HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0882.009 2006-2008
Taro Farmers Legislative needs for 2008:
' Onipa' a Na Hui Kalo, a statewide hui of taro farmers; Kahn o Haloa, a statwide coalition ofo.;
taro farmers, Hawaiians, teachers, students, and supporters of Haloa; the Kauai Taro Growers
Association and many concerned constituents request the honorable Representatives and Senators of the
Hawaii State Legislature to VOTE YES on the following bills in this 2008 season. We are constituents
from each of your districts and Haloa, the taro, is all of our responsibility.
These bills are the result of a great deal of collaboration, assessment, evaluation and effort on the part of
taro fanners statewide over the last several years. Taro provides this state with food, health, livelihood,
education, and economic vitality (in sectors far beyond fanning). It is the foundation of Hawaiian culture
and a source of sustainability for all. A strong record of support for taro and tam farmers from the
legislature in the last fifty years has been absent. Let us change that - together!
1. SB958 GMO Taro 10 Year Moratorium.
The State of Hawaii has made a commitment to the survival of the Hawaiian culture (Article X). A
moratorium is essential to keep kalo/cuhure intact. Experimentation puts the Hawaiian culture at an
unacceptable level of risk. The State has also made a commitment to sustainability (Senator Kokobun's
Task Force) through a diverse and innovative economy. GMO crops promote dependence, lack of
diversity and a deadly risk to Hawa?i's environment and traditional tam cultivar biodiversity.
2. I3B1736/SB1854 Recognizing taro and taro lands as a unique and cherished resource
This 2007 bill addresses the crisis facing traditional Hawaiian taro varieties and traditional taro-growing
lands of vanishing from these islands. There is an urgent need to increase protections for these valuable
resources and to maintain or increase opportunities to revitalize taro cultivation now, as we work on
improving tam purity and security (recognized as important under SCR206 in 2007). This bill, with
updated language for 2008, will provide the Department of Land and Natural Resources and the
Department of Agriculture the ability to better protect these resources in the interim and for the future.
3. Fill /SB_ Taro Purity and Security Task Force
This new bill is the result of collaboration between taro farmers, the DOA, and the University of Hawaii.
The dialogue initiated by SCR206 in 2007 yielded great promise. The bill calls for a 2-Year Task Force,
funded to ensure that two farmers can fully participate, to broaden and deepen the dialogue that will guide
decisions for the fidure of tam research and policy. It has agency, institution and taro farmer support.
4. HB /SB_ An appropriation for 1'aru?er4based apple 9=2 control research
Controlling the apple snail is the highest priority for commercial and subsistence wetland growers at this
time. The snail causes up to 250% crop losses and 50% labor increases annually. In 23 years, less than
$400,000 has been spent on this pest, yet it is one of the most highly invasive aquatic species to attack
agricultural crops and infest freshwater bodies from reservoirs to wetlands in Hawaii. Successful taro
farmer based research and snail control efforts needs serious funding rather than small grants.
*0-0-0*004400
Some of you come from tam farming families and histories yourselves; most ofyour children and
grandchildren have taken school trips to the two patch. We urge you to reach back to the source and
stand tall for Haloa, for the future of all our children and the wellbeing of the islands! p
Mahalo for your support. yvr / ~P 583 Comm No. p g V . 9
Kahu o Haloa Ref. Toe Ms
Ref. Dote %11414 4% juuar
QCa- 7?S' -906
TARO FARMERS VOICES:
The legislature has been told that "taro is weak" and needs the technical assistance of genetic engineering
to strengthen it against existing and potential taro diseases "just in case" something happens. Taro
farmers and poi millers do not want GMO taro. Conventional cross-breeding is a sound method for
improving taro quality and disease resistance. Caring for the water and the soil will improve taro health.
WHAT ARE THE RISKS OF GMO TARO:
Hawaiian Culture: Kalo (taro) is Haloa, elder brother to the Hawaiian people. Genetic manipulation is
inappropriate in this relationship.
Contamination: Potential for contamination through the traditional practice of huh (taro tops) exchange
is high; threat of contamination through pollination exists. It is impossible to distinguish between
GMO and non-GMO huli in the field. The tightest field protocols have failed to prevent
contamination world-wide. The negative economic impacts of an "accident" are far-reaching.
Economics:
Marketability: Kalo is a hypo-allergenic food GMO taro jeopardizes that reputation in the poi
market and its use in HawaPi's health and wellness industry. Maintaining HawaiTs taro purity
and security is critical to farmer economic survival and Hawaii's reputation in global markets.
Sustainabiliry: Resource sharing, particularly huli (taro tops for planting), is a major part of the
cultural tradition of taro farming; particularly for subsistence growers, family and farm
economics are often dependent on it. GMO taro would end the practice of sharing because of the
threat of contaminated huli. For some farmers it could mean the loss of additional exchange
resources such as salt, fish, game meat, assistance in the field, and more. It would also take away
farmers' control over the quality and purity of their product Taro farming produces a great deal
of food with minimal fossil fuel resources; something we can't afford to lose.
Health: The leaves, stem and cone of two are highly nutritious. Genetic engineering has the potential to
change the nutritional make-up of the plant and its purity as a food. GMO taro includes the
presence of portions of rice and wheat genes. No rigorous evaluation of these changes has been
done. For those with allergies to these gluten foods, the results could be life threatening. Even a
single incident at a hotel ld'aa could have significant repercussions in the tourist industry.
Bkxhvershy: The hundreds of Hawaiian taro cultivars once present in the islands provided a biodiversity
which protected the crop from island- or state-wide loss. Many of these varieties have
disappeared. Others number so few that they are the equivalent of an endangered species in the
agricultural world. As the center of highest taro cultivar biodiversity in the Pacific, and the
world, every precaution should be taken to protect its purity and security. The threat of
contamination by GMO taro threatens this rich biodiversity and the future of our food security.
Education and the Visitor Industry: Every year thousands of students go to the taro patch; farmers,
parents and visitors do not want to be exposed to GMO crops or foods. Kalo and the lifestyle of
taro farming is one of the reasons why visitors come to Hawaii. GMO taro threatens our very
roots as a unique place in the Pacific.
WHY 15 THERE ATARO SHORTAGE?
A lack of water (dewatered streams) and low water flows that are too warm promote high rates of disease
and fungal growth that impact crap productivity. The invasive apple snail accounts for as much as 18-25
percent of crop loss annually (the snail would not distinguish between a GMO or non-GMO plant in its
attack on taro). Major flood events, such as those that occurred in March of 2005 can take up to two
years or more to recover from. A lank of affordable land, increased production costs and lack of people to
carry on the work (new farmers) contributes to declines in taro and poi availability.
From: Lorrin Pang.
Speaking as Private Citizen
(These views do not represent the Dept of Health)
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
A wise society learns that caution is a virtue, especially when the consequences may be
irreversible.
Genetically modified (GM) foods may be considered an irreversible introduction of a life form
into the environmem. Furthermore, unlike micoma or coqui frogs, changes may be
unrecognizable, subtle and impossible to identify and remove. There are disturbing reports that
the mutations may transfer beyond the intended crops into the soil microbes and contaminate the
ecosystem in this manner.'
If you look within the health field, the pharmaceutical industry has adopted the most strict
version of what is called, the Precautionary Principle. Here is how it works:
• A new product is initially assumed to be 100% toxic and totally ineffective until proven
otherwise. Thus, initially there is never an indication to use the product.
• As test results are compiled (a costly and time consuming effort) we get some idea of
when the benefit to risk-cost ratio of the new product outweighs those of the alternatives
(including the "do-nothing" alterantive). If the new product is advantageous, we instruct
the public when and how to use it, label it, and market.
• Even after marketing we monitor for toxicity and sometimes see severe side effect (501%
of marketed drugs) that might lead to a recall (5% of pharmaceuticals).3 Notice we do
not need to show 1001/9 safety for a product to be marketed, only that its benefits to risks
outweigh those of the alternatives.
• Furthermore, although we can never know with absolute certainty the rate of toxicity, say
109/u, we are willing to accept a range of uncertainty (say 6-141/9).
Lesser versions of this Precautionary Principle should be considered "gambling" and reckless,
especially for GM organisers with their potential for irreversible consequences. Strictly speaking
not following the precautionary principle is even worse than gambling - because when betting on
an outcome at least one has some sense of the odds.
in light of this Precautionary Principle, general warnings by health officials that GM foods are
inadequately regulated should be heeded. The World Health Organization (Bangkok Post, 13
Oct 2004) stated that health aspects of GM foods (either harm or safety) are unknown, and called
for more testing to prove safety prior to release, so that an early action plan can be implemented
to cope with possible health risks posed by transgenic food:
"At this point, we have no evidence to say that it is dangerous to consume food
products that contain GMOs, but at the same time we also don't know its negative
ti
A correct review would:
• Examine the source data (or lack of) for safety rather than take the recommendation of
other agencies (FDA).
