Munlochy GM Vigil

Austria allowed to keep its ban on GM corn - By Andrew Bounds in Brussels - December 19 2006
A US trade victory over the European Union's import regime for genetically modified crops looked hollow last night as Austria retained its right to ban the growing of bio-engineered corn. Environment ministers yesterday threw out a European Commission proposal to force Austria to lift the bans it imposed on two authorised GM maize varieties in 1999 and 2000. They had rejected the move in 2004 but Brussels hoped that a World Trade Organisation ruling this year that the ban was illegal would tip the argument in its favour and retabled the proposal. However, in a sign of how sensitive the issue remains for European consumers, only the UK, Netherlands, Czech Republic and Sweden among the EU's 25 member states backed it. "The Commission will now have to carefully consider the legal and scientific bases that would underpin any further proposals," a spokeswoman said yesterday. It may now have to legislate.
Another case against Hungary will almost certainly be rejected by ministers next month. Greece also bans genetically modified crops. The European Food Safety Authority ruled in March 2006 there was no health risk from T25, created by Bayer of Germany, or MON810, from US company Monsanto. However, Austria pointed to the United Nation's Biosafety Protocol, which allows countries to ban genetically modified crops if there is a lack of scientific certainty over their safety. The WTO disregarded the treaty because the complainants - the US, Canada and Argentina - had not ratified it, and found against Austria because it had not conducted a proper risk assessment.
Helen Holder, of Friends of the Earth Europe, said: "Today's vote was a complete rejection of the WTO's ruling on GM foods. This is a major defeat for the biotech industry and their friends in the European Commission. "Every country must have the democratic right to protect its citizens and environment."
The Financial Times Limited 2006

Glyphosate-resistant weeds more burden to growers’pocketbooks - By Forrest Laws - Tuesday, November 28, 2006
http://www.checkbiotech.org/root/index.cfm?fuseaction=news&doc_id=13946&start=1&control=185&page_start=1&page_nr=101&pg=1
Cotton producers who encounter glyphosate-resistant horseweed in their fields may be tempted to fall back on a solution that served their fathers and grandfathers well: cold steel.
Before you pull that disk out of the weeds on the back side of the equipment lot, however, think about this: Do you really want to spend all that extra money on diesel fuel and labor and undo the benefits of conservation tillage you’ve worked so hard on all these years? And there’s another consideration, according to Larry Steckel, Extension weed scientist with the University of Tennessee, and a speaker at Cotton Incorporated’s recent Crop Management Seminar in Memphis. “You have to be careful,” says Steckel, displaying a photo of a freshly disked field with green horseweed plumes sticking up in it. “If you don’t do a thorough job of disking, you can wind up with a worse problem than when you started.”
There’s no doubt glyphosate-resistant horseweed has set back conservation tillage efforts in Tennessee, says Steckel, who spoke on “The Impact of Glyphosate-Resistant Horseweed and Pigweed on Cotton Weed Management and Costs.” (The University of Georgia’s Stanley Culpepper and Arkansas’ Ken Smith were co-authors.) In a 2004 survey, county Extension agents said glyphosate-resistant horseweed had reduced conservation tillage farming in Tennessee by 18 percent. Even more telling, the survey showed the percentage of farms using conservation tillage in the largest cotton counties in Tennessee had dropped from 80 to 40 percent. Arkansas weed scientists estimate a 15 percent reduction in conservation tillage in their state due to glyphosate resistance. Similar trends have been reported in Mississippi and the Bootheel of Missouri.
Glyphosate-resistant horseweed has spread much more quickly than anticipated when Bob Hayes, a weed scientist with the West Tennessee Experiment Station in Jackson, discovered it in west Tennessee’s Lauderdale County. “It’s in all our cotton acres now,” Steckel told Crop Management Seminar participants. “Horseweed can grow in Tennessee 11 months out of the year. It has a very aggressive tap root, and it loves a no-till environment.” Horseweed (it is sometimes called marestail) also competes well with cotton. Studies show horseweed can reduce cotton yields by 40 percent when left unchecked through the two-leaf stage. If not controlled between planting and first bloom, losses can reach 70 percent.
The staggering increase in glyphosate-resistant horseweed followed a spectacular rise in the amount of glyphosate products (Roundup, Touchdown and others) being applied in cotton and other glyphosate-tolerant crops. “We saw a 752-percent increase in glyphosate applications between 1997 and 2003 at the expense of just about everything else with the exception of diuron (Karmex, Direx),” said Steckel. (Applications of diuron jumped 101.1 percent during the same period while those of other herbicides declined.) As most farmers now know, weed scientists with the University of Georgia have documented cases of glyphosate-resistant Palmer pigweed in southwest Georgia. More recently, glyphosate-tolerant Palmer pigweed has been found in Crockett and Lauderdale counties in Tennessee and Mississippi County in Arkansas. Resistant waterhemp, a cousin of pigweed, has also been found in Missouri.
Culpepper, a weed scientist with the University of Georgia, also discussed Palmer pigweed resistance in Georgia at the Cotton Incorporated seminar. “Scientists at Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina have found an 8x to 12x level of resistance to glyphosate in Palmer pigweeds in their states,” said Steckel. “We’ve seen pigweed survive 2x to 4x rates of glyphosate in Arkansas and Tennessee. “When you look at some of the slides Stanley (Culpepper) showed earlier, it’s a shock. We don’t have near the weed problem with Palmer pigweed in this part of the world that they do in Georgia.” Weed scientists say glyphosate-resistant horseweed and pigweed can be managed with a combination of herbicides, but it will cost growers more. One approach has been to burn down with glyphosate or paraquat (Gramoxone Inteon) plus 8 to 12 ounces of dicamba (Clarity, Oracle) in early February and go back with Gramoxone at 48 ounces plus Ignite at 29 ounces plus Caparol at 32 ounces, Cotoran at 32 ounces or Direx at 16 ounces 21 days before planting. Some growers have also been making a fall (November or December) herbicide application with Valor at 2 ounces plus Clarity or Oracle at 8 ounces. Others have applied Valor plus Caparol, Cotoran or Direx in February. “A fall application of Valor has been getting a lot of attention from growers,” says Steckel. “You’ve got to get some residual control out there to keep the horseweed from emerging during the winter.” Envoke has also received a label from EPA for fall and early winter application in cotton fields. Envoke will provide residual and knockdown control of glyphosate-resistant horseweed and other winter annuals. The use rate will be 0.10 ounce per acre.
“Trying to burn down large horseweed that got its start the summer of the previous year or early in the fall is going to be hard with anything,” said Steckel. “If a grower catches these populations early with a residual herbicide, he will be ahead of the game.” Cotton farmers can spend an extra $20 per acre to control glyphosate-resistant horseweed by the time they add Valor, Clarity and Caparol to their program, according to Steckel. For glyphosate-resistant horseweed and pigweed, the cost could rise $27 an acre if they have to apply a maximum rate of glyphosate; add Dual Magnum over-the-top with the first or second glyphosate spray, followed by a post-directed application of Caparol or Dual and Valor or Caparol in a hooded sprayer. But that’s not as expensive as what growers already face in southwest Georgia, says Steckel. Control costs for glyphosate-resistant Palmer pigweed in Georgia can range from another $45 an acre to as high as $92 an acre in fields where farmers have had to resort to hand weeding to remove the problem weed. “Glyphosate-resistant Palmer pigweed can be much more problematic than horseweed due to its more competitive nature,” says Steckel. “On average, glyphosate-resistant Palmer pigweed could cost cotton producers an extra $40 per acre or more to manage. “Because of that, we think glyphosate-resistant pigweed is a much bigger threat to cotton production, and every year we can delay its arrival in the Mid-South can mean big savings to our producers.”
© 2006 Prism Business Media Inc - Source: Delta Farm Press

