various via AGNET AUGUST 18, 2001 archived at: http://www.plant.uoguelph.ca/safefood/archives/agnet-archives.htm
---

Dupont convicted of racketeering in benlate case
GM trial site locations in WA now on the internet
Critics slam [Canadian] food label plan
Growth and grants the carrots for organic sector
---

DUPONT CONVICTED OF RACKETEERING IN BENLATE CASE
August 17, 2001
P A N U P S Pesticide Action Network Updates Service http://www.panna.org

A Florida jury has found DuPont Co., makers of the fungicide Benlate (benomyl) liable for racketeering, negligence, fraud and defective product claims in a lawsuit filed by two Costa Rican-based plant  nurseries. DuPont was ordered to pay US$78.3 million to the nurseries, but announced that it would appeal the decision.

This is the latest in a long line of cases against DuPont that have  resulted in litigation and settlement charges totaling approximately US$1.3 billion to the company over the last ten years. In April 2001, DuPont announced  that it would phase out sales of Benlate around the world by the end of 2002. (See PANUPS: DuPont Withdraws Benlate from Market, May 7, 2001 at http://www.panna.org./panna/resources/panups/panup_20010507.dv.html.)

The racketeering charges were based on information gathered from internal DuPont documents showing that the company conducted tests in Costa Rica in 1992, but destroyed the records as claims against Benlate mounted. The growers' attorney maintained that DuPont had launched a corporate "damage control" program by assigning an attorney to supervise the testing, skewing some results and discarding those that were unfavorable.

A plant pathologist from Pennsylvania State University, testifying for the growers, stated that DuPont documents dating back to 1980 describe Benlate as an unstable product prone to deterioration in hot, moist conditions. According to his testimony, some plants treated with Benlate grew to only 10% of their expected height, miniature roses in Florida dropped all of their leaves within two days of treatment, and Hawaiian orchids treated  with Benlate were too malformed to sell. The plant pathologist attributed the problems to a natural byproduct of the breakdown of Benlate that, in his opinion, turned the fungicide into an herbicide.

DuPont's attorney stated that after U.S. testing in 1992, "DuPont reached the conclusion, the inescapable biological conclusion, that Benlate could not be the cause of the damage." According to DuPont, the problem was due to a one-time incident of herbicide contamination at a Benlate mixing plant. However, growers' complaints about crop damage continued long after the contamination occurred.

In a related story, attorneys representing growers in another Benlate case five years earlier made a side deal with DuPont as part of the settlement. The attorneys, who represented 20 farmers and nurseries suing DuPont for Benlate damage, personally collected US$6.4 million in return for agreeing to never bring another Benlate case against the company. The growers accepted a settlement of US$59 million from DuPont, but were not told  about the side agreement with their lawyers, who also received US$20 million in fees for the case.

Some of the growers have since filed a malpractice suit against the  lawyers and are also seeking punitive damages. DuPont defends the payment to the lawyers saying that the company didn't feel it was in its interest to bankroll the additional cases that these attorneys were threatening to pursue. DuPont maintains that while the side agreement was confidential,  the confidentiality did not apply to the lawyers' clients. Attorneys for the plaintiffs are in the discovery phase and no trial date has been  announced.

Sources: "DuPont hit with $78.3 million fine, ditches Benlate," Reuters, August 13, 2001.

"Costa Rican farmers seek $29 million in Miami trial," Associated Press, August 8, 2001.

"DuPont suffers blow as Benlate racketeering trial gets under way in Miami," Associated Press, July 9,  2001. "Clients sue over secret agreement," Miami Herald, February 22, 2001.

Contact: PAN North America.

PANUPS is a weekly email news service providing resource guides and reporting on pesticide issues that don't always get coverage by the mainstream media. It's produced by Pesticide Action Network North America, a non-profit and non-governmental organization working to advance  sustainable alternatives to pesticides worldwide. You can join our efforts! We gladly accept donations for our work and all contributions are tax deductible in the United States. Visit our extensive web site at http://www.panna.org to learn more about getting involved.

GM TRIAL SITE LOCATIONS IN WA NOW ON THE INTERNET
August 16, 2001
West Australian News

Genetically modified trial site locations around Western Australia are, according to this story, now accessible on the Internet. The Department of Agriculture's biotechnology website lists all current trials and past  trials undergoing post-trial monitoring.

The story says that all the trials are listed in one central website, exceeding the requirements in the Gene Technology Regulator. Department of Agriculture director general Graeme Robertson was cited as saying the organisation was not and had never been involved in any  'secret' trials, adding, "It is a very strong view of both the State Government and the department to be fully transparent about the location of GM crop  trials that involve the Department of Agriculture. That is why we have gone the extra length to make these details easily available to the public."