• Ensure that no financial conflict of interests affect recommendations; and
• Ensure that community/cultural representatives play a key role in the decision making
process.
My biggest fear is the irreversible nature of GM mutations released into the environment.
Although many mutations occur naturally, they do not have the selective survival advantage that
GM mutations have been engineered to have.'
PATENTING AND RESEARCHER ETHICS
Next there is the issue of patenting and liability. In general the two go hand in hand. Those
introducing the product for financial gain (through patent and royalties) should also bear the
liability if things go wrong. If industry is telling us that products are developed to "save the
world" or save a culture, then why are the companies so intent on taking patents? In the medical
field there are examples where patents were given up so that products were available to "save the
world". Thomas Jefferson promoted patents to reward innovation. The inventor (innovation) is
not the same as the financial investor. A recent National Academy of Sciences survey of
scientists (inventors) showed that they have not been concerned with the patent issues.5
Consider Craig Venter (scientist who sequenced the human genome) remarks: "History has
proven that those gene patents aren't worth the paper they were written on, and the only ones
who made money off them were the patent attorneys."6 It is the CEO's and business managers
who are intent on taking patents for financial return to the company.
The NAS warns that patenting DNA research may backfire and thwart future work. This may
pose a problem to GM taro (or GM papaya) if work against new diseases depends on getting
approval to use existing patented DNA (genetic) strains or processes: "Thus the potential for a
"perfect storm " exists, in which future discoveries in genomic and proteomics that would benefit
the public health and well-being could be thwarted by an increasingly complex intellectual
property regime"...'
President Jefferson intended to reward innovators, but in his day there was not the extensive
system of scientific publication, peer review, and citation. Modern science uses this approach to
"reward" scientists. Another form of "recognition" is the one time "bonus" or "awards". In my
own case I have conducted many studies looking at safety issues of new products. Sometimes I
find side effects and sometimes not. Either outcome is publishable, but certainly not
"patentable". These types of publications have led to citations, awards, promotions and
professional recognition. The NAS writes on this issue that:
"...the act of publishing is a quid pro quo in which authors receive credit and acknowledgement
in exchange for disclosure or their scientific findings.... All members of the scientific community -
whether working in academia, government, or a commercial enterprise - have equal
responsibility for upholding community standards as participants in the publication system, and
all should be equally able to derive benefits from it (NRC 2003, p.4) ".5
NAS's and Venter's warning should be carefully considered by scientists. We cannot have a two
tiered system where some publish and share data and others hoard and keep secrets in the name
of patent protection. Consider my own experience (based on a real example of malaria drug
resistance). Suppose there are three drugs under investigation A, B and C. I publish (without
patent) that drug A and B are ineffective based on a special analysis that I devised. The
company reads the publication, confirms the results, discontinues development of A and B and
pursues, patents and markets C. Shouldn't I receive some of the monetary rewards for sales of
drug C or is publication my only reward? It is tempting to link patents only with
commercialization of products - but in the above example the process is complicated and not
clear. Not only did my advice stop the development of A and B but it resulted in a test to show
that C was effective. Furthermore, once product C is marketed, will the company allow me
access to the product to study other side effects? This too would affect the commercialization of
the product but in a negative way and they may be inclined to restrict access via patent
arguments. If, patents are taken on GM taro there must be credit given to the Hawaiians who
have already contributed so much to the development and understanding of all aspects of non-
GM taro. However, in light of the NAS review, I believe scientists are obliged to support
publications over patents. For scientists who disagree, I would ask that their financial conflicts
of interest be reviewed.
If industry controls so much of the development budget and they are reluctant to look for side
effects which might derail a product line, then how do we insure that adequate safety studies are
funded? The only way to insure this is to have a strong regulatory agency demanding parallel
studies for health and environmental safety. Our Food and Drug Administration (FDA) used to
be such an agency, until it was crippled by conflict of interest.
Recently there have been numerous articles in medical journals and a Senate Investigation
criticizing the FDA for conflict of interest- Analogously, FDA staff were operating under a
"conflict of fear". A few months ago the head of the FDA resigned under criticism for this
problem. Several reports and articles pointedly, write:
"Sccl rrrliets can be naive about politics, PR, and other external factors shaping their work
and mfr become srdigrwnt at the suggestion gat their resin am shaped by their fording"
- ReMptonr S Sit uwJ. Ressomb fwxAng, COIWW ofin<ereA and ft of
public relabons, Public Health Reports, July 4ug 2002 (17); 331-9.
FDA epidemiologist David Graham - " 1 would argue that the FDA as currently configured, is
incapable of protecting America against another Vioxx. We are virtually defenseless." ...an
atmosphere that that stifles debate ...Is very much driven by what industry wants ...more a
cultureof fear." - Okie S. What Ails the FDA, 2005 NEJM 352(11), 1063-6.
FDA panel met to discuss release of new 2 drugs - FDA says "because of the general nature
of the discussions before the committee, these potential conflicts are mitigated." The panel
members with financial interest themselves say that their ties did not influence their votes.
Yet of those with Interests 93% votes were for the drugs compared to only 66% of those
without interests. The drugs got approvals but if the conflicted members had not been
allowed to vote the drugs would not have been approved. - Steinbrook R. Financial Conflicts of
Interest and the FDA's Advisory Committees. 14 Jury 2005, NEJM 353(2), p 118-8.
Upon resignation of FDA halal Dr Crawford, Senator Clinton said " Under his watch the
agency faced scrutiny over ft response to various crises:...am failure to
adequately separate science from what can only be sees as ideology-driven
decision making. 1 encourage the Bush administration to send Congress a
nominee who will put health and safety that and provide assurances that the FDA
will make science, not ideology or other interests, the comerstone of its decision
making.° US Meoldne 41(11) Nov 2005
In response to the FDA mess, the National Institutes of Health 04" has started a major
campaign to control conflict of interest in its own ranks. For starters they have defined conflict
of interest as:
......must cover financial interests, gifts, gratuities and favors, nepotism,
and other such areas such as political participation and bribery." NiH
websde, Financial Conflict of interest-Objectivity in Research: lnst"onat Policy Review,
hNpJlgranffi.rah.gov4gn;r4s/poMW1bQ*dh mWewMm
One should note that the NIH has chosen "political participation" as a form of conflict along with
bribery and nepotism.
SUMMARY.
The challenge for Hawaii is to either proactively plan for the development of GM organisms or
to react on a case by case basis. Taro has brought this issue to the forefront. With respect to
safety and environmental issues, little has been done to regulate GM crops which have already
entered Hawaii. This sets a bad precedence for dealing with new entries. As the WHO and NAS
have issued new warnings of GM risks, we turn to our regulatory agencies to set guidelines.
Unfortunately conflict of interest(few has biased key agencies and, according to the NIH report,
can affect our Legislative and political processes as well. Our only hope is to create a well
informed public who will help us snake the case for better control of GM crops and food.
References
1. Nielsen, Kaare M., Ph.D. 2001. "Horizontal Gene Transfer - DNA in the Soil" AgBio
View 15 May 2001. Hard Lab., Dept. of Evolutionary and Organismic Biology, Harvard
University. 16 Divinity Ave. Cambridge, MA 02138
2. Hacein-Bey-Albina S. et al NEIM2003, 348: 255-6
3. Me S, NEIM2005, 352 (11); p 1065, and Okie S, NEIM2005, 352 (12); p 1173.
4. US National Academy of Sciences. Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods -
Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects
(www.nay.edu/books/0309092094/htmU4.htmI., pages 4 and 64)
5. US National Academy of Sciences. 2006. Reaping the Benefits of Genomic and Proteomic
Research: Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation, and Public Health.
6. "Guess who owns you genes?" Scientific American. Feb 2006, p 81.
Fortune Magazine 02 July 2007 Issue
ATTACK OF THE MUTANT RICE
By Marc Gunther
America's rice farmers didn't want to grow a genetically engineered crop Their customers
in Europe did not want to buy it. So how did it end up in our food?
