Munlochy GM Vigil

Support S.18 - Rutland Herald - December 31, 2005 - http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051231/NEWS/512310315/1037
When the legislature reconvenes this week, the House of Representatives will consider the Farmer Protection Act, which the Senate passed last year on a vote of 29-1. The bill states that the manufacturers of genetically engineered seeds are liable for any damages that occur in Vermont as a result of use of the seeds. Known damages from GM crops include contamination of crops grown by traditional and organic farmers, with resulting loss of marketability. Currently, Vermont's farmers who never actually own the genetically engineered seeds are being forced to bear the full burden of liability for unintended damages to neighboring crops. Please encourage your state Representatives to support a version of the Farmer Protection Act which contains strict liability provisions, ensuring that manufacturers of these seeds - huge conglomerates such as Dow and Monsanto - are held strictly liable for any economic damage caused to farmers by contamination from use of the seeds.
ABIGAIL SESSIONS - Cornwall
Farmer protection: Liability bill among first to the House floor - Vermont Guardian, Dec 30 2005 - http://www.vermontguardian.com/local/122005/LegPreview.shtml
The contentious Farmer Protection Act is expected to heat up the 2006 session early. After passing the Senate last year 26-1, a compromise version of the measure - which omits the "strict liability" provision in the original bill - is headed to the floor of the House during the first or second day of the new session, where it's likely to reinvigorate a debate that has not softened over the break. Instead, opposing viewpoints have germinated over the fall and summer, sprouting even more resolve on the part of supporters to amend the bill to protect farmers from the influence of genetically modified (GM) crops. Likewise, opponents, among them the Douglas administration, have dug in their heels with equal vigor, fueled by the belief that a liability measure could actually hurt conventional farmers and would send the wrong message nationally and internationally.
"We're aiming at the wrong target," contends Agriculture Secretary Steve Kerr, an impassioned supporter of GM technology. A Vermont law would do nothing to protect farmers along the borders, where drift from GM crops in New York, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, or Canada could contaminate their crops, Kerr argues. Instead, supporters should be lobbying Congress to examine the issues of corporate control of seed genomes and decreasing genetic diversity, he said. But House Agriculture Committee Chairman David Zuckerman, P-Burlington, maintains that it is imperative to protect Vermont farmers with a bill that puts liability for GM contamination not on fellow farmers, but on the seed dealers. "Farmers are the ones really having their necks put on the line because of the contracts they sign either with ink or by opening the bag," said Zuckerman.
Soy and corn are believed to be the only GM crops currently grown in Vermont, but their prevalence has increased steadily for the third consecutive year, according to Agriculture Agency statistics. Sales of GM corn increased 12 percent in 2004, while GM soybeans increased 46 percent. Anti-GM activists say this growth adds urgency to their quest for legislation to minimize the potential negative impact on farmers seeking to keep their crops GM free.
The Farmer Protection Act is the most recent manifestation of a years-long push to limit the influence of genetically modified crops in Vermont. In 2004, the Legislature passed the nation's first seed-labeling law, but left implementation open to interpretation by the Department of Agriculture. Kerr has chosen to enforce the spirit, but not the letter of the law, critics say. Hence, seed manufacturers have been deemed to meet the requirements with phrases like "pest resistant" or "virus resistant." Clearly defining liability rules would have the added bonus of clearer labeling, said Zuckerman. "Ultimately, if the liability bill passes with some strong teeth, seed companies will make sure people know that they're planting I think by default, more clear labeling will occur."

New Scientist, issue 2530 - Letter to the Editor, 17 December 2005 - Crop testing - Bill Freese, Washington DC, US
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18825300.200;jsessionid=BAFLFMPDKMDE
When expressed in transgenic peas, an innocuous bean protein elicits immune reactions in mice, reviving concerns about the allergenic potential of genetically modified foods (26 November, p 3 and p 5). These "surprising results" from researchers in Australia raise several intriguing questions.
Should regulators require the use of animal models? Allergenicity assessments of transgenic proteins in GM crops are usually limited to in vitro tests of digestive stability, database searches for sequence similarities to known allergens, and in some cases a heat stability test. While certainly cheap and convenient for GM crop developers, such tests provide no direct immunological information and cannot rule out allergenic proteins. Both the BALB/c mouse strain used in the Australian pea study and the brown Norway rat have shown promise as predictors of human allergic response.
Also, at present, all testing is performed on a bacterial surrogate of the protein, rather than that produced by the plant. GM crop developers complain that it is too inconvenient to extract sufficient quantities of transgenic protein from their plant. But if peas and beans - both legumes - can generate immunologically distinct proteins from the same gene, surely the same is true of bacterium and plant. Thus, results of testing on bacterial surrogates may not reflect the toxic or allergenic profile of the in planta protein people are exposed to.
Other factors also argue against use of bacterial surrogates. For example, allergenic proteins are often glycosylated, and plant glycosylation patterns have been implicated in allergenicity. Bacteria, in contrast, seldom glycosylate proteins.
Finally, perhaps regulators should demand full sequencing of the transgenic proteins in plants. At present, the standard practice is to sequence just 5 to 25 amino acids at the N-terminal as a demonstration of "identity", even if the putative protein is 600-plus residues long. Since the transformation process - the insertion of foreign DNA to a cell - can be sloppy and even point mutations can transform an innocuous protein into an immunogenic/aggregating one, it is unclear why this basic information is not required.

Export as you would be exported to - New Scientist, Issue 2526, 19 November 2005 - Editorial: page 3
THE genetically modified chickens are coming home to roost. Having spent the past decade insisting that it should be free to export GM crops and foods derived from them, the US is waking up to the possibility that it may soon be asked to accept imports of similar GM material from other countries, such as China and Argentina, which are now producing more than they consume.
This month, the issues raised by this hitherto remote possibility were discussed in Washington DC at a seminar held by an independent think tank, the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. The US is shockingly unprepared. As things stand, anyone wishing to bring a GM product into the country will need to notify the authorities only if it is intended for planting on US soil. Anything else can sail though without any of the mandatory pre-marketing scrutiny demanded in Europe.
Delegates had lots to discuss. How will US consumers react if foreign farmers start sending shipments of GM rice, soy and other commodities? Are new regulations needed to safeguard health and the environment? What if GM seeds intended for consumption rather than planting spill onto US soil? And what if US consumers do not want to eat foreign GM produce?
These and a host of other questions will need some adroit answers from the politicians and business people who have slammed Europe for its "irrational" aversion to GM. They will be have to tread a careful path to avoid accusations of hypocrisy once those chickens start to arrive.

ELECTION 2005: THE BAY AREA, SONOMA COUNTY
Backers of ban on bioengineered crops regroup after failure at polls. Future efforts may deal with labeling, blocking state law
Jim Doyle, Chronicle Staff Writer, San Francisco Chronicle, November 10, 2005 - http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/11/10/BAGGCFLS2C1.DTL
Supporters of the defeated ballot initiative to ban genetically engineered crops in Sonoma County vowed Wednesday to pursue additional strategies to block biotechnology's advances into farming. But the initiative's chief author, Dave Henson, said he has no plans to pursue another ballot measure to ban bioengineered crops. Measure M, which would have established a 10-year moratorium on the cultivation, sale or distribution of bioengineered crops, seeds and organisms, was flatly rejected by Sonoma County voters.
Opponents of Measure M got off to a strong start, garnering a 3-to-2 lead in the 76,433 absentee votes counted. The initiative drew support from outlying precincts, especially in west Sonoma County. But with all precincts counted, it failed by a decisive ratio of 55.6 percent to 44.4 percent. "The Farm Bureau and biotech companies will spend whatever it takes and say whatever it takes to defeat these initiatives ... to make sure that these 'GE-free zones' don't spread," Henson said. "We got over 60,000 votes in this county for yes on M. A couple of months ago, there were probably 200 people who could have given you an educated opinion about genetic engineering." His campaign rallied more than 500 volunteers, including salmon fishermen, conventional and organic farmers, restaurateurs and environmentalists. Henson said future campaigns may focus on securing labels for genetically modified organisms in food products and lobbying to defeat state legislation that would pre-empt counties from outlawing such crops.
Marin, Mendocino and Trinity counties have such bans. A dozen or so California counties have passed resolutions promoting genetically modified crops. Critics of Measure M included the Sonoma County Farm Bureau, the directors of the Sonoma County Grape Growers Association, and the Santa Rosa and Petaluma chambers of commerce. "I believe that the electorate spoke out for agriculture in Sonoma County," said Rob Muelrath, a consultant for the opposition, "and that family farmers and ranchers in Sonoma County will continue to have the choices they need to sustain their operations." Lex McCorvey, who heads the County Farm Bureau, credited the opposition's victory with "slowly building momentum based on science and facts."
Together the two sides reported raising more than $900,000. Opponents appeared to outspend supporters by almost 2 to 1, relying heavily on TV and radio ads. Henson said one turning point in the campaign involved a decision by the Redwood Empire Veterinary Medical Association to oppose Measure M. The group warned that the initiative could prevent livestock and pets from receiving certain vaccines, which Measure M's supporters denied. "They'll have to sit back and analyze what direction they'll go in," McCorvey said of Measure M's sponsors. "We also realize that this is their nucleus in Sonoma County. That's why it's important that it's stopped here."
E-mail Jim Doyle at jdoyle@sfchronicle.com.

