely that a biotechnology company or person using GMOs would be required to pay for remediation of any environmental damage that may arise unless they were proven to be negligent.'
Environment Minister Ian Pearson said: 'Our top priority on this issue remains protecting consumers and the environment, and a rigorous independent assessment has concluded that these trials do not give rise to any safety concerns......Based on the independent advice we have received, appropriate conditions have been specified for the conduct of the trials, and our GM Inspectorate will ensure that these are met......As the GM potatoes are being grown for research purposes, they will not be used for food or animal feed.'
Campaigners complain that the Government is continuing to attempt to foist GM technology on Britain despite the total lack of appetite for it from voters. Dr Pusztai said the latest approval for more trials looked like an attempt by ministers to sneak commercial cultivation in 'by the back door' after waiting for a period in the hope that opposition would die away. Last month, it emerged that rice being imported from America was widely contaminated with GM material. One in ten samples of American long grain rice tested at British mills was found to contain GM varieties. Selling GM rice is illegal in Europe because it has not been cleared for human consumption. Last year, the European Commission also cleared imports of genetically modified maize produced by the US biotechnology firm Monsanto for use as animal feed, despite safety concerns.

Irish Showed the way to mash GM Spuds but Defra throw caution to the wind - 1st December 2006
GM Freeze have described the approaches to licensing test sites for GM potatoes on either side of the Irish Sea as being “light years apart” following today’s approval of BASF’s GM trials in 2007 and beyond by Defra.
The giant German chemical company BASF applied to Defra in the summer to carry out tests of GM blight resistant potatoes from 2007 in Derbyshire and Cambridgeshire. They were granted approval for the same trials in Ireland last summer but they refused to proceed after the Irish Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) imposed 10 conditions in the license for the trial. The conditions on the license issued today by Defra are no where near as tough as those required in Ireland
The major differences between the Irish EPA (1) and Defra (2) include:
• The EPA required all berries (fruit containing seeds) to be collected in sealed bags and removed from Ireland. Defra require tops including berries to be chopped or sprayed with weedkiller.
• The EPA required potatoes exposed during cultivation to be removed or re-buried. Defra make no recommendations on this point.
• The EPA required a number of harvest operations to ensure the maximum number of GM tubers were removed. Defra require one harvesting operation.
• The EPA wanted a 40 metres separation distance between GM and non-GM neighbours. Defra have allowed 20 metres.
• The EPA required the site to be inspected for four years after the trail and volunteers potatoes or seedlings removed. Defra require only 2 years inspection
• The EPA insisted on an independent body (agreed by them) carrying out post release monitoring of the site. Defra are happy for BASF to monitor their own trial and report on it.
GM Freeze objected to the application because of the risk of GM materials spreading to neighbouring crops, lack of food safety data and because the trail was unnecessary given that many current potato varieties are already resistant to blight through conventional breeding making the GM varieties unnecessary. GM Freeze also pointed out that potato blight has many different strains and evolves rapidly so that GM resistance traits may not be effective for very long. Other objectors included the British Potato Council and McCains who were concerned about contamination and the impact on the UK potato industry.
Pete Riley of GM Freeze commented
“The approach taken by Defra and the Irish EPA are light years apart. Given the opposition of the UK potato growers' trade body, you would have expected Defra to follow Ireland’s lead and take a very precautionary approach with much tighter controls to try and prevent any GM materials escaping from the field or in the years following the trial. The huge irony of the BASF trials is that conventional plant breeders have already succeeded in developing resistance in 20% of potato varieties. New varieties bred from Hungarian stock are already proving to be very robust against blight in the UK. BASF’s experiment is pointless because we already well on the way to tackling the problem and there will be no market for GM spuds in the foreseeable future”.
Calls to Pete Riley 07903 341065
Notes
1. The full conditions required under the Irish approval which BASF did not take up are at http://www.epa.ie/Licensing/GMOLicensing/DeliberateReleaseofGMOs/FieldTrialwithGMPotatoes/FileUpload,9237,en.pdf
2. Defra’s condition can be found here http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/gm/regulation/consents/pdf/06-r42-01.pdf
MUNLOCHY GM VIGILRESPONSE TO DEFRA'S CONSULTATION

GM potato trials given go-ahead - Some farmers fear other crops will become contaminated - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6197768.stm
The government has allowed the planting of genetically modified potatoes on two trial sites in England. Defra granted permission for BASF Plant Sciences to grow crops in fields in Cambridgeshire and Derbyshire. The crops have been modified to include a gene from a wild species of potato in a bid to make them resistant to blight, a disease costing growers £70m a year. But the Soil Association said it was "a stupid decision" and warned other crops risked contamination by GM.
Previous GM potato trials were carried out in the UK in 2003. BASF aims to develop potatoes resistant to phytophthora infestans, known as late blight. It says it has found a trait in a wild potato that causes resistance to the fungal disease. The biotechnology firm applied to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) to hold trials at the headquarters of the National Institute of Agricultural Botany (NIAB) in Cambridge and on a Derbyshire farm. The GM potato crops are to be planted next spring and trials will last several years. BASF said the trials would take up a maximum of one hectare within a plot of two hectares at each site per year.
'Not eaten'
BASF corporate communications manager Chris Wilson said: "Nothing from these trials will be eaten. The potatoes grown will be tested under carefully controlled conditions and then destroyed. "The possibility of a food crop from it is maybe 10 years down the line." Similar scientific tests are already under way in Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands, but BASF want to be sure their GM potato variety is resistant to blight under UK growing conditions.
Defra held a public consultation on the firm's application between September and October. However, the Soil Association's policy director Lord Peter Melchett told BBC's Five Live: "Nobody thinks that GM potatoes will seriously be used by British consumers or bought by them." He dismissed the idea scientists would be able to prevent contamination of other crops by GM. "Well there aren't any such guarantees," he said. "You can't do that. "American farmers have found this year that the whole of their long grain rice crop has been contaminated as the result of a trial which took place and finished over five years ago. " Lord Melchett also said the idea it would deal with the problem of blight was "fantasy". Blight is a disease which evolves very quickly you knock it back one way it comes back another," he said.