The website lists the trial name, crop, status, short explanation of the trial and its location, including the global positioning system co-ordinates. The GM Trial Details webpage can be viewed at www.agric.wa.gov.au/ biotechnology/gmtrials.htm.

CRITICS SLAM FOOD LABEL PLAN
DRAFT ALLOWS 5 PER CENT OF INGREDIENTS TO BE GENETICALLY MODIFIED
August 18, 2001
The Toronto Star
Valerie Lawton
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=998085945081&call_page=TS_News&call_pageid=968332188492&call_pagepath=News/News&col=968793972154

OTTAWA - Foods like cereal and cookies would be allowed to carry claims they're not genetically modified products even if each ingredient contains up to 5 per cent engineered material under a new national proposal by a committee of industry, farm, government and some consumer groups set up by a federal standards board that has been working on a proposal for voluntary labels for two years. They released draft standards yesterday and invited public comments. Ken Hough, a committee member who represents the Ontario Corn Producers' Association, was quoted as saying, "The draft you see is not a finalized draft." There's still plenty of disagreement among members about the standards, including the 5 per cent threshold, he said. Some would prefer a limit of 1 or 2 per cent.

The committee would also bar manufacturers from using absolute terms on packaging. Terms such as "100 per cent,'' or "free'' or "all'' wouldn't be allowed. Foods also couldn't imply "an improvement that does not exist.'' Nadege Adam, the Council of Canadians, health protection campaigner, was cited as saying her group would like to see Canada adopt a system more  like the one in Europe, where there's a 1 per cent level and labelling is mandatory, adding that the committee's proposals were "horrible. The threshold is just way too high. It allows for a significant amount of genetically engineered material to be contained in an ingredient and still carry a label of GMO-free . . . It's very misleading.''

Adam said testing for the council on some processed foods acknowledged to include genetically modified ingredients have turned up levels of just 2  per cent.

But Hough was cited as saying that 5 per cent is reasonable because it's  so difficult to segregate GMO-free foods from altered foods. Corn, for  example, is a cross-pollinated crop so there can easily be some transfer of  material through air currents, he said. As well, modified seeds or grains could mix with non-altered material in storage containers or trucks.

"Five per cent is something that we feel within the industry is  manageable, is easy to ensure consumers that there would not be more than that amount of inadvertent movement," he said.

Hough was further cited as saying he doubts European food manufacturers  can actually meet a 1 per cent standard, adding, "Europe thinks they can do  it, but I would challenge whether they could or not."

The draft standards say a manufacturer couldn't intentionally add  engineered material to meet the maximum permitted level and still call itself a food that's not a product of gene technology.

The council's Adam said another major objection she has to the proposal is that it's only voluntary, adding polls have made it very clear Canadians want mandatory labelling.

Some environmental and health food organizations, including the Council of Canadians, have refused to take part in the committee's work because they want mandatory labels.

The story says that the committee is meeting at the request of the  Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors, which has said it wants a voluntary, but consistent national approach to labelling.

Copies of the draft standards haven't been posted on the Internet, but can be obtained by writing to the Project on the Voluntary Labelling of Food Obtained or Not Obtained Through Genetic Modification at 11 Laurier St, Place du Portage, Phase III, Hull, Que., K1A 1G6, or faxing 819-956-5740. The deadline for comments is Oct. 17.

Earlier this year, U.S. regulators refused to require labels on  genetically altered foods, but said they would publish food makers' own safety tests  and data on the Internet to ease consumer concerns.

GROWTH AND GRANTS THE CARROTS FOR ORGANIC SECTOR
August 18, 2001
Irish Independent
Anita Guidera

The Irish Government is, according to this story, urging farmers and food producers to give serious consideration to the organic option. Less than one per cent of land is farmed organically in Ireland, ranking  it among the lowest of European countries, but with annual growth in the  market expected to be around 25-30pc in the foreseeable future, a rise in the number of producers is predicted. Yesterday, Junior Agriculture Minister Noel Davern was cited as officially opening the Organic Centre at Rossinver, Co Leitrim. Since its inception  in 1995, the non-profit organisation has grown to become on of the most comprehensive sources of education, information and training on organic growing and farming methods in the country.

And the minister stressed the Government's commitment to developing the organic sector in Ireland, stating, "Everyone in the farming and food production sectors should be looking very seriously at the organic  option." There are now an estimated 1,000 organic farmers and about 75,000 acres under organic production. With the market currently worth around £25m a year, Ireland still relied heavily on imports and efforts should be made  to increase production to supply the home and export market, the minister  said. Grants totalling £6m over the next five years include 40pc assistance for on farm projects up to £40,000 and 40pc for off-farm projects up to £200,000.