Resistant pigweed plagues central Georgia cotton - By Brad Haire, University of Georgia - Southeast Farm Press, Oct 27, 2005
http://southeastfarmpress.com/news/102705-Georgia-pigweed/
Earlier this year Georgia confirmed the world's first population of Palmer amaranth resistant to glyphosate, a herbicide commonly sold under the brand name Roundup. This will cause problems for cotton farmers, says a University of Georgia weed specialist. Right now, glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth is known to infest about 500 acres of cotton in central Georgia. Stanley Culpepper, a UGA Cooperative Extension weed scientist studying the outbreak, said seeds from at least 100 fields in the area have been harvested to determine any further distribution. "This could be a real threat to future cotton production in our region," he says. "It's the one weed cotton farmers didn't want resistant to Roundup."
Palmer amaranth, also called pigweed, is found throughout the state. The troublesome weed can quickly grow more than 8 feet tall with a thick stalk and suck valuable nutrients from nearby plants. It can clog a cotton picker, too, making it hard to harvest the crop. In 1997, farmers started planting cotton that was developed to stay healthy when sprayed with Roundup. They could spray the herbicide over-the-top of this cotton, killing weeds, but not the cotton. This saved farmers time and money because they didn't have to repeatedly plow between rows to kill weeds. Roundup Ready varieties cost more than conventional cottons. But farmers gladly embraced the new technology, Culpepper says. About 94 percent of Georgia's 1.21 million acres of cotton this year is Roundup Ready.
"Roundup has been our most effective tool to manage this weed in Roundup Ready crops," he says. "Most alternative control options are much less effective than Roundup in controlling a normal population of Palmer amaranth." Each year, some Georgia farmers have to deal with some Palmer amaranth plants that continue to grow after a spray with Roundup. This usually happens due to weather conditions or improper spraying. Specialists with the UGA College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences last fall suspected some Palmer amaranth weeds in central Georgia had resistance to Roundup. Many field and greenhouse trials and heritability studies now show that the Palmer amaranth population in central Georgia has true resistance, he says.
Scientists with Monsanto, registrant of Roundup Ready, are providing technical expertise and other help to address the problem, Culpepper says. Farmers need to watch their fields carefully this year and remove any Palmer amaranth not hurt after a spray with Roundup, he says. This could help keep resistant plants from spreading. It's too early to say what long-term effect this will have on cotton production in Georgia. But if farmers are no longer able to control this weed with Roundup, things will have to change. Farmers may once again have to plow fields to manage pigweed, Culpepper says. This will cost them time and money. The resistant weed could keep farmers from using conservation-tillage, too. Farmers have relied too heavily on Roundup to control weeds in cotton, Culpepper says. This has given nature the upper hand. Herbicides don't cause a plant like Palmer amaranth to change genetically or become a resistant mutant, he says. All it takes is one weed plant in a field to be genetically different - in this case, resistant to glyphosate. All the other weeds are killed when sprayed, but not the resistant one. It makes seeds. The next year, a few more resistant plants grow from those seeds. If the process is allowed to continue, the offspring of that one resistant weed could eventually cover the field. This is what has happened in central Georgia. But it could happen anywhere, Culpepper says.

Prove U.S. maize isn't modified strain: EU - By Jeremy Smith - REUTERS - 27 October, 2005
BRUSSELS - EU biotech experts on Thursday extended controls on imports of U.S. maize products, saying they need proof shipments are free of an illegal genetically modified organism (GMO), a spokesman said. In April the EU said U.S. exports to Europe of corn gluten feed and brewers grains, a by-product of ethanol, must be certified by an internationally accredited laboratory to prove the absence of Bt-10 maize, a GMO not authorized in Europe. U.S. exporters send 3.5 million tonnes of corn gluten feed to EU markets each year, a trade worth some 350 million euros. The EU restrictions were to due to expire at the end of October and have now been extended for three months, said Philip Tod, the European Commission's health and food safety spokesman. "The standing committee (of experts) discussed today the Commission's decision on Bt-10 and its implementation, and member states agreed with the Commission that the measures should remain in force as the Commission had proposed," he said.
In March, Swiss agrochemicals group Syngenta said some of its maize seeds sent to the EU from the United States were mistakenly mixed with Bt-10. The Bt-10 insect-resistant strain is similar to Bt-11, a different GMO strain that won EU approval for distribution as food and feed in 1998. Washington says the EU measures are an over-reaction and insists there are no hazards to health, safety or the environment related to Bt-10 maize. In Europe, consumers have been far more reluctant than those in the United States to accept GMO products, but GMO food manufacturers insist they are safe. Small amounts of seed arrived in France and Spain from U.S. suppliers for research purposes, and all were destroyed. Some 1,000 tonnes of Bt-10 maize also entered the EU as food and animal feed. Around 70 percent of this was animal feed.

Tennessee Researchers Confirm Glyphosate-Resistant Pigweed - By - Staff Reports - Business Journal, September 24, 2005
http://bjournal.com/2005/content/article_views.php?ID=756&Author=56
JACKSON, TENN. - Researchers with the University of Tennessee Agricultural Experiment Station and UT Extension have confirmed that two populations of Palmer pigweed have survived properly applied applications of the herbicide glyphosate. The weeds populations exist in West Tennessee in Lauderdale and Crockett counties. Larry Steckel, Ph.D. and UT Extension weed specialist, conducted the field trials. "We have been watching these fields since first receiving reports in 2004 of Palmer pigweed not killed by Roundup," Steckel reported. "Our results last year indicated a very small number of pigweed plants survived our applications, but this year Palmer pigweeds at both locations survived a full 22 ounces of Roundup WeatherMax." Steckel said plants at one location survived a 2X application rate (44 fluid ounces).
UT weed scientist Tom Mueller, a professor in the Department of Plant Sciences, coordinated greenhouse and laboratory studies of the tolerant populations. "In some ways the Palmer pigweed appears to be similar to glyphosate-tolerant horseweed/mare's tail," he said. "All the treated Palmer pigweed plants look the same for two or three days after application. They all wilt and turn yellow." Mueller said about four days after spraying the tolerant plants stop wilting and start new growth from lateral buds. "Our preliminary laboratory analysis indicates the mechanism of action, or how the plant tolerates the glyphosate, appears to be the same in the Palmer pigweed and in the glyphosate-tolerant horseweed," he said.
Their findings provide confirmation of an announcement earlier this year by University of Georgia scientists and Monsanto. Both UT scientists agree that this is an important development for farmers throughout the state and nation. "Palmer pigweed that is not killed by glyphosate will cause major yield losses and harvest headaches for soybean, cotton and other row crop producers," Mueller said. Although glyphosate-tolerant horseweed spread rapidly over large areas of the Mid-south, Mueller and Steckel hope the weight of the Palmer pigweed seeds will slow the spread of the new herbicide-resistant pest. "It is less likely to spread on equipment and on the wind," said Mueller.
Because of the weed's widespread resistance to glyphosate, horseweed has become a major production problem, but good control options are in place for all crops, especially on fields that can be tilled. "The proper application of herbicides such as Clarity, 2,4-D, Gramoxone Max or Ignite allows farmers to produce pretty clean crops," Steckel said. "However, we expect resistant Palmer pigweed will pose more problems for producers than horseweed." The University of Tennessee discovery reinforces the importance of managing weed resistance to herbicides. "It is essential to use more than one herbicidal mode of action on your fields," said Mueller.
More details on this finding and recommendations on how to deal with glyphosate-resistant Palmer pigweed are available at the Web site: http://UTcrops.com.

Glyphosate-tolerant pigweed confirmed in West Tennessee - By David Bennett - Delta Farm Press, Sep 23, 2005 - http://deltafarmpress.com/news/050923-tolerant-pigweed/
Glyphosate-tolerant Palmer pigweed has been found in west Tennessee's Lauderdale and Crockett counties. The announcement comes on the heels of a similar finding in Georgia pigweed earlier this summer. "The fields were in continuous, Roundup Ready cotton for many years - at least from the late 1990s on," Larry Steckel, Tennessee Extension weed scientist, said Sept. 23. "Roundup was the primary weed control on them although there have been some post-directed chemistries on them as well."
Were rates and sprayings properly applied?
"To my knowledge, correct, full-label rates were used. I'm very familiar with the farmers involved. They're very good at growing crops and don't cut rates. I'm confident this wasn't human error......Nowadays, we're putting Roundup on everything. It's led to unprecedented selection pressure. We were bound to find genes that could handle the chemistry." Called to the fields in 2004, Steckel said it was immediately evident something wasn't right. "The way it looked - live pigweeds side-by-side with dead pigweeds at the same height - raised a red flag with me. When I checked the fields, pigweed was all that wasn't being controlled. My first thought was, 'Well, this could be the real deal.'" There were plenty of pigweed in both fields. However, that alone didn't cause Steckel much worry. "Western Tennessee is covered up with Palmer pigweed. It isn't uncommon to see fields with a bunch of it. I get called to a lot of fields on suspicious weeds. After investigating, most of the time the escapes are due to rain after application, surfactant issues or something else. But none of that applied here."
This past spring, Steckel and colleagues decided to put out a number of trials: two in the questionable fields and two placed randomly in the counties. Normally, Palmer pigweed less than 6 inches tall can be "smoked" with a half rate of glyphosate, said Steckel. "So in these tests, we looked at a half-rate, a full rate, a double rate and a 4X rate. At the two random sites, we got complete control on everything with the low rates." In the two suspect fields that wasn't the case. "At the half-rate of Roundup WeatherMax, control was around 50 percent. At the full rate (22 ounces), control was around 80 percent. At the 44-ounce rate, we still had some escapes. At the 4X rate (88 ounces), everything was killed."
Tom Mueller coordinated greenhouse and laboratory studies of the tolerant pigweed populations. "In some ways the Palmer pigweed appears to be similar to glyphosate-tolerant horseweed (marestail)," said Mueller in a press release. "All the treated Palmer pigweed plants look the same for two or three days after application; they all wilt and turn yellow. However, at about four days after spraying, the tolerant plants stop wilting and start new growth from lateral buds. Our preliminary laboratory analysis indicates the mechanism of action, or how the plant tolerates the glyphosate, appears to be the same in the Palmer pigweed and in the glyphosate-tolerant horseweed."
In light of the test results, what are Steckel's recommendations?
"First, producers need to get more chemistry in the tank, more modes of action. And that's already been happening.....I just did an informal survey of some retailers and, in the last year, they believe around 90 percent of our cotton had a pre-emerge (herbicide) put on. Primarily, the reason for that was control of glyphosate-resistant horseweed." "Dual over-the-top of cotton postemergence will be a terrific tool. We'll be preaching that." "Most importantly, Roundup rates shouldn't be cut. Producers must use the full rate and get good coverage."
Could the finding impact no-till acres?
"With glyphosate-resistant horseweed we've already seen a reduction in no-till acres. However, as successful as we've been with using pre-emerge herbicides, I think we'll see no-till acres rebound - especially when you consider the cost of diesel. Even with this new threat, I see that happening."
dbennett@primediabusiness.com