Back in the spring of 2001, a 64-year-old Texas rice farmer named Jacko Garrett watched a
fleet of 18-wheelers haul away truckloads of rice that he had grown with great care. "It just
bothers me so bad," Garrett said. "I'm sitting here trying to find food to feed people, and I've
got to bury five million pounds of rice." No one likes to waste food, but for Garrett, who runs
a charity that collects rice for the needy, the pain was especially acute.
Garrett's rice was genetically modified, part of an experiment that was brought to an abrupt
halt by its sponsor, a North Carolina-based biotechnology company called Aventis Crop
Science. The company had contracted with a handful of farmers to grow the rice, which was
known as Liberty Link because its genes had been altered to resist a weed killer called
Liberty, also made by Aventis.
But by 2001, Aventis Crop Science was living a biotech nightmare. Another one of its
creations, a variety of genetically modified corn known as StarLink, had been discovered in
taco shells made by Kraft. Because the StarLink corn had been approved as animal feed - and
not for human consumption - all hell broke loose.
Hundreds of corn products were recalled. Consumers and farmers sued. Greenpeace dumped
bags of corn in front of federal regulatory agencies, and an Environmental Protection Agency
official accused Aventis Crop Science of breaking the law. So shell-shocked was Aventis SA,
the French pharmaceutical giant that owned Aventis Crop Science, that it decided to sell the
U.S. biotech unit and abandon the very emotional business of reengineering the foods we eat.
So dumping the Texas rice was a no-brainer. "We didn't want to take any chances," says a
former Aventis executive. "We burned and buried enough rice to feed 20 million people."
Eventually Aventis paid about $120 million to settle the StarLink lawsuits. It sold its crop
science unit to Bayer, the German drug giant that makes aspirin, Aleve and Alka-Seltzer.
Bayer Crop Science dropped plans to bring Liberty Link rice to market, largely because rice
grown in the U.S. is exported to Europe and other places that don't want genetically modified
foods. And everyone forgot about Jacko Garrett's rice.
Can you guess where this is going? Yep. In January 2006, small amounts of genetically
engineered rice turned up in a shipment that was tested - we don't know why - by a French
customer of Riceland Foods, a big rice mill based in Stuttgart, Ark. Because no transgenic
rice is grown commercially in the U.S., the people at Riceland were stunned. At fast they
figured that the test was a mistake or that tiny bits of genetically modified corn or soybeans
had somehow gotten mixed up with rice during shipping. They said nothing.
Then came another shock. Testing revealed that the genetically modified rice contained a
strain of Liberty Link that had not been approved for human consumption. What's more, trace
amounts of the Liberty Link had mysteriously made their way into the commercial rice supply
in all five of the Southern states where long-grain rice is grown: Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana,
Mississippi and Missouri. Bayer and Riceland then informed the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, which announced the contamination last August.
By then the tainted rice was everywhere. If in the past year or so you or your family ate Uncle
Ben's, Rice Krispies, or Gerber's, or drank a Budweiser - Anheuser-Busch is America's
biggest buyer of rice - you probably ingested a little bit of Liberty Link, with the unapproved
gene. (A very little bit - perhaps ten to 15 grains of transgenic rice in a one-pound bag of rice,
which contains about 29,000 grains.)
Last November, over the howls of anti-GMO (that's generically modified organisms) activists,
the USDA retroactively approved the Liberty Link rice, known as LL601. The department
said the genes that it approved are similar to those inserted for years into canola and corn,
with no apparent ill effects. The experts at the USDA, the EPA and the Food and Drug
Administration, all of which bear some responsibility for regulating transgenic food, say the
contamination is nothing to worry about.
Then again, the experts also have dismissed repeated warnings that genetically modified crops
can't be managed or controlled When organic farmers worried that their fields could be
invaded by genetically modified plants grown nearby, regulators told them there was nothing
to fear. The biotech industry promised that experimental, gene-altered plants could be grown
in open fields and never, ever end up in the neighborhood Safeway.
Oops.
In any event, after last year's contamination became public, and after rice prices took a
tumble, and after Europe said it no longer wanted any American rice, and after several other
courttries, including Japan and Iraq demanded rigorous testing of U.S. rice, the industry
moved to contain the damage.
Rice growers were told not to plant Cheniere, a popular seed variety that had been tainted by
Liberty Link genes. Regulators set up a comprehensive testing program to keep future
harvests clean. Last December, Bruce Knight, a USDA official, assured worried rice farmers,
"The good news is that the only foundation seed to test positive for Liberty Link was of a
single variety - 2003 Cheniere."
And then the tests that had been put in place uncovered a second contamination, and then a
third, involving new, unapproved strains of Liberty Link, which turned up in another popular
variety of rice seed, called Clearfield 131 (CL 131). This seed variety is made by the German
chemical giant BASF Corp. So the CL 131 seed had to be banned as well.
Yes, it's the attack of the mutant rice, and its spreading.
The Industry Takes a Hit
"This is a new kind of pollution," says Andrew Kimbrell, director of a Washington advocacy
group called the Center for Food Safety, which opposes transgenic food "You don't see it It
disseminates. It reproduces. It mutates. Its living pollution."
And here's the thing that really bugs many of America's 8,000 rice farmers: They didn't want
to grow transgenic rice. It's not that they object to genetic engineering per se; many of them
grow transgenic corn or soybeans alongside their conventional rice. Over the past decade, in
fact, biotech crops have become staples of the American diet; about 60 to 70 percent of the
processed foods in U.S. grocery stores contains oils or ingredients derived from biotech corn
and soybeans, according to BIO, an industry group.
Nevertheless, an acrimonious debate about whether biotech food is safe for the environment
and human health rages on amid considerable scientific uncertainty. Absent firm proof of
danger, regulators in the U.S. have chosen to permit widespread bioengineering. But rice
farmers know their market. About half of the U.S. rice crop, which was worth about $1.9
billion last year, is exported, and Europeans and Asian consumers simply don't want
genetically engineered food.
"If I can't sell it, I don't want to grow it," says Jennifer James, who grows rice, wheat and
soybeans, some of them transgenic, on a 7,500-acre farm near Newport, Ark.
And so the farmers are hiring lawyers and calling their congressmen and trying to decide
whom to blame: Bayer Crop Science, which owns Liberty Link and is the target of dozens of
lawsuits, or the U.S. government, which regulates agricultural biotechnology, or the
Europeans, for their opposition to genetically modified crops, which many farmers suspect is
a form of protectionism. (Funny, isn't it - European consumers won't buy genetically modified
food, but French, Swiss and German drug companies sell biotechnology to U.S. farmers.)
Some farmers point the finger at environmental groups like Greenpeace for scaring people
with their talk of Frankenfoods. Says James, who has decided not to sue: "Somebody screwed
up somewhere."
Collectively, farmers and seed companies have lost hundreds of millions of dollars as a result
of the contamination. Its origins remain a mystery. "This is the most traumatic thing I've seen
in the rice industry in 30 years," says Darryl Little, the widely respected director of the
Arkansas State Plant Board, who has tried to clean up the mess. "It's been devastating."
And not just to the farmers. Consider the plight of Scott Deeter, the chief executive of a
Sacramento biotech firm called Ventria Biosciencc. Ventria wants to grow rice that has been
genetically engineered to produce proteins that can then be extracted and turned into low-cost
treatments for diarrhea. Making the drugs by growing transgemc rice is cheaper than
producing them in a lab. "The rice plant is just the factory," Denter says.
Ventria's medicine would save lives, Deeter says. About 1.8 million children in poor countries
die amorally from diarrhea. The disease raises national security issues as well, Deeter told a
congressional subcommittee. "During Operation Iraqi Freedom, 70 percent of deployed troops
suffered a diarrheal attack," he testified. "This is a silent enemy attacking American troops."
Even before the Liberty Link brouhaha, Ventria struggled to find a home for its "pharma
rice." California told the company not to grow it in the state after farmers objected. So did
Missouri, after Anheuser-Busch threatened to stop buying Missouri rice if Ventria was
allowed to grow there. (AB did not want diarrhea-fighting proteins to turn up in a Bud.) Last
year Deeter took his plans for rice fields and a production plant to Junction City, a small
Kansas town more than 200 miles away from the nearest rice farm.
That's not far enough to satisfy critics. The USA Rice Federation, an industry group, opposed
Ventria's plans. Citing Liberty Link, the group said it does not believe that the USDA can
protect "the environment and the public's food and feed supply from unwanted intrusions of
genetically engineered materials."
"We're not anti-biotech, and were not anti-Ventria," says Bob Cummings, the federation's
senior vice president. "Our job is to protect our industry."