Exporters worried over GM rice rejection - ASHOK B SHARMA - Financial, Express, November 28 2006
http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=147469
NEW DELHI, NOV 27: Indian rice exporters are concerned over the growing rejection of genetically modified (GM) across the world. Recently producers in major rice exporting countries - Thailand and Vietnam - signed agreement to keep GM rice out of cultivation. The All India Rice Exporters Association (AIREA) has woken up to the situation and have asked the government not to allow any field trials or commercial cultivation of GM rice in the country. They say that the retention of the country's image as producer of non-GM foods would largely boost the prospects of rice exports. "Country earns millions of dollars in foreign exchange due to export of rice. India's long grain aromatic rice - basmati has a premium market abroad," said RS Seshadri of Tilda Riceland - a major exporter of basmati rice.
AIREA chief Anil Adlakha has already expressed his concern over the possible contamination of long grain non-GM rice if GM rice trials were allowed to be conducted in the country. Seshadri said "We must learn lessons from the recent contamination of food chain by GM rice under field trials in the US and China. The profitability of US rice industry has declined as many countries began rejecting the US shipments of contaminated rice." He said recently on November 16 in the Rice Exporters Association of Thailand and the Vietnam Food Association signed an accord in Bangkok to keep off GM rice. This accord was signed in presence of senior officials and ministers of both the countries. He said that this is a wake up call for India too.

Top rice exporters say no to genetically engineered rice - Greenpeace International, 28 November 2006
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/rice-exporters-say-no-GE-281106
Bangkok Thailand: Good news: the world's first and second largest exporters of rice have agreed to shun genetically engineered (GE) varieties. A recent agreement between rice traders from Thailand and Vietnam protects half the crop traded on the world market from the dangers of GE, and will put mounting pressure on other rice-producing nations to commit to a GE-free rice supply. According to our campaigner Jeremy Tager, the decision resulted from a  "massive backlash against the GE industry following recent scandals." Illegal and unapproved GE rice varieties from the US and China have contaminated the global rice supply, with disastrous results for many growers, distributors, and traders.
Last week, a historic meeting between the powerful Rice Exporters Association of Thailand and the Vietnam Food Association resulted in the joint announcement of a non-GE rice production policy. More than 30 of the largest rice producers and traders in Thailand and Vietnam were present to endorse the agreement. Only days earlier in India (the worlds third largest exporter of rice), the representative body for India's rice exporters announced they too were supporting a ban on GE rice field trials because of the threat they pose to their GE-free export markets. The Indian government has yet to take action to ban field trials.
Thailand has shown the world that it can lead in rice production without GE rice. As a key agricultural producer, Thailand stands to benefit more if it stops all open-field GE crop trials and declares a GE-free policy once and for all. Rice production accounts for 11 percent of the world's arable land, or 500 million hectares, 90 percent of which is produced on Asian farms of less than one hectare.
We are eating the GE industry's experiments
Stopping field trials is important because the results of GE rice experiments don't seem to be containable: they keep turning up where they're not welcome. Even as news of the Thailand Vietnam accord was breaking, we uncovered yet another major contamination, this time in the Philippines, where rice is the staple food. Bayer's LL601 has contaminated rice products coming from the US, which are currently on sale in Manila. So far in 2006, this unapproved and illegal variety has been found in at least 24 countries. Last week contamination was announced in several countries in Africa. Bayer ended field trials of the LL601 variety in the US five years ago. The global food industry is now facing massive costs associated with GE contamination, including testing costs, product recalls, brand damage, import bans and cancelled imports and contracts. At least five multi-million dollar class-action lawsuits have been filed by about 300 US rice farmers against Bayer, as they struggle to protect their livelihoods from GE contamination.
Rice has been part of our staple diet around the world for over 10,000 years, it is cultivated in 113 countries - in China alone there are 75,000 varieties. Studies of the potential ecological risks of GE rice show that there is a high risk of 'transgene escape' (gene flow) from GE rice to non-GE rice varieties. Research also shows that GE rice out-crossing may threaten wild rice varieties.
Importers are banning it too
The world's largest rice processing company, Ebro Puleva, has stopped all imports of rice from the US and is expected to bring legal action against Bayer as well. Ebro Puleva controls 30 percent of the EU rice market. This move is only one of dozens by traders, millers, exporters, producers and retailers to protect themselves and their customers from unwanted GE foods.
Greenpeace campaigns for GE-free crop and food production that is grounded in the principles of sustainability, protection of biodiversity and providing all people access to safe and nutritious food. Genetic engineering is an unnecessary and unwanted technology that contaminates the environment, threatens biodiversity and poses unacceptable risks to health.

Agreement on non-GE policy - APINYA WIPATAYOTIN - Bangkok Post, 28 November 2006
http://www.bangkokpost.com/281106_News/28Nov2006_news08.php
An agreement between Thai and Vietnamese rice exporters to maintain non-genetically engineered produce will enable Thailand to gain more access to the European Union market, Wanlop Pichpongsa, a member of the Thai Exporters Association, said yesterday. The association and the Vietnam Food Association last week agreed in principle to announce non-GE crops during a meeting in Bangkok. The agreement will be made official in March next year. Mr Wanlop said the agreement would present a big opportunity for Thai and Vietnamese rice exporters, who would enjoy better access to the EU market after the EU imposed a ban on rice imports from the United States, after GM strains were found in a rice shipment from the US last month. ''We should not waste this opportunity because the EU is seeking new sources of rice to replace the US,'' Mr Wanlop said.
Currently, Thailand's export of jasmine rice to the EU totalled about 250,000 tonnes a year, compared to 300,000 tonnes by the US to the same market. Thailand is the world's biggest rice exporter with 8.2 million tonnes a year, followed by Vietnam with 4.7 million tonnes. India and the US ranked third and fourth with 4.3 and three million tonnes, respectively. Meanwhile, Patwajee Srisuwan, an anti-GE campaigner for Greenpeace Southeast Asia, welcomed the private sector's initiative. ''This is a victory for farmers in the region. However, the threat of GE rice adulteration still looms large and it is necessary that the agreement be expanded to cover other Asian countries,'' she said.
In another development, the Administrative Court yesterday agreed to hear the case of GM papaya leakage to farms in Khon Kaen province.