Monsanto confirms case of superweeds - Monsanto press release 13/9/05
Investigation Confirms Case Of Glyphosate-Resistant Palmer Pigweed In Georgia
ST. LOUIS (Sept. 13, 2005) - Dr. Stanley Culpepper, a University of Georgia weed scientist, and Monsanto have determined that Palmer amaranth (Palmer pigweed) at specific sites in central Georgia is resistant to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup® agricultural herbicides. Numerous field and greenhouse trials completed earlier this year indicated probable resistance; however, heritability studies — to determine whether the lack of control is passed on to the next generation — are now complete and confirm this Palmer amaranth population as resistant.
"This Palmer amaranth population has tolerated extremely high rates of glyphosate applied in the field under excellent growing conditions," says Culpepper. The resistant population infests 500 acres of Roundup Ready® cotton in central Georgia. Additional herbicide products have provided effective control of the resistant population. Dr. Culpepper and Monsanto are surveying the surrounding area this season to determine if this biotype has spread.
When glyphosate resistant weed biotypes have been identified in the past, they have been effectively managed with other herbicides and/or cultural practices, such as tillage. Based on the data available today, Monsanto recommends that farmers growing Roundup Ready cotton or Roundup Ready Flex® cotton who have glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth on their farm do the following for 2006:
• Use a pre-emergence residual herbicide such as Prowl®
• Apply Roundup agricultural herbicide plus metolachlor early post-emergence
• Apply Roundup agricultural herbicide plus diuron at lay-by
In case of weed escapes, there are other herbicide products available as well. Growers should always read and follow herbicide label directions. Monsanto will continue to work with the University of Georgia to research the best options for control of glyphosate resistant Palmer amaranth and will modify these recommendations as new information becomes available.
"We have ongoing research planned to investigate Palmer amaranth management systems for a number of crops," says Culpepper. "We won't be sure what the best recommendation is until after the cotton harvest."
For growers that do not have confirmed glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth, Monsanto is recommending they use a pre-emergence residual that is active on Palmer amaranth, such as Prowl, in addition to a Roundup agricultural herbicide.
"Using a residual helps reduce early season weed competition and reduces the number and size of weeds when the first application of Roundup is made," says David Heering, Roundup Technical Manager. "In cotton, it is also important to add a residual at lay-by such as diuron to control weeds that emerge between lay-by and harvest."
Growers who are planting other Roundup Ready crops, such as corn or soybeans, should also use a pre-emergence residual if they have Palmer amaranth in their fields. Additionally, using the right rate of glyphosate for the right size weed at the right time is critical in an effective weed control program. The use of lower than recommended rates of glyphosate has been a contributing factor in previous cases of confirmed glyphosate resistant weeds. Growers should also consider using additional weed control tools that may be necessary for the weed spectrum on their farm.
The research on Palmer amaranth will be submitted to the International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds at www.weedscience.com. for inclusion on the official list of glyphosate-resistant weeds. Monsanto Company is a leading global provider of technology-based solutions and agricultural products that improve farm productivity and food quality.
For more information on Monsanto, see: www.monsanto.com
Copyright © 2005 Monsanto Company | Legal Notice | Privacy Policy

Monsanto lobbies to keep the status quo for gene-altered crops - Monday, September 12, 2005 - By Bill Lambrecht and Deirdre Shesgreen
http://www.checkbiotech.org/root/index.cfm?fuseaction=news&doc_id=11204&start=1&control=198&page_start=1&page_nr=101&pg=1
Sometimes a company's Iobbying success is best measured by what doesn't happen: tighter regulations kept 0ff the books, tax Ioopholes left open, hot-bulon issues never debated or investigated. Take, for example, Monsanto Co., the agricultural and biotech giant ased in Creve Coeur. Despite years of controversy over Monsanto's genetically modified seeds, there hasn't been a single congressional hearing on legislation calling for abeling genetically modified foods, even as much of Europe, Japan and several other nations adopted labeling Iaws. Monsanto Iobbyists have worked hard to preserve the current system in which its gene-altered products are treated as essentially equivalent to regular crops -- and therefore don't need any additional labeling. Among area companies, Monsanto was by far the biggest spender an Iobbying, dishing out more than $18.5 million from 1999 through 2004. In 200L, Monsanto had nine in-house Washington Iobbyists on its payroll, along with another 13 at private firms. Over the years, Monsanto has become known for its connections in Washington, hiring high-ranking government officials and a former member of Congress,_Rep. Toby Moffett, D-Conn. Among those Iobbying for Monsanto last year were Peter Scher, who served in the administration of President Bill Clinton as the top negotiator and troubieshooter on global agriculture trade deals in which Monsanto had a huge stake.
Monsanto has generaily deployed its phalanx of lobbyists on three fronts: shaping regulations that apply to its geneticaliy modified crops; prying open European and other foreign markets for genetically modified foods; and winning Iegislative batties to tailor the federal agriculture budget criticai to its business. More than other St. Louis companies, Monsanto and its lobbyists have to navigate Washington's regulatory maze because three federal agencies regulate its gene-aitered farm products. Michael Dykes, a top Monsanto in-house advocate, said the compariy's iobbyists didn't try to influence the scientific review process (their scientists dc that). But they do try to shape the policies that dictate how those reviews unfoid -- what steps are necessary to get a new biotech product to market, for example. Even as European nations continue to maintain a ban on most genetically modified crops, Monsanto has pressed for more government-approved uses of its technology in the United States. In June, the company won approvai from the Agricuiture Department for its latest product - alfalfa that is genetically engineered to tolerate a Monsanto-developed herbicide that kills weeds but not the alfalfa.
The agriculture giant is now in the midst of a controversial battle to commercialize a herbicide-tolerant grass that couid be a big seiler to golf courses. Monsanto is working with another company, Scotts Co., on that issue, and they have already run into opposition. Because grasses are wind-pollirating perennial piants, they are difficult to contain and could pose a contamnation threat, critics say. Bill Freese, a research analyst for the environmental group Friends of the Earth, said the grass couid produce "Super weeds" that are resistant to herbicides.
Monsanto lobbyists exercise considerable infiuence over the regulatory process, Freese said, even though the rule-making might appear to be more driven by facts and less by politics. "They have tremendous clout with the government," Freese said.
Monsanto's Dykes said his work on the special grass focused on keeping interested lawmakers abreast of the approval process, not on talking to regulators. "We would brief legislators and staff . . . on what the process is, what we're doing, how our scientists are engaged," he said.
Monsanto has a track record of political victories. Three years ago, for example, the White House sided with the company and others in the industry in their effort to avoid costly recalls and other repercussions if thee's accidental contamination during field trials of gene-altered crops. The effort by Monsanto and others in the biotech business began after the StarLink scandal in 2000, when discovery in human food of genetically modified corn approved only for animals sparked a recall of dozens of foods and a financial disaster for a company, Aventis CropScience. The biotech companies' efforts paid off: In 2002, President George W. Bush's administration issued a directive to three federal agencies asking them to write regulations allowing unapproved materials in commercial seed and commodities "if they pose no unacceptable environmental risk."
Although it was a key win for the biotech industry, the battle isn't over. Critics argue that the policy prejudged environmental tests and posed health threats to consumers, and they are now Iobbying the agencies to write tight rules an the issue. "We don't want to see a blanket approval for contamination," Freese said. Monsanto, of course, is also weighing in. "We're trying to advocate a sound regulatory process as to how to effectively manage this issue," Dykes said.
Copyright STLToday.com