Farmers Fight Back
"HAVE A RICE DAY." So says the USA Rice Federation, which wants people to eat more
rice. Check out the recipes on its Web site for Senegalese peanut soup with spicy rice
timbales; walnut rice with cream cheese, mushrooms and spinach; and chocolate-chip banana
nut rice pudding. Yum.
Alas, these items are not on the menu at the Little Chef restaurant in Stuttgart, Ark., where
Fortune and a group of rice growers recently discussed the industry's woes over a lunch of
chicken-fried steak, vegetables and you-know-what. Arkansas grows about 45 percent of the
nation's rice crop, and America's two biggest rice mills, Riceland Foods and Producer's Rice
Mill, are headquartered in Stuttgart, a town of 10,000 people that bills itself as the Rice and
Duck Capital of the World. Rice plants and ducks both like water.
Although they can't prove it, the farmers believe that rice prices are lower than they would be
because of the Liberty Link problems. After the contamination was made public by the USDA
on Aug. 18, 2006, the price of rice futures fell by about 10 percent. Prices have recovered
since then, but farmers say they should be higher given the rising prices for other farm
commodities.
Currently, rough (meaning unrefined) rice sells for about $10.70 per hundredweight, or 100
pounds. "Rice could have been $1 a hundredweight more, and every farmer needs that," says
Ray Vester, who farms about 1,300 acres in Stuttgart and sits on the state plant board. Rice
farmers have been hard hit by rising energy and fertilizer costs, so they are feeling squeezed.
Farmers who planned to use either Cheniere or CL131 seed had an additional problem. They
had to scramble to find alternatives or plant other crops. About 40 percent of the rice acreage
in Arkansas would have been planted with either Cheniere or CL 131 until both were banned,
according to Chuck Wilson, a rice specialist with the University of Arkansas cooperative
extension service in Stuttgart. Wilson expects Arkansas growers to plant 1.2 million acres of
rice this year, 13 percent less than last year and the lowest acreage since 1996.
Hardest hit was a small group of farmers who specialize in growing rice for seed and were
unable to sell their stocks of Cheniere or CL131 to other farmers. "We had to put seals on the
bins. We couldn't ship it. We couldn't plant it," said Troy Hornbeck, an owner of HBK Seed
in Dewitt, Ark. He was eventually permitted to sell the transgenic rice for consumption, not
for planting, at a loss.
Ten seed dealers from Arkansas, Missouri and Louisiana recently sued Bayer, saying the
company's carelessness ruined their seed. Rival BASF, which lost an estimated $15 million
because it owns the banned Clearfield 131 variety, hasn't said whether it will sue, but its
executives are unhappy. "We can't have an unwanted GM event floating around the seed
supply," said one.
Many other lawsuits have been filed. Tilda, a British importer of rice, has sued Bayer Crop
Science, Riceland Foods and Producer's Rice Mill, saying it had to destroy or send back
Arkansas rice.
A Chicago tort lawyer named Adam Levitt has been named a lead counsel in a federal lawsuit
brought on behalf of more than 400 rice growers. Not by coincidence, Levitt represented corn
farmers who successfully sued Aventis Crop Science, Bayer's predecessor, over StarLink.
Says Levitt: "Bayer knew Liberty Link rice could easily contaminate the rice supply, because
Bayer contaminated the U.S. corn supply only a few years ago."
Bayer says the company complied fully with the law. In a legal filing, its lawyers speculated
that the alleged damages were caused by an "act of God."
What Went Wrong?
So its God's fault? That's about as good an answer as we've got right now to the question of
what went wrong.
The USDA's Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has been investigating
since last summer, but the agency won't say what it has learned. In a sense, APHIS is
investigating itself. Its track record, frankly, is a little scary.
In 2005 the USDA's inspector general said that APHIS, which regulates field tests of biotech
foods, didn't know the location of some field trials, did no independent testing of nearby crops
and did not evert require submission of written protocols by some biotech firms, leaving the
industry to, in effect, monitor itself.
The audit concluded: "APHIS' current regulations, policies and procedures do not go far
enough to ensure the safe introduction of agricultural biotechnology." APHIS says it has fixed
the problems. "We regulate technology thaYs constantly changing, and our policies continue
to evolve," John Turner, an agency official, told Fortune.
As it turns out, its unlikely that Jacko Garretfs Texas rice escaped from the landfill to live
another day. He grew a different variety of Liberty Link from the one that got into the
Cheniere seed. Instead, the source of the contamination is probably a rice research station in
Crowley, La., operated by Louisiana State University. The LSU fields appear to be among the
very few places - if not the only one - where the Liberty Link rice was grown in proximity to
fields where Cheniere and CL131 seeds were also being developed.
The LSU rice-breeding station is run by a man named Steve Linscombe, one of the most
admired men in the U.S. rice industry. Linscombe, who is 52, has devoted his entire career to
developing nee-seed varieties that improve yields and resist pests or herbicides. "He has put
millions of dollars into the pockets of rice farmers," says Darryl Little, the Arkansas regulator.
"He's a premier breeder."
Because Linscombe understood the risks of mixing tcansgenic rice seed with conventional
varieties, he took extra precautions when working with Liberty Link. To prevent pollen or
stray kernels of rice from migrating, USDA rules recommend at least a ten-foot buffer zone
around transgenic field tests. LSU's contract with Bayer called for a 30-foot isolation zone.
Linscombe created buffer zones of at least 120 feet. Until now, no one thought rice pollen
could travel that far.
"I did as much isolation as I possibly could," Linscombe said. So what happened? "I have
been dealing with this for nine months, and I still can't give you a definitive answer," he said.
Wilson, the University of Arkansas rice specialist, says, "I think we've learned some things
about rice, biologically, that we didn't know before."
Whether the USDA has learned is another question. In May the agency granted Ventria's
application to grow its pharma rice on up to 3,200 acres in Kansas. The agency had received
20,000 comments (most by e-mail clicks) opposing the plan from citizens, activists, farmers
and rice industry groups.
Deeter, Ventria's CEO, says there's no chance that the pharma rice will find its way into the
food supply, as Liberty Link did: "We're more strictly regulated, by a factor of ten - not for
any good reason, by the way."
In the USDA ruling, Rebecca Bech, an APHIS administrator, wrote, "Ibe combination of
isolation distance, production practices, and rice biology make it extremely unlikely that this
rice would impact the U.S. commercial rice supply."
In other words, there's nothing - nothing at all - to fear.
IS THERE PRECEDENCE FOR A MORATORIUM ON GMO CROPS?
INTERNATIONAL LAW
In 2000, the United Nations implemented a de facto moratorium on "Terminator
technology" (Genetic Use Restriction Technology) which renders seeds sterile, under the UN
Convention on Biological Diversity, applying the "precautionary principle" to potentially
dangerous GM technology in agricultural crops and blocking the commercialization of such
products.
In 2006, The UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) passed a formal declaration at
its Eighth Conference of the Parties (COP-8) in Curitiba, Brazil to recognize the threats
posed by genetically modified (GM) trees, which are now established in over 35 countries
and urging all countries to approach the technology with caution. The Forest Biological
Diversity Decision in Brazil 2006 UNEP/CBD/COP8/ WG.I/L3 bans genetically engineered
trees. This follows the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) call for a fiamework for
assessing GM impacts on trees in 2005.
Nine developing countries supported calls for a moratorium on GM trees proposed by
government representatives of Iran and Ghana including Ecuador, Egypt, Philippines,
Rwanda, Senegal, Madagascar, and Malawi, some of whom are home to the richest, most
biodiverse forests on Earth.
? While Hawaii does not have the sheer number of species found in the tropical
rainforests of other parts of the world; it is home to some of the most unique
endemic biodfversity -found no where else in the world.
In 2003, the Cartegena Protocol on Biosafety entered into force as the first international
law to control and prevent transportation of Living Modified Organisms (LMO's) across
national boundaries. The protocol allows countries to bar imports of genetically engineered
seeds, microbes, animals or crops that they deem a threat to their environments. It also
requires international shipments of genetically engineered grains to be labeled. To date, the
signatures of 143 nations have been deposited with the UN Secretary-General. It states;
"The Parties shall ensure that the development, handling, transport, use, transfer and
release of any living modified organisms are undertaken in a manner that prevents or
reduces the risks to biological diversity, taking also into account risks to human health."
The full text of the document may be viewed at: http://www.cbd.int/biosafety/
In June 2007, Order 010 became law. Cusco, Peru's regional government approved Order
010, a ban on genetically modified varieties of potatoes intended to protect the genetic
diversity of thousands of native potato varieties for a region of Peru that is the center of
potato diversity in the world.