USDA Gives Rubber-Stamp Market Approval to Genetically Engineered Rice Contaminating Food Supply
'Approval-by-Contamination' Policy Puts Consumers and Environment at Risk, Erodes Trust in U.S. Food
USDA Continues to Allow Bayer to Test Experimental Genetically Engineered Crops
November 24, 2006
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) today granted marketing approval of a genetically-engineered (GE) rice variety following its illegal contamination of the food supply and rice exports, first announced three months ago. The controversial decision was taken despite the insistence of its developer, Bayer CropScience, that it dropped plans to commercialize the variety, known as LibertyLink601 (LL601), five years ago.
"With this decision, USDA is telling agricultural biotechnology companies that it doesn't matter if you're negligent, if you break the rules, if you contaminate the food supply with untested genetically engineered crops, we'll bail you out," said Joseph Mendelson, Legal Director of the Center for Food Safety. "In effect, USDA is sanctioning an 'approval-by-contamination' policy that can only increase the likelihood of untested genetically engineered crops entering the food supply in the future, and further erode trust in the wholesomeness of U.S. food overseas," he added.
Mendelson also noted that USDA has still not determined how LL601 entered the rice supply or the extent of the contamination, and that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not undertaken a formal assessment of the rice, which is designed to survive direct spraying with the powerful herbicide glufosinate. "Experimental, genetically engineered crops like LL601 are prohibited for a reason," said Bill Freese, Science Policy Analyst at Center for Food Safety. "Exhaustive testing is required to determine whether or not mutagenic gene-splicing procedures create human health or environmental hazards, and no one has done that analysis on LL601 rice," he added.
In comments filed with USDA, the Center for Food Safety (CFS) opposed USDA's consideration of Bayer's petition for market approval of LL601 as an abuse of the regulatory process. CFS also blasted USDA for allowing Bayer to black out extensive portions of its petition as "confidential business information," and demanded that it be released for public scrutiny and comment before any decision was made. CFS further noted that Bayer might exploit the approval to evade liability for an estimated $150 million in market losses suffered by U.S. farmers because of the episode. The comments also spelled out the potential for LL601 to spread its herbicide-resistance trait to weedy red rice, making it more difficult for farmers to control.
LL601 is one of several 'LibertyLink' (LL) rice varieties that have been genetically engineered by Bayer to survive application of Bayer's proprietary Liberty© herbicide. Liberty kills normal rice, but can be applied directly to LL varieties to kill surrounding weeds. This explains why Bayer had to obtain government approval to permit residues of the weedkiller on rice grains of its two approved versions of LibertyLink rice. "Contrary to what you hear from the biotech industry, genetically engineered crops like LibertyLink rice mean more chemicals in our food, not less," said Freese.
"USDA's decision to approve genetically engineered rice that Bayer itself decided was unfit for commerce is the clearest sign yet that U.S. authorities are intent upon dismantling federal regulation of genetically engineered crops in the interests of the biotechnology industry," said Mendelson. "Center for Food Safety will consider all legal options to put an end to USDA's 'approval-by-contamination' policy for new genetically engineered crops," he added. Mendelson further noted that since the contamination debacle was first announced on August 18, 2006, USDA has given Bayer the green light to conduct nine more outdoor field trials of new genetically engineered crops.
Contacts: Joe Mendelson: 703-244-1724, Bill Freese: 301-985-3011
Further resources:
For CFS's comments to USDA on Bayer's petition for approval of LL601, see: http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/policy_com.cfm
CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY, 660 Pennsylvania Ave., SE , Suite 302, Washington, DC 20003 - (202) 547-9359 É fax (202) 547-9429
2601 Mission Street, Suite 803, San Francisco, CA 94110 - (415) 826-2770 É FAX (415) 826-0507
www.centerforfoodsafety.org

West Africa contaminated by US GM Rice - FoE Africa Press Release - Friday, 24 November 2006
http://www.eraction.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=27
US rice imports sent to West Africa are contaminated with illegal GM rice - FoE Africa calls for immediate recall of all tainted rice food aid, and commercial imports
Accra (Ghana), Freetown (Sierra Leone). 24 November 2006.
A genetically modified (GM) rice not allowed for human consumption originated from the United states has been found in West Africa. The findings have been revealed today by Friends of the Earth in simultaneous press conferences in Ghana and Sierra Leone. Friends of the Earth Africa is urging the Governments of Sierra Leone and Ghana to immediately recall the contaminated products.
In August this year the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced the presence of LLRICE601, an unapproved genetically modified (GM) rice variant developed by a subsidiary of chemical company Bayer in the food chain. Worried by this development, many countries, especially in Europe began to test rice shipments from the USA into their countries, and it has been found in over 15 European countries. Many supermarket chains like Tesco, and Sainsbury have withdrawn American rice from their shelves amid concerns it may be contaminated, and the EU is testing all rice imports coming from the US
In September/October 2006 FoE Ghana and Sierra Leone in collaboration with FoE African experts on GMOs collected samples of US long grain rice in their countries and sent them to the laboratory for testing. The tests were conducted in an independent laboratory in the US with a validated testing method for LL601. The results show that there is LL601 contamination in Ghana and Sierra Leone. “We are shocked that unapproved genetically modified long grain rice has been sent to our country through food aid channels,” commented Arthur Williams, a GM campaigner with FoE Sierra Leone. “We are a nation just recovering from years of civil war and now to attack us in this manner is now making our people once more vulnerable.”
Ghana is among the top 10 importers of rice from the USA and it is feared that the contamination may have spread across the West African sub-region and beyond. Ghana’s rice imports from the USA stood at 78.900 metric tonnes (MT) in 2001/2002, 117.600 MT in 2002/2003 and 166.400 MT in 2004/2005.
In 2002 East African countries such as Zambia rejected GM corn as food aid even though they were in a situation of food shortages. In Latin America contamination of the food chain through food aid was established when illegal corn strain, such as Star Link, was found there in 2002 and 2005. Now it is clear that serious efforts must be made by governments and international agencies such as the World Food Programme (WFP) to endure that food aid does not become the popular channel for GM contamination around the world.
“We cannot accept a situation when food aid becomes a secret channel to ambush our peoples with illegal genetically modified food. We refuse to be used as guinea pigs in big business’s experimentations,” said Nnimmo Bassey of FoE Africa. “With the confirmation of this contamination, it is very likely that a large number of African countries are already contaminated. Africa is facing a lot of challenges and cannot afford to add this man-made problem. It must be halted at its roots.”
Reacting to the contamination, Cheryl Agyepong GM campaigner with FoE Ghana said: “We don’t want genetically modified rice in our fields and we call on our Government to take all necessary measures to prevent any possible contamination of our seeds.” She further added that African governments must preserve “the African environment in order to secure the future of humanity.”
LLRICE601 is engineered to tolerate an herbicide called glufosinate which is sold under the brand name Liberty Link. This tolerance was introduced through a Streptomyces hygroscopicus gene that codes for phospinothricin acetyl transferase (PAT), a glufosinate-inactivating enzyme. The GM rice, produced by German-based biotechnology company Bayer, was field tested between 1998 and 2001 but the contamination of commercial long grain rice has only just come to light. The US exported more than 3 million tonnes of rice in 2005.
FoE Africa calls on the government to immediately halt untested long grain rice food aid and commercial imports from the USA. The public does not want this illegal rice and even rice growers in the USA were shocked to learn that they were cultivating an unapproved rice strain. The USDA must take immediate steps to examine protocols for the containment of field trails and also to ensure that every shipment to Africa is adequately screened to ensure they are free of contamination.