Shareowner Resolution Asks Monsanto to Create Ethics Oversight Committee - by William Baue - SocialFunds.com, August 26, 2005
http://www.socialfunds.com/news/article.cgi/article1789.html
(SocialFunds.com is "the largest personal finance site dedicated to socially responsible investing")
The company stonewalls inquiries related to the resolution, which springs from a $1.5 million settlement with the SEC and DOJ earlier this year regarding a bribe Monstanto paid in Indonesia.
SocialFunds.com - Earlier this week, Harrington Investments Inc. (HII) filed a shareowner resolution with Monsanto (ticker: MON) asking its board to create an ethics oversight committee of independent directors to monitor compliance with laws as well as the Monsanto Pledge and Code of Business Conduct. Why make such a request? The resolution recounts the company's $1.5 million settlement with the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in January 2005 over violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). In a nutshell, a senior Monsanto manager authorized a $50,000 bribe to get a senior Indonesian Ministry of Environment official to repeal a 2001 environmental impact assessment decree obstructing market entry for genetically engineered crops. "Although the payment was made, the unfavorable decree was not repealed," notes the SEC enforcement document without commentary on this irony. "In addition, from 1997 to 2002, Monsanto inaccurately recorded, or failed to record, in its books and records approximately $700,000 of illegal or questionable payments made to various Indonesian government officials."
Such breaches of corporate ethics are unfortunately not anomalous. On Monday of this week, the SEC charged former Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMY) CFO and another officer with orchestrating a fraudulent earnings management scheme to the tune of $1.5 billion. On Tuesday, the commission charged the former Kmart (KM) CEO and CFO with financial fraud leading up to the company's declaration of bankruptcy.
"Bribery is illegal, and Monsanto's violation of federal law and the company's own voluntary code of conduct prove that management cannot be trusted to protect shareholders," said John Harrington, CEO of HII, a Napa, California-based socially responsible investment (SRI) firm. "Monsanto's management has once again shown its disregard for its fiduciary duties and for U.S. law."
After several attempts to contact Monsanto for comment, SocialFunds.com spoke briefly with Monsanto Public Affairs Director Chris Horner. The phone call abruptly ended before Mr. Horner answered any questions and he did not respond to follow-up phone calls and email.
The DOJ/SEC settlement requires Monsanto to retain an independent compliance expert. A search of SEC filings posted on Monsanto's website since January 6, 2005 did not disclose the retention of an independent compliance expert, so it is unclear whether the company has fulfilled this requirement. The SEC enforcement document asserts that Monsanto "lacked internal controls sufficient to detect or prevent the illicit payment schemes operated by the Indonesian affiliates." "In fact, from 1996 to 2001 Monsanto did not conduct any internal audits of its Indonesian affiliates," the document continues. "The absence of effective internal controls enabled the Indonesian management team to conceal their illicit payment scheme."
It is unclear what changes Monsanto has made to its internal controls in the wake of the settlement, if any. Monsanto's January 10 First Quarter 2005 Form 10Q, the most recent SEC filing posted on its website addressing the bribe in Indonesia, does not mention any changes in internal controls. The Monsanto Pledge, which is "the foundation of all that we do," states that "integrity includes honesty, decency, consistency, and courage." The Pledge also commits the company to several intentions, including transparency. "We will ensure that information is available, accessible, and understandable," the Pledge states.

Concerns continue over Monsanto's biotech wheat - Tue Aug 30, 2005 2:09 PM ET - By Carey Gillam
KANSAS CITY, Mo., Aug 30 (Reuters) - Monsanto Co.'s genetically modified wheat program could cost U.S. wheat farmers more than $100 million in lost income if it is commercialized, according to a study released Tuesday. The report, which was commissioned by the Western Organization for Resource Councils (WORC), warned of costly consequences if Monsanto Co. <MON.N> revives its controversial technology to genetically alter types of spring wheat.
St. Louis-based Monsanto said in May 2004 that opposition to the project forced it to delay an introduction indefinitely. And in March of this year, the company reiterated that it did had no near-term revival plans for Roundup Ready wheat, which is genetically altered to make the wheat resistant to treatments of the Roundup weedkiller.
But debate within the industry has continued to fester and earlier this month National Association of Wheat Growers president Sherman Reece further spurred discussion by saying it "was time to move forward" with biotech wheat. The WORC report issued Tuesday takes the opposite approach, warning that moving forward would prove costly to wheat farmers, who are already doing a good job managing weeds and garnering profits. Weed resistance, disease resistance and crop rotation problems are likely if Roundup Ready wheat is adopted, according to the analysis by Idaho agricultural consultant Charles Benbrook.
His analysis found that farmers would have to spend three times more money on wheat seed and apply up to a pound an acre more herbicide if they elected to use Monsanto's Roundup Ready wheat. He projects that across about 13 million acres of U.S. hard red spring wheat acreage, losses would run between $7.23 and $20.94 an acre, or $94 million to $272 million. "This is a technology for which there is no compelling need," said Benbrook. "There are some substantial risks that go along with this technology."
Monsanto officials could not be reached for comment Tuesday, but they have billed Roundup Ready wheat as a way for farmers to grow wheat more efficiently. The company's Roundup Ready soybeans have proven popular with U.S. farmers and now dominate U.S. soybean acreage.
Biotech wheat has been hotly debated in the U.S. wheat industry for years between those who say biotechnology could make wheat a more profitable crop, and those who say foreign resistance to biotech tinkering would kill exports.
"It is definitely still out there, something that is being talked about with wheat organizations," said Todd Leake, a North Dakota farmer active in WORC.
Monsanto already has FDA approval for the Roundup Ready wheat, but would still need approval from the Agriculture Department and the U.S. EPA before it could move forward.

Corporate-sponsored PBS Documentary Riles Small Farming Advocates - by Christopher Getzan - The New Standard
http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=2262
Environment, consumer, agriculture and media watchdogs say the production of upcoming PBS show America's Heartland exemplifies the problem of major corporations driving television journalism.
Aug 23 - A new television series set for distribution this fall to public TV stations across the country is drawing fire from activists who say its funders exploit a model of factory farming that has profoundly undermined the same rustic lifestyle the program is meant to showcase. The telecast, America's Heartland, consists of twenty half-hour episodes produced by PBS affiliate KVIE in Sacramento and is based on a popular, long-running KVIE broadcast called California Heartland. While the bulk of the new national program's underwriting will be provided by the farming trade group the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) and biotech giant Monsanto, the show is also receiving financial support from other large farming associations such as the National Cotton Council, United Soybean Board and the US Grains Council.
While the Department of Agriculture noted in 2001 that the vast majority of farms are still family-run, half of all agricultural sales were concentrated among just two percent of farms. Without actually having seen the show, which producers are keeping under wraps, advocates for family farming and the environment are engaged in a campaign to dissuade local television stations from running the series. They cite the main financiers' involvement in technologies and policies that undermine small farmers as cause for their assumption that the programming will offer a distorted picture in documentary form.
"Our opposition really stems from how they went about finding funding for the program," said Chris Cooper, a spokesperson for Global Resource Action Center for the Environment (GRACE), which has been organizing around the announcement of the program. "While it might be fine for Exxon to fund a program on Masterpiece Theatre, it wouldn't be for a documentary on oil." More importantly, Cooper said, GRACE believes the pastoral theme of the program will breed misconceptions about the state of rural life to the urban and suburban audiences for which the America's Heartland will likely serve as a primary window into agrarian life in the US. "The problem is that when you're talking about farmers or rural America, it's impossible to tell an accurate story without telling about the role of agribusiness," said Ben Lilliston, Communications Director at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), "The sponsors of that program are kind of the spearheads behind the movement for factory farming."
The number of US farms has been rapidly declining since the 1960s. While the Department of Agriculture noted in 2001 that the vast majority of farms are still family-run, half of all agricultural sales were concentrated among just two percent of farms. Lilliston said Monsanto and the major farming trade associations "rely on the mythological view of the farmer to sell their products." In a letter sent to public television managers about America's Heartland, 70 groups - including IATP, Public Citizen, Friends of the Earth, and the Organic Consumers Association - suggest stations should either forego showing the series or schedule complementary programming to expose Heartland as a "piece of propaganda." The coalition leveled a harsh critique of what it expects the controversial new series entails.
"The destruction of America's rural communities and the disappearance of its small farmers is an important story that needs to be told," the letter reads. "This story, one of rural depopulation, dwindling economic opportunities, industrial levels of pollution and their attendant health and social concerns, is the ugly reality of the excesses that come from the unregulated large-scale industrialized agricultural system promoted by corporate America." The signatories say they are concerned that Heartland is "being produced to put a friendly face on the very forces that are causing these problems." They point out that Monsanto and the American Farm Bureau promote policies that "place the US food supply into the hands of a few major corporations" by pressuring politicians to keep federal subsidies flowing to large agribusinesses. "A significant part of these subsidies then flows directly to Monsanto from the purchase of genetically modified seed and artificial hormones to increase milk production at mega-dairies that put small farmers out of business," they write.
But the documentary's creators say that criticism is premature. Jim O'Donnell, director of program marketing for KVIE, said the only difference between his station's parent program and the new America's Heartland spin-off is "geographical coverage." "The tone, style, and content of the show, the mission of the show, was well-established in the eight years" it ran on KVIE, said O'Donnell. "When we contemplated a relationship with Monsanto, KVIE exercised due diligence and found them to be acceptable to the goals of the show. Their mission in this is the same thing as the show's." That mission, according to O'Donnell, is to "educate a non-farm audience about how food gets from farm to table. It's not an issues-based show." GRACE's criticism, O'Donnell said, is baseless for two reasons. First, he says, California Heartland's educational value is proven by the large audiences in California's largest, most highly concentrated urban TV markets, like San Francisco. Additionally, the farm community?s response to the program was "overwhelmingly positive." Second, says O'Donnell, is that no one outside of KVIE has actually seen America's Heartland. "I'm surprised at the criticism," said O'Donnell. "Nobody's seen the show" The criticism, he said, "is not based in any factual review of the program. I don't know how they do it. If you haven't seen the example, I'm not sure how anybody who has any opinion is basing that in fact."
Monsanto spokesperson Lee Quarles defended the company's involvement in the funding. "If you look at why we got involved, by far the most important reason was that farmers wanted their stories to be told," he said. "We recognized we have a role to play because we are in the agriculture industry." O'Donnell, Monsanto and the American Farm Bureau Federation refused to furnish The NewStandard with figures on the funding corporate big-leaguers are injecting into Heartland, but O'Donnell said the only "deliverables" returned to Monsanto or AFBF are underwriting credit on the show. "We have a relationship, clearly, but it doesn?t include content," O'Donnell said. "We are enjoined in a regulatory manner and a very strict guideline manner." O'Donnell said that even Monsanto and the Farm Bureau have only seen the trailer for America's Heartland. "And certainly," he said, "Monsanto and the Farm Bureau would have an interest in a program that would have an interest to their constituencies," noting that "the content will speak for itself."
Cooper acknowledged that GRACE and its partner groups had not seen America's Heartland yet, but "there's at least the perception the content?s going to be biased," he said. "We don't want to come across as fundamentalists, but it seems to violate the guidelines of [distributors American Public Television] and PBS." Lilliston said Monsanto and the major farming trade associations "rely on the mythological view of the farmer to sell their products," and that the big agribusiness firms are using the program to "create this kind of sense among the urban audience that they're supporting farmers when they buy or use" Monsanto products or goods backed by the large trade councils.
Sheldon Rampton, research director at the Center for Media and Democracy, a media watchdog group, said a series like America's Heartland can poison news-gathering at cash-strapped and politically insecure PBS stations. "The [funders] understand [station programmers] have a limited news hole," he said, and "when someone else proposes programming [on a similar subject], they can say we've already covered that topic." While the program's underwriters may not exert control over editorial content, Rampton said he is "sure that Monsanto and company have a pretty good idea about what shows are going to be broadcast." He added, "I think they can feel confident the program they're sponsoring is not going to sponsor investigative journalism about genetic engineering or pesticide use." Bottom line, Rampton said, "They get their name[s] associated with the phrase 'America's heartland,' and just by virtue of sponsoring this, the programming being sponsored fits their vision of the world."

