DOWN ON THE FARM IN INDIA (6.11.2007) 2
BAYER’S COSTLY GE RICE SCANDAL (6.11.2007) 4
Brazilian land activist killed in dispute over experimental GM farm (5.11.2007) 6
Landless Rural Worker Shot by Security Company Hired by Multinational Syngenta (29.10.2007) 7
U.S. GMO RICE CAUSED $1.2 BLN IN DAMAGES (5.11.07) 10
COMMUNITY OF LAGOS IS THE FIRST GE MAIZE FREE ZONE (5.11.07) 11
ISAAA TO FACILITATE EUROPEAN TOUR OF INDIAN BT GROWERS (4.11.2007) 12
INTERNAL DOCUMENTS REVEAL GOVERNMENT COLLUSION WITH INDUSTRY ON GM POTATO TRIAL LICENSES (31.10.07) 13
FRENCH SKEPTICISM OF GMO CROPS SIGNALS POLICY SHIFT (27.10.2007) 15
-----------------------------
GENET-forum
Too Close for Comfort - The relationship between the biotech industry and the European Commission (6.11.07)
An analysis by Friends of the Earth Europe (October 2007)
It is no secret that the EU political class has embraced the neoliberal agenda. In food and farming this translates as high-technology intensive farming with patented inputs and outputs that generate wealth for European industry. The basic aim, clearly stated in EU policy objectives such at the Lisbon Agenda, is to make Europe a leader in the global economy. This has been expressed as different policy slogans - the "Biosociety" in the 1980s, the "knowledge-based economy" in the 1990s, and the "Knowledge-Based Bio-Economy" (KBBE) in the current decade.
Friends of the Earth Europe prepared a report to examine one of the results of the KBBE political mindset and agenda: corporate lobby power and its access to one of the key EU institutions, the European Commission. It focuses on one of the key biotech lobby groups - EuropaBio - and recent examples of the very cosy relationship between the companies who stand to make considerable profits from agricultural biotechnology, and policy makers at the European Commission. EuropaBio is one of the main and most active lobby groups on GM food and crops at the EU level, and boasts of its "excellent working relations" with the European Commission. The group1s agri-biotech lobby efforts are headed by Bayer Cropscience, DuPont/Pioneer, Monsanto and Syngenta. As the GM food and crops market is dominated by these very few large corporations, EuropaBio is essentially pushing the interests of these at the European Commission and elsewhere.
You can download the report here:
http://www.foeeurope.org/corporates/pdf/too_close_for_comfort.pdf
------------------------------- GENET-news -------------------------------
DOWN ON THE FARM IN INDIA (6.11.2007)
SOURCE: Council on Foreign Relations, USA
AUTHOR: Jayshree Bajoria
URL: http://www.cfr.org/publication/14707/down_on_the_farm_in_india.html?breadcrumb=%2Fpublication%2Fpublication_list%3Ftype%3Ddaily_analysis
------------------ archive: http://www.genet-info.org/ ------------------
DOWN ON THE FARM IN INDIA
India’s stunning economic success in recent years, fueled by its technology services sector, obscures the fact that it is still predominantly a nation of farmers. Almost 60 percent of India’s 1.1 billion people depend on agriculture for their livelihood. But as the overall economy booms, agricultural growth
This autumn’s protests by the landless (Guardian)
One measure of the despair among India’s farmers: an estimated 100,000 farmers throughout the country committed suicide between 1993 and 2003. That’s according to India’s agriculture minister and the unofficial suicide figures are much higher (IPS)
Beyond indebtedness, a combination of other economic factors compound the plight of India ’s farmers. ActionAid India, an antipoverty NGO, says government investment in agriculture fell
In the midst of this growing crisis, India has felt international pressure (Bloomberg)
Indian journalist P. Sainath, who follows the Indian farm crisis, proposes (Tehelka)
-----------------------------
------------------------------- GENET-news -------------------
BAYER’S COSTLY GE RICE SCANDAL (6.11.2007)
SOURCE: Greenpeace International, Amsterdam
AUTHOR: Press Release
URL: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/bayer-rice-scandal071106
------------------ archive: http://www.genet-info.org/ ------------------
BAYER’S COSTLY GE RICE SCANDAL
...........................................................................
download the report at:
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/risky-business
...........................................................................
International — When an unapproved genetically engineered (GE) crop was discovered in American rice last year, it triggered the biggest marketing and financial disaster in the history of the US rice industry. We commissioned an independent economist to do some maths; he found that total costs could exceed USD$1.2 billion.