Key wildlife species and habitats excluded from proposed GM environmental liability laws - GeneWatch press release, 30 November 2006
http://www.genewatch.org/article.shtml?als[cid]=492860&als[itemid]=546615
Tomorrow, the [UK] Government is launching its consultation on the implementation of the Environmental Liability Directive (1). This includes the proposals for laws that will govern whether biotech companies have to pay for environmental harm caused by GMOs (2). The Government's proposals, seen by GeneWatch UK, are the weakest possible and will fail to protect important sites and species. "For GMOs, the Government doesn't intend to make the polluter pay," said Dr Sue Mayer, GeneWatch's Director. "These proposals are too weak to be effective and are dangerous because they create the impression that laws exist when they are a sham. While the public pay millions to protect species like the red squirrel and water vole, any damage that may be done by GMOs will not be paid for by the biotech industry".
Of the 566 Biodiversity Action Plan species, three hundred and seventy five (66%) will not be covered (3). A full list is published on the GeneWatch web site and includes:
the cirl bunting, corn bunting, tree sparrow, bullfinch; the water vole, the red squirrel, and the brown hare; and many butterflies and moths. Three thousand three hundred Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), forming 25% of the land area of biological SSSIs in the UK will not be included. The SSSI system is an important pillar of nature conservation in the UK. GeneWatch has published a full list of these sites on its web site. (4) The proposals also make it difficult to ensure the biotech industry pays out, even when harm occurs to species that are covered.
"It is highly unlikely that a biotechnology company or person using GMOs would be required to pay for remediation of any environmental damage that may arise unless they were proven to be negligent. Either damage will not be repaired or the state will have to pay. This is not what people said they wanted during the Government's own 'GM Nation?' debate. The proposals could have been written by the biotech industry", said Dr Mayer
For further information contact Sue Mayer on 01298 871898 (office) or 07930 308807 (mobile)
Notes to editors
1.The DEFRA consultation 'Environmental Liability Directive. Consultation on options for implementation of the Directive' will be launched on Friday 1st December 2006 and will be available at: www.defra.gov.uk/environment/eldcon. The closing date for submissions will be the 22nd February 2007
2.The Environmental Liability Directive (ELD - 2004/35) provides the liability regime for environmental harm arising from the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). This is the regime that was promised during the negotiation of the Deliberate Release Directive (2001/18 - Recital 16), but it also includes environmental damage caused by other activities that are not addressed here. If environmental damage takes place as a result of using a GM organism, the company or person responsible should have to pay the costs of remediation (putting things right). For briefings about the Environmental Liability Directive and GMOs: http://www.genewatch.org/sub.shtml?als[cid]=530853%20
3.In the UK, a Biodiversity Action Plan was launched in 1994. Species and habitats of conservation concern were identified and plans established to protect and improve their status. For a full list of those species not covered under the Government's proposals: http://www.genewatch.org/sub.shtml?als[cid]=530853%20
4.For a full list of SSSIs that the Government does not intend to be included in the environmental liability laws: http://www.genewatch.org/uploads/f03c6d66a9b354535738483c1c3d49e4/SSSIsnotELD_bycounty.xls

JUDGE GIVES GO AHEAD TO FSA HIGH COURT CHALLENGE OVER GM RICE - Friends of the Earth UK, 21 November 2006
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/judge_gives_go_ahead_to_fs_21112006.html
A High Court judge has given Friends of the Earth permission to take its legal challenge against the Food Standards Agency (FSA) to a full hearing in the High Court. The environmental campaign group says that the FSA failed to take appropriate action to prevent unauthorised GM rice entering the UK food chain. The FSA had claimed that Friends of the Earth's challenge should not be allowed to proceed to a hearing because its case was 'unarguable'.
Friends of the Earth also argued that the case needs to be heard urgently to ensure that the FSA acts while GM-contaminated rice is still on the market. The FSA has argued that the case is not urgent. The Court [1] has ordered a hearing be held "as soon as possible" to decide the next steps in the case.
The Court's initial decision follows Friends of the Earth's application for judicial review of the Food Standards Agency's (FSA) failure to take necessary action to prevent UK consumers being exposed to unapproved GM rice in their food. The illegal GM presence stems from an incident in the US where GM rice grown experimentally (BayerCropScience's LL Rice 601) has contaminated commercial long grain rice supplies and been exported around the world. The rice is not approved for human consumption or cultivation anywhere in the world.
Friends of the Earth's Head of Legal, Phil Michaels said:
"The High Court has recognised that this is a serious case which requires a full hearing by the High Court. Three months after the Emergency Decision the Food Standards Agency is still not taking the UK's legal obligations seriously. The FSA's response to the case has been to point the finger at everyone else and to deny that it has any responsibility. Rather than seeking to avoid responsibility the FSA should instead be taking steps to comply with the law and to make sure that proper testing and analysis is carried out throughout the UK so that consumers are not exposed to illegal GM rice."
The Court's decision follows the publication by the FSA last week of its findings that just under 10% of samples collected in UK rice mills were contaminated with the illegal GM rice [2]. Illegal GM material has already been detected in long grain rice from Tesco, Sainsbury's, Morrisons, Somerfield and the Co-op.
According to the European Commission's amended Emergency Decision any long grain rice imported into the EU from the US must be tested to be demonstrated free of the illegal rice [3]. Furthermore, Member States must take appropriate steps to test rice products already on the market to make sure the illegal variety is not present.
Friends of the Earth claims that the FSA:
has failed to take actions necessary to comply with the requirements of the Emergency Decision to test rice already on the market in the UK;
has failed to ensure that local food authorities investigate or take enforcement action;
has encouraged food businesses to carry on as normal and not to test their rice for contamination or withdraw product.
Notes:
[1] Mr Justice Crane
[2]http://www.food.gov.uk/science/surveillance/fsisbranch2006/fsis1906
[3]http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/1120&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

Finnie warned on legality of GM guidelines - By Rob Edwards - The Sunday Herald - 29 October 2006 - http://www.sundayherald.com/58739
IF Scottish ministers follow the example of Westminster on new rules for growing GM crops they will break European law. Legal experts have concluded that the regime proposed by the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) in London to prevent organic food from being contaminated by GM crops grown nearby is "fundamentally flawed". The Scottish environment minister, Ross Finnie, has long been expected to publish GM "co-existence" rules similar to Defra's. But although Defra's consultation finished more than a week ago, Finnie's has yet to begin.
Oddly, an announcement that Finnie's consultation had opened was posted on the Scottish Executive's website a month ago, but removed within hours. It was an "administrative error", according to the Scottish Executive. Now the campaign group, GM Freeze, has obtained a legal opinion on Defra's plans from two of the UK's leading specialists on European law, Paul Lasok and Rebecca Haynes. Defra plans were "inconsistent with community law", they concluded. Defra proposed to "minimise" GM contamination though the law required the government to "avoid" it. Defra's suggestion that no public register of GM crops was necessary ignored a European directive, the lawyers said.
GM Freeze will be writing to the Executive this week, warning ministers not to make the same mistakes as Defra. "The Executive needs to consider the legal flaws in Defra's consultation very carefully if it is to avoid making proposals that are at odds with European law," said Pete Riley, campaign director of GM Freeze. Green MSP Mark Ruskell added: "It's time for Finnie to show his hand on GM once and for all and not make the same pro-GM mistakes as Defra."
The Scottish Executive promised it would respond to GM Freeze. "We will also be issuing a consultation in due course and will consider all responses," said an Executive spokesperson.