? Hawai'i is the center of taro cultivar biodiversity in the Pacific and globally.
NATIONAL LAW
California
Four California counties (Marin, Mendocino, Trinity and Santa Cruz) and two cities have
adopted prohibitions on the growing of genetically modified crops in order to protect their
organic and conventional foods since 2006.
Washington, DC and Oregon
In February, 2007, in a decision broadly affecting field trials of genetically engineered crops
a federal district judge ruled that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) must halt
approval of all new field trials until more rigorous environmental reviews are
conducted. Citing potential threats to the environment, Judge Harold Kennedy found in
favor of the Center for Food Safety that USDA's past approvals of field trials of herbicide
tolerant, genetically engineered bentgrass were illegal.
Hawaii
August 2006, Federal Court Rules Biopharm Permits Issued Illegally in Hawaii. The
ruling is the first ever on controversial drug-producing GE crops manufactured by Monsanto
and others. A federal district judge ruled that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
violated the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in permitting the cultivation of drug-
producing, genetically engineered crops throughout Hawal'i. The court found that USDA
acted in "utter disregard" of the ESA, and also violated the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA), by failing to conduct even preliminary investigations prior to its
approval of the plantings.
New Mexico
March 2006, a Declaration of Seed Sovereignty was adopted by the Traditional Native
American Farmers Association (TNAFA) in New Mexico. The document recognized
existing cases of contamination of their traditional crops and the risk this placed on their
crops and seeds as an important reason for protecting native seed sources and food crops.
Various bills calling for moratoria on GE food (Vermont), bans of GE wheat (North Dakota,
Montana) have been filed within the last year. Several municipalities declared moratoria on
GE food (Burlington/Vermont), bans of GE crops (City of Boulder/Colorado), or urged the
federal government to ban GE food (City and County of San Francisco/California). Many
attempts to adopt such bills or resolutions failed in the past. At this point nearly 20 states (the
count was 16 six months ago) are discussing GMO-related legislation, including moratorium
bills in New York, Massachusetts and Hawaii.
LAW SUITES
UK Food Standards Agency is currently being sued over Bayer Transgenic Rice
On May 3, 2007 the California District Court issued Permanent Injunction to vacate APHIS'
2005 decision to deregulate Monsanto's genetically engineered (GE) Roundup Ready alfalfa.
The order describes details on how grower; and distributors will store GE alfalfa, label
containers, and clew equipment. An amendment in July, describes how APHIS will manage
the disclosure of location data. On December 18, 2007, APHIS issued a supplemental
administrative order which specifies mandatory practices that must be implemented by
Roundup Ready alfalfa producers.
In 2007 the USDA put a hold on any further planting of Round up Ready crops due to a
lawsuit. The key issues of the lawsuit were gene flow (contamination to non-Roundup
Ready crops), and the possibilities of further weed resistance to glyphosate.
THESE COMPANIES WONT ACCEPTGMO INGREDIENTS:
Frito Lay won't buy GMO com.
Gerber won't use GMOs in their baby food.
Heinz avoids all GMO ingredients.
Burger King and McDonalds refuse to purchase GM potatoes
Annie's Naturals won't use GMO soy
Hain Group Food - the biggest natural food company in the U.S created a GMO Task Force
and requires affidavits from their suppliers.
Pacific Grain and Foods - their suppliers must be GM corn and GM soy free
Nature's Path Food Inc - won't accept GMO grains and flours for its cereals
Newman's Own
Aloha Airlines includes GMO-Free snacks in their inflight snack packs
Honolulu Poi Company, Aloha Poi, Hanalei Poi and other mills would not accept GMO taro.
And - in the UK, the ultimate irony, Monsanto's headquarters cafeteria is GMO-Free!
THESE COUNTRIES WONT ACCEPT GMO FOODS - EVEN IN FAMINE:
While increasing food security and food availability is the main argument for promoting GMOs,
recent research is showing that there is no significant yield increase in genetically engineered crops,
only increased safety risks. Southern Africa was facing a significant famine by the end of 2002, with
nearly 15 million people facing starvation in Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Swaziland, Zambia and
Zimbabwe. Yea, in October 2002, Zambia refused U.S. food aid that came in the form of 18,000 tons
of GM corn.
Other countries followed suit. In November 2002, India froze U.S. GM shipments of corn and soy
food aid. In lauuary 2003, two U.S. relief agencies approached the Indian Genetic Engineering
Approval Committee (GEAC) to gain permission for them to import U.S. GM com and soy food aid
that could not be certified as rim-five. As of early 2003, GEAC has approved only the importation of
GM cotton, but disallowed GM food imports.
At the WSSD, African Civil Society groups composed of more than 45 African countries, presented a
statement:
"We refuse to be used as the dumping ground for contaminated food rejected by the northern
countries. Our responses (sic) is to strengthen solidarity and self-reliance within Africa, in theface
of this next wave of coloniwtlott, through GE technologies, which aim to control our agricultural
systems, through the manipulation ofseed by corporations. And we are enraged by the emotional
blackmail of vulnerable people in need, being used in this way. We will stand together in preventing
our continent from being contaminated by genetically engineered crops, as a responsibility to our
f tture generation. "
THESE COUNTRIES HAVE BANNED GMO FOODS AND CROPS:
The precedent for national GMO bans was first set in 1997. Just within the European Union, more
than 35 countries, representing more than 3 billion consumers have banned or highly restricted GMO
foods and crops. Some surveys show more than 70 percent of Europeans are against biotech food.
Between 1997 and 2000, five EU countries banned specific GMOs on their territory, focusing on
three maize and two rapeseed types that were approved shortly before the start of the EU's six year
moratorium on new biotech authorizations. Today, the European Network of GMO-&ee Regions
includes 39 regional governments and 6 EU countries.
Austria Since the late 1990's Bans on three GE maize types sold by Novartis, Monsanto and AgrEvo,
including MON810 and T25 produced by Monsanto and Bayer. The Federal hrstitute for
Less-Favoured and Mountainous Areas is pressing for GM free legislation and published a
study on GE-see zones, initiatives in the States of Vorarlberg and Salzburg to ban GE trials.
MON810 and T25, two varieties of GMO maize produced by multinational s Monsanto and
Bayer.
France Ban of PGS and AgEvo HR rapeseed
Germany Ban ofNovarfis Bt maize. The initiative "No GE on communal land" of BLIND (Friends of
the Earth Germany) launched activities in several German communities to discuss and vote on
the GE-free resolutions
Poland Bamted trade and plantings of genetically modified (GMO) seeds (2006). The EVs largest
agricultural producer, Poland, extended its nationwide blanket ban on GMO seeds and crops
with a two-year deadline announced on 22 July 2006 for biotech companies to prove that the
use of GM animal feed is safe for humans, animals and the environment or face a total ban on
further imports of GM feed into Poland.
Hungary One of the EVs biggest grain producers, became the first country in eastern Europe to ban
GMO crops or foods when it outlawed the planting of MON 810 maize seeds in January 2005.
Greece Ban of AgrEvo HR rapeseed, moratorium of GE crop trials.
Luxemburg Ban ofNovartisBt maize.
Italy The four regions Tuscany, Molise, Lazio and Marche and around 25 provinces, cities and
communes banned GE crops, including Rome, Milan, Turin, Brescia and Genoa, and the
Tuscany ban was ratified by the national government.
Portugal Ban ofNovmtis Bt maize.
Spain The Basque Government went for a five year blanket moratorium for GMOs. The three
provinces of Castilla-La Mancha and Baleares banal GE foak Andalucia declared a five
year moratorium on GE crop trials and GE food.
England The Church of England has refused permission for GE crop trials on 60,000 hectares of its
land, dozens of local authorities supply GE free school lunches, the House of Commons
barred GE foods for its catering. The vote of the Welsh Assembly to keep Wales GE flee was
counteracted by the mmistry ofAgrierdtme approving a GE maize variety. The Island of
Jersey tanned GE crops.
Ireland Declared the island to be a GMO-free zone . The biotech giant, BASF made the decision to
withdraw its controversial GMO potato field experiments from Ireland because of the
conditions imposed in the provisional consent given by the Environmental Protection
Agency. These included obligations for the company to reduce the risk of cross-contamination
of neighbouring farmers and wildlife, and to pay the costs of an independent monitoring of
health and environmental impacts.
Switzerland Although a center of GE science and industry, only two trials with GE potatoes in 1991/92
have been performed until now.
Norway Banned the import of several GE crops and products which contain antibiotic resistance genes.