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

Biotech Rice Saga Yields Bushel of Questions for Feds - USDA Approval Shortcut Emerges As Issue - Rick Weiss - Washington Post,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/05/AR2006110501092_2.html
When the biotech company Bayer CropScience AG requested federal permission in August to market a variety of gene-altered rice, it assured itself a small, unwanted place in history: the first to seek approval for a genetically engineered food that was already - illegally - on the market. Now, as federal regulators consider that belated application, they are finding themselves under scrutiny, too -- from scientists and others who say the 20-year-old system of biotech crop oversight is failing. The Bayer lapse is the latest in a string of problems, critics note, including taco shells and other foods contaminated in 2000 with unapproved StarLink corn, the accidental release in 2002 of crops engineered to make a pig diarrhea vaccine, and the growing prevalence of "superweeds" that have acquired biotech genes that make them impervious to weed killers.
Federal officials are still investigating how the experimental "LLRICE601" escaped from Bayer's test plots after the company dropped the project in 2001. When they announced 10 weeks ago that the unapproved variety had become widespread in the nation's long-grain-rice supply, countries around the world blocked imports from the United States, rice futures plummeted and hundreds of farmers sued Bayer. Bayer's response - a hasty application for government approval, expected to be granted within weeks - has been greeted with concern by many agriculture experts who fear that the action, though likely to ease Bayer's legal woes, will make matters worse for farmers and the environment. "Are we going to do this every time a new transgene that we didn't intend to get out gets out?" asked Norman Ellstrand, who directs the Biotechnology Impacts Center at the University of California at Riverside.
LL601 contains a bacterial gene that protects rice from Bayer's Liberty weed killer, allowing farmers to use the chemical without harming their crop. The prospect of widespread cultivation worries many experts, who say the key gene is sure to move via pollen into red rice, a weedy relative of white rice and the No. 1 plant pest for rice farmers in the South. Thus endowed, red rice would become immune to the herbicide, increasing its economic havoc. Experts point to other troubling elements of the Bayer petition. Nearly 40 percent of its pages, for example, are blacked out as "CBI," or confidential business information, even though the approval process is by federal statute supposed to be public. Also at issue is the regulatory shortcut that Bayer is using, which allows a company to skip many of the usual safety tests by claiming that the new variety is similar to ones already approved - in this case, two approved varieties of biotech rice that Bayer never commercialized because farmers did not want it around their fields.
Bayer, with U.S. headquarters in Research Triangle Park, N.C., is adamant that LL601 poses no risk, and even critics generally agree that it is safe to eat. The bacterial gene that is in LL601 is also in several approved varieties of engineered corn, canola and cotton. "We believe that our herbicide-tolerant rice would contribute significantly to rice productivity," said company spokesman Greg Coffey, adding that Bayer nevertheless has no immediate plans to market the product. In a draft environmental assessment released with extraordinary rapidity last month, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), which handles biotech crop approvals for the Agriculture Department, announced a "preliminary decision" to approve - or in agency parlance "deregulate" - LL601. Among those favoring approval is the USA Rice Federation, which represents many rice growers. The group has opposed introducing engineered rice to U.S. fields, but it is now more concerned about the European Union's ongoing refusal to buy American long-grain rice laced with LL601. U.S. approval would not guarantee European acceptance. But it is "the best available response to a major commercial issue," the federation wrote to APHIS.
Many weed experts see the relative risks and benefits differently, however. They agree with APHIS and Bayer that cross-pollination between white rice and red rice is rare, probably occurring less than 1 percent of the time. But multiply that by millions and millions of rice plants, they say - and then start using Liberty, which by killing conventional red rice will allow the resistant weed to dominate - and within a few years, huge expanses of the South could be infested with Liberty-resistant red rice. "Anyone who works with rice and red rice knows it," said Cynthia Sagers, a plant ecologist at the University of Arkansas. "It's going to happen."
The government's environmental assessment contends that farmers can fall back on other herbicides when that occurs, but opponents say that solution is shortsighted. They note that as gene-altered crops have become common - some 70 varieties have been approved in the past 15 years, many of them engineered to be resistant to various weed killers - it has become common to find weeds that are immune to two or even three weed killers. "We have no ability to absolutely contain these things once they're grown outside," said Rene Van Acker, a weed ecologist at the University of Guelph in Canada.
Others are complaining that Bayer's application is effectively a secret document because of the material blacked out as confidential business information. "It makes the public reliant on the interpretation of the data by Bayer, which is not a disinterested or unbiased party," wrote the Washington-based Center for Food Safety in comments to regulators. Rebecca Bech, associate deputy administrator for biotechnology regulatory services at APHIS, defended the application, saying it is "fairly typical to have a lot" of redacted proprietary information in biotech crop applications. But a review of the five most recently released applications submitted by companies, including ones for genetically engineered corn, grass, alfalfa and cotton, shows that four of those five had no such deletions. (The fifth notes that information has been deleted but does not say how many pages.) Still others question the procedure Bayer is using to seek LL601 approval. Instead of going through a full deregulation process, it applied for an extension of approvals it won earlier for two other herbicide-resistant rice varieties developed nearly a decade ago. That shortcut was created in 1997 to streamline approvals. But critics say the record of problems indicates a need for more careful oversight, not quicker approvals.
To allay concerns, Bayer has submitted with its application a "stewardship plan" - voluntary farming practices, including extra dosings of Liberty, aimed at minimizing genetic crossovers to red rice. Critics doubt that farmers will spend the extra time and money if they're not required to. "Farmers are already under huge economic pressure," said Doug Gurian-Sherman, a senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists. "It's just not going to happen." But others, such as Johnny Saichuk, a rice specialist at the Louisiana State University AgCenter, support the approach. "People are becoming better stewards," he said. "The sloppy managers who let it outcross will lose the technology. The good farmers will not have problems."
Even if LL601 is approved, Bayer's problems will not be over. It may be impossible to get every last seed of LL601 out of the U.S. long-grain-rice supply. And negotiations between American and European Union officials broke down last month over how much contaminating LL601 will be considered acceptable in exported rice. The company also faces dozens of lawsuits, which may soon be combined into a large class action. Reassuringly to Bayer, and infuriatingly to others, the trouble appears not to have weakened regulators' trust in the company. Since learning of the contamination this summer, APHIS has received applications from Bayer to start field experiments on nine new kinds of gene-altered crops. To date, eight of those have been given a green light.

Rice farmers biggest losers over altered rice, exec says - BY NANCY COLE - Arkansas Democrat Gazette, November 4 2006
http://www.nwanews.com/adg/News/171621/
Roughly 40 percent of U.S. rice exports have been negatively affected by what many experts consider to be their industry's worst crisis, a USA Rice Federation official said Friday. Speaking in Little Rock to the Arkansas Rice Research and Promotion Board, federation Vice President Bob Cummings discussed the damage caused to the $1.3 billion U.S. rice export market after the U.S. Department of Agriculture's August revelation that traces of an unapproved, genetically engineered rice had been discovered in U.S. longgrain rice supplies.
Keith Glover, president and chief executive officer of Producers Rice Mill Inc. in Stuttgart, said at the meeting that farmers have been some of the biggest losers in this case. "There's no doubt in my mind you'd be looking at 40 to 50 cents a bushel more for rice today than what it is... and when you look at 210 million bushels in Arkansas, you're talking about an $80 [million ] to $100 million hit," Glover said. Cummings, who oversees international trade policy for the industry group based near Washington, D.C., said the federation is "not opposed to genetic engineering of rice, because it holds some real benefits to growers." "However, you need to be able to sell the product that you grow, and you need to make sure that consumers are ready for it and that the U.S. and foreign countries have granted regulatory approval," he said. Cummings described the federation's draft plan, developed earlier this week in Dallas by a group of 50-60 rice-industry experts, which is intended to "flush genetically engineered rice out of the long-grain system starting with the 2007 crop."
Board members, most of whom are rice farmers, acknowledged the importance of acting swiftly. "We've got to do something or we're going to have a crop that we can't sell," said board member Marvin Hare, who farms rice near Newport. Everyone in the rice industry has been bloodied by the loss in export market share, but none more so than farmers, Glover said. "It's a mess, and the quicker we can clean it up, the faster you guys are going to get the premiums you have developed in the marketplace," he told board members. The problem is of particular concern in Arkansas because the state produces roughly half of all the rice grown in the United States, and about half of all U.S. rice is exported. Rice is Arkansas' single most valuable row crop, worth 810 million in 2005.
Since mid-August, more than 25 federal lawsuits have been filed by farmers seeking damage payments from Bayer Crop-Science, whose experimental LLRICE 601 is at the center of the controversy. Stuttgart-based Riceland Foods Inc. also has been named in two of the lawsuits, which criticize how the cooperative has handled its investigation of the problem since January and allege negligence and fraudulent concealment. The USDA, which announced discovery of the unapproved rice on Aug. 18, and the Food and Drug Administration have said that no health, food safety or environmental concerns are associated with LLRICE 601 and that "the domestic market is steady to date," Cummings said.
But the picture is far more bleak in export markets. Trade with the 25-nation European Union, an $87 million market in 2005, has stopped because of the problem. Other countries have banned U. S. rice imports, and many are requiring testing to prove that U.S. rice shipments are essentially free of material associated with LLRICE 601, Cummings said. "Roughly 41 percent of our total rice exports have been impacted by this event," he said. Although the problem involves only long-grain rice - which is produced primarily in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Texas - some markets that buy medium- and short-grain rice, produced primarily in California, have been affected by it, he said.
The current problem involves not only LLRICE 601 but also two other so-called Liberty Link rice varieties, LLRICE 62 and LLRICE 06, Cummings said. "Liberty Link 62 has been detected in Europe and there's been some detection in U. S. testing," he said. All three Liberty Link varieties contain genes that make them resistant to the herbicide Liberty, also known as glufosinate. While Bayer never sought USDA approval to commercialize LLRICE 601, the two other Liberty Link varieties were approved for sale - though Bayer has never marketed them. The fact that LLRICE 601 has never been approved for sale in any county is significant, Cummings said. "[The USA Rice Federation is ] supportive of biotechnology for rice, but we're only supportive to the extent that there's regulatory approval here in the United States and in foreign markets, and there's consumer acceptance," he said. That policy is behind the draft plan to rid the U.S. long-grain rice system of the Liberty Link varieties, Cummings said. "We want to provide confidence to customers that their preferences are being met," yet avoid use of the term "GE- or genetically-engineered-free," he said. "If you talk to the folks who are really up to speed on sampling and testing... they'll always say that where we are today we will never get a GE-free statement that's valid," Cummings said. "The traits are in the system, you cannot guarantee statistically that you'll ever get rid of them."
Instead, the plan calls for seed testing at a level of sensitivity that is close to GE-free, he said. In data collected from seven U.S. rice exporters, USA Rice Federation found that 32 percent of nearly 700 long-grain rice samples - collected between August and October and including everything from unmilled rice to parboiled rice - tested positive for Liberty Link traits. Several Rice Research and Promotion Board members noted that the 31 percent rate of positive test results for Arkansas was almost three times the share of Cheniere variety rice that was planted in the state. Cheniere, a rice variety developed by Louisiana State University AgCenter's Rice Research Station near Crowley, La., is the only seed rice that has tested positive for traces of LLRICE 601. Because only 11 percent to 12 percent of all Arkansas rice acres are planted in Cheniere, Arkansas Agriculture Secretary Richard Bell and state Plant Board Director Darryl Little told a legislative committee last month that the scope of the genetic-engineering problem in the state probably was comparable to that 11 percent to 12 percent.
Cummings said the main points of the USA Rice Federation response plan are simple: Only seed that tests negative for Liberty Link traits at an 0. 01 percent sensitivity level will be planted in 2007. No Cheniere variety rice will be planted in 2007. Mills will buy rice in 2007 only from farmers who provide evidence that their seeds tested negative. Rice produced from farmsaved seed in 2007 will be purchased only if it tests negative. Cummings said Chuck Wilson, rice agronomist with the University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service, will lead an education campaign that will explain the plan and seek acceptance for it from all interested parties, including farmers, seed dealers, mills, financial institutions and crop insurers. Who will bear the cost of implementing the plan remains unclear, Cummings said. "It will cost money," and most of the plan's architects believe Bayer bears some responsibility, he said.
The genetically engineered problem with rice is reminiscent of the December 2003 discovery of mad-cow disease in a Washington state cow. Both events have thrown export markets into disarray. Although the 2005 U.S. rice export market is only about one-third the size of the 2003 U.S. beef and veal export market, the rice problem is likely to have a much greater impact on Arkansas given the state's dominant position in the market.