Lower cottonseed weights troubling - By Hembree Brandon - Delta Farm Press, Aug 18, 2005 [shortened]
http://deltafarmpress.com/news/050818-cottonseed-weight/
BILOXI, Miss. -- In a perfect world, says Randy Dismuke, a cotton variety would satisfy everyone's demands - growers, ginners, oil mills, textile spinners, and other downstream users. "Unfortunately, it's not a perfect world and we don't yet have a variety that's a 'perfect 10,'" the senior vice president for Delta and Pine Land Co., Scott, Miss., told members of the Southern Cotton Ginners Association at their summer conference. The ginners, many of whom are also growers, had asked a panel of industry leaders to address the issue of why hugely popular, and widely-planted, new cotton varieties have significantly less seed turnout than conventional varieties.
Cottonseed removed in the ginning process represents a significant source of revenue to ginners, and reduced seed tonnage from newer genetically modified varieties has been cutting into their bottom line. Also, traditionally, the seed retained by the gin has offset the cost of ginning for the grower, a scenario that's becoming more difficult to maintain as ginning costs rise and seed weights/revenues decline. "A Cottonseed Digest study shows the 10-year trendline is down," Dismuke said, with a 14 percent decrease from 1995-96 to 2004-05. From 2003-04 to 2004-05, there was an 8 percent decline in seed yield.
Oil mill perspective
"One of the biggest challenges I see facing oil mills and the ginning industry is the seed derived from today?s popular genetically modified varieties," said Sammy Wright, vice president, Chickasha of Georgia, Tifton, Ga. Seed weights per bale "have dropped fairly dramatically" in some areas of the country, he said. "These smaller seed are much more difficult to delint and dehull in the milling process, and they contain quite a bit less oil. This reduces the value of the seed to the crusher." In the Southeast, he said, "We've been averaging 300-305 pounds of oil per ton of cottonseed; now, we're down to about 280 pounds of oil. "With 25-cent oil, that means roughly $5 to $6 less in crush value per ton of cottonseed. While that may not sound like a lot, in tight market times it can be the difference between making money and losing money. Lower seed weights also reduce the amount of seed available to ginners to convert to cash flow income."
In many cases today, returns to ginners from seed will not cover the cost of ginning, Wright said. "How much longer can the ginning industry operate under the scenario of ginning for the seed, when the seed don't return adequate value." "I wish I had the answer, but I don't," he said. ?I think it's safe to say, though, if we don't see a drastic change upward in seed yields, economics will force us to make some hard decisions as to how we operate our gins, or we won't be able to survive."
In 1980, Wright said, there were 74 operating oil mills in the U.S.; today, only 13. "These numbers speak to the radical change we've seen in our business." What does this mean to ginners? "For one thing, if you're not in close proximity to a major milk shed, you'd better hope you can keep a viable oil mill presence to help consume some of that seed. If not, the fundamental laws of supply and demand can get pretty ugly."

Attack of the 12-foot horseweed - Herbicide-resistant strains plague California farmers - By Juliana Barbassa, Associated Press
http://www.sgvtribune.com/Stories/0,1413,205~24512~3003075,00.html
Horseweed was once merely a nuisance to farmers hard to pull out, quick to sprout back after cutting, and capable of towering over tractors. Now, it's becoming a full-blown nightmare worthy of an agricultural horror flick. Scientists in California have found clusters of the weed that are resistant to scores of herbicides, leaving farmers to fight an increasingly formidable and costly foe. Pete Christensen said he watched his costs soar as the most popular herbicide became increasingly powerless to stop the weeds from choking the grapes on his 75-acre vineyard near Selma. About five years ago, he started noticing that Roundup wasn't withering the weed as usual. Three years later, he had tripled the concentration of the herbicide, and had doubled the applications, but the weeds were growing thicker than ever, rising over his vines and competing with them for water, nutrients and sunshine. "It was dominant in the landscape,' Christensen said.
The weed, also known as mare's tail, has always been around, but it wasn't until last month that University of California researchers confirmed that some strains of it had become resistant to herbicides, posing a threat to the nation's most productive farmland. Researchers were alarmed by the weed's rapid proliferation. Its spindly stalks can be seen poking out of Napa Valley vineyards in the North, along highways and pastures in the Central Valley and in Southern California fields. Farmers elsewhere have been dealing with resistance to the chemical glyphosate. First found in Delaware in 2000, glyphosate-resistant horseweed has since been found in 10 other states in the East and South. Farmers dealing with the problem have been forced to repeatedly till their fields, rely on weeding, or on more toxic herbicides to control the tall, fast-growing pest.
Developing resistance to a chemical isn't unusual among plants and animals, scientists said. What makes the horseweed adaptation such a nuisance is how fast it reproduces and how big it grows, sucking up scarce water and nutrients as it stretces 10 or 12 feet tall. As a relative of the dandelion, each weed produces up to 200,000 tiny airborne seeds a season on fluffy yellow flowers. For decades, growers, gardeners and anyone looking for an easy way to beat back weeds have relied on glyphosate. It's inexpensive, works on several types of weeds and is less toxic than other pest-control ingredients. Farmers planting Roundup-Ready crops such as corn, soybeans or cotton that have been genetically engineered to survive the chemical could spray it liberally over their entire field, killing all weeds and leaving only their crops standing. The herbicide's popularity may be partly to blame for breeding the resistance, researchers said. By killing nonresistant weeds, it allows only the survivors those few naturally resistant plants to thrive.
"They've created a problem by relying on one solution to solve all problems,' said weed ecologist Anil Shrestha of the University of California's Kearney Agricultural Center. Some scientists said the development wasn't surprising. Systems like Monsanto's Roundup-Ready crops, which promise an easy, one-chemical solution to the age-old problem of weed control, only work for a short time, said Margaret Mellon, director for the Food and Environment Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. "When you expand the use of an herbicide dramatically, resistant weeds start moving in," said Mellon.
Bob Prys, a manager for the 13,000-acre Borba Farms, said the weed became a problem just three or four years after they started growing Roundup-Ready cotton on the 500-acre ranch. They sprayed the field, killing everything but the cotton plants, and saving money by having to till their fields less frequently. Now Prys said they're relying on weeding again and adding other chemicals to their herbicide mix adding unexpected costs to the higher price they pay for Roundup-Ready seed. "It's caused us to re-evaluate our Roundup-Ready cotton,' Prys said.
Monsanto researchers recommend mixing in other chemicals to eliminate the threat before there is a problem, said David Heering, the Roundup technical manager for Monsanto. "At the end of the day, they'll still have fewer passes through the fields, and fewer weed-control problems,' Heering said. The UC scientists recommended rotating crops, cultivating the land with farm equipment, weeding, and using herbicides that kill the seeds in the soil before they germinate. Those measures will increase costs for farmers, but will prevent a more serious and costly problem later on.
See article below as well