Austalia The State of Tasmania banned GE rapeseed as weed, Western Australia has banned
commercial GE planning. Australian States are given the right to declare themselves GE free.
Some communities (e.g. Bondi(Sydney, West Wimmera Shire) declared themselves GE free.
Western Australia remains firm against GMOs.
Australia State Government moratoriums exist on GMO food crops.
New Zealand Some local bodies in Auckland and Wellington have declared themselves GM free. Trials
with GE salmon have been blocked by the government.
In August, 2007, the Government of New Zealand chose not immediately buy into a food
regulator's decision to declare a new form of com genetically engineered for stockfeed to be
safe for human consumption because they expect it to tam up in com-based foods.
Japan Has banned GMO fruits, vegetables and animals, particularly GMO Papaya from Hawaii.
Thailand Banned imports of 40 GE crops for commercial planting, but not for research purposes.
Philippines The community of Valencia called for a five-year moratoria on GE food and GE crop trials
and commercialzation. The Philippine president announced a moratorium on GE crop
research.
The Philippines government recently passed a bill that requires labeling "Genetically
engineered" on the GMO derived food and food products in order to give people the right to
know if what they eat have been modified by modem bioteelmlogy. (ENS 2001)
Saudi Arabia Banned foods that are made from GMOs and declared not to import GE wheat.
Egypt Declared not to import GE wheat.
Algeria Banimed the import, distribution, commercialization and utilization of GE plarm except for
research purposes.
Brazil Planning GE seeds is prohibited by federal law in Brazil for the time being, than States of Rio
Grande do Sul and Mato Grosso do Sul have declared their intentions to remain GM-free, 18
States called upon the Central government to block commercial GE crop planting.
Paraguay The Ministry of Agriculture plans to ban GE crops from commercial planting.
Mexico Mexico imposed a moratorium on the planting of genetically modified crops in 1998. hi
2000, Mexico barred Monsanto Co. and other biotechnology companies from planting
genetically engineered corn, rekindling fierce debate in that country over the technology.
Farmers in Mexico first bred com some 6,000 to 8,000 years ago. The country is home to at
least 59 species of maize, from the protein-rich variety used to make tortilla chips to a softer
grain mashed for use in tamales.
Russia While GMO flood crops are not explicitly banned In Russia, the process for registering to
grow GMO crops is so strict that it is virtually impossible to get them in the ground. All
packaged products containing more than 0.9 percent of GMOs are required to have special
labels.
HOW FAR CAN GE CONTAMINATED SEEDS AND POLLEN TRAVEL?
"The unregulated rise of GMOs world-wide in recent years has led to concern among
scientists and government officials alike. Scientists are learning that GMOs know no
boundaries, degrading genetic diversity of crop seeds and then expanding beyond
farmscapes into adjacent areas of biodiversity. In the process, they degrade complex soil
ecology and habitat for beneficial insects, thus ajjechng mammals and birds and killing
the very biodiversity that GMO proponents claim to care about. "
International Union for the Conservation of Nature, 2004.
The lUCN has members from 140 comtlries including 114 government agencies, and 800-plus NGOs.
More than 10,000 intenationally-recognized scientists and experts from more dm 180 countries volmdeer
their services to its she global commissions.
Contamination incidents in 40 countries prove that "co-existence" is a myth: GM crops
rapidly contaminate related and unrelated species, agricultural seed supplies, and the
human food chain, and would rapidly destroy [Aawai'i'sj image as the clean green food
island
Excerpt from Monsanto 9%istleblower Says Genetically Engineered Crops May Cause
Disease by Jeffrey M. Smith
April, 2007
The industry has been consistently inept at controlling the spread of unapproved varieties.
On August 18, 2006, for example, the USDA announced that unapproved GM long grain
rice, which was last field tested by Bayer CropScience in 2001, had contaminated the US
rice crop (probably for the past 5 yem). Japan responded by suspending long grain rice
imports and the EU will now only accept shipments that are tested and certified GM-free.
Similarly, in March 2005, the US government admitted that an unapproved corn variety
had escaped from SyngenWs field trials four years earlier and had contaminated US corn.
By year's end, Japan had rejected at least 14 shipments containing the illegal corn. Other
field trialed crops have been mixed with commercial varieties, consumed by farmers,
stolen, even given away by government agencies and universities who had accidentally
mixed seed varieties.
Some contaminates from field trials may last for centuries. That may be the fate of a
variety of unapproved Roundup Ready grass which, according to reports made public in
August 2006, had escaped into the wild from an Oregon test plot years earlier. Pollen had
crossed with other varieties and wind had dispersed seeds. Scientists believe that the
variety will cross pollinate with other grass varieties and may contaminate the
commercial grass seed supply" 70 percent of which is grown in Oregon.
Even GM crops with known poisons are being grown outdoors without adequate
safeguards for health and the environment. A corn engineered to produce pharmaceutical
medicines, for example, contaminated corn and soybean fields in Iowa and Nebraska in
2002. On August 10, 2006, a federal judge ruled that the drug-producing GM crops
grown in Hawaii violated both the Endangered Species Act and the National
Environmental Policy Act. A December 29, 2005 report by the USDA office of Inspector
General, blasted the agriculture department for its abysmal oversight of GM field trials,
particularly for the high risk drug producing crops. And a January 2004 report by the
National Research Council also called upon the government to strengthen its oversight,
but acknowledged that there is no way to guarantee that field trialed crops will not
pollute the environment.
National Science Foundation, Oct. 9, 2007
GENETICALLY ENGINEERED CORN MAY HARM STREAM ECOSYSTEMS
Ecological impacts of genetically engineered corn are particularly
important because of increased corn demand created by biofuels
production
A new study indicates that a popular type of genetically engineered corn--called Bt
com--may damage the ecology of streams draining Bt corn fields in ways that have
not been previously considered by regulators. The study, which was funded by the
National Science Foundation, appears in the Oct. 8 edition of The Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences.
This study provides the first evidence that toxins from Bt corn may travel long
distances in streams and may harm stream insects that serve as food for fish. These
results compound concerns about the ecological impacts of Bt corn raised by
previous studies showing that corn-grown toxins harm beneficial insects living in the
soil.
Conducted laboratory tests showing that consumption of Bt corn byproducts
increased the mortality and reduced the growth of caddisfiies. Together with field
data indicating that the caddisfiles are eating St corn pollen, these results "suggest
that the toxin in Bt corn pollen and detritus can affect species of insects other than
the targeted pest," Tank said.
Royer says that "if our goal is to have healthy, functioning ecosystems, we need to
protect all the parts. Water resources are something we depend on greatly."
"Overall, our study points to the potential for unintended and unexpected
consequences from the widespread planting of genetically engineered crops," Tank
said. "The exact extent to which aquatic ecosystems are, or will be, impacted is still
unknown and likely will depend on a variety of factors, such as current ecological
conditions, agricultural practices and ciimate/weather pattems."
THE CASE OF SOY: NO SUCH THING AS GMO-FREE ANYMORE
ExAlla, a New Zealand company that specializes in gluten-free bakery products, flour
mixes and other baking products for those with gluten allergies in trying to remain GMO-
free writes on their web page: "There is a small quantity of soya flour in our bread mix,
and some soya lecithin in the chocolate component of the Chocolate Chip cookies, and
neither of these can be guaranteed to be GMO free. Contamination of soya is now so
widespread that we suspect that no-one in the world can claim that any soya product is
GMa-free, in the strict zero-tolerance sense required by labelling regulations."
The directors of Natural Products Inc, and Sun Ritch Inc, both of whom supply soy flour
to Silk brand soy milk's parent White Wave, an $80 million dollar a year company, feel
the same way. In an eye-opening Wall Street Journal article (Laboratory tests belie
promises ofsome 'GMO free'food labels, 5 April 2001) companies such as Gerber and
Iowa Soy, whose growers plant 3,000 acres of non-gmo organic soy beans under the
strictest set of conditions describe how they have been unable prevent contamination.
There is so much acreage planted in GM crops throughout the U.S. that it is impossible to
isolate organic farms; contamination occurs from the seed to the silo.
NON-GM BREAKTHROUGHS - 2007
1. INTRODUCTION - GM WATCH
Does mention of allergen-free peanuts, striga-resistant cowpeas, salt- resistant wheat, beta-carotin rich
sweet potatoes, virus-resistant cassavas make you think of CMOs?
If so, you've missed the great unpublished story of 2007 - all the non-GM breakthroughs with precisely the
kind of problems (drought- resistance, salt-resistance, biofortfiption etc.) that GM proponents claim only
GM can provide the answer to.