USA Rice forms Seed Committee to address GMO trait issue - By Forrest Laws - 2 Nov 2006
http://www.checkbiotech.org/root/index.cfm?fuseaction=news&doc_id=13784&start=1&control=178&page_start=1&page_nr=101&pg=1
The USA Rice Federation has formed a Seed Committee to develop a plan to try to eliminate LibertyLink traits from the commercial rice seed supply beginning with the 2007 crop. Members of the committee are scheduled to meet in Dallas later this week to begin working on the plan. Participants include representatives from USDA, state plant boards, rice research stations, rice seed dealers, rice producers, rice millers and rice merchants. Federation leaders said they were taking the action following the discovery of a trace amount of LibertyLink 601, rice that has been genetically altered to be resistant to glufosinate (LibertyLink) herbicide, on Aug. 18.
Since the finding in August, European Union member countries have closed their markets to U.S. rice and other countries have raised questions about the potential for the presence of the material in shipments of U.S. rice. “A major focus of USA Rice will be leadership of an industry-wide effort to rid the commercial U.S. rice supply of Liberty Link genetically engineered traits (LLRICE06 and LLRICE62 and LLRICE601),” the Federation said. “We are taking this action because of the lack of regulatory approval and consumer acceptance of Liberty Link in overseas markets.” The Federation said the focus on the 2007 crop will bolster ongoing work to keep foreign markets open for U.S. rice or reopening them in the case of the European Union countries.
It also addressed the question of legal action by the Federation in a paper on the organization’s Web site. “Strong legal precedent indicates that USA Rice and its member organizations lack legal ‘standing’ to file a lawsuit to seek damages suffered by members due to the presence of LLRICE601 in the commercial U.S. rice supply,” USA Rice said. “Such lawsuits for damages must be brought in the names of individual USA Rice members or by representation on their behalf in class action lawsuits. “A class representative must have suffered damages like those suffered by the class members. USA Rice has not suffered damages and thus cannot serve as a class representative in a class action lawsuit.”
© 2006 Prism Business Media Inc

Glyphosate-resistant marestail confirmed in Nebraska - by Peter Shinn - Brownfield (Ag News), October 27 2006
http://www.brownfieldnetwork.com/gestalt/go.cfm?objectid=8B796413-0037-AF00-258CA34199D95BB1
The University of Nebraska at Lincoln (UNL) announced Thursday their weed scientists had confirmed the presence of the first glyphosate-resistant weed in the Good Life State. They said it reinforced the need for farmers to implement integrated weed resistant management (IRWM) strategies. According to a UNL press release, it took a year of testing to determine marestail in Nebraska, also known as horseweed, is resistant to glyphosate. The release said it's the first glyphosate-resistant weed to be confirmed in the state.
Steven Knezevic, integrated weed management specialist at UNL's Haskell Agricultural Laboratory said widespread use of glyphosate herbicide, developed by Monsanto Company under the Roundup Ready brand, has resulted in selection pressure on weed populations since its launch a decade ago. "Prior to the introduction of glyphosate-tolerant crops only a few weed species, ryegrass and goosegrass, had developed resistance worldwide," Knezevic said in the release. "However, the number of glyphosate-resistant weeds tripled in just over eight years of repeated glyphosate use due to the introduction of Roundup Ready crops."
According to the release, other glyphosate-resistant weeds in the U.S. include waterhemp, lambsquarters, giant ragweed, common ragweed and palmer amaranth. And UNL weeds specialist Alex Martin said the discovery of glyphosate-resistant marestail in Nebraska highlights the importance of IRWM practices, especially with when planting Roundup Ready corn after Roundup ready beans, or vice versa. "We believe that glyphosate and herbicide-tolerant crops, including those based on glyphosate herbicide, can remain useful components of crop production systems only with proper management," Martin said in the release. "It is easy to fall into a trap of overusing glyphosate versus combinations of pre-emergence herbicides or tank mix partners when one Roundup Ready crop is grown after another."
Related Links: More on UNL's finding of glyphosate-resistant marestail in Nebraska - http://cropwatch.unl.edu/archives/2006/crop24/resistant_marestail.htm

Why glyphosate resistance is so important - By Ford L. Baldwin - Practical Weed Consultants, LLC - Delta Farm Press, Oct 24 2006 [shortened]
http://deltafarmpress.com/news/061024-glyphosate-resistance/
I spend so much time on glyphosate resistance because we have built our entire farming system in cotton, corn and soybeans around this one herbicide. In the past, when resistance to an herbicide developed, we simply switched herbicides and moved on. Quite often, as resistance developed, we had a new herbicide coming that was better than what we had. Because of this, farmers had no reason to take the herbicide resistance issue very seriously.
In my former career as a university specialist, I would commonly hear, "By the time I get resistance on my farm, the companies and university will have a solution, so I'm not going to worry about it." At that time, it was hard to argue with that philosophy. Times have changed. The Roundup Ready technology simply blew existing weed control technology out of the water.
There does not appear to be any novel chemistry being developed. In today's market, because anything developed has to compete with generic glyphosate prices, a newer better herbicide simply is not coming along to solve a major resistance problem. I am rarely asked for advice by younger university weed scientists. However, when I am asked, I advise them to stake their careers on something other than new herbicides coming along. If you are farming for the short haul, it probably does not matter. However, if you are farming for the long haul, glyphosate resistance needs to become a "big deal." Next week I will attempt to let Palmer pigweed explain that better.
e-mail: ford@weedconsultants.com