Roundup Ready alfalfa worries growers - By Anna King, Herald staff writer - TriCityHerald, August 5th, 2005
http://www.tri-cityherald.com/tch/local/story/6782825p-6672051c.html
Alfalfa growers in the Mid-Columbia say they aren't ready to grow Roundup Ready alfalfa because they're worried that if they do their export markets in Japan could ban Washington hay. The genetically modified plants have a resistance to the weed killer Roundup, enabling farmers to spray fields for weeds without killing the crop. However, the perception, growers say, is that the product is unnatural and could affect milk and people. Monsanto and Forage Genetics International, which jointly produce the product, received U.S. Department of Agriculture approval for the hay in July and have started selling the seed in every state but Washington. The companies are poised to release the seed in the state as early as spring 2006, and the first crop could be cut and baled that summer. But those in Washington who export high-value hay say their customers in Japan don't want the alfalfa in their dairy feed troughs.
Columbia Basin growers export about $140 million in alfalfa to Japan a year. And hay is the largest export by volume in the Pacific Northwest, shipped out of the ports of Tacoma, Seattle, Portland and Oakland, Calif. "There is no possible way that the Japanese customer will accept it," said Chep Gauntt, president of the Washington State Hay Growers Association and a Burbank-area hay grower. "We stand the chance of losing all of our export market." However, Monsanto spokeswoman Jennifer Garrett said the company expects the Japanese government to approve Roundup Ready alfalfa by the end of the year. But Gauntt said even with government approval, if the Japanese dairymen don't like the product, they won't import it or allow it in shipments. And that means big-money losses for the Mid-Columbia hay exporters.
Talks between Monsanto, Forage Genetics and the hay association have been going on for a few years. But with the date of the seed release edging forward, the situation is becoming increasingly tense. This week, Gauntt said he learned that a longtime member of the association's board of directors, William "Bill" Ford, is being paid by Monsanto, which raises ethics concerns. Ford is a retired Washington State University agronomist who worked out of the Pasco extension office for about 34 years. He helped test new alfalfa varieties in the area and has worked extensively with area growers and exporters. "He's had the trust of everyone, and no one even questioned it," Gauntt said.
Ford said he's been working as a consultant for the company for about two or three years and didn't see it as a conflict of interest because he has never voted on the subject at association meetings. "All I did was to work with them and put them in contact with the major exporters here in Washington," he said. Ford and the companies declined to discuss how much he had been paid. Mark McCaslin, president of Forage Genetics, said his company did compensate Ford for travel expenses but that he worked only as a liaison between the companies and Washington hay exporters to set up meetings. Gauntt said he's mainly concerned with what Ford may have shared from confidential discussions among association members about Monsanto and Forage Genetics. This week, the association issued a statement asking Monsanto to delay its seed release in Washington for another year.
"He comes and listens as we are very candid," Gauntt said. "He is listening and bringing that back to Monsanto. He's capitalized on that in the form of money." But Gauntt said the association has no formal policy about disclosure of directors' compensation from companies. "I had no idea that it was this deep," he said. "We're businessmen and we're not naive, but maybe in a way we have been."
Brent Evans, international sales manager for Eckenberg Farms of Mattawa, said he's not worried about Roundup Ready alfalfa as a product, but he is extremely concerned about the Japanese perception. Evans lived in Japan for about six years and said consumers and farmers there are very health-conscious and will ban anything they view as contaminated or dangerous. In 1995, he worked for the Washington State Apple Commission in Japan when the Japanese shut down imports of all Washington apples after a chemical residue was discovered on less than 1 percent of the fruit. "It's an underlying fear that we are messing with nature," he said. Evans said Eckenberg Farms ships about 5,000 shipping containers of alfalfa to Japan each year. That exported hay is the most expensive sold in Washington, he said, and a disruption in that market would have dismal effect on hay prices in the Northwest. Evans said his company would like the product better if the companies would help the growers educate their consumers in Japan. He said that might take an additional year or two. But make a wrong move, and it could take years to resolve, he said. "If you think they won't stop alfalfa from Washington State, all you have to do is to look at beef," Evans said, referring to the trade embargo on U.S. beef after mad cow disease was discovered in a slaughtered Mabton cow. "They can't get the Japanese to budge."

More than just a food fight - Zack Pelta-Heller - http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/23884/
The debate over genetically modified organisms just got a lot hotter in California. Last month, Democratic State Senator Dean Florez introduced an amendment that would effectively remove a community's control over its food supply. Florez's amendment reads, in part, "no ordinance or regulation of any political subdivision may prohibit or in any way attempt to regulate any matter relating to the registration, labeling, sale, storage, transportation, distribution, notification of use, or use of field crops." It seems harmless enough, couched in legalese as it is. But this controversial overhaul comes in response to three California counties and two cities that banned the raising of genetically engineered crops and livestock. Activist groups like Californians for GE-Free Agriculture, Environmental Commons, and the Sierra Club are up in arms over the proposed legislation, calling it an affront to local democracy. It's easy to see why. Since California currently does not have any GMO regulations at the state level, the proposed law will successfully eliminate the only limitations that prevent biotech giants like Monsanto and Syngenta from moving in with their patented GE seeds. Moreover, the bill, known as SB 1056, takes pre-emptive measures to preclude people from raising concerns about GMOs in the future, and in doing so deprives the public of any chance debate on this hot-button issue.
Becky Tarbotton, campaign coordinator for Californians for GE-Free Agriculture, says, "If SB 1056 or a bill with similar pre-emptive language passes in California, it will effectively override the ability of local communities, including farmers, to make decisions about whether or not they want to grow genetically engineered crops." In addition to an infringement on civil liberties, the fundamental problem that environmental groups have with SB 1056 is that farmers who plant genetically engineered (GE) seeds can't guarantee that their seeds will not contaminate GE-free farms. According to Laurel Hopwood of the Sierra Club, "What's unfortunate for farmers, especially organic farmers, is that pollen can move from place to place, so the spread of GMO gene traits is inevitable." Hopwood adds, "What's different about this form of pollution from any other form of pollution is that it's alive. These new life forms multiply, spread, and cannot be recalled. ... Not only are organic farmers not allowed to call their crop 'organic' when it becomes contaminated, but also farmers can't sell their crops overseas where GMOs are not accepted."
California is the nation's largest agricultural producer, raising hundreds of crops for large-scale export and domestic use. The issue of organic farms losing certification because of GE seed contamination, then, is just the tip of the iceberg. The European Union and other major importers of Californian goods like Japan have strict policies that forbid the purchase or sale of GE crops. Environmentalists fear the economic repercussions of GE seed contamination could be disastrous for the both California agricultural community and the U.S. economy.
Beyond the Golden State
But if you think the debate over local control is just going on in California, think again. Britt Bailey, the director of Environmental Commons, explained that fourteen states have already passed provisions limiting local control, and North Carolina is still considering a similar measure. Bailey says, "When I contacted the Georgia and Oklahoma legislatures, specifically the authors of the seed preemption bills, and asked them why the bills were introduced, the authors responded by saying the bills were in response to the three California counties that had passed initiatives restricting genetically modified organisms." In March of 2004, Mendocino County in Northern California passed a law prohibiting GE seeds from being planted within the county lines, the first of its kind. Eight months later, four more counties voted on similar bans, but in the face of opposition heavily funded by the biotech industry and promoted by state and national farm groups, only one ban passed. Many more counties in California and across the country are in the process of bringing GMO bans to the voters. But proponents of these seed preemption bills, in California and elsewhere, believe that seed laws belong uniformly at the state or federal level and shouldn't be in the hands of a patchwork of local restrictions. As Charles Margulis of the Center for Food Safety points out, however, states that oppose local restrictions to GMOs tend to have regulations in place at the state level. California does not.
On the other side of SB 1056 are groups like the California Farm Bureau Federation (CFBF), a non-profit that represents farm interests throughout the state. While spokesman Dave Kranz was unwilling to take an official stance on SB 1056, he says, "Our position has been that we support technology that offers potential for family farmers to be innovative and keep up with market trends." Like other supporters of this pre-emptive legislation, CFBF feels that farmers ought to have the flexibility to respond to local situations and should not be prevented from raising GE-crops simply because their property falls within a certain county line. "We oppose county-by-county bans on biotech crops just as we would oppose county-by-county bans on organic crops if those were to occur," concludes Kranz. In an recent op-ed piece in the San Francisco Chronicle, CFBF President Bill Pauli lays out a clear case for GE foods. "[Californians] are among the most progressive farmers in the United States, and we play a vital role in providing safe and healthy food throughout the world. That's why I can't understand all the misinformation associated with biotechnology, an established practice of modern farming that makes our food more plentiful, longer-lasting and, yes, healthier than ever."
Pauli devotes most of his article to assuring readers that no one (neither people nor animals) has become sick from biotech foods since their inception in the mid-nineties. On the federal level, biotech crops are subject to inspection by the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the Food and Drug Administration. Research has suggested that GE foods have the curative properties and the potential to improve nutrition worldwide. "A 2004 report from the National Academy of Sciences," asserts Pauli, "concluded that foods from biotech crops are as safe as any other foods in your supermarket." The question remains though, after reading Pauli's article, why would he spend so much energy convincing the public that GE foods are safe for consumption? Is it because consumers fear the possibly toxic effects of herbicides, which can be sprayed at will on the 70 percent of GE crops that are herbicide-resistant? Or perhaps the answer lies in the recent failures of federal regulatory agencies to ensure the safety of biotech crops. Anuradha Mittal, Executive Director of The Oakland Institute, exclaims, "The EPA, USDA, and FDA were asleep at the wheel during the StarLink controversy." The StarLink fiasco resulted in an enormous recall on corn products, heightened concerns over biotech products, and was an economic black eye for the U.S. when Japan and South Korea were forced to turn to China for corn supplies. Since the FDA already determined that genetic engineering is only an extension of agriculture, and that GE foods are not significantly different from traditionally grown foods, their methodology for determining safety seems suspect. Mittal and Margulis of the Center for Food Safety also emphasize that none of the federal regulatory agencies have conducted long-term tests to determine the lasting effects of GE foods on consumers and the environment. Margulis maintains that the studies Pauli mentions in his op-ed are "ludicrous" and broad-ranged. "None of those studies were conducted by independent organizations; none fed animals just GE foods and saw what happened." And, he says, the biotech corporations would prefer it that way.
The End of Local Control?
Concerns over GE food safety aside, the true transgression being perpetrated by SB 1056 is that California legislators are turning a blind eye to public safety and debate in favor of biotech corporations. "By taking away the sovereign powers of communities," Mittal concludes, "legislators are rendering the elected officials in these communities basically impotent." To say nothing of the rights of farmers and citizens that this pre-emptive legislation will strip away. Mittal adds, "The interests of the family farmers are being sold off, while bigger farmers receive subsidies and are therefore more likely to support the bill." Of course, the debate over local control doesn't center solely on GMOs. Britt Bailey says, "Twenty states have laws restricting local governments from passing tobacco-free ordinances, 40 states have laws removing local control of pesticides, and I think there are 20 or so states with preemptive gun laws." The result is that when communities raise concerns on these topics at the local level, industry swoops in at the state level to ensure these concerns fall on deaf ears. Ironically, Sen. Florez currently supports a measure to give his district the power to decide whether or not to apply sewage sludge to agricultural land, the same kind of local control prohibited by his seed bill.
While activist groups are calling for labels on products containing GMOs or higher standards for regulatory testing, others have not thrown in the towel yet on the local control debate. Mary Zepernick, a coordinator at the Program on Corporations, Law & Democracy, feels a new take on this fight might be necessary. "We need to reframe these issues as rights-based struggles rather than harms-based. Looking at things that way -- abuse by abuse, corporation by corporation -- will keep these issues mired in the regulatory regime." Instead, she says, activists should show how the attack on GMO bans are part of a larger attack on communities' ability to stand up to corporations. Similarly, Britt Bailey and the Environmental Commons want to see a constitutional challenge to the bans on local control. "If we want to secure local authority of issues related to health, safety, and welfare," Bailey argues, "we could build case law by placing the intent of a local authority to govern within the local ordinances and resolutions we develop and pass. This way, if state preemption occurs, a local government has the intent and therefore standing to challenge. We could also choose to amend the constitution." Such a step might be the only way for farmers to keep locally grown food viable and for the dialogue over GMOs to continue.
Zack Pelta-Heller is a freelance writer living in Astoria, NY. Currently, he's an assistant editor for Dell Magazines.