While GM "miracle" stories win vast amounts of column inches, the non-GM stories generally get minimal
if any reporting in the popular media. Without GM's often exaggerated crisis narratives and silver bullet
solutions, it seems there is no story!
The biotech industry and its PR people are, of course, very keen to keep it that way, particularly because
the non-GM solutions are often way ahead of the work on GM. They also bring with them none of the
uncertainties that surround GM.
All of this makes keeping track of some of the many non-GM success stories especially important.
Another reason its important is because - thanks to the lack of success with GM "solutions" - non-GM
success stories can end up being claimed as GM breakthroughs!!
This happened again recently with the UK Government's retiring Chief Scientist, David King, who claimed
an important non-GM breakthrough in Africa as evidence of why we need to embrace GM.
The real lesson of the example IGng chose is that we need to do the exact opposite, is stop being
distracted by GM and gat the funding and support behind the non-GM solutions to the problems we so
badly need to address.
So here's some of the good things we came across on the non-GM front in 2007.
2. ORGANIC RESEARCH
+ ORGANIC FARMING CAN FEED THE WORLD - STUDY
Organic fanning can yield up to three tines as much food on individual tam in developing countries, as
low-intensive methods on the sane land - according to new firdings which refute the log- standing claim
that organic tanning methods cannot produce enough food to feed the global population. "My hope is that
we can finally put a nail in the coffin of the idea that you can't produce enough food through organic
agriculture," said Ivette Perfecto, professor at University of Michigan's School of Natural Resources and
Environment, one of the study's principal investigators. htto://www.gmwatch.orq/archive2.aso?arcid=8107
+ ORGANIC FARMING COMBATS GLOBAL WARMING...
Big time, according to data from the Rodale Institute's long-running comparison of organic and
conventional cropping system. Converting the US's corn and soybean acres to organic production would
sequester enough carbon to satisfy 73 percent of the Kyoto targets for C02 reduction in the US.
htto://www.newfarm.orgldeots/NFfiield tdals/1003/carbonsequest.shtmi
+ ORGANIC FARMING BEATS NO-TILL
Organic farming can built! up soh organic matte better than conventional no-fill lamming, according to a
long-term study by US Agricultural Research Service (ARS) scientists. Organic fanning, despite its
emphasis on building organic wetter, was previously thought by some to erdarger $oil because it medics
on tillage and cultivation - instead of herbicides - to kill weeds. But Teasdale's study showed that organic
+ NON-GM DROUGHT-RESISTANT RICE IN PIPELINE
Japanese researchers have made progress in breeding non-GM drought- resistant rice, intended for
planting in Africa and other dry regions. hftp://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8165
+ GM DROUGHT TOLERANT MAIZE WAY BEHIND NON-GM
During March 2007, the South African authorities gave Monsanto permission to conduct GM drought
tolerant maize field trim in South Africa. The African Centre for Biosafety released a report on the issue,
pointing out that drought tolerance is at Meet 8-10 years away from commercialisation. Nevertheless, GM
drought tolerant crops are bang used as PR tools by biotech lobbyists to promote acceptance of GM
crops, expand existing markets and develop new markets. Finally, the report points out that traditional
breeding, marker assisted selection, and building up organic content of the soil are proven methods of
dealing with drought. hfto://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asr)?arcid=7969
+ PHILIPPINES NEW NON-GM DROUGHT-RESISTANT CORN
A Philippines scientist has developed a new non-GM corn variety that was able to survive a drought for
29 days. httr)://www..qmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8361
+ INDIGENOUS RICE BETTER THAN GM FOR DEALING WITH STRESS
A New Delhi based NGO, together with farmers from nine Indian stag, has developed a register
documenting over 2,000 indigenous rice varieties. They say GM rice strains are not only costly to cultivate
but also are a poor match to the native strains in fighting pests, diseases and environmental fluctuations.
hftp:/Afvww.qmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8359
+ BODY BLOW TO GRAIN BORER
The larger grain borer is taking a beating from CIMMYT (Intemation Maize and Wheat Improvement
Centre) breeders in Kenya as a now non-GM African maize withstands the onslaught of one of the most
damaging pests. hftp://www-omwatch.orglarchive2.asp?arcid=8361
4. MORE NON-GM DEVELOPMENTS in 2007
*Non-GM process for allergen-free peanuts
*Non-GM approach to Striga-resistant cowpeas in Africa
*High-yielding, soybean cyst nematodes-resistant non-GM soybeans
*Non-GM beans developed for harsh Mediterranean conditions
*Gates Foundation supports non-GM b-carotine rich sweet potato in Africa
*Non-GM success in combating cassava mosaic virus in Africa
*Non-GM solution farad for cassava root-rot devastation in Africa
*Non-GM technology reduces atlathxdns in maize in Nigeria
*Iron-fortified non-GM maize cuts anaemia rates inchildren
*New non-GM drought-resistant corn
*Non-GM rice with trial leaf blight-resistance genes developed
*Non-GM salt-resistant wheat
*Dutch researcher bred non-GM fungi resistant tomato
*Non-GM tomatoes made to drink less water
*U.S. grape researcher breeds non-GM vines resistant to Pierre's Disease
*Non-GM method to produce vinrs4esrs4ant brassie crops
*Austro-Indian non-GM research cuts 50% of cotton insecticides, adds 75% profitability
Monday, October 16, 2006
Biotech instills fear and loathing in California rice belt
By Associated Press
PRINCETON, Calif. (AP) - 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 matting similar threats because genetically engineered rice continues to
turn up on grocery shelves in Europe.
"If that happens, the Cafifomia 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 biabelcFm 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. Nearty all Japanese imports tonne from California, which grows mostly short and medium rice
graft. 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 Farm, one of the state's biggest rice growers. "It has given everybody a row perspective on this
technology and its not positive."
A Bayer spokesman declined to comment, other than to say filet the company has no plans to
commercialize any of its genetically engineered nice because few farmers are interested in growing it
Rice farmers throughout Northern Califomia 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. "Ifs pretty much
economic suicide to lot 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 fist 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 Bayers 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
fanners, consumers and the environment. Researchers continue to genetically engineer rice that can
tolerate drought, floods and disease.
Proponents hope that consumer attitudes will change over the next few years.
In Davis, near Sacramento, Arcadia Biosciences has planted two experimental plots of genetically
engineered rice. One variety is genetically engineered with a barley gene designed to help rice better
consume nitrogen-laced fertititer, wfddt would cut down on the amount that ends up in ground water. The
other variety makes it easier for rice to grow in salty conditions.
Arcadia received two of the nine USDA permits issued this year to grow small plots of experimental
biotechnology rice in California. Bayer received four USDA permits, including an approval on Sept. 7, two
weeks after it divulged its mistake. Another company permit is still pending.
The USDA doesn't release locations of such test plots and doesn't comment on biotech permits.
"The farmers will make more money and at the same time ifs going to help the environment," said
Arlo Chief Executive Eric Rey.
At the Richvale Cafe, unofficial headquarters of the California rice belt and where growers gather daily for
lunch, the biotechnology c fts has opened a schism among the usually tightknit community, Despite the
recent setbacks, some see the benefits of biotechnology.
"I am not against research with genetically modified materials," said Frank Rehermann, a farmer and
chairman of the California Rice C M)isslon. "There will come a day when people will be less
apprehensive. But we do have to grow what the market wants and Japan is really particular about this
issue."
UNCONTROLLED TRANSFER OF GMO TRAITS TO NON-GMO ORGANISMS
New Suspicions about GMO
By Herve Kempf
Le Monde
Thursday 09 February 2006
Do transgenic plants have a negative effect on health? Ever since their commerciali7tation in
1996, the question has agitated circles of experts and ecologists, without any indisputable proof
allowing an affirmative response. Now, several recent studies effected by credible researchers
and published in scientific reviews tally with one another to throw doubt on GMOs' complete
harmlessness. They don't assert that GMOs generate health problems. But at the very West they
suggest that GMOs provoke biological impacts gist must be more widely studied. This new
questioning arises just as the Council of Ministers adopted a proposed law on GMO Wednesday,
February 8, and as the World Trade Organization (Wf0) handed over an interim report February
7 to the parties in a conflict that opposes the United States, Canada, and Argentina to the
European Union on the issue of transoenic plants.