GM RICE LEGAL CHALLENGE ISSUED AGAINST FOOD STANDARDS AGENCY
Friends of the Earth Press Release - Friday 27 October 2006
Friends of the Earth has filed a legal challenge against the Food Standards Agency (FSA) over its failure to take necessary action to prevent UK consumers being exposed to illegal GM rice in their food. The action comes two months after it was revealed that an experimental and unapproved GM rice had contaminated food supplies in the US and been exported to the UK and Europe. The application for Judicial Review was filed with the High Court challenging the Food Standards Agency's response to the incident.
According to the Emergency Decision issued by the European Commission shortly after the contamination incident was announced, any long grain rice imported into the EU must be certified as free of the illegal rice (BayerCropScience's LL Rice 601) [1]. Furthermore, member states must test rice products already on the market to make sure the illegal variety is not present.
Friends of the Earth claims that the FSA:
* has failed to take actions necessary to comply with the requirements of the Emergency Decision to test rice already on the market in the UK;
* to investigate or take enforcement action;
* encouraged food businesses to carry on as normal and not to worry about taking steps to test their rice for contamination or to withdraw any contaminated rice that they found.
No strains of GM rice have been approved in Europe, and no GM rice varieties are being grown commercially anywhere in the world. However, experimental trials are being carried out in a number of countries, including the US. In August, US Authorities announced that the illegal LL Rice 601, grown experimentally from 1998-2001 had contaminated commercial long grain rice supplies. Since then, over 90 incidents of illegal GM rice contamination has been detected in 15 European countries[2]. In the UK illegal GM material has been detected in long grain rice from Tesco, Sainsbury's, Morrisons, Somerfield and the Co-op.
Friends of the Earth's Head of Legal, Phil Michaels said: "The Food Standards Agency is not taking the UK's legal obligations seriously. It has failed to take necessary steps to verify that illegal GM rice is not on the market. It has effectively told business and local food authorities that no action is required. The Agency needs to take steps to check the food chain to ensure that this GM rice is not present and, where it is present, ensure that it is removed. It is failing to do so. Despite providing the FSA with repeated opportunities to reconsider its position it has failed to take the necessary steps. That is why Friends of the Earth feels it has no choice but to take urgent legal action."
On Monday, member states in the EU agreed to stricter measures requiring all long grain rice from the US to be re-tested at the point of entry into the EU, following a mix up where a number of consignments of rice that had entered Rotterdam port and were certified by the US as GM-free, were tested by Dutch authorities and subsequently found to be contaminated [3].
Notes:
[1] http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/1120&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en
[2] http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/rice_contamination.htm
[3] GM rice: Standing Committee backs Commission Decision on strict counter testing of US rice imports:
http://europa.eu.int/rapid/middayExpressAction.do?date=25/10/2006&direction=0&guiLanguage=en

RESIST THIS RUSH FOR GM CROPS - Western Morning News, 21 October 2006
The government's supposed consultation over the future of genetically modified crops in Britain smacks of a sham exercise. Tony Blair's view on the matter is well known and - as we have seen before - if Mr Blair is resolved on something he is not too bothered what the public thinks.That is not the spin that is being put on this process, of course. Ostensibly, all opinions will be taken into account, due weight will be given to arguments both for and against, then a balanced and considered decision will be made. Excuse us for sounding cynical, but we do not believe it.
The former Environment Minister, Michael Meacher, is closer to the mark when he says that public opinion is being overridden. Despite trials that provoked outrage among organic and non-GM farmers in the countryside, despite the militant uprooting of experimental crops, and despite the very well-founded fears about cross-pollination, the Government still has the audacity to claim that there is "no scientific case" for a ban. That is a preposterous argument that owes more to this Government's all too comfortable relationship with big business than with any objective analysis of the facts.
For every argument that GM does not pose a threat to human health, there are opponents in the farming and scientific community who can point to the contrary. For every insistence that GM crops cannot compromise nearby organic fields, there is evidence to make a mockery of it.
The stark fact of the matter is the Government has decided on a technology which could have long-term effects on agriculture over which there is little control. In its haste, it could be opening a Pandora's Box which lets loose a trail of damage stretching far into the future. If it then transpires that ministers got it disastrously wrong - as they are being warned they have - it may be too late to reverse the damage. It is confusing as to what are the Government's motives in this matter. It may be that vested interest has influenced opinion; it may even be Mr Blair and senior colleagues at Defra are persuaded of the long-term benefits of GM to the food market and the consumer. Whatever the Government's reasoning, we believe its conclusions are both wrong-headed and dangerous. If that means it must be challenged in law, then good. If it means public demonstrations against the crude imposition of GM, then so much the better. We would expect that those protests would be particularly widespread in the Westcountry, which has such a high concentration of organic farms.
Farmers cannot afford to be used as the guinea pigs for a Government experiment in genetic technology. The health of the public must not be compromised by an expansion of the market in tainted food. There is enough of that already to contend with and overcome without the situation being worsened. Nor must opponents of GM be brow-beaten or intimidated by accusations of their being "anti-science". We are very much in favour of science when it is to the benefit of human health and progress.
If the Government is not in the mood to listen to that, then it must be made to listen. One word sums up our message on GM crops: no!

Defra accused of introducing GM through back door - By Andy McSmith - The Independent, 20 October 2006
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1904982.ece
Public opposition to GM crops is being overridden by a government determined to back the industry, Michael Meacher, the former environment minister, has claimed. His remarks came yesterday in response to the launch of a government consultation over whether GM crops can "co-exist" with non-GM crops in the British countryside. Those who want to take part must have their answers in by today.
Early GM experiments met huge opposition in the UK, with the result that no GM crops have been grown commercially in Britain. The same is true through most of Europe, and environmental groups claimed yesterday that what the government is now proposing could be illegal under EU law. But the government's view is that there is "no scientific case" for a total ban. Mr Meacher, and other campaigners, suspect that the Environment Secretary, David Miliband, is looking for a way to overcome public opposition. "This consultation is the Government's latest attempt to back the GM industry over the wishes of the British public," Mr Meacher claimed. "Instead of paving the way for GM crops to be grown in England, David Miliband must take on board the thousands of responses rejecting the Government's GM contamination plans and put in place policies that protect GM-free food and truly promise his vision of sustainable farming."
Three pressure groups yesterday published a legal opinion claiming that the government plans are "fundamentally flawed". The opinion said that Mr Miliband's department is wrong to assume that it is permitted under EU law to seek to "minimise" rather than "avoid" the risk that other crops will be contaminated if there are GM crops growing nearby. They also say that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was wrong to think that EU law does not require it to publish a register of sites where GM crops are grown, and to assume that gardeners and allotment holders do not have a right under EU law to know whether GM crops are being grown near their land. The legal opinion was prepared for Friends of the Earth, The Soil Association and GM Freeze.
Soil Association policy director Peter Melchett said: "The Government's proposals to deny organic and other farmers the choice of staying free of GM contamination break their repeated promises." Friends of the Earth's GM campaigner Clare Oxborrow said: "Government proposals for rules that allow GM crops to be grown alongside conventional and organic crops are a thinly veiled attempt to introduce GM crops through the back door. Allowing routine, unlabelled, GM contamination of conventional and organic crops is not only unacceptable to the public, it is legally flawed." GM Freeze director Pete Riley said: "The Government appears to be willing to rewrite EU law."
Public opposition to GM crops is being overridden by a government determined to back the industry, Michael Meacher, the former environment minister, has claimed. His remarks came yesterday in response to the launch of a government consultation over whether GM crops can "co-exist" with non-GM crops in the British countryside. Those who want to take part must have their answers in by today.