UC scientists find herbicide-resistant horseweed in California - http://news.ucanr.org/newsstorymain.cfm?story=690
A weed that five years ago was seen only occasionally in California is now growing prolifically on irrigation canal banks, vacant lots, orchard and vineyard floors, roadsides and gardens. One reason, University of California scientists can now confirm, is that biotypes of horseweed have evolved that are unaffected by the most commonly used herbicide - glyphosate. Glyphosate is the active ingredient in 55 brand-name and generic herbicides registered for use in California. The most common brand is Roundup. According to the California Department of Food and Agriculture, 5.7 million pounds of glyphosate were used by the agricultural industry in 2003.
Horseweed is a particularly sinister vegetative foe. Also known as mare's tail and by its botanical name Conyza Canadensis, it grows straight upright on a central stem surrounded by long, thin leaves. Horseweed is difficult to pull. Mowing makes the problem worse instead of better. Unabated, it grows 8 to 10 feet tall, competing with agricultural crops for water, nutrients and sun, and getting in the way of farm equipment and laborers. In untended yards or vacant lots, horseweed forms a tangled jungle. And perhaps most ominously, each plant produces 150,000 to 200,000 seeds on yellowish fluffy flowers that a breeze will spread for hundreds of yards.
UC Integrated Pest Management weed ecologist Anil Shrestha and UC Cooperative Extension weed management farm advisor Kurt Hembree, both based in Fresno County, began to suspect the herbicide resistance in horseweed a few years ago when the distinctive plant became more prevalent. "You see it everywhere now," Hembree said. "In 2000, I had a garlic field with just a few horseweeds. Now it is completely infested. That is just one example on the west side of the (San Joaquin) valley. On the east side, it is common especially between the rows in orchards and vineyards. Large numbers of horseweed are now popping up from Napa County in the north down through Southern California."
A call from a Dinuba irrigation district manager spurred the research project at the UC Kearney Research and Extension Center (KREC) near Parlier. The irrigation district was controlling weeds in a Pest Management Zone, an area where most herbicides are banned because they threaten groundwater contamination. Glyphosate is the only herbicide permitted in these zones since the chemical is considered environmentally benign. "The irrigation district was using glyphosate year after year," Shrestha said. "This continuous use was, in effect, selecting for horseweed that was resistant to the chemical."
The scientists collected horseweed seed from the Dinuba site to compare with horseweed seed collected in western Fresno where glyphosate had seldom been used. The weed seeds were planted in pots in a greenhouse at KREC and treated with three rates of glyphosate at five different growth stages. Generally, the weeds from west Fresno died when exposed to the herbicide. The plants from Dinuba grew robustly, even when sprayed with four times the recommended amount of glyphosate.
Glyphosate-resistant horseweed was first reported in 2000 in Delaware. It has since been found in ten other states. This is the first confirmation of the resistant weed in California. Even though the study focused on weeds from the Dinuba site, Hembree and Shrestha believe that glyphosate-resistant horseweed may exist in other areas as well. They have heard from farm advisors, farmers, pest control advisors and other land managers from several parts of the south Central Valley that glyphosate isn't killing horseweed like it used to.
The scientists believe that another weed, hairy fleabane, may also be evolving glyphosate resistance, a phenomenon that has been confirmed in hairy fleabane in only two other areas worldwide - one in Spain and the other in South Africa. Hairy fleabane and horseweed look similar when immature and grow under similar conditions, but hairy fleabane reaches just three feet in height. Farmers and other land managers who notice a great number of horseweed or hairy fleabane should begin using a diversity of methods to bring them under control. By any means, make sure the weeds do not go to seed, Hembree said. Cultivation, hand pulling and pre-emergent herbicides will control the pest. Crop rotation will also be a valuable tool. The glyphosate-resistant horseweed can be a problem when farmers grow Roundup Ready crops. In this growing system, farmers plant seed that has been genetically modified to be resistant to glyphosate. Then the herbicide may be sprayed over the top of the crop, leaving the desired plants unaffected and killing the weeds. However, now that a glyphosate-resistant weed is known in California, farmers must watch for weeds that are surviving the herbicide treatment. "We are lucky we can grow so many crops in California. Crop rotation is a factor in our favor that they don?t have in the Midwest," Hembree said. "If resistant horseweed turns up on a farm, the grower will want to avoid glyphosate-resistant crops and vigilantly monitor horseweed until it is under control."
Editors: The two UC scientists who discovered that horseweed resistant to the herbicide glyphosate (such as Roundup) is growing in California will be available for interviews and to show their research project at 10 a.m. Thursday, July 21, in a greenhouse at the UC Kearney Research and Extension Center, 9240 S. Riverbend Ave., just east of Parlier.
Integrated Pest Management weed ecologist Anil Shrestha (a-neal shray-sta) and UC Cooperative Extension weed farm advisor Kurt Hembree will show both the non-resistant weeds that were killed by glyphosate, and the resistant weeds, which were sprayed with glyphosate but are still growing vigorously. After becoming familiar with the weeds in the greenhouse, reporters and photographers will see horseweed growing rampantly on roadsides, orchards, vacant lots and street medians.
The scientists will give advice on controlling the resistant weeds.

It pays to grow non-GM crops - Monday, 11 July , 2005 - http://sify.com/finance/fullstory.php?id=13893042
Dan Heffelmire, President of H&B Specialities Inc that deals with food quality grain products, is one who personally has no problems with genetically modified (GM) food. But when it comes to business, his problems have only increased with more farmers in the US taking to cultivation of GM crops. "Our problems have increased with the rise in GM crops. We export corn grown traditionally to Japan and South Korea. Both these countries do not accept GM crops. As a result, we are now left doing more paperwork to ensure that our products are accepted by our buyers," Heffelmire told a group of visiting journalists. The paperwork for those exporting corn or soyabean to countries such as the European Union, Japan and Korea begin from the farmgate. First, the farmer has to sign papers saying the crop has not been contaminated with any GM material. Then, the silo owner who buys the crop has to give a similar undertaking before the shipper gives his. "We also have to carefully agree on our contracts. We sign in a way that says these crops will conform to norms at the delivery point. The buyers too come here to check before taking delivery," says a corn exporter. The delivery point means the place where the crop is filled in a barge that is sent by river to the nearest port, which in case of places such as Bloomington could be some 750 km away. The barges are tightly sealed and secured from being contaminated by any foreign material. The additional paperwork pays since the importers are willing to pay some premium for ensuring GM-free products. Corn bought by Japan and Korea is converted into snacks, while it is also used for making starch.
"This sort of check and balance has helped in ensuring that our consignments have less contamination. Though our contracts allow for about five per cent contamination and trash, the level of foreign material in our shipments has come down to around one per cent," the exporter says. On the farmers' side, firms such as H&B Specialities have to ensure that the crop is properly insured from contamination by GM crops. "We ensure that there is a proper refuge area or buffer area," Heffelmire said. Corn growers are asked to have a refuge area of 20 per cent. This means towards the end of the area where corn is sown, it is mandatory for farmers to grow 20 per cent non-GM crop at the end of the farm to ensure that neighbouring farms are not affected due to pollination of GM crops. "We have to keep an eye at every stage to ensure that the shipments to our consumers conform to the stipulated norms," said Heffelmire. "But we get a premium ranging between 5 and 25 per cent for the products and growers also benefit from this," he said.
Another exporter said corn traders in the US were now confident of exporting to the EU. "We can meet even a lower level of contamination/trash. But the problem is that the EU buyers demand that these conditions be met at the point of delivery, which we are sceptical of," he said. The problem is because the trash/contamination level could differ from what it is at the point of loading and point of delivery. "It could be higher at the delivery port for no fault of ours," he added. But exporters, experts and growers agree that growing a traditional or GM crop variety depends on what is economically beneficial to farmers.