In November 2005, Australian researchers published an article in a scientific review (Vanessa
Prescott at al., Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry, 2005, p. 9023) explaining that the
transfer of a gene that expresses an Insecticide protein from a bean to a pea had provoked
unexpected problems: among the mice fed the transgeno peas, Cairo (the Australian equivalent
of the French National Center for Scientific Research, CNRS) researchers observed antibody
production, markers of an allergic reaction. The affair, which made heady in the Australian
and English press, led Cairo to stop development of that transgenic pea, while West Australia
Minister of Agriculture Kum Chance announced that his government would finance an
independent study on feeding annals with GMO: "The state government is aware of the anxiety
concerning GMO safety, why most of the research in this domain is conducted or financed by
the very companies promoting GMO," Mr. Chance explained in a November 2005 communiqu6.
During the summer of 2005, ti was an Italian team led by Manuals Malatesta, cellular biologist at
the Histological Institute of the University of Urbino, that published Intriguing results (European
Journal of HWodismiatry, 2005, p. 237). In prior studies, that team had already demonstrated
that absorption of transgemc soy by mice induces modifications in the nuclei of their liver cells.
This summer's publication proved that a return to non transgenic food made the observed
differences disappear. It also showed that several of these changes could be "induced in adult
organisms in a very short time."
In Norway, Top Treavik, scientific director of the University of Tromsa's Institute of Genetic
Ecology. just published a study in European Food Reseal and TedurokW (January 2006, p.
185): he demonstrates that an element of the genetic structures used to moor a plant, the
catalyst 35S CaMV, can provoke gene expression in cultured human cells. Now, according to
GMO promoters, that catalyst normally only operates that way in plants.
The Maven in thaw experiments led the FAO (the United Nations' Foci and Agriculture
Organization) to organize a sem6ar on the safety of hansgew food in October 2005, bri gig
together the best specialists on the question. "What carafe out of it was that we have to pay
attention to this type of study," sad FAO seminar coo finer Ezzedine Bo lr f. "in several eases,
GMOs have been put on the moist when the safety issues were not very dear."
The researchers involved in than recent studies declare their neutrality. "I had no preconceived
idea about GMOs when I began my research in 2000," says Manuals Malatesa. "I thought they
weren't dangerous because we had been eating therm for a long time. But there was virtually no
scientific Mershon on the stMleet. Conswiently, we theugM it was useful to undertake some
studies." For Terfe Trsavik, this Initial motivation was different "I was doing cancer research using
transgenesis. My colleagues and I knew that it would pose a problem if it left the laboratory. That
concern convinced us that we needed to study this type of risk."
This work attracts all the more attention in that, in the United States as well as in Europe,
research on the impacts of GMO has not been encouraged by governments. Toxicological
studies were effected by the companies promoting GMOs, the impartiality of which is debatable,
and subsequently examined by commissions. But the latter never reproduced the experiments,
which remain secret. Yet those studies sometimes also show notable biological impacts.
On April 23 2004, Le Monde revealed that experts from the Commission on Biomolecular
Genetics (CGB) were divided over the effects of a Monsanto corn, MON 863. In the toxicological
study that had been communicated to them, it seemed that rats fed with the GMO presented
several anomalies: an increase in white blood cell count, Wood sugar changes, reduction of red
blood call count, etc. A debate followed between the agencies concerned that led to a favorable
CGB opinion. Although the experts reexamined the file, they did not, however, take a new look at
the statistical analysis presented by Monsanto.
Associations including Greenpeace demanded publication of the toxicological file so that they can
submit it to a second opinion. On dune 9, 2005, the Munster, Germany, Court of Appeal ordered
its publication. Greenpeace than consigned two French researchers, Giles-Eric Seralini, of the
University of Caen, and Dominique Celier, of the University of Rouen, to prepare a statistical
second opinion of the case. They are supposed to publish the results of their study in February.
"Monsanto's statistical analysis of the differences observed in the rats was very superficial,"
observes Dominique Cellier, who is a Wocomputer specialist 'They isolate the variables instead
of using so-called multi-vanatMe analysis methods, which consist of looking at the observed
anomalies in a coherent way. If one uses those methods, ono observes coherence between the
weigh, urinary tract, and fherratological anomalies in the animals fed GMOs "
This study should provoke now debates. But already, official experts recognize that the
toxicological evaluation procedures for GMOs are not perfect. 'The discussion about MON 863
was very positive," says Jean-MOhal Wal, a member of the European Authority on Food
Security's GMO group. "it has allowed us to deepen our evaluation methods. In fact, 90 day
toxicological studies on rats are very difficult to execute and interpret We don't cow taw to
study a food overall, whether Ws a GMO or not there's no rim." And the increase in questions
about the biological impacts of GMOs, at the very least, calls for more open scientific debate and
public research, which, at the moment, is very rare.
Biotech has bamboozled us all
http://www guardian co uk/Archive/Article/0 4273 4054683 00.htmi
Studies suggest that traditional farming methods are still the best
Special report: whaas wrong with our food?
George Monbiot
Guardian Thursday August 24, 2000
The advice could scarcely have come from a more surprising source. "If anyone tells you that
GM Is going to feed the world," Steve Smith, a director of the world's biggest
biotechnology company, Novards, insisted, "tell them that It is not... To feed the world
takes political and financial will - it's not about production and distribution."
Mr Smith was voicing a truth which most of his colleagues in biotechnology companies have gone
to great lengths to deny. On a planet wallowing in surfeit, people starve because they have
neither the land on which to grow food for themselves nor the money with which to buy it. There is
no question that, as the population increases, the world will have to grow more, but if this task is
left to the rich and powerful - big fanners and big business - then, irrespective of how much is
grown, people will become progressively hungrier. Only a redistribution of land and wealth can
save the world from mass starvation.
But in are respect Mr Smith is wrong. It is, in part, about production. A series of remarkable
experiments has shown that the growing techniques which his company and many others have
sought to impose upon the world are, in contradiction to everything we have been brought up to
believe, actually less productive than some of the methods developed by traditional fanners over
the past 10,000 years.
Last week, Nature magazine reported the results of one of the biggest agricultural experiments
ever conducted. A team of Chinese scientists had tested the key principle of modem rice-growing
(planting a single, hi-tech variety across hundreds of hectares) against a much older technique
(planting several breeds in one field). They found, to the astonishment of the farmers who had
been drilled for years in the benefits of "monoculture", that reverting to the old method resulted in
spectacular increases in yield. Rios blast - a devastating fungus which normally requires repeated
applications of poison to control - decreased by 94%. The famuers planting a mixture of strains
were able to stop applying their poisons altogether, while producing 18% more rice per acre than
they were growing before.
Another paper, published in Nature two years ago, showed that yields of organic maize are
identical to yields of maize grown with fertilisers and pesticides, while sal quality in the organic
fields dramatically improves. In trials in Hertfordshire, wheat groan with manure has produced
higher yields for the pant 150 years than wheat grown with artificial nutrients.
Professor Ades Pretty of Essex University has shown how farmers in India, Kenya, Brazil,
Guatemala and Honduras have doubled or tripled their yields by swtidsleg to organic or semi-
organic techrikWes. A study in the US reveals that small farms growing a wide range of plants
can produce 10 times as much money per acre as big lams growing single crops. Cuba, forced
into organic farming by the economic blockade, has now adapted this as policy, having
discovered that it improves both the productivity and the quality of its crops.
Hi tech farming, by contrast, is sowing ever graver problems. This year, food production in Punjab
and Haryana, the Indian staff ksrtg celebrated as the great success stories of modem, intensive
cultivation, has all but collapsed. The new crops the fanners there have been encouraged to grow
demand far more water and nutrients than the old ones, with the result that, in many places, both
the ground water and the soil lave been exhausted.
We have, in other words, been deceived. Traditional farming has been stamped out all over the
world not because it is less productive than monoculture, but because it is, in some respects,
more productive. Organic cultivation has been characterised as an enemy of progress for the
simple reason that it cannot be monopolised: it can be adopted by any farmer anywhere, without
the help of multinational companies. Though it is more productive to grow several species or
several varieties of crops in one field, the biotech companies must reduce diversity in order to
make money, leaving fanners with no choice but to purchase their most profitable seeds. This is
why they have spent the last 10 years buying up seed breeding institutes and lobbying
governments to do what ours has donne: banning the sale of any seed which has not been
officially - and expensively - registered and approved.
All this requires an unrelenting propaganda war against the tried and tested techniques of
traditional farming, as the big companies and their scientists dismiss them as unproductive,
unsophisticated and unsafe. The truth, so effectively suppressed that it is now almost impossible
to believe, is that organic fanning is the key to feeding the world.
g.monbiot@zzetrnet.oo.uk