In August 2006, traces of the uncertified GE crop LL601, known as ”Liberty Link” and owned by biotech giant Bayer were found in US rice supplies. 63 percent of US rice exports were affected, the contamination spread to at least 30 countries, from Austria to Ghana to United Arab Emirates. Major importers such as the EU and the Philippines closed their markets to US rice, they remain closed today. Up to US $253 million was lost from food product recalls, and future export losses could reach $445 million.
Contamination came from field trials
What is particularly scary is that Liberty Link was never even grown commercially. The contamination was the result of experimental trials, which ended in 2001 - five years before the contamination was discovered. In a desperate attempt to lessen the damage after the scandal broke, the US government decided to approve the rice strain. It didn’t work; as the report shows, the US rice industry is still reeling.
India, an even bigger rice exporter than the US, is the new battleground for GE crops. The Indian government is preparing to start field trials next month. Greenpeace urges them not to make the same mistakes as the US, and to stop all plans for GE experimental trials. Greenpeace India took action with the Bharatiya Kisan Farmers Union today. They visited one of the 12 areas approved for GE rice trials, and with a giant banner reading ”Save our Rice” sent the Indian government a clear message.
As Greenpeace GE campaigner Doreen Stabinsky says: ”There is only one way for the rice industry to protect itself from another billion dollar debacle and that is to prevent GE rice from ever being grown.”
Bayer attempts to blame God
Hundreds of US farmers and European businesses have filed lawsuits against Bayer in attempts to recoup their losses. Punitive or statutory damages which may be awarded against Bayer may double or even treble the final cost of the GE contamination incident.
Bayer’s response to the disaster, which has destroyed the livelihoods of thousands of people, from growers to producers to sellers, was to blame God. Seriously, they claimed that the contamination scandal was probably caused by ”an Act of God.” Even by biotech industry standards, this is beyond grotesque.
India, don’t make the same mistakes as the US
In India, the pro-GE government, its regulators and companies such as Monsanto are preparing start field trials of damaging GE crops next month. The decision ignores the will of farmers and traders and even the Indian Supreme court, which ruled in August that no new field trial approvals could happen until a full court hearing takes place.
The decision also threatens the Indian basmati rice industry, which is committed to remaining GE free. Many of the planned GE field trials will take place right next to where basmati is grown, and as genes do not understand political boundaries basmati and non-basmati rice types will face serious danger of contamination.
If their rice gets contaminated, it is Indian farmers, traders and millers whose livelihoods could be destroyed. India and the rest of the world must learn the lessons from the US disaster. The only way to ensure crops are safe from contamination is to ensure that GE crops do not exist at all.
***** GENET-forum *****
Brazilian land activist killed in dispute over experimental GM farm (5.11.2007)
By Leonard Doyle in Washington
Published: 05 November 2007
When a Brazilian peasant organiser led a group of landless farmers on to
a European-owned farm last month he was making an environmental protest
as well as seeking farmland for about 20 families to cultivate.
Within hours, Valmir Mota de Oliveira, 42, and known as "Keno" would be
dead, killed execution-style by two shots to the chest. A security guard
was also killed in the shooting.
Keno died trying to stop the development of a research farm for
genetically modified soya and corn next to the environmentally sensitive
Iguacu National Park, becoming in the process a martyr for the anti-GM
movement.
What happened at the seeds research site of the Swiss multinational
Syngenta is hotly disputed. What is agreed is that the land invaders -
who had been evicted from the same farm in July - set off fireworks as
they arrived on the morning of 21 October, causing the unarmed guards to
flee and seek help. Within a few hours, an armed militia showed up at
the farm on a minibus and, shortly afterwards, Keno was killed and
several more protesters were seriously injured. What role Syngenta may
have played in ordering the militia to drive away the peasants is at the
centre of a bitter dispute. It has turned the incident at its Cascavel
research farm into a cause célèbre for the landless workers movement in
Brazil where four million peasant families are trying to get access to
farmland.
For Syngenta, which was formed from an alliance of Novartis and Astra
Zenica, the episode has turned into nightmare of accusation and counter-
accusation amid suspicion that it gave free rein to an armed militia to
protect its lands as it develops GM corn and maize seed for the
expanding Brazilian market.
"Here we have a European company, Syngenta, effectively going around
shooting people on its farm," said Sarah Wilson of Christian Aid which
helps fund the Movement of Landless Workers (MST) in Brazil.