Biotech crop bans face 'hijack' threat - Keri Brenner - Marin Independent Journal, July 6 2005 - http://www.marinij.com/marin/ci_2842594
Marin's biotech crop ban, approved by voters last November, could be threatened by "hijacking" attempts in the state Legislature that would pre-empt county ordinances, local activists said. "They're trying to sneak it in at the end of the legislative session," said Mark Squire, leader of GMO Free Marin, which spearheaded the successful Measure B initiative last year. "The end of the Legislature (session) is traditionally the way to sneak things in so there's not time for opposition to build or for the public to make a lot of comment." Squire, owner of Good Earth Natural Foods in Fairfax, made his comments in the wake of last week's two attempts by legislators to amend bills in the state Assembly and Senate.
The process of cutting and pasting bills to insert new language is referred to as "hijacking." The amended bills, which are slated to be heard again this week, would remove local government authority over any seed regulations. "We feel it's typical of the way the biotech industry has attempted to market their technology by avoiding public debate," Squire said.
Genetically engineered crops - also called GMOs for genetically modified organisms, or biotech crops - refer to crops in which the DNA in seeds has been altered to add a specific quality, such as resistance to pesticides or disease. Proponents say genetically modified crops - such as some types of corn, wheat, soy and rice - increase farm production and streamline farming costs. Opponents, however, say the biotech industry's interest in the altered crops is financial. If the companies can control the seed patents, they can force farmers to pay for new seeds every year, critics say.
Marin is one of three counties, along with Mendocino and Trinity, with a ban on cultivation of genetically altered crops.
Fairfax Councilman Frank Egger said he will introduce an item at tonight's Town Council meeting to oppose any "GMO pre-emption legislation." He is organizing Marin activists to appear in Sacramento this week to request the Legislature vote "no" on the two bills. "The sneaky move is similar to the pesticide industry's pre-empting the right of Mendocino County to prohibit aerial pesticide spraying after the California Supreme Court upheld their voters' right to that ban," Egger said. "That legislative pre-emption then covered all 478 cities and 58 counties in California."
Squire's and Egger's comments come as a new statewide farm group, the California Healthy Foods Coalition, announced it was forming to provide more public education and grassroots programs on the benefits of biotechnology. "Family farmers understand some people have questions about biotechnology," said California Farm Bureau President Bill Pauli. "Our coalition will provide people with the facts and will support agricultural innovations that will improve the quality of life for California consumers." The group has engaged a public relations firm, Sacramento-based River City Communications, to launch a series of media announcements explaining the coalition's intent and purpose. "California's family farmers serve an important role in providing safe and healthy food to consumers around the world," said River City President Marko Mlikotin.
At issue in the current campaign is a genetically engineered crop ban initiative approved for the November ballot in Sonoma County. Sonoma's ballot measure was withdrawn last year after a technical flaw, but it has been revamped and reintroduced. Farm bureaus across the state - including the Marin County Farm Bureau - opposed the series of biotech crop bans on the California ballot last November. Marin farm officials said even though Marin does not have any biotech crops, they wanted to have the flexibility to use any new technologies they felt could be helpful in their operations. A ban was approved in Marin by 61 percent of voters, but similar measures were defeated in Butte and San Luis Obispo counties. "Measure B won by 61 percent after an open public discourse around the GMO issue," Squire said. "When people have a chance to hear the story, they do the right thing."
Renata Brillinger of Californians for GE-Free Agriculture of Occidental said the legislative attempts in Sacramento were "part of a nationally coordinated highjacking of local democratic rights by the biotechnology industry." Similar laws have been attempted or passed into law in 15 other states, she said. "The measure is driven by narrow private interests seeking to protect their economic stake by convincing members of the Legislature to strip away the democratic rights of their own constituents," Brillinger said. The state bills in question are Assembly Bill 1508 and Senate Bill 1056. Assemblymen Simon Salinas, D-Salinas, and Juan Arambula, D-Fresno, and Sen. Dean Florez, D-Bakersfield, wrote the amendments. "We feel that Marin does have the right to protect our health, farms and environment from GMOs that the state and federal governments regulate so poorly," Squire said. "It is obvious that the federal government, whose job it is to protect us from such risky technologies, is asleep at the wheel."

US says Cyprus ties could suffer over GMO plan - Reuters, 06 Jul 2005 - http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L06117419.htm
NICOSIA, July 6 (Reuters) - A plan by Cyprus to put genetically modified food on separate supermarket shelves angered the United States on Wednesday, as Washington warned the move could harm bilateral ties.
The U.S. had sent a letter to the Cypriot parliament warning that the move by the European Union country would stigmatise biotech goods and could contravene Cyprus' obligations as a World Trade Organisation member, deputies said. A U.S. diplomat did not deny the existence of the note and said Washington regularly shared views with Cyprus on issues of concern. Under EU legislation, each state is free to display biotech food as it wishes. The bloc has tough rules for the labelling of food that contains genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. If conventional food contains more than 0.9 percent of authorised GMOs, it must be labelled as such throughout the 25-nation bloc.
"We want to put better information at consumers' disposal on what they are buying," said George Perdikis, a member of the Greens' Party which tabled the proposal in parliament. A note which Perdikis said was released by the American Embassy in Nicosia, and which was seen by Reuters, urged parliamentarians to oppose passage of the bill. "The bill is in essence a poke in the eye of the U.S., which is the leading developer and producer of agricultural biotech products," the note read. "The bill is tantamount to a non-tariff barrier to trade in biotech goods and as such is in violation of your obligations as a member of the WTO. It may also be inconsistent with your obligations as an EU member," the note states.
Perdikis, a junior partner in Cyprus's centre-left government coalition, said he came across the note in his parliamentary documents. "This is blackmail. It speaks of harming bilateral relations. It is very serious," he said.
A U.S. embassy spokesperson said: "The United States shares the goal of the parliament and the government of the Republic of Cyprus to protect the health and well-being of all Cypriots but it is of course up to the parliament to decide what laws to pass. "We do however regularly share our views with Cypriot officials on issues of concern."
European public opinion is consistently hostile to genetically modified products, fearing negative health and environmental effects. Advocates of biotechnology say it is safe and will help eradicate world hunger by improving food supply.

Don't Fall for the Hype Over Biotech - Todd Leake - Grand Forks Herald, June 27, 2005 - http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/news/opinion/11987971.htm
EMERADO, N.D.: Pro-biotech activists such as Al Skogen get pretty frothed up about the alleged wonders of biotechnology. But after 10 years, the real questions are, "Where's the science?" And "Where's the economics?" Are the markets there for biotech wheat? Of course not. Otherwise, it probably would be on the market now. Wheat customers both in the United States and abroad categorically rejected the proposal of genetically modified wheat. Monsanto responded to massive market rejection of its proposed Roundup Ready hard red spring wheat in May 2004 by suspending field trials and withdrawing permit applications. It was the only rational thing to do. Lucky for wheat farmers that Skogen wasn't in charge at Monsanto. Lucky for Monsanto, too. He probably would have run both wheat farmers and Monsanto out of business - and blaming the customers who didn't want the product wouldn't have been much consolation.
Speaking of consumers, their attitudes aren't changing very fast, despite the propaganda efforts of Skogen and others. According to a report issued by agricultural economist Dr. Robert Wisner of Iowa State University one year after Monsanto pulled the plug, U.S. farmers still stand to lose one-half of foreign markets and one-third of their wheat price if Roundup Ready wheat were to be introduced. Also last week, Japan rejected shipments of U.S. corn contaminated with Syngenta Corp.'s BT-10 corn, an unapproved variety suspected of health problems. Many countries around the world have been buying only corn guaranteed free of BT-10, cutting U.S. corn farmers out of those markets and decreasing family farm income.
So, are biotech products safe to eat? There's not much proof - because not much research has been done, and what has been done has been kept secret. Only last week, a British court ordered Monsanto to release a 1,139-page report it kept secret, indicating that a genetically modified corn variety caused disease in rats fed the corn. Hiding research of negative health impacts of genetically modified crops does nothing but instill suspicion of the integrity of the science and public heath regulatory process behind GM foods, and rightly so. In spite of Skogen's claims, no federal agency conducts scientific research to determine the safety of new biotech crops before they are introduced, and that's the way the companies that market GM crops want it. Other independent research also is rare. Two Norwegian researchers published a review in 2003 of the scanty research on biotech safety and concluded that "much more scientific effort and investigation is necessary before we can be satisfied that eating foods containing GM material in the long term is not likely to provoke any form of health problems."
But at least biotech crops cut down on pesticide, right? Not according to independent researcher Charles Benbrook, whose October 2004 report found that Roundup Ready crops have increased herbicide use on corn, soybeans and cotton by 138 million pounds since 1996 - about nine times the 15.6 million-pound decrease in insecticide applications due to Bt corn and cotton.
Most of the hype surrounding GM foods is just that: hype. It is hype to promote corporate products despite the concerns of food safety and the adverse economic impact to farmers. It's well past time for the United States to catch up on the safety and economic scrutiny of GM foods.
Leake is an Emerado farmer and member of the Dakota Resources Council.

Battle Over GMO's Reaches Sonoma Ballot - Jun 19, 2005 - http://cbs5.com/topstories/local_story_170144951.html
(KCBS) - Between the television ads and the billboards, the debate over genetically modified organisms has become almost impossible to miss in Sonoma county where voters will have to decide this November whether to approve an initiative that would ban all genetically modified organisms in Sonoma County. Supporters of the ban - who gathered a record 45,000 signatures to qualify the initiative for the ballot--argue that the quality of Sonoma county's agricultural products is at stake. Opponents say the ban is too broad and would have far reaching effects beyond the county's farms. "People know the value of what's grown here," Daniel Solnit told KCBS's Larry Chiaroni. "We wanted to protect that." Solnit is the campaign director for GE Free Sonoma County, the organization that got the ordinance onto the fall ballot.
The Sonoma County Farm Bureau disagrees however, and is campaigning vigorously against the ordinance, which wou