EU to test all US rice imports - By AOIFE WHITE - AP Business Writer - The Associated Press/BRUSSELS, Belgium, OCT. 23
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8KUFR683.htm
European Union nations voted Monday to test all U.S. long-grain rice imports to make sure they don't contain genetically modified varieties that haven't been approved by the EU. All consignments of U.S. long-grain rice will be sampled and tested at EU entry ports before they can be distributed and sold, the European Commission said. The new rules will go into effect within a few days. The EU action stems from fears that a banned genetically modified rice strain named Liberty Link Rice 601, which was accidentally imported from the United States, could have found its way into the food supply. The Commission said it has to start mandatory tests because the EU and the U.S. failed to agree on how to check for genetically modified rice not legally allowed on sale in Europe. Talks broke down after the sides could not find a way of testing the rice to "a high level of consistency and accuracy" within a 15-day negotiation period, it said. The costs of testing will be borne by exporters.
The EU buys about 70 million euros ($90 million) worth of U.S. rice each year. The tests also will check for another unauthorized genetically modified rice, LL Rice 62, recently found in French imports of U.S. rice. Wary of public health and environmental concerns, the EU allows only genetically modified foodstuffs that have been evaluated and authorized to be placed on the EU market. While the EU's executive arm insists on a recall of the illegal imports, it has said the presence of LL 601 poses no immediate health risk to humans or animals based on a review of incomplete data provided by the U.S. government and the maker of the rice variety. Whether the rice is safe to eat or not, it is still cannot be sold in Europe because it has not been evaluated and authorized in line with EU law, the Commission said.
The EU said it was acting in response to finding LL Rice 601 in U.S. shipments four weeks ago. It first stepped up controls on U.S. rice in August after Dutch officials found an unauthorized genetically modified variety in shipments that arrived in the port of Rotterdam in August. Other shipments also were found in the Netherlands, Belgium and Italy. The LL 601 strain was developed by Aventis CropScience, which was taken over by Germany's Bayer AG in 2002 and renamed Bayer Crop Science. Bayer announced in July it had found the 601 strain in storage units in Arkansas and Missouri.

EU Tests May Stifle U.S. Rice Imports - Farm Futures staff - Farm Futures, 10/23/2006
http://www.farmfutures.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=CD26BEDECA4A4946A1283CC7786AEB5A&nm=News&type=news&mod=News&mid=
9A02E3B96F2A415ABC72CB5F516B4C10&tier=3&nid=7F22A8DB23414043A278D361FA77A42D
If the EU decides to go ahead with mandatory rice testing, U.S. rice exports to Europe may fizzle. As the European Commission asks the EU nations to approve its proposal of mandatory testing of all U.S. rice imports, the U.S. says the burden may be too much for rice trade to continue between the U.S. and Europe. The U.S. has "consulted with the industry and reviewed it internally and came to the conclusion it would just have the effect of not allowing trade to resume," says Floyd Gaibler, U.S. deputy undersecretary for farm and foreign agricultural services. The proposed testing program would be aimed at making sure rice sent to the EU contains no unauthorized genetically modified varieties. The push for mandatory testing comes in response to the EU discovery of Liberty Link Rice 601, a genetically modified strain of long-grain rice banned in the EU, in a shipment of rice supposed to be free of biotech products.
Since the EU increased monitoring for genetically modified strains, U.S. rice shipments to Europe have halted. Gaibler says the European testing program would be "simply too onerous for us to accept," but Philip Tod, spokesman for the EU, says the group has "no other option" from mandatory tests after the U.S. and EU failed to agree on a common testing protocol.

OPPOSITION TO GE CROPS - Thais reap windfall - Kamol Sukin - The Nation, October 22 2006
http://nationmultimedia.com/2006/10/22/headlines/headlines_30016822.php
Kingdom lands more export orders as EU and some Asian countries ban GE rice from US.
The global rice trade was stunned last July when US shipments bound for the European Union were found to contain genetically engineered rice. Thailand, as the world's leading rice-exporter, has reaped a windfall as orders for non-GE rice have kept rising in past months. Sixteen European countries and Japan have effectively banned all imports of GE rice. The Thai government has adhered to its non-GE rice policy.
Morrakot Tanticharoen, director of the National Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (Biotec), told The Nation recently that GE rice was not an option today, though it might be in the distant future. Science and Technology Minister Yongyuth Yuthavong said rice was a very big and sensitive issue. "Policywise we ought to move very carefully. Yet, we shouldn't close all doors to scientific development," he said. According to environmental group Greenpeace, Ebro Puleva, Europe's largest food-processing company, has suspended rice imports from the US following the July GE rice scandal.
The US Agriculture Department has announced that rice shipments of one exporting company, Riceland Food Inc, were found to have carried a GE rice strain called Liberty Link (LL) 601. The strain should have been restricted to laboratories and trial fields, according to the department. LL 601 is said to have been developed by Bayer Crop Science, a unit of German chemical giant Bayer. It is designed to resist some agricultural chemicals but has not yet been approved for commercial planting or consumption. According to Greenpeace International, GE rice traces were originally discovered last January involving several of Riceland's suppliers. Afterwards, Riceland traced back the sources of the rice to four US states, Arkansas, Missouri, Louisiana and Texas.
At least four US farmers have sued Bayer for the infiltration of GE rice, demanding billions of dollars in damages. The case is pending in court. Besides Europe and Japan, other US rice markets such as the Philippines have imposed a ban on GE rice. Korea has also tightened its import rules by requiring a non-GE certificate, especially for rice from the US. The moves overseas against GE rice have proved a boon for Thai exporters - at least for now. "We've got more orders from Europe to replace those which would otherwise have gone to the US," said Wanlop Pitchyapongsa of Capital Rice, a major exporter. "Replacement is obvious, especially for long-grain rice, which is normally supplied by the US. Usually we export only premium jasmine rice to the EU," he said. The scandal shows that Thailand's strength lies in non-GE rice, which should be maintained as the chief selling point, he said. Thanakorn Jitratangbunya of Chia Meng Group, another big player, said the risk of experimenting with GE rice was high and it should not be allowed here. Even though the US regulations are very strict, there was still a leak and contamination from the lab to the farm, he said.
Wanlop said the damage from GE crops was irreversible and it was difficult to clean up if there was GE contamination. Capital Rice exports around one million tonnes of non-GE rice worth Bt12 billion annually while Chia Meng, the country's biggest fragrant-rice exporter, ships out 400,000 tonnes per year worth Bt7 billion. The country ships a total 7.5 million tonnes worth around Bt80 billion a year. Both Wanlop and Thanakorn said the government should promote Thailand as a 100-per-cent non-GE rice-exporter. Yongyuth said the country had no GE-rice research and development facilities.
Biotec director Morrakot said the only biotechnological research on rice going on here was related to the development of DNA markers, which are part of the rice genome research series, aimed at developing better rice strains through genetic improvement, not by inserting non-rice genes. The work has yielded the high-iron nutrient khao hom nil strain and also flood-resistant strains in laboratory and field trials. These strains will be offered to farmers soon, he said. "Although we've closed the door to GE rice development, we should still keep a window open in the laboratory so that we don't miss the next biotechnology train. Field trials should be allowed case by case, particularly for papaya and tomato research," he said.
Sairung Thongplon of the Confederation of Consumer Organisations of Thailand said the government should review biosafety legislation being drafted by the Agriculture Ministry because it would promote the biotech business rather than protect the country's rich biological diversity. "This bill is a legacy of the past government," she said, adding that citizens'-rights advocates and other non-governmental groups were preparing a parallel bill focusing on biodiversity to replace the biosafety bill. Anti-GE campaigner Patwajee Srisuwan of Greenpeace Southeast Asia said GE rice had also been detected in food products sold in the UK, France and Germany, as these items contained ingredients made from GE rice exported by China. These products were removed from the shelves early this year. "GE rice has become a major issue as consumers worldwide have sent a strong 'No' message," she said.
According to Greenpeace, GE rice is understood to be supported by the US, China and Iran, but it remains illegal for consumption and commercial plantation due to the safety issue. In China, GE rice strains developed by Huazhong University were found to have reached farmers, with the rice identified in a vast area of Hubei province and some southern cities. The GE rice was found contaminating Heinz baby cereal food in March. According to a Greenpeace survey conducted this year, 57 per cent of Chinese respondents said they would avoid eating GE rice, up from last year's figure of only 40 per cent.
Iran, the world's largest rice market, is experimenting with GE rice containing antibiotic-resistant genes in the field with plans to distribute seeds to farmers soon, amid opposition from an international anti-GE alliance.