Syngenta says it does not know exactly what happened on its farm 10 days
ago and that it has sent a team of lawyers from its headquarters in
Basle to investigate.
"We don't know what happened and we are waiting for a full police
report," said a company spokesman, Medard Schoenmaeckers, while strongly
denying accusations from the landless farmers that it sent an armed
militia to the farm to evict them. "We have a specific clause in our
contract with the security firm stating that at no time can the guards
carry or use arms," he said. "Until the police issue a report, I don't
want to speculate about what happened."
The farmers organisation has issued a detailed description of what it
claims happened. "A Via Campesina encampment located at Syngenta's 127-
hectare farm ... was attacked by an armed militia. During the brutal
attack, a leader and activist ... was killed at point-blank range."
Two other MST leaders were pursued by the gunmen but managed to escape.
"We are sure that they came here to kill Keno, Celinha and me," said
Celso Barbosa, one of those who escaped, adding that they had both
received death threats since the beginning of the year. Several workers
were seriously injured in the clashes.
Amnesty International was quick to express its concern with the apparent
use by Syngenta of an "armed militia" which the landless farmers
movement says acted through a front company, NF Security, controlled by
a rural producers organisation linked to agribusiness.
Threats and intimidation by landowners are common in Parana province,
according to Amnesty. As recently as 18 October, local human rights
groups presented a dossier of evidence to the state human rights
commission complaining about armed men hired by landowners and
agricultural companies.
They complained that they often used violent and illegal methods
forcibly to evict, threaten and attack activists squatting on land.
*****
Landless Rural Worker Shot by Security Company Hired by Multinational Syngenta (29.10.2007)
Corporate Murder in Brazil
By ISABELLA KENFIELD and ROGER BURBACH
In the Brazilian state of Paraná, Valmir Mota de Oliveira of Via
Campesina, an international peasant organization, was shot twice in the
chest at point blank range by armed gunmen on an experimental farm of
Syngenta Seeds, a multinational agribusiness corporation. The cold
blooded murder took place on Sunday, October 21 after Via Campesina had
occupied the site because of Syngenta's illegal development of
genetically modified (GM) seeds. Via Campesina and the Movement of the
Landless Rural Workers (MST), the main Brazilian organization involved
in Via Campesina's actions, are calling the murder an execution,
declaring, "Syngenta used the services of an armed militia."
Syngenta is the world's largest producer of agrochemicals and the third
largest commercial seed producer. Between 2001 and 2004, Syngenta was
responsible for the largest case of genetic contamination on the planet
when its GM Bt-10 corn, approved for only animal feeds, was mixed with
US grain meant for human consumption. Via Campesina first occupied
Syngenta's site in March 2006, after it discovered that Syngenta was
illegally cultivating GM soybeans and corn. The occupation drew strong
international support, and in November state governor Roberto Requião
signed a decree of intent to expropriate the Syngenta farm, proposing to
turn it into an agroecological research center that would benefit poor
rural families. The decree was a huge political victory for the rural
and environmental movements, challenging the power of agribusiness in Brazil.
When the MST organized a march to the Syngenta site in late November
last year, its busses were halted by a blockade of tractors formed by
about a hundred members of the Rural Society of the West, a group
representing large landowners and commercial agricultural producers in
western Paraná. It is part of a larger network known as ruralistas,
which represent reactionary landed and agribusiness interests at the
regional, state and national levels. Some Society members were on
horseback and armed with guns. As the marchers began to cross the
barricade, the Society fired shots into the air, and beat the marchers
with sticks and clubs, resulting in the injury of nine people.
When asked why the organization had confronted the MST, Alessandro
Meneghel, President of the Rural Society, responded: "to show that the
rural producers do not peacefully accept land invasions and political
provocationsAttitudes such as these, of legally questionable [land]
expropriations, send a bad message to investors, chasing them away and
provoking 'Brazil risk.'" Meneghel threatened: "For every invasion of
land that occurs in the region, there will be a similar action by the
Society. We are not going to permit the rural producers to be insulted
by ideological political movements of any kind."
Syngenta, through its alliances with the Rural Society and other large
landed interests, succeeded in overturning Governor Requião's decree. In
July of this year, the Via Campesina was evicted from the site, re-
locating to the MST's Olga Benário settlement, located next to Syngenta.
The de-occupation occurred in conjunction with a peaceful march by the
movements, after Requião ordered the police to stop the Rural Society
from confronting the marchers. Control of the property was returned to
Syngenta, and it was then that the corporation hired the private NF
Security company to guard the site.