Friends of the Earth's response to BASF's application to trial GM blight-resistant potatoes in the UK is pasted below.
Don't forget, all responses have to be in by this Thursday, 19th October, 2006!
If you want to respond, full details are at http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/gm/regulation/applications/06-r42-01.htm
Best wishes,
Liz Wright
Representation from Friends of the Earth on application for a part B consent from BASF Plant Science to release genetically modified potatoes with improved resistance to Phytophthora infestans (Application Reference 06/R42/01)
October 2006
Friends of the Earth inspires solutions to environmental problems, which make life better for people. Friends of the Earth is:
* the UK's most influential national environmental campaigning organisation
* the most extensive environmental network in the world, with around 1 million supporters across five continents, and more than 70 national organisations worldwide
* a unique network of campaigning local groups, working in more than 200 communities throughout England, Wales and Northern Ireland
* dependent on individuals for over 90 per cent of its income.
Friends of the Earth objects to this application from BASF Plant Science to release blight resistant genetically modified potatoes into the environment in experimental trials.
Our grounds for objection are as follows:
GM contamination
Although commercial potatoes are propagated via tubers, true potato seed production can also occur, and while not affecting the current tubers, it can create GM volunteers in future crops. Rates of outcrossing recorded under field conditions for potatoes range from 0 to 20%, with both wind and insect pollination likely to be involved [1]. Some studies have detected pollen up to 20m from the source [2], but one study recorded outcrossing levels of 31% at 1000m, thought to be due to pollen beetles [3].
Of the three varieties BASF will be using in the trials, P835 and P880 produce abundant flowers, while P698 is middling. P880 frequently sets berries, P835 sets few, and P698 rarely does, but no information on the viability or longevity of the seeds is given.
Groundkeeper control will be crucial to prevent contamination. True seed, unharvested tubers and damaged tuber pieces can all sprout in the following year to produce weed plants in subsequent crops, which will in turn produce small tubers which can persist to contaminate crops in future years. Control with herbicides is difficult in following broad leaved crops. BASF say that groundkeepers will be quickly killed by frosts, but as a 2002 European Environment Agency report [4] explains, "in recent years, the combination of reduced herbicide rates throughout the rotation due to declining arable margins, a succession of mild winters and the use of vigorous potato varieties has increased the numbers of volunteer potatoes."
Friends of the Earth therefore objects to this application for growing experimental GM potatoes in the open air on the basis that it will be very difficult to prevent them contaminating other non-GM potato crops. Should Defra give the go ahead for these trials, strict measures must be put in place to ensure that these experimental potatoes cannot contaminate future crops via groundkeepers or volunteers derived from seed production. Nearby potato crops must also be protected from pollen transfer from the GM potatoes.
Safety
No evidence is provided in the application to rule out unexpected effects due to the GM insertion, and no safety data is provided on the potatoes. Yet experimental GM potatoes have resulted in entirely unpredicted outcomes in the past - for example a potato modified to have low levels of the NAD-malic enzyme showed increase starch content, which the researchers could not explain [5]. And an attempt to introduce yeast and bacterial genes into potatoes to increase starch content actually reduced starch content and produced unexpected compounds due to disruption of the plant metabolism [6]. Research on GM potatoes modified to produce GNA lectin [7] suggested impacts on the gastrointestinal tract of rats, provoking scientific controversy [8], yet no follow up research has ever been carried out.
Although BASF do not intend for these potatoes to enter the food chain, and crops are intended to be destroyed at the end of the trials, the experience of LL601 rice in the USA, where an experimental GM rice line has contaminated worldwide rice supplies, illustrates that these experiments are not always containable. Rice, like potatoes, has always peviously been considered a 'low risk' GM crop for contamination, due to the low levels of cross pollination expected. Yet recent events would indicate that even 'low risk' crops can be involved in serious GM contamination incidents.
Friends of the Earth does not believe that these open-air GM trials should go ahead, but should permission be granted then publicly available safety data would help to provide reassurance in the event of a contamination incident similar to the US experience.
Lack of need
Genetic modification is not the only way of producing blight resistant potatoes - breeding programmes have already produced a range of blight-resistant potatoes that are currently in use in the UK, and there are many more in the pipeline. The Sarvari Research Trust has developed the Sarpo blight-resistant varieties which are performing well in UK trials and taste tests.
Phytophthora infestans is constantly mutating, existing as a large population with much genetic variation. Some blight resistant potatoes may have only short-lived resistance, while some individual varieties can last for several decades - the rate at which the pathogen can overcome resistance is impossible to predict. A single genetically modified variety of potato may not therefore offer a long-term solution for late blight. Plant breeders need to stay one step ahead of the pathogen, and given the tight regulations around the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms, and long periods of time required for approval, traditional breeding may in fact offer a speedier option.
Furthermore, it is unclear what level of reduction in fungicide use GM blight-resistant potatoes would actually deliver. Figures on reasons for use of fungicides do not appear to have been collected since 1998, when blight accounted for just 34% of fungicide use for ware potatoes [9]. The genuine level of reduction of fungicide use must be investigated before any approval is given for these trials.
Lack of demand
Consumers have made it clear that they do not want to eat genetically modified food in numerous surveys, debates, and by voting with their feet - supermarkets have removed almost all genetically modified foods from their shelves due to consumer demand. The latest Eurobarometer poll reports that "Europeans think that GM food should not be encouraged. GM food is widely seen as not being useful, as morally unacceptable and as a risk for society" [10].
It is unclear who BASF expects to eat these GM potatoes should they eventually make it onto the market. These trials therefore represent an unnecessary risk to the environment and could threaten the integrity of GM-free potato supplies in the UK.
Conditions
Friends of the Earth objects to this application, and urges Defra to reject it. Should the application be accepted, very strict conditions must be included in the consent, including:
Detailed written instructions and procedures for trial management, which must include:
Removal of flowers prior to pollination
A separation distance of 1.5km between the trial and the nearest non-GM potato crop, including allotments or gardens.
Complete removal of tubers post-harvest with measures to minimise any remaining tubers
Complete destruction of both GM and non-GM potatoes post-harvest
Secure storage separate from non-GM potatoes prior to planting and after harvest, with detailed and accurate record-keeping
Thorough cleaning of all farm machinery and equipment after sowing, field operations and harvesting
Checking of all vehicles used for transport to ensure no spillage can occur
Planting of a spring cereal crop after the trial and complete destruction of any sprouting tubers with herbicide
Trial site must be monitored post-harvest for eight years for any sign of emergence of groundkeepers or true potato seed
Planting of commercial non-GM potatoes in trial area prohibited for ten years
Trial site must be secured to prevent wild mammals entering the site
A validated protocol for identification of the GM potato must be provided, together with positive and negative control samples
Post release monitoring of impacts on biodiversity, gene flow, and persistence of tubers and true potato seed.
References
[1] Treu R & Emberlin J (2000). Pollen dispersal in the crops maize (Zea mays), oilseed rape (Brassica napus ssp oleifera), potatoes (Solanum tuberosum), sugar beet (Beta vulgaris ssp. Vulgaris) and wheat (Triticum aestivum). Evidence from publications. A report for the Soil Association from the National Pollen Research Unit.
[2] Eastham K & Sweet J (2002). Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs): The significance of gene flow through pollen transfer. European Environment Agency
[3] Skogsmyr, I. (1994) Gene dispersal from transgenic potatoes to conspecifics: A field trial. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 88: 770 - 774.
[4] Eastham K & Sweet J (2002). Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs): The significance of gene flow through pollen transfer. European Environment Agency
[5] BBSRC Business, Jan 1998. Making crops make more starch p6-7
[6] Gura, T (2000) Reaping the plant gene harvest. Science 287 412-414
[7] Ewan, S.W.B. & Pusztai, A. (1999) Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine. The Lancet 354: 1353-1354.
[8] The Royal Society (1999) Review of data on possible toxicity of GM potatoes.
[9] Garthwaite DG & Thomas MR (1998). Pesticide Usage Survey Report 159: Arable crops in Great Britain 1998. PUSG/CSL. http://www.csl.gov.uk/science/organ/pvm/puskm/arable1998.pdf
[10] http://www.ec.europa.eu/research/press/2006/pr1906en.cfm