Pigweed not only threat to glyphosate resistance - By Roy Roberson - Farm Press Editorial Staff - Southeast Farm Press, October 19 2006
http://southeastfarmpress.com/news/101906-herbicide-resistance/
Though Palmer amaranth, commonly called Palmer pigweed, is the most pressing weed resistance problem for farmers from the Midwest to the Southeast, it is not the only weed showing resistance to glyphosate. The first glyphosate resistant weed to create problems was horseweed, sometimes called marestail. Horseweed resistance was first found in the Carolinas in 2003, and it continues to be a problem. "Each year we find a little bit more - it is wide-spread all up and down the Coastal Plain of North Carolina," says Alan York, long-time North Carolina State University weed specialist.
In 2006, glyphosate resistant common ragweed was reported in a handful of counties in North Carolina. "High rates of Weathermax uglied-up the terminal, but the ragweed didn't die," York says. He explains that to document resistance, there has to be proof that the resistant trait is heritable. Giant ragweed is being investigated in Indiana, with distinct signs that it has developed resistance to glyphosate. Resistant giant ragweed would be a problem comparable to Palmer amaranth in some parts of the country.
Common ragweed is not likely to be a big problem for growers in the Carolinas and Virginia, according to York. The biggest problem may be in no-till or reduced-till systems which require a clean field to plant cotton. In these systems the problem is what to use for burn-down. If ragweed is resistant to glyphosate, the options are limited to dicamba, paraquat and 2,4-D.
Researchers in South Carolina have found glyphosate resistant cocklebur, and are in the process of documenting for certain that it is resistant. Clemson researchers are still conducting greenhouse tests, but the evidence is strong that at least one cotton field in South Carolina has glyphosate resistant cocklebur. Virginia Tech researchers are at a similar place in time in documenting glyphosate resistant lambsquarters. More of a problem in the upper end of the Southeast, lambsquarters, prior to the introduction of Roundup Ready technology, was a constant problem in a number of row crops.
e-mail: rroberson@farmpress.com

Second Kind Of Bayer GM Rice Detected In EU - Dow Jones, October 20, 2006 - http://www.cbgnetwork.org/1658.html
FRANKFURT -- A second kind of genetically modified rice developed by German chemicals and pharmaceutical company Bayer AG (BAY) has been detected in the European Union, a E.U. spokesman confirmed to Dow Jones Newswires Friday. French authorities' recently found unauthorized rice LL62 in France imported from the U.S. and notified the European rapid alert system, spokesman Philip Tod told Dow Jones Newswires. The E.U. spokesman said the LL62 rice is still unauthorized in the E.U., but is in the approval process. The application to import the rice into the E.U. was made three years ago, Philipp Mimkes of Coordination gegen Bayer Gefahren, or CBG, an anti-Bayer campaign group, told Dow Jones Newswires.
Although the rice is authorized for marketing in the U.S., it has not been commercialized there, Tod added. Bayer spokeswoman Anette Josten said "we are taking note of this report about an alleged positive detection made by the French authorities and continue to work closely with the governments and others in the rice industry as more information becomes available." She also confirmed the rice hasn't been commercialized in the U.S.
In September of this year, traces of Bayer's LL601 rice were found which were not authorized in the U.S. Later the LL601 rice was also found in Europe for example in Germany in rice sold in discount supermarkets.

US rice exporters face new costs - By Andrew Bounds in Brussels - Financial Times, October 19 2006
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/79931422-5f8a-11db-a011-0000779e2340.html
Exporters of US rice are to be hit by new charges as the European Union widens its clampdown on genetically modified food. The European Commission said on Thursday that on Monday it would ask national food safety experts to require mandatory testing of all imports of US long-grain rice at EU ports after talks on an agreed testing regime broke down. The decision follows the detection of a herbicide-resistant strain - which is illegal in the EU - in rice certified GM-free by the US, and indicates that Brussels has lost confidence in Washington's testing methods.
In August, the Commission tightened rules governing imports of US long-grain rice after finding the LL Rice 601 strain in a batch already checked by US authorities. It has since been found in nine of the EU 25 countries. "If a consignment is certified as free of LL Rice 601, [then] before it can be released, it will be counter-tested by the authorities," a Commission spokesman said. "Only if the counter-test confirms the absence of LL Rice 601 or any other unauthorised GMO, would it be released." The tests, costing exporters several hundred euros at least, would also look for a strain known as LL Rice 62, detected recently in France.
A fortnight ago the EU health commissioner Markos Kyprianou began negotiating a common sampling protocol with Washington, but talks ended on Thursday without agreement. "Despite extensive discussions between both sides, the Commission and the United States were unable to agree on such a protocol," his spokesman said. It is understood that the US wanted higher acceptable levels of GM strains than Brussels.
While the Commission said LL Rice 601 was produced by Bayer, the German chemical company told Reuters news agency it was not. The strain was developed by Aventis CropScience, a company it acquired in 2002. Development ended the year before, the company said.
Europe's Food Safety Authority has initially ruled there is no threat to human health from the GM rice. However, all biotech rice remains illegal in the EU. Only a few strains of GM crops have been approved for cultivation or consumption in the EU because some countries, such as Austria, and many consumers are opposed to them.
Katharine Mill, a spokeswoman for Greenpeace, the environmental pressure group, welcomed the move. "We congratulate the EU for not agreeing to weaker US testing measures," she said. However, she pointed out that Brussels has not taken any action against Chinese imports. Greenpeace found the BT63 strain of rice, which has not been approved for commercial use anywhere, in Chinese products on supermarket shelves in Germany in August. "European rice growers are worried about the seeds getting out and contaminating their crops," she said.