A statement on Syngenta's web site claims the corporation "specifically
agreed in the contract with [NF] security company not to use any force
or carry weapons." Yet in late July, families at Olga Benário were
threatened by armed NF security guards, which entered the settlement and
remained there for about 40 minutes. At night, the guards would fire
shots in the air. These events were reported to the authorities.
As a result, in October the federal police raided NF Security's
headquarters, where it confiscated illegal arms and ammunition. The
police report concludes that the NF Security company contracts
individuals, many with criminal records, to form armed militias that
carry out forced land evictions, and that the Rural Society numbers
among its clients.
At dawn on October 21st, about 150 members of Via Campesina reoccupied
Syngenta's site, where they encountered four armed security guards, who
were disarmed and left the site. At about 1 in the afternoon, Via
Campesina reports, "a bus stopped in front of the entry gate and about
forty armed gunmen got out, firing machine guns at the people that they
saw in the encampment. They broke down the gate, then shot [Mota]. The
militia attacked the encampment to assassinate the leaders and recover
the illegal arms of the NF Security company."
Five MST/Via Campesina members were wounded and remain hospitalized.
Security guard Fábio Ferreira, who apparently returned to the site, was
also killed. The reason for his death is unclear, although one MST
member believes Ferreira was murdered because he had incriminating
information he might have divulged. MST members Célia Lourenço and Celso
Barbosa were chased and shot at, but managed to escape. It appears the
two were targeted to die like Mota. Earlier this year, Meneghel of the
Rural Society verbally threatened Lourenço at a public forum, and the
MST reports that on March 27th, its office in Cascavel, Paraná received
an anonymous phone call advising Mota, Lourenço and Barbosa to be
careful because "a trap was being prepared for them." Mota himself
registered the death threats with the local authorities. On August 28,
Terra de Direitos, a human rights organization, registered the threats
with the National Program of Human Rights Defenders, and requested
protection for the three.
The owner of NF Security, Nerci Freitas, has admitted he gave the order
for the attack on Syngenta. He has been arrested and charged with
homicide and formation of gangs. No one has claimed that the Via
Campesina/MST occupants were armed. The organizations are calling for
the immediate arrest of Meneghel, and are demanding that Syngenta leave
Brazil immediately, declaring, "Syngenta Seeds should be held
responsible for what occurred."
Mota's murder exhibits an unsettling arrogance and dismissal of the law
and the government by the Rural Society, NF Security and Syngenta, not
unlike that being played out on a grander scale by the Blackwater
security company and US corporate interests in Iraq. It also highlights
the increasing number of conflicts between agribusiness and rural civil
society sweeping Latin America, as the alliance between national and
international agribusiness deepens from country to country. Mota's death
could well signal a new era of continental violence and bloodshed as the
powerful agribusiness interests come up against the progressive social
movements that are shaking the Americas.
Isabella Kenfield is an associate of the Center for the Study of the
America (CENSA) who has just returned from living in Brazil. She writes
on agribusiness, agrarian conflicts and social movements.
Roger Burbach is director of CENSA who has written extensively on Latin
America and US policy. He is currently at work on "The New Fire in the
Americas."
--
------------------------------- GENET-news -------------------------------
U.S. GMO RICE CAUSED $1.2 BLN IN DAMAGES (5.11.07)
SOURCE: Reuters
AUTHOR: Lisa Shumaker
URL: http://www.reuters.com/article/asiaTopNews/idUSIndia-30351820071106
------------------ archive: http://www.genet-info.org/ ------------------
U.S. GMO RICE CAUSED $1.2 BLN IN DAMAGES
CHICAGO (Reuters) - Trace amounts of genetically modified varieties of rice that were found commingled in the U.S. rice supply in 2006 caused more than $1.2 billion in damages and additional costs, the environmental group Greenpeace International said on Monday.
U.S. rice exports fell sharply after Bayer CropScience, a division of Bayer, reported in 2006 that trace amounts of its biotech LibertyLink rice variety LLRICE601 were found in a widely grown variety of U.S. rice called Cheniere. Later, a second variety called Clearfield 131 was found to be contaminated with LLRICE604.
"Until we’ve seen the report, we really can’t comment," said Bayer spokesman Greg Coffey.
The discovery of GMO-tainted rice triggered the largest financial and marketing disaster in the history of the U.S. rice industry, according to Greenpeace. At least 30 countries were affected by the contamination and many closed their markets to U.S. rice, including major importers such as the European Union and the Philippines.