Defra airbrush gardeners in GM proposals - GM FREEZE, Press Release
[DEFRA is the UK Govt. Dept. of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs]
Gardeners and beekeepers will not be told if GM crops are to be grown near by their land or hives if Defra's proposals for growing GM crops in England are accepted. In a consultation paper issued in the summer [1], Defra proposed that land owners within certain distances will be legally required to be informed if a GM crop is to be grown. However, "Defra's proposals are not intended to cover the situation where:
GM crops may cross-pollinate plants grown in allotments or domestic gardens intended for private consumption". (paragraph 39.V) And "Defra does not propose any specific action in relation to the coexistence of GM crops and commercial honey production" (paragraph 107).
Defra has decided to exclude an estimated 500,000 allotment holders and vegetable gardeners from the list of land owners who will legally be required to be informed if a GM crop is planned near by because their produce is for private consumption and will not be placed on the market. Many gardeners grow sweet corn which could cross pollinate with GM maize. Many give away surplus produce or sell it. In the future vegetable crops could also be genetically modified and gardeners will need to know what?s being grown near by.
The decision to exclude the 15,000 to 20,000 hobby and commercial beekeepers in England from those who will be required to be informed about GM growing sites is based on the fact that GM pollen will never exceed 0.9% by weight in a jar of honey and that the presence of GM pollen is considered to be "adventitious and unavoidable". The most recent poll found 63% of regular honey buyers wanted it to be GM free [2]. The value of pollination provided by beekeepers is up to £200 million per year and honey £10-30 million per annum [3].
GM Freeze and Friends of the Earth have published a guide to responding to the Defra consultation [4].
Commenting Pete Riley of GM Freeze said: "Defra's attempt to airbrush gardeners and beekeepers is an insult. Many people grow their own veg. to keep control over what they and their families eat, especially to avoid GM. Many sell or give away surplus produce. GM contamination threatens that right and now Ministers want to keep gardeners in the dark about GM crop sites. Honey is a pure product and the presence of GM pollen would seriously undermine its image and sales. Bees travel miles to collect nectar and pollen and at the same time pollinate important crops - Defra's proposals to ignore the views of beekeepers about where GM crops are grown is incredibly short sighted and betrays a lack of knowledge amongst Ministers about the importance of honey bees to the countryside"
Calls to Pete Riley 07903 341065 or Carrie Stebbings 0207 837 0642
1.http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/gmnongm-coexist/consultdoc.pdf
2.http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/20020920000136.html
3.http://www.defra.govuk/hort/Bees/index.htm
4.See www.stopgmcontamination.org
Carrie Stebbings, Co-ordinator, GM FREEZE CAMPAIGN, 94 White Lion Street, London, N1 9PF
Tel: 020 7837 0642, Fax: 020 7837 1141, carrie@gmfreeze.org - www.gmfreeze.org

Stores told to remove GM rice from shelves - Press Association - The Guardian, October 6, 2006
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,,1889503,00.html
The government's food watchdog has changed its advice to retailers about genetically modified rice. Stores must remove any rice known to contain GM strains from their shelves, the Food Standards Agency said. The move follows ongoing concerns over the presence of GM strains in batches of long-grain rice from the US. Selling products known to be contaminated with GM material is illegal in the UK, but the FSA previously told businesses that actively tracking down and removing contaminated rice products was unnecessary because they didn't pose an "imminent" health risk. The watchdog's updated advice follows the European Food Safety Authority's (EFSA) assessment of safety implications of GM material in rice.
EFSA experts said rice containing traces of GM material was "not likely" to pose an imminent safety concern, but they found insufficient information to complete a full risk assessment of the issue. The FSA's advice to consumers is unchanged. Anyone who has US long-grain rice at home can continue to eat it. An FSA spokesman said today: "We are doing this because there is new information."
The environmental group Friends of the Earth complained that the stepped-up advice had come too late. The group's GM campaigner, Clare Oxborrow, said: "The FSA should have issued this advice right from the start, instead of playing down the seriousness of the issue. "The agency is still refusing to carry out any testing of rice on shelves and still failing to require retailers to carry out such testing themselves."
The US government confirmed in August that a genetically modified strain of long-grain rice was found in samples. In response, the EU introduced emergency measures to stop contaminated rice entering the food chain. Friends of the Earth researchers claim they have found GM strains in packets of rice and noodles on sale in a number of UK stores.