Another GE rice from Bayer contaminates EU food supplies - Greenpeace calls for EU strategy to prevent food and feed contamination with GMOs
19 OCTOBER 2006
BRUSSELS News that French authorities have detected another variety of illegal genetically engineered (GE) rice contained in US imports to the EU - the third illegal GE rice scandal in Europe in two months - should prompt urgent action on behalf of regulatory authorities, Greenpeace said today.
Tests in France found US rice containing a GMO called Liberty Link 62 (LL62), which is not approved in Europe (1). This comes on top of test results from several EU countries since August showing that US rice on sale in Europe is contaminated with another unauthorised GE rice variety, LL601. For the second time, the source of the contamination is Bayer Cropscience. Greenpeace believes that Bayer should be held accountable for its negligence, as it is clearly incapable of controlling contamination of rice with its genetically engineered varieties. In the interests of the global rice supply, Bayer should withdraw from all research, field trials and applications for GE rice globally.
The European Commission on Thursday announced that it would seek member state approval for compulsory tests on all US long-grain rice imports, to prove the absence of LL rice varieties. The Commission should be congratulated for not giving in to US demands to weaken import testing standards.
The Commission's proposal will be examined on Monday by a committee of EU food safety experts. On the same day, EU environment ministers may address the question of how to avoid contamination of the food chain with illegal GMOs.
Greenpeace is urging ministers to develop a strategy to prevent further contamination by GE products: any country which grows GMOs for commercial or experimental use should provide the EU and member states with a full list of these crops, and reliable testing methods for each of them. GE crop-growing countries should have to provide a certificate to accompany imports to the EU proving that they are not contaminated with crops that have not been approved in Europe. In the absence of reliable certification and testing systems, the EU should prohibit imports of products which may have been contaminated.
Greenpeace also expressed concern that the EU has still not agreed on emergency measures regarding the import of illegal Bt63 rice from China, identified by testing on behalf of Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth six weeks ago, and confirmed by official tests in Germany, France and Austria. While the EU imposed emergency measures in response to news of the US rice contamination within five days of the notification, no such steps have been taken on Bt63, despite its potential health risks (2).
NOTES
(1) LL62 rice is legal in the United States (since 2000) and Canada, but is not authorised anywhere else in the world. LL601 is not legal anywhere. Neither is Bt63, detected in Chinese rice products on sale in Europe.
(2) For further information on the Chinese GE rice contamination, see http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/IllegalChinaGErice
CONTACT: Martina Holbach, Greenpeace GMO campaigner, +32 (0)2 274 1906 Katharine Mill, Greenpeace European Unit media officer, +32 (0)2 274 1903

Farmers' group wants rice import banned - The SunStar - Victor L. Camion - October 12 2006
http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/dum/2006/10/12/news/farmers.group.wants.rice.import.banned.html
A FARMERS' group in Negros Oriental urged the Department of Agriculture (DA) to ban rice imports from the US to protect the local rice farmers and safeguard Filipino consumers from the alleged contaminated and genetically engineered rice variety. The variety of the imported rice is called LibertyLinkRice601 (LLRice601), said Eugene Quirante, regional liaison officer of Centro Saka Inc. Centro Saka Inc. is a research and policy advocacy and a non-government organization accredited by the National Research Institute of the Department of Agriculture.
Quirante said farmers want the ban imposed after the United States Department of Agriculture found that commercial long grain rice in the US has been contaminated by the unapproved genetically engineered (GE) LLRice601 rice variety. He said traces of the illegal genetically modified rice have been found in supermarkets in European countries and the United Kingdom. "As a result, Japan banned all long-grain rice from the US, while the European Union now tests US rice shipments and rejects any rice imports contaminated with LLRice601," said Quirante. LLRice 601, he said, is a long grain of rice that containing the protein Liberty Link that allows the crop to withstand herbicide applications.
"Imported rice, especially genetically modified (GM) rice from the United States, should be banned from entering our country to prevent contamination of our crops," warned Quirante adding, "If the European countries and the United Kingdom were not spared from the contamination, then we are also at risk from possible contamination since the United States has been dumping their rice into our country through the PL 480 grant!" He said Centro Saka demands that government impose stricter measures in testing and monitoring shipments of all imported rice from the US and other countries to ensure that local rice varieties and species would be spared from possible contamination. "The Department of Agriculture should protect our local rice farmers from the risks of GE rice," he said adding, "We should not allow this to happen to our already beleaguered local rice industry." Quirante stressed that the contamination of GE rice has been causing massive problems for the US rice industry.

Biotech instills fear and loathing in California rice belt - Associated Press, October 11 2006
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2006/10/12/news/state/3_03_1810_11_06.txt
PRINCETON - Fourth-generation farmer Greg Massa was in the middle of the rice harvest and he was dirty, angry and depressed. The price of the gasoline that powers his water pumps and rice harvester has never been more expensive. A late planting season, hot summer and rising expenses had ensured a less-than-stellar harvest, with the U.S. Department of Agriculture forecasting a 13 percent drop compared to last year. So the last thing Massa needed was a biotechnology blunder so disastrous that it prompted the rice industry's biggest export customer - Japan - to prohibit some varieties and threaten to ban all U.S. imports. The European Union is making similar threats because genetically engineered rice continues to turn up on grocery shelves in Europe. "If that happens, the California industry will evaporate," said Massa as he drove the harvester around his farm about 80 miles north of Sacramento. He has spent the past three years publicly protesting the growth of genetically engineered rice anywhere and in any quantity. Biotech-averse overseas consumers in Japan, Europe and elsewhere simply won't buy it, he says, even if the crops are approved for U.S. consumption.
The U.S. rice harvest is imperiled by the discovery of small amounts of experimental strains of genetically engineered rice in storage facilities holding crops destined for the food supply. Bayer CropScience AG, the German company responsible for the mistake, is still investigating how the experimental rice got into the food supply. Federal officials say the company's signature genetically engineered rice came from storage bins in Arkansas and Missouri, but they don't know where it was grown. The rice was genetically engineered by Bayer to be resistant to a weed killer and had never been approved for human consumption. Federal officials and company executives say the strain posed no health threat and was similar to biotech rice that had been approved. Still, Bayer's blunder has been costly.
Rice futures plummeted by $150 million immediately after the contamination announcement and biotech-hating European retailers pulled U.S. rice from their shelves. Growers in Arkansas, California, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Texas filed lawsuits against Bayer for hurting their sales. Rice exports are worth $200 million annually to California, which is second only to Arkansas in rice production. Nearly all Japanese imports come from California, which grows mostly short and medium rice grains. Longer-grain rice is grown in the South. In all, the U.S. rice harvest fetches about $1.8 billion annually. "It has caused problems in the market," said Grant Lundberg, chief executive of Richvale-based Lundberg Family Farms, one of the state's biggest rice growers. "It has given everybody a new perspective on this technology and it's not positive." A Bayer spokesman declined to comment, other than to say that the company has no plans to commercialize any of its genetically engineered rice because few farmers are interested in growing it.
Rice farmers throughout Northern California are perplexed that companies and scientists are continuing to experiment with a technology so thoroughly rejected by the market. Japanese and European consumers have a long-standing aversion to biotechnology products, and any changes to their food supply, a fear that harkens back to government mishandling of mad cow disease. Those consumers fear that not enough is known about genetic engineering to guarantee that food is safe. U.S. trade officials convinced Japan to lift a ban on imported rice in 1995, but the relationship between domestic farmers and their best customer remains precarious. Last month, Japan announced it would genetically test every rice shipment entering the country and shut down all U.S. imports if it found any more biotechnology crops. None of the genetically engineered rice at issue has been found in California. Many rice farmers see it as the last step before the country closes its borders to all U.S. rice. "There are political forces in Japan that would very much like to see California rice no longer shipped there," said John Hasbrook of SunWest Foods Inc., California's largest rice miller. "It's pretty much economic suicide to let genetic engineered rice creep into California and pose a contamination threat." SunWest has called for legislation banning genetically engineered rice in California.
So-called "golden rice" was one of the first genetically engineered crops developed and it was aimed at alleviating malnutrition because of its ability to produce Vitamin A. Golden rice contains a gene from the daffodil plant and is unrelated to Bayer's rice, which is engineered with bacteria genes. Two rice strains that were genetically engineered with bacteria genes to resist weed killer were approved for the U.S. market 14 years ago but never sold because consumers around the world rejected the use of biotechnology on such a food staple. Still, a few companies continue to tinker with rice genes, arguing that biotechnology can be beneficial to farmers, consumers and the environment. Researchers continue to genetically