The overall cost to the industry, estimated at $1.2 billion, included losses of up to $253 million from food-product recalls in Europe, U.S. export losses of $254 million in the 2006/07 crop year and future export losses of $445 million, Greenpeace said.
"It’s impossible to know what the cost is," said David Coia of trade group USA Rice Federation. "It’s certainly the most significant event in the history of the U.S. rice industry. The current rice crop is in pretty good shape. We’ve been able to eliminate most of the genetically engineered material."
Hundreds of U.S. farmers and European businesses have filed lawsuits against Bayer in attempts to recoup their losses, said the environmental group.
Greenpeace is urging India not to go ahead with field trials of GMO varieties because it could risk suffering a similar contamination and loss of exports.
A lengthy U.S. investigation failed to pinpoint how the biotech rice entered the U.S. supply. However, all three varieties of rice were grown at a research station in Louisiana from 1999 to 2001.
------------------------------- GENET-news -------------------------------
COMMUNITY OF LAGOS IS THE FIRST GE MAIZE FREE ZONE (5.11.07)
SOURCE: Ministry of Agriculture, Portugal
AUTHOR: Portuguese GM-free Platform, Margarida Silva
URL: http://www.agroportal.pt/x/agronoticias/2007/11/05.htm
------------------ archive: http://www.genet-info.org/ ------------------
COMMUNITY OF LAGOS IS THE FIRST GE MAIZE FREE ZONE
The Agriculture Ministry announced today that the first legal GM free zone has been approved in Portugal. The procedure was initiated by the Lagos local government under the rules defined by the GM free zone law, published September 2006. Lagos is a southern municipality which had already declared itself GM free in June 2006. In order to become a legal GM free zone the Lagos farmers’ organisations were heard and did not raise any objections. Attached you can see the map with the current (non-legal) GM free zones (in green), and the Lagos legal zone (in pink).
Margarida Silva, Portuguese GM-free Platform
[download the map at:
http://db.zs-intern.de/uploads/1194339734-GEfreePortugal.gif]
*****
Concelho de Lagos primeira zona livre de cultivo de milho geneticamente modificado
Foi hoje publicado em Diário da Republica o Despacho nº 25306 do Director Regional de Agricultura e Pescas do Algarve, que reconhece o estabelecimento de uma Zona Livre do cultivo de milho geneticamente modificado (OGM) no Concelho de Lagos.
Esta Zona Livre foi requerida pela Assembleia Municipal de Lagos e abrange a totalidade da área do Concelho de Lagos.
O Município completou o processo de estabelecimento desta Zona Livre, cumprindo todos os procedimentos legalmente instituídos, tendo a Direcção Regional de Agricultura e Pescas do Algarve acompanhado todo o processo. As organizações representativas dos agricultores do Concelho foram previamente contactadas, não se tendo manifestado contra o estabelecimento desta Zona Livre.
O facto de ter sido estabelecida esta Zona Livre de OGM constitui um importante marco na política de isenção que o Governo definiu relativamente aos Organismos Geneticamente Modificados.
Com o estabelecimento desta Zona, Portugal é o primeiro país da União Europeia a regulamentar uma Zona Livre de OGM com base na legislação nacional e comunitária, ao contrário dos que apenas se sustentam em meras declarações de intenção ou em normas incompatíveis com o direito da UE.
Fica assim demonstrado que as regras em vigor permitem aos municípios e aos agricultores assumir as suas pretensões relativamente aos OGM’s. Na verdade, a politica de neutralidade e rigor que tem sido seguida pelo Governo possibilita todas as opções aos agentes: o cultivo de OGM em coexistência com a agricultura convencional, outras formas de agricultura como a biológica ou a produção integrada, ou, a quem o pretenda, a negação do cultivo de OGM.
------------------------------- GENET-news -------------------------------
ISAAA TO FACILITATE EUROPEAN TOUR OF INDIAN BT GROWERS (4.11.2007)
SOURCE: The Financial Express, India
AUTHOR: Ashok B. Sharma
URL: http://www.financialexpress.com/news/ISAAA-to-facilitate-European-tour-of-Indian-Bt-growers/235955/0
------------------ archive: http://www.genet-info.org/ ------------------
ISAAA TO FACILITATE EUROPEAN TOUR OF INDIAN BT GROWERS
The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA), with a view to promote transgenic technology in agriculture, has decided to facilitate visits of Indian farmers to Europe to narrate the success stories of Bt cotton cultivation in the country.