GM POTATOES - FACTS AND FICTIONS - Author: Andy Rees - The Ecolgist, 22 September 2006
http://www.theecologist.org/archive_detail.asp?content_id=612
In August 2006, German chemicals company BASF applied to start GM potato field trials in Cambridge and Derbyshire as early as next spring. The GM industry is making many claims about this product, but are these based on the truth? Andy Rees investigates
ARGUMENT NO. 1: WE NEED THIS PRODUCT
Late blight (Phytophthora infestans) costs UK farmers around GBP50m each year, even with regular application of fungicides. BASF claims that its GM potato would reduce fungicide spraying from around 15 times a year to just two. This sounds impressive, until you realise that just 1,300 of the 12,000 tonnes of agrochemicals used on UK potatoes are fungicides ? meaning that, at most, pesticide usage would be reduced by only 10 per cent.
As far as actually reducing pesticide usage is concerned, Robert Vint of Genetix Food Alert observes that "such claims ... usually [soon] prove to be extreme exaggerations". The biotech industry has a long track record of first exaggerating a problem, then offering an unproven and oversold GM solution. A classic example of this was Monsanto's showcase project in Africa, the GM sweet potato. It was claimed that the GM potato would be virus resistant, that it would increase yields from four to 10 tonnes per hectare, and that it would lift the poor of Africa out of poverty.
However, this crop not only wasn't virus-resistant, it yielded much less than its non-GM counterpart. Moreover, the virus it targeted was not a major factor affecting yield in Africa. The claims were made without any peer-reviewed data to back them up. And the assertion that yields would increase from four to 10 tonnes per hectare relied upon a lie - according to FAO statistics, non-GM potatoes typically yield not four but 10 tonnes. Furthermore, a poorly resourced Ugandan virus-resistant sweet potato, that really was roughly doubling yields, was studiously ignored by the biotech lobby.
Also conveniently overlooked are any non-GM solutions to blight. Many conventional potato varieties are naturally blight-resistant, some of which the organic sector are currently trialling. Another non-GM control, used by organic farmers against late blight in potatoes, is the use of copper sprays in low doses. This is applied to the foliage of the plant and does not contaminate the tuber.
ARGUMENT NO. 2: MINIMAL CONTAMINATION
An article in The Guardian, which reads more like a BASF press release (the corporate takeover of the media is a subject covered in my forthcoming book), reports that "Andy Beadle, an expert in fungal resistance at BASF, said the risks of contamination from GM crops are minimal because potatoes reproduce through the production of tubers, unlike other crops such as oil seed rape [canola], which produces pollen that can be carried for miles on the wind." Not only is this remark economical with the facts, it seems a little brazen given the biotech industry's rather prolific history on contamination issues, which has resulted in at least 105 contamination incidents (some of them major), over 10 years, and in as many as 39 countries.
Amongst many other things, Mr Beadle forgot to mention that there is less direct risk of contamination by cross-pollination, not no risk. Furthermore, cross-pollination is much higher when the GM and non-GM potato varieties are different; one study showed that, even at plot-scale, 31 per cent of plants had become hybrids as far as 1km from a GM variety. Crosspollination also increases greatly when the chief pollinator is the 'very common' pollen beetle, which travels considerably further than another potato pollinator, the bumble bee. Years later, cross-pollination is still possible through potato volunteers (plants from a previous year's dropped tubers or seed); Defra itself has acknowledged this problem. And similarly, 'relic' plants can persist in fields or waste ground. What is more, blight-resistant varieties create a far greater risk of GM contamination because the flowering tops are more likely to be left on than with non-blightresistant varieties. This is because tops are usually removed from non-blight-resistant varieties to reduce disease incidence. Also, a number of modern strains can produce considerable numbers of berries, each producing 400 seeds; these can lay dormant for seven years, before becoming mature tuber-producing plants.
And if all that isn't enough to suggest that 'minimal' contamination is the figment of the corporate imagination, then it is well worth checking out the March 2006 GM Contamination Register, set up by Greenpeace and GeneWatch UK, and available at www. gmcontaminationregister.org. This includes some of the worst contamination incidents to date, including the following three. In October 2000, in the US, GM StarLink corn, approved only as animal feed, ended up in taco shells and other food products. It led to a massive recall of more than 300 food brands and cost Aventis an immense $1 billion to clear up. StarLink corn was just one per cent of the total crop, but it tainted 50 per cent of the harvest. In March 2005, Syngenta admitted that it had accidentally produced and disseminated - between 2001 and 2004 - 'several hundred tonnes' of an unapproved corn called Bt10 and sold the seed as approved corn, Bt11. In the US, 150,000 tonnes of Bt10 were harvested and went into the food chain. And in April 2005, unauthorised GM Bt rice was discovered to have been sold and grown unlawfully for the past two years in the Chinese province of Hubei. An estimated 950 to 1200 tons of the rice entered the food chain after the 2004 harvest, with the risk of up to 13,500 tons entering the food chain in 2005. The rice may also have contaminated China's rice exports. And now, in 2006, BASF's application comes amidst the latest biotech scandal, that of US rice contamination by an unauthorised, experimental GM strain, Bayer's LLRice 601.
ARGUMENT NO. 3: SEPARATION DISTANCES
The GM lobby have proposed a buffer zone of 2-5m of fallow land around the GM potato crop, together with a 20m separation with non-GM potato crops. The National Pollen Research Unit (NPRU), on the other hand, has recommended separation distances of 500m. Interestingly, pro-industry sources have always claimed that only very small separation distances are necessary, with buffer zones for rape set at a derisory 200m in the UK crop trials. Judith Jordan (later Rylott) of AgrEvo (now Bayer) gave evidence under oath that the chances of cross-pollination beyond 50m were as likely as getting pregnant from a lavatory seat. Well, you have been warned. But oilseed rape pollen has been found to travel 26km, maize pollen 5km, and GM grass pollen 21km. Meanwhile, good ol' Defra is once again paving the way for the biotech industry, with its so-called 'co-existence' paper of August 2006. This will determine the rules for commercial GM crop growing in England - yet astonishingly, it proposes no separation distances. GM contamination prevention measures will be left in the slippery hands of the GM industry in the form of a voluntary code of practice.
ARGUMENT NO. 4: THIS PRODUCT IS SAFE
The biotech industry has from the very beginning assured us that their products are entirely safe. This is because, they claim, they are so similar to conventional crops as to be 'Substantially Equivalent', a discredited concept that led to GM crop approval in the US (and thence the EU). The truth is that, as far as human health goes, the biotech industry cannot know that their products are safe, because there has only been one published human health study - the Newcastle Study, which was published in 2004. And although this research project was very limited in scope, studying the effects of just one GM meal taken by seven individuals, it nonetheless found GM DNA transferring to gut bacteria in the human subjects.
As for tests of the effects of GM crops on animals, there are only around 20 published studies that look at the health effects of GM food (not hundreds, as claimed by the biotech lobby), as well as some unpublished ones. The findings of many of these are quite alarming. The unpublished study on the FlavrSavr tomato fed to rats, resulted in lesions and gastritis in these animals. Monsanto's unpublished 90-day study of rats fed MON863 maize resulted in smaller kidney sizes and a raised white blood cell count. And when it comes to GM potatoes, Dr Ewen and Dr Pusztai's 1999 10-day study on male rats fed GM potatoes, published in the highly respected medical journal The Lancet, showed that feeding GM potatoes to rats led to many abnormalities, including: gut lesions; damaged immune systems; less developed brains, livers, and testicles; enlarged tissues, including the pancreas and intestines; a proliferation of cells in the stomach and intestines, which may have signalled an increased potential for cancer; and the partial atrophy of the liver in some animals. And this is in an animal that is virtually indestructible.
ARGUMENT NO. 5: INCREASING CHOICE
The proposed UK trials would follow those being carried out in Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands. Barry Stickings of BASF explains: "We need to conduct these [in the UK] to see how the crop grows in different conditions. I hope that society, including the NGOs, realise that all we are doing is increasing choice." So, how much choice has GM crops given farmers? Well, in Canada, within a few years, the organic canola industry was pretty much wiped out by GM contamination. And in the US, a 2004 study showed that, after just eight years of commercial growing, at least 50 per cent of conventional maize and soy and 83 per cent of conventional canola were GM-contaminated - again dooming non-GM agriculture.
ARGUMENT NO. 6: PUBLIC OPINION
Regarding BASF's application to trial GM potatoes, the Financial Times reported that "Barry Stickings of BASF said he did not expect too much opposition to the application". What had clearly slipped Stickings' mind was that BASF had already faced protests with this product in Sweden, where it is in its second year of production. In Ireland, where one may have expected more enthusiasm for the project, given the history of blight during the 1840s famine, BASF was given the go-ahead earlier this year for trials of its GM blight-resistant potato, only to face stiff public resistance and rigorous conditions enforced by the Irish Environmental Protection Agency. BASF later discontinued the trials.
In the UK and Europe, as Friends of the Earth points out: "Consumers ... have made it clear that they do not want ... GM food." In fact, the British Retail Consortium, which represents British supermarkets, has already stated that they 'won't be stocking GM potatoes for the conceivable future' because 'people remain suspicious of GM.' My forthcoming book goes into the rejection of GM crops in more depth. And even more surprisingly, in the US, where 55 per cent of the world's GM crops are grown, GM potatoes were taken off the market back in 2000 when McDonald's, Burger King, McCain's and Pringles all refused to use them, for fear of losing customers.
So, having reviewed the claims made about BASF's GM potatoes, and having found them, well, somewhat lacking, there is only one course of action open to the government, and that is, as Friends of the Earth's GM Campaigner Liz Wright recently said, to "...reject this application and prevent any GM crops from being grown in the UK until it can guarantee that they won't contaminate our food, farming and environment."
Genetically Modified Food - A Short Guide For The Confused by Andy Rees (Pluto Press, GBP12.99) will be published on October 20. Ecologist readers can purchase copies of the book for only GBP10 by calling 01264 342932 or emailing your order to tps.pluto@thomson.com and quoting PLUREES1.
Defra consultation on GM potato trials closes on October 20. To have your say, visit www.defra.gov.uk