The ISAAA held its board meeting for the first time in India, last week (October 23) and deliberated on various issues for promotion and propagation of transgenic technology in agriculture worldwide. The co-chairman of the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), CD Mayee is the sole representative from India on the ISAAA Board.
Speaking to FE, the ISAAA chair, Clive James said, ”Last year we facilitated visits of some African nationals to Europe to discuss about the issue of African countries to grow more food to meet their needs. They met European Parliamentarians and pleaded that transgenic technology can be an option to increase production and countries may import genetically modified (GM) food if needed. This year we are planning visits of Indian farmers to narrate their success stories of Bt cotton cultivation.”
According to James Indian farmers have been benefited by the cultivation of Bt cotton and they need to convince their counterparts in other countries where there is a stiff resistance by NGOs to the GM crops. He said though GM crops were cultivated in 22 countries, 51 countries have allowed imports of GM crops for use as food or feed.
During his stay in India James visited some Bt cotton growers in Haryana, regional center of Central Institute for Cotton Research in Sirsa in Haryana and met scientists and government officials. However on October 31, there was massive demonstration of farmers in Delhi led by Krishan Bir Chaudhary and Atul Anjan demanding hike in minimum support prices for various crops and a moratorium on GM crops.
James said that ISAAA was taking up many such promotional activities. At the instance of the Union agriculture minister, Sharad Pawar, ISAAA will facilitate the visits of experts from India to Brazil to study sugar-ethanol sector in that country. ISAAA has already facilitated the royalty-free transfer of transgenic papaya technology by Monsanto to the Tamil Nadu Agriculture University. ”There is a need for farmers in Brazil, Argentina, India, China, South Africa and the Philippines to visit other countries of the globe and narrate their success stories of sowing GM crops,” said James.
He said that the Indian agriculture minister, Sharad Pawar has shown great interest for boosting soybean production. ”In this context GM soybeans can be a better option,” said James and added that it was the Brazilian farmers who prevailed upon the Lula government to legalise cultivation of GM soybeans and today Brazil was a leader in soybean production.
He said that India, being one of the 14 mega biotech countries, would be the hub for spread of transgenic technology in South Asia.
------------------------------- GENET-news -------------------------------
INTERNAL DOCUMENTS REVEAL GOVERNMENT COLLUSION WITH INDUSTRY ON GM POTATO TRIAL LICENSES (31.10.07)
SOURCE: GM Freeze, UK
AUTHOR: Press Release
URL: http://www.gmfreeze.org/page.asp?id=329&iType=1079
------------------ archive: http://www.genet-info.org/ ------------------
INTERNAL DOCUMENTS REVEAL GOVERNMENT COLLUSION WITH INDUSTRY ON GM POTATO TRIAL LICENSES
GM Freeze calls for major shake-up
GM Freeze has obtained copies of email exchanges between Defra officials and the biotech company BASF in which there is clear collusion to ensure that the conditions on a consent to trial GM potatoes in England were "agreeable to BASF". In a letter sent today to Secretary of State for Environment Food and Rural Affairs Hilary Benn, the group calls for a major shake-up of the GM approvals system to ensure that protecting the environment and the public takes precedence over the interests of the biotech companies.
One GM potato trial took place this year, at a research centre in Cambridge. Local opposition by farmers prevented the trial at the second site, in East Yorkshire, from going ahead [1].
GM Freeze obtained the emails under the freedom of information legislation. The exchange ran from 29th September to 14th November 2006 and clearly shows how Defra civil servants were happy to amend the conditions of the consent put forward by the Government’s advisory committee, ACRE [2], if BASF were not happy with them. The exchange ran as follows:
On 29 September 2006, Defra to BASF:
"...there is one point that I want to flag up to you regarding ACRE’s advice. ACRE has recommended the that land should be left fallow for two years following each trial, I would like to know if you think this is workable for you? I notice that other member states have specified that berries/true seeds should be removed from the trial, ACRE has not specified this because the Committee that this would be a very big job (and this is partly why the 2 fallow years has been recommended). If you thinks that that this is completely unworkable I think the Committee may be prepared to accommodate a reduction in this fallow period to one year, but there may be other conditions (eg removal of flowers and berries). In addition to this ACRE has recommended a particular tillage regime, hopefully you are able to accommodate this (I can’t specify details at the moment because I need to clarify what exactly is required)."