Britons eating GM rice as watchdog fails to test imports - By SEAN POULTER - Daily Mail, 21st September 2006
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=406376&in_page_id=1770
Official watchdogs have admitted that a huge gap in the policing of food imports allowed GM rice to end up on the nation's dinner tables. Millions of families are believed to have been eating American imported long-grain rice tainted with GM genes for at least eight months. Supplies of rice sold by Morrisons are known to have been contaminated and have recently been withdrawn. Tesco also withdrew its own-label American rice amid concerns it may be contaminated, while Sainsbury's has had to find alternative sources for its ready meals. However, this is just the tip of the iceberg. For the tainted rice will have been used in many other processed foods.
The Food Standards Agency,(FSA) which is responsible for policing the food system, yesterday admitted there has been no official state testing regime to prevent GM contamination of food imports. Instead, retailers are expected to make sure their products are not contaminated. This failure has allowed GM tainted rice and possibly many other contaminated crops to be imported into the UK. The government watchdog said it now intends to hold talks with the European Commission to improve GM testing.
The US authorities discovered GM contamination of long-grain rice in January this year, but it did not tell Britain and the rest of the world until August - eight months later. During this period GM tainted rice continued to be sold and eaten. The FSA is now testing all new rice imports. However, it has left the testing of products on the shelves to voluntary action by retailers. The watchdog's handling of the issue has been condemned as scandalous by politicians and green campaigners. They point out that the risk of illegal GM contamination of rice and other food crops was entirely predictable. And they argue the FSA has failed in its duty to prevent this law-breaking.
The Conservative shadow food, farming and environment Secretary, Peter Ainsworth MP is particularly critical. "The FSA is meant to be a custodian of public health and consumer interests in relation to food. Yet their reaction to the news that GM rice has been on sale in the UK seems astonishingly casual," he said. "The point is that we don't know if this rice is harmful or not." Friends of the Earth GM campaigner, Clare Oxborrow, said: "It is quite shocking that there is not a system in place looking for GM contamination of imports. It should have been in place a long time ago. The FSA should not be reduced to scrabbling to deal with the problem now. That is only shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. This is not just a problem with American rice, for it is clear that there could also be GM contamination of rice and other crops from other regions." The biotech industry is now developing a raft of new GM crops containing pharmaceuticals. Peter Riley, of the GM Freeze organisation, warned that failure to check crop imports could allow food containing GM drugs to get on to plates. "If that happened, it would have very wide implications for public health," he said.
The FSA's chief scientist, Andrew Wadge, admitted gaps in knowledge about the food on our plates at an FSA board meeting in London yesterday. He said: "Are there things out there in the food that we don't know about? I think the honest answer is, 'Yes, sometimes there can be.'" Mr Wadge accepted that the GM rice contamination had highlighted the gap in testing of imports. And he said the FSA would be raising this with the European Commission. "This incident has raised questions as to what are the opportunities for this type of thing to happen again in future," he said. "This has shown, this is a possibility that could occur. Rather than being in a reactive mode, what we need to do across Europe is to discuss and make sure we have in place appropriate testing methodology." The FSA insist the trace levels of GM contamination found in the UK are not a health risk, however this is disputed.

Take US rice off sale, urges watchdog - Madeleine Brindley, Western Mail - Sep 19 2006
http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200wales/tm_objectid=17777143%26method=full%26siteid=50082%26headline =%2d%2dtake%2dus%2drice%2doff%2dsale%2d%2durges%2dwatchdog-name_page.html
A WATCHDOG is calling on ministers to intervene to stop the illegal sale of GM-contaminated rice in Wales. GM Free Cymru wants Health Minister Dr Brian Gibbons to advise the public not to eat American long grain rice. And it also wants the minister to take disciplinary action against the Food Standards Agency for failing to prevent the sale of such rice, after it was discovered that US imports had been contaminated with a strain of genetically modified rice. It is currently illegal for any GM rice to be sold to the public in the UK or Europe - no GM rice has yet been authorised for human consumption.
But tests by Friends of the Earth found that packets of Morrison's rice had been contaminated with the strain, which was developed in the US, but never put into full production. Dr Brian John, a member of GM Free Cymru's liaison group, said, "A few days ago it emerged that the FSA has advised supermarkets to leave this stuff on their shelves and, even if they found the product to be contaminated, they shouldn't bother to do anything. "The FSA's advice comes on the basis of virtually no evidence that this stuff is safe to eat. We want the Welsh public advised not to eat this rice and supermarkets told to take these products off their shelves as a precautionary measure. But we also think Dr Gibbons should take disciplinary action against the FSA board in Wales, because they did not do their duty."
It emerged a month ago that rice produced in the US had become contaminated with a GM strain, called LLRICE601. It was developed by Bayer CropScience to tolerate weed killer and was tested on US farms between 1998 and 2001. The company decided not to market it and withdrew it, but it has since been discovered in US rice, possibly because pollen from the GM rice spread to conventional crops. Bayer CropScience asked the US Food and Drug Administration to approve the GM rice for sale at the end of July, as a means of showing that it wasn't dangerous. But despite the approval in the US, the European Food Safety Agency has refused to give it safety clearance.
At the start of this month, the FSA announced that it was taking action to ensure that testing and monitoring is carried out on all consignments of American long grain rice in the UK.
Dr Andrew Wadge, FSA director of food safety said, at the time, "The presence of this GM material in rice on sale in the UK is illegal under European health law, even at extremely low levels. This is why we are taking steps to test American long grain rice and ensure future imports are GM free." But it emerged this weekend that Claire Baynton, a senior FSA official, had met major retailers and manufacturers on September 5 and said the agency did not expect companies to trace products and withdraw them.
Peter Ainsworth, the Conservative's Shadow Environment Secretary in Parliament, said on Sunday that he would be asking for an official investigation intowhether the FSA broke the law. And Friends of the Earth said it had taken the first step in bringing a judicial review against the FSA. A spokeswoman for the FSA said, "The agency has not condoned the selling of any product that is known to contain unauthorised GM material. "We would expect any food operator not to sell products which they know to be illegal. At a meeting held on September 5, the FSA made clear to retailers and food manufacturers that it was for them to decide on the action they wished to take, taking into account their legal responsibilities. However, because there is no risk to the health of consumers, and given the very low levels of GM rice, we suggested to industry that we didn't expect them to withdraw products on food safety grounds, based on the information available to us and the extremely low levels of GM rice which might be present."

Legal challenge plan over GM rice - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5354294.stm
GM rice has been banned in the European Union. Friends of the Earth has said it will start a legal challenge against the Food Standards Agency (FSA) over the sale of GM rice in UK supermarkets. It claims the agency privately told retailers they did not need to test for contamination of rice by GM products. GM rice is banned in the EU because of fears not enough research on possible health risks has been carried out. The FSA said: "It is the responsibility of retailers to ensure the food they put on the market is in compliance."
EU measures
Friends of the Earth said it had sent a number of rice samples for testing after reports in the US that long-grain rice had been contaminated by a type of GM rice - Bayer CropScience's LLRICE 601 - grown in experimental trials in August. The European Commission then introduced emergency measures to stop it entering Europe. No GM rice has yet been approved for consumption in the EU.
Friends of the Earth said a leaked memo revealed the FSA had told food retailers and manufacturers in private it did not expect them to carry out tests to see if rice was contaminated, or remove contaminated rice from sale. GM material was found in two types of own-brand rice for sale at Morrisons, Friends of the Earth said. The supermarket said it was withdrawing from sale 500g packets of American Long Grain Rice with a best before date of May 2008 and its 1kg pack of American Long Grain Brown Rice with a best before date of July 2008. We have now resorted to legal action to force the FSA to do its job properly, said Phil Michaels, Friends of the Earth. A Morrisons spokeswoman said: "Based on information received about tests carried out by Friends of the Earth, we have withdrawn the two products implicated as a precautionary measure."
The pressure group said the FSA had said in the memo it would only be testing for contaminated rice at mills, and any which had been sold to stores or was in warehouses would not be withdrawn. The FSA says the rice poses no threat to human health.
Friends of the Earth says it has written a formal legal letter before beginning action it hopes will lead to a judicial review. Friends of the Earth's head of legal Phil Michaels said: "The Food Standards Agency's response to this GM contamination incident is scandalous and, we believe, unlawful. It has failed to act adequately to prevent illegal GM rice reaching our plates and has failed to provide accurate advice and information as it is required to do by law." The FSA's spokesman said: "We haven't told retailers not to test, but we haven't required them to test." She said research by the European Food Standards Authority "does not suggest it poses a risk to health".

GMO rice found in Britain - Friends of the Earth - Scotsman Sun 17 Sep 2006 - http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=1375792006
LONDON (Reuters) - Chain Morrison Supermarkets said on Sunday it had withdrawn two rice products after an environmental group said they contained unauthorised genetically modified (GMO) rice. Environmental group Friends of the Earth said in a statement the GMO strain had been found in two samples of rice from Morrisons stores. At present it
is forbidden to grow, sell or market any biotech rice in the European Union's 25 countries. "The discovery of GMO-contaminated rice on supermarket shelves is extremely worrying," Helen Holder, from Friends of the Earth Europe, said in Brussels. "GM rice is illegal, it has not even been properly investigated and there is no guarantee that it is safe for human consumption," she said.
Morrisons said it had taken the products off its shelves. "Based of the information received about tests carried out by Friends of the Earth we have withdrawn the two products implicated," a spokeswoman said. Friends of the Earth named the affected products as Morrisons American Long Grain Rice 500g, with a best before date of May 2008, and Morrisons American Long Grain Brown Rice 1kg, with a best before date of July 2008. The European Commission confirmed on Monday the presence of unauthorised
LL601 rice strain in 33 samples carried out by the industry although it did not specify that any had been found in Morrisons' products. A spokeswoman for Friends of the Earth said it was not clear yet if the GMO rice found in Britain was of that type. Friends of the Earth said it sent a number of samples to be tested after the European Commission decided in August to tighten requirements on U.S. long-grain rice.
France and Sweden have also detected the presence of GMO rice, a European Union diplomat said on Tuesday. Three bargeloads of U.S. rice have tested positive in Rotterdam.
(Additional reporting by Ingrid Melander in Brussels) (c) Reuters 2006.

FRIENDS OF THE EARTH FINDS ILLEGAL US GM RICE IN UK SUPERMARKET - EU Member States not doing enough to detect GM contamination
Friends of the Earth Europe - Press Release -17 September 2006
Brussels, 17 September 2006 - Illegal US genetically modified (GM) rice has been found on the shelves of a big UK supermarket, Friends of the Earth Europe revealed today. The environmental campaign group is calling for a full product recall and is mounting a legal challenge over the UK Food Standards Agency's woeful response to the
contamination incident. Helen Holder, GMO Campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe said, "The discovery of GMO-contaminated rice on supermarket shelves is extremely worrying. GM rice is illegal, it has not even been properly investigated and there is no guarantee that it is safe for human consumption. Any supermarket that discovers that its rice is contaminated must take immediate action and remove the products from its shelves."
Genetically modified material has been found in two samples of rice from the store Morrisons - the fourth largest supermarket chain in the UK, with nine million customers a week.[1] Friends of the Earth sent a number of samples to be tested following August's food scandal, in which rice stocks in the US were found to be contaminated with an illegal GM strain. This GM variant is an experimental Bayer CropScience rice called LL601 that was grown at outdoor test sites in the US between 1999 and 2001. The rice has not been authorised for human consumption anywhere in the world. Indeed, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) admits that there is insufficient data on LL601 to be able to guarantee its safety.[3]
In response to the crisis last month, the European Commission introduced emergency measures to prevent imports of contaminated rice from the US from entering the EU, stressing that unauthorised GMOs must not enter the EU food and feed chain under any circumstances.[4] However, Friends of the Earth Europe has criticised the weak enforcement of these measures at a member state level. The European Commission advised member states to carry out controls on products already on the market, but little testing of rice already in shops has actually taken place. In the UK, the Food Standards Agency (FSA) has even advised the food industry that this is not a health and safety issue and has indicated that it does not expect the food industry to test for contaminated rice, or to remove any contaminated rice from its shelves. [5] The response of the FSA to the crisis is so inadequate that Friends of the Earth in the UK is mounting a legal challenge against it. Friends of the Earth has written a formal legal letter to the FSA, which is the first step of legal action.[6]
"National food safety authorities and food companies should be rigorously testing samples at each stage of the supply chain, in order to detect all incidences of contamination with genetically modified rice. It should not be left to civil society groups like Friends of the Earth to raise the alert." Ms Holder added. Friends of the Earth Europe would like detailed information about the exact testing that is being conducted in each member state and insists that this information should made