On 6 October 2006, Defra to BASF:
"Please find attached a draft consent for your consideration. This is currently with our lawyers and is likely to be subject to some changes, however the conditions should not alter substantially and I will keep you informed of any changes before the consent is issued. Please let me know if the conditions as they stand would be agreeable to BASF or whether there any conditions that would be difficult to meet. I may need to consult with ACRE if there are problems with the consent and would appreciate if you could respond to this request by 22 October."
On 25 October 2006, BASF to Defra:
"And I would like to thank you for the very fast preparation of the draft consent and for letting us know. I discussed the probable conditions with my colleagues and believe they are agreeable for us.
"As the public consultation period is over now, we would appreciate if you could give us some comments on the public consultation.
"And we hope that the final conditions won’t change too much..."
On 9 November 2006, Defra to BASF:
"As discussed, please see the consent attached, we would be very grateful if you could respond by next Monday at the latest because we need to send this to ministers for their approval.
"Please check condition 4(2) in particular does not affect your plans".
On 14 November 2006, Defra to BASF:
"Thanks for sending the agreement through. In order to transparently comply with (the redrafted) Condition 3 (see below) it would probably be best to insert the conditions of the consent into the field compliance guidelines, 5.1 b of your agreement indicates that these may be amended by BPS so a new agreement would not be necessary.
"I have redrafted condition 3(2) of the draft in response to your concerns, I have not received clearance from our legal team for the redraft but I hope this addresses the problem.
"Condition 3. Where the holder of the consent intends to enter into any agreement with a person or persons who will perform the whole or any part of the trial on the holder’s behalf, then:
(1) such an agreement shall be in writing and it shall incorporate those limitations and conditions in this Schedule (including any variation) as the Secretary of State reasonably requires; and
(2) the first release of the GMO in any year of the trial shall not take place until any agreement or variation of an agreement has received the written approval of the Secretary of State.
"Please let me know as soon as possible whether or not you are content with the redraft."
When the legal consent document was finally issued on 1 December 2006, the then Secretary of State David Milliband insisted on taking the unusual step of signing the document himself [3].
Commenting Pete Riley of GM Freeze said:
"The willingness of Defra officials to offer changes to the consent condition for this GM potato trial to suit BASF shows how dangerously close Defra has come to the biotech corporations. ACRE are also involved by putting forward the less onerous conditions to cut BASF compliance costs. This is a disgrace considering that Defra and ACRE exist to protect the environment and public health. Instead Defra offered BASF easier and cheaper options.
"Ministers need to give the GM approvals system a good shake-up, including asking whether ACRE remains impartial and is still able to carry out its role. The negotiations between DEFRA officials and the company should never have taken place – it’s almost as if Defra and ACRE wanted the GM trial to take place in England!".
Notes
1. www.gmfreeze.org/page.asp?id=323&iType=1079
2. the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment
3. Note of the GM Policy Coordinating Group 29 September 2006 stated that, "the Secretary of State wished to sign the consent himself". Normally this task is delegated to a senior Civil Servant, as it was when BASF’s second consent was issued in April 2007. The Secretary of State at the time was David Milliband. A copy of these notes was obtained by a Freedom of Information request by Friends of the Earth Cymru to the Welsh Assembly Government.
------------------------------- GENET-news -------------------------------
FRENCH SKEPTICISM OF GMO CROPS SIGNALS POLICY SHIFT (27.10.2007)
SOURCE: Deutsche Welle, Germany
AUTHOR: Diana Fong
URL: http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2848857,00.html
------------------ archive: http://www.genet-info.org/ ------------------
FRENCH SKEPTICISM OF GMO CROPS SIGNALS POLICY SHIFT
France is the latest EU country reluctant to use genetically-modified crops with President Sarkozy suspending their cultivation. The issue remains a subject of heated debate in the EU’s largest agricultural producer.
France lags behind its European neighbours on environmental issues such as recycling and using renewable sources of energy. But this week environmentalists were full of praise for French President Nicolas Sarkozy for saying no GMO crops would be planted in France until the government had received the results of an evaluation by a new authority on GMOs set to be launched later this year.
Green campaigners have long warned of the dangers of GMO crops, saying they are potentially toxic since the seeds have been genetically modified to resist pests and weeds.
”Instead of spraying pesticides and herbicides, the toxins are produced in all of the plant’s cells,” said Geert Ritsema, a Greenpeace International anti-GMO campaigner in Amsterdam, who attended a high-profile environmental submit convened by Sarkozy.
The conference, attended by former US vice president and Nobel laureate Al Gore and head of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, was in keeping with Sarkozy’s election pledge to put green matters at the top of the French government’s agenda.
Sarkozy stopped short of an outright ban on all GMOs, which would have contravened EU agricultural rules, and stressed that his move does not call for halting biotech research.
Critics say GMOs unsafe and toxic
The future of GMOs has long been the subject of heated debate in France with powerful farming lobbies and environmentalists at loggerheads over the safety and viability of using GMO crops.
In the EU, the MON810 corn variety, which is produced by US-based biotech firm Monsanto, is the only GMO maize that has been approved for cultivation.
Although the GMO share of total maize production in France, the EU’s largest agricultural producing country, is barely 1.5 percent this year, maize growing increased fivefold from only 0.3 percent in 2006. Some farmers have urged greater use of GMO crops to boost yields.
Green lobbyists say GMOs contaminate conventional crops and create imbalances in the ecosystem where wildlife has to coexist with farming.
”You have a built-in insecticide that is part of the plant’s genetic make-up, which not only kills pests,” said Adrian Bebb, a GM food expert at the Munich-based Friends of the Earth Europe. ”Pollen from maize falls into streams and impacts on ecologically useful or harmless insects, such as butterflies,” he explained.
Greenpeace says that even though GMO maize is primarily used as animal feed in Europe, the toxicity of such crops could have unforeseen longer term health implications for humans. When one type of maize was fed to rats in a laboratory study at the University of Caen, their immune system was weakened.
Agricultural lobby pooh-poohs claims
Still, GMO soya, corn and oil seeds have been widely planted by farmers all over the world in the last decade or so, with more than 90 percent of the global supply coming from the US, Canada, Brazil and Argentina.
Multi-national companies that supply the seeds argue that health risks have not been scientifically proven and biotechnological processes are kinder to the environment since they reduce the need for fertilizer and chemical killers.
Pascal Ferey, vice-president of SNSEA, a union which represents big industry agriculture interests in France said that environmental groups are using scare tactics by misrepresenting the hazards of GMO crops to the public, which are unfounded in his view.
”We consume GMO traces everyday in our meat, cheese, mayonnaise and ketchup without even knowing about it. How many shoppers truly read the labels down to the last detail when they buy groceries?” he asked.
Maiz Europ, an association of French maize growers was also critical of how ecological groups have manipulated public opinion and health studies to support their views.
”Do you think Brussels would have authorized GMO seeds if they were so dangerous?” asked spokesman Pascal Hurbault, who pointed out that gene techniques have been the best defense against two particularly voracious rootworms that have ravaged maize crops in southwest France.
European GMO skepticism in stark contrast to US
France becomes the latest European country to voice doubts over the use of GMOs. Several European Union countries have dug in their heels on whether their farmers may grow MON 810 maize.
Hungary, one of the EU-27’s biggest grain producers, banned the planting of MON 810 seed in January 2005. Germany earlier this year decided that maize produced from MON 810 seeds could only be sold if there was an accompanying monitoring plan to research its effects on the environment.
Austria too could face an attempt by European Union regulators to force it to lift bans on two GMO maize types.
This past Wednesday, the European Commission authorized three more corn varieties and a sugar beet to enter the market, but the GMO crop seeds will be imported, not grown in Europe.
The raging debate over the future of GMOs in Europe is in sharp contrast to the United States, where GMO technology is much more widely accepted.
Genetically modified ingredients have found their way onto supermarket shelves in the form of cooking oils and processed foods, said Bebb of Friend of the Earth Europe.
”Since GMO labeling is not required in the US, consumers don’t know what is in their food,” he said.
Campaigners agree that there is more awareness in European nations about the dangers of genetically-modified food partly due to the fact that food producers are required by the EU to label products containing GMO ingredients. Various opinion polls show that at least 80 percent of the French public are against GMO foods, which are viewed as unnatural and unhealthy.
Despite the strong passions evoked by GM crops among both advocates and critics, most have welcomed Sarkozy’s push for a leadership role on environmental issues that has long been neglected by his predecessors at the Elysée Palace.
Some point out that France’s policy shift on GMOs will also have implications for the rest of the EU.
”Earlier the government was under pressure from industry groups to be pro-GMO,” said Bebb. ”So the precautionary shift now in Sarkozy’s tone is a seismic one.”
-----------------------------
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento