----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GMWATCH REVIEW number 309
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
from Claire Robinson, REVIEW editor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear all:
The European Commission has put back a review of glyphosate from 2012 to 2015, just at the time when safety concerns about the pesticide have reached an all-time high (EUROPE).
In India, the government appears to be keeping its moratorium on Bt brinjal despite heavy industry pressure (ASIA).
Finally, don't miss our AUSTRALASIA section for an astonishing account of how GM animals are disposed of in New Zealand at the government's own research station.
Claire <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
www.gmwatch.org / www.lobbywatch.org
Profiles: http://bit.ly/12UAI2
Twitter: http://twitter.com/GMWatch
Facebook: http://bit.ly/c6OnaX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONTENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
EUROPE
THE AMERICAS
GM FAILURES
LOBBYWATCH
AUSTRALASIA
ASIA
VIDEOS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
EUROPE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ RE-ASSESSMENT OF GLYPHOSATE SILENTLY POSTPONED IN EUROPE
The European Commission has delayed a planned re-assessment of the pesticide glyphosate to allow chemical companies a three-year extension to complete applications. The Commission has also postponed the re-assessment of 38 other pesticides used in agriculture in Europe.
Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN) and Greenpeace filed a complaint before the General Court of the European Union challenging the Commission's decision, which ignores growing evidence on the harmful effects of glyphosate on health and the environment. The re-assessment of the 39 pesticides should have taken place in 2012 but was postponed to 2015.
Since the authorisation of glyphosate in Europe in 2001, an alarming number of scientific studies have shown that it can have serious adverse effects on human and animal health and on the environment. The current authorisation of glyphosate is based on old safety tests mainly carried out by chemical companies, which lack the necessary independence. In addition, the tests are no longer up to date. In light of recent scientific findings, the safety of glyphosate products must be urgently re-assessed.
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13118
+ REFORM NEEDED ON EUROPE'S GM CROP RISK ASSESSMENT
An alliance of 19 environment, consumer and sustainable development groups from across Europe recently wrote to UK Secretary of State for the Dept of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Caroline Spelman calling for major changes to the draft risk assessment procedures companies will have to follow when applying for approval to grow GM crops.
The Environment Council of the EU (on which Mrs Spelman sits) still has to approve the draft environmental risk assessment guidance before it becomes a legal requirement. Other EU environment ministers have also been contacted.
The draft risk assessment guidance was prepared by the European Food Safety Agency GMO Panel.
Pete Riley of GM Freeze said: "There is EU-wide support for tightening the risk assessment for GM crops and making the approvals process far more inclusive, allowing the concerns of Member States, individual farmers, independent scientists and the public to be fully considered alongside the analysis of the biotech companies.
"The current draft guidance leaves a lot to be desired and leans far too heavily on outdated concepts, such as 'substantial equivalence', developed by the very biotech companies who stand to profit from GM crops gaining approval."
http://www.gmwatch.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13120
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE AMERICAS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ GLYPHOSATE DRIFT A MAJOR PROBLEM IN U.S.
When they're not having their markets destroyed by GM contamination, US rice farmers are suffering serious harm from the massive applications of glyphosate onto the Roundup Ready crops grown around them. The damage can include young rice crops being killed, thinned or burned off, as well as significantly decreased yields, deformed kernels and problems with milling, when the rice is harvested.
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13154
+ ROUNDUP: "THE MOST ABUSED CHEMICAL WE'VE EVER HAD IN AGRICULTURE"
Prof Don Huber, the scientist who appears to have discovered a new pathogen in fields sprayed with glyphosate/Roundup, says Roundup is "the most abused chemical we've ever had in agriculture". Huber blames over-use of the herbicide for glyphosate-related crop diseases, superweeds, and health problems in livestock, among other problems.
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13145
+ CONFIDENCE IN GM TREES STALLS
The GM tree company ArborGen has decided suddenly to change its plans and not sell shares in ArborGen publicly on the NASDAQ exchange.
In 2010, three member organizations of the STOP GE Trees Campaign (Global Justice Ecology Project, Dogwood Alliance and Sierra Club) teamed up with attorneys at the Center for Biological Diversity and the Center for Food Safety to sue the US Department of Agriculture over their approval field trials involving more than a quarter of a million GM eucalyptus trees because the Environmental Assessment the USDA used to approve the field trials was inadequate.
Dr Neil Carman, a plant scientist with the Sierra Club, said, "The USDA's Environmental Assessments on GMO plants are shams. Their science is completely flawed. Litigation has revealed this time and time again in court. I think ArborGen has good right to worry that they will never get commercial approval for their GE trees, based on the legal precedents so far."
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13148
+ PERU'S AG MINISTER STEPS DOWN IN HEAT OF GM DEBATE
Peru's agriculture minister Rafael Quevedo has resigned, apparently motivated by the criticisms against him over his support for the introduction of GM crops in Peru, and his relationship to a company that uses these products. Quevedo is director of the company El Rocio SA, which produces poultry using GM soybeans and corn.
Peru's recent decree opening the door for GMOs has sparked alarm and disgust from farming and scientific groups, including the National Agro Convention, known as Conveagro, the Peruvian Medical Association, the Peruvian Engineers' Association, the Peruvian Gastronomy Association, and dozens of social movements and nongovernmental organizations.
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13150
+ GM MAIZE CONTAMINATES NON-GM CROPS IN URUGUAY
Contamination of traditional maize crops planted near GM maize fields may be common in Uruguay, where the cultivation of GM maize has been permitted since 2003, scientists have said. A study published in Environmental Biosafety Research (25 March) has found GM seedlings in three traditional maize fields. The transgenes were assumed to have been blown over in pollen from the GM fields.
http://www.gmwatch.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13132
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GM FAILURES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ MONSANTO DROUGHT-TOLERANT CORN NO BETTER THAN CONVENTIONAL VARIETIES
Monsanto's drought-tolerant GM corn does not perform better than comparable conventional varieties, according to a USDA draft assessment of the corn. USDA noted that many non-GM corn varieties on the market match Monsanto's strain in their water use. USDA has requested de-regulation (commercialisation) of the corn.
Monsanto's rivals DuPont and Syngenta both announced new drought tolerant corn varieties earlier this year. Both varieties were conventionally bred and did not use genetic engineering. Indigenous non-GM drought-tolerant crop varieties are also readily available.
Dr Helen Wallace, Director of GeneWatch UK, commented that the USDA's report "highlights the continuing failure of GM to deliver complex traits such as tolerance to drought. The GM industry must now stop its cynical attempts to manipulate the public into believing that GM crops are needed to feed the world".
GMWatch comment: We can expect an end to such minor breakthroughs of honesty in environmental assessments of GMOs, now that USDA is allowing the biotech industry to conduct its own assessments.
http://gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13143
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13147
http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/13106
+ GM SEEDS MAY MAKE PEST MONITORING MORE DIFFICULT - STUDY
When Monsanto and Dow developed their stacked gene GMO 'SmartStax', incorporating 8 different transgenes, the US Environmental Protection Agency responded by allowing farmers to reduce their refuge requirements. Refuges are meant to prevent or delay insect resistance to GM crops incorporating the insecticidal Bt proteins.
Because SmartStax claims to protect plants against many pests via multiple GM Bt traits, EPA reduced the refuge requirement for Bt corn from 20% to as little as 5%. Seed companies then went a step further by offering seed mixes that are 95% stacked GM corn and 5% non-GM corn hybrids. This removes the need for GM farmers to also plant a block of non-GM corn, by providing so-called "in-field refuges".
However, a new study concludes that both the newer "in-field refuges" and the older block refuges, where areas of the field are planted with non-Bt crops, present problems. And an article about the new study says the EPA has acknowledged stacked GM toxins may not increase mortality in targeted pests. This means a drastic reduction in refuges is taking place on a false premise.
GMWatch comment: It seems the biotech industry's attempts to prolong the inherently pest-vulnerable monoculture model of agriculture is doomed to early failure.
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13123
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOBBYWATCH
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ COMMERCIAL INTERESTS SHAPE PEER REVIEWED STUDIES ON GM
Research published in a leading scientific journal concludes that commercial interests interfere with peer reviewed articles on health risks of GM plants. The study shows that studies funded by industry or involving scientists employed by industry are almost certain to produce conclusions in favor of product commercialization, as opposed to studies not dependent on such conditioning.
The study also shows that more than half (52%) of the 94 analyzed articles did not declare funding source. However, in those articles specifically, the existence of at least one author affiliated to industry was prevalent (73%). In 83% of the cases where funding was actually declared, none of the authors was directly affiliated with industry. Not surprisingly, proportionally more articles with undeclared funding ended up with conclusions favorable to industry.
http://gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13151
+ RTRS MEMBER CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL "AGREED TO GREENWASH ARMS COMPANY"
Environmental charity Conservation International has been caught discussing ways to help an arms company boost its green credentials. CI's ideas included signing up the arms company to a carbon offsetting programme and arranging for it to adopt an endangered species. The sting was carried out by the London-based magazine Don't Panic, with their journalists posing as representatives of a major international defence corporation. Don't Panic has produced a twelve-minute film about the undercover operation.
CI is the latest member of the corporate greenwash initiative, the Round Table on Responsible Soy, which certifies GM soy as responsible, to be publicly disgraced. The others are Monsanto, Nidera, and DuPont, which have all been accused of "egregious" labour practices.
http://gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13146
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13153
+ THE PROBLEM WITH GM NUTRITIONALLY ENHANCED PLANTS - STUDY
Monsanto is introducing a new GM soy engineered to contain higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids, which it's promoting as offering health benefits to consumers. Natural fatty acids do have health benefits - but scientists have warned that GM omega-3 fatty acid soy is a different matter - and is dangerous. Fatty acids are directly incorporated into brain lipids and they play major roles in many diseases such as Alzheimer's and diabetes. It's recently become known that there are specific receptors for individual fatty acids on the surface of cells that can control inflammation and glucose metabolism. If the GM soy plants make low levels of some biologically active molecule related to the intended product, this substance could drastically alter the physiology of those who eat it - much like the infamous l-tryptophan impurities, which killed and sickened many Americans. A 2008 paper by Dr David Schubert discusses the risks of GM nutritionally enhanced plants, including the new ome
ga-3
fatty acid soy:
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13122
+ BT TOXIN FOUND IN HUMAN BLOOD NOT HARMLESS
GM lobbyists are claiming it doesn't matter if the Bt toxin engineered into GM crops is turning up in people's blood, including the blood of pregnant women and their fetuses. They say this is because the Bt toxin is natural, known to be harmless to humans, and has been safely used for decades in agriculture in the form of natural insecticidal sprays, including in organic farming. In addition, they say, Bt crops have been tested and approved as safe.
But the Bt toxin produced in GM crops is not the same as the natural Bt toxin. The process of genetic engineering changes it. And testing is not actually performed on the Bt toxin extracted from GM plants, which would be the scientific way, as it is claimed that it is too expensive to isolate. Instead, testing is done on Bt toxin isolated from E. coli bacteria (as is the norm for GM risk assessments). The protein would be different from that present in the actual GM crop.
GM Bt toxins are engineered into plants with promoters designed to keep the Bt toxin protein expressing in every cell of the plant. The Bt is ingested by animals and people who consume crop plants like Bt maize. The natural Bt used in agricultural sprays, by contrast, degrades rapidly in daylight and does not end up being eaten by people, so it is unlikely to end up in consumers' bodies.
This is fortunate because even natural Bt can cause harm when ingested. While the GM lobbying website GMO Safety claims, "the Bt protein is harmless to mammals and humans", in fact, studies show that natural Bt toxin has ill effects on laboratory animals, producing a potent immune response and enhancing the immune response to other substances.
As for the Bt toxin found in GM plants, even Monsanto's own studies show that it's not safe. A re-analysis of Monsanto's own data on its GM Bt maize MON863 (approved for use in Europe since 2005) by Prof G-E Seralini found liver and kidney toxicity in rats fed with the maize. Seralini concluded, "with the present data it cannot be concluded that GM corn MON863 is a safe product".
Links to studies:
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13142
+ "THE GOAL IS TO GET IN THE DOOR" - GM CROPS FOR DEVELOPING WORLD
"GM crops are needed to feed the growing population" has been a central industry claim since around 1999. But Glenn Stone, professor of anthropology and environmental studies at Washington University, said, "I am not yet convinced that it fits the evidence." Population projections are far from certain, he said. And malnutrition is rarely a question of global food production but of distribution and poverty.
Some critics suggest that Monsanto highlights fears of global shortages to break down resistance to its biotech products in developing countries. "To me, it's kind of a little like giving cigarettes free to kids," said Doug Gurian-Sherman of the Union of Concerned Scientists. "The goal is to get in the door."
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13128
+ ONLY GM CAN SAVE THE BANANA - AGAIN!
Dr Emile Frison says the banana will be extinct in 10 years - and only GM can save it. He has been making the same claim over and over again for the last 10 years! But the FAO says his claim is nonsense.
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13134
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AUSTRALASIA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ NEW ZEALAND: HOW GM ANIMALS ARE DISPOSED OF
New concerns about AgResearch's 200 acre facility at Ruakura have been raised following a tour of the facilities by GE Free NZ president Claire Bleakley and Soil and Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.
GE Free NZ said the conditions in the fields were shocking, with waste matter from blood, effluent and milk visible. The GM animals suffer a high abortion rate and hawks could be seen flying over the facility. With recent heavy rain, excess water run-off went into a major drain that flowed through the facility to the outskirts of town.
"There were clots of blood fallen on the ground from the disposal of animal's carcass and signs that a tractor had run over the blood mass and transferred it through the fields," said Claire Bleakley, president of GE Free NZ.
"But of particular concern was the pit containing a mixture of effluent and blood-washings running into a tank the contents of which are sprayed onto the paddocks transferring viable transgenic cells over the fields."
Scientists have previously raised concerns over the situation of the offal pits and the possibility of animal waste effluent leachate entering the ground water.
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13119
+ REGULATOR SWALLOWED "A LOT OF GENETIC BULL" FROM AGRESEARCH
A Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety (INBI) report shows that AgResearch may have intentionally misled the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) and allowed risky GM contamination in the Waikato Region, according to the Soil & Health Association of NZ.
AgResearch was required by ERMA to monitor soil microorganisms for the uptake of transgenes by horizontal gene transfer (HGT) at the offal pits where GM cattle were disposed of.
"If AgResearch detected HGT, an immediate stop to genetic engineering and the disposal of cattle was required, but AgResearch has sampled in such a way as to avoid any real likelihood of that happening," said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.
The INBI report shows, "Not only was the sample selection incredibly small but sampling was nearly always taken a considerable distance away from where HGT would be best sampled. The INBI report graphically portrays the avoidance of sampling where HGT may occur."
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13121
+ SHOULD AGRESEARCH BE CHARGED WITH FRAUD?
The New Zealand Government must cancel all GM field trials by the government funded Crown Research Institute's AgResearch, Scion and Plant & Food Research, now that AgResearch has been shown to intentionally avoid critical safety research required of it, according to the Soil & Health Association of NZ.
Soil & Health also believes charges relating to false pretences or fraud should be considered in relation to AgResearch's activities, as "AgResearch has followed a dishonest path of horizontal gene transfer (HGT) research sampling, reporting and media responses that has put the public and environment at risk."
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13124
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASIA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ EVERY 30 MINUTES: NEW REPORT ON FARMER SUICIDES AND BT COTTON
In India, one farmer commits suicide every 30 minutes. A new report on the issue from the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice at New York University Law School offers a damning indictment of Bt cotton. The report's co-author, Smita Narula, summed up the problems with the crop: "The Bt cottonseed ... requires two resources that are already scarce for most Indian smallholder farmers. That's money and water. Bt cottonseeds cost anywhere from two times to 10 times as much as regular cottonseed, and they also require a great deal more water in order to yield successful crops.
"The farmers often go to private moneylenders, who charge exorbitant interest rates, to purchase the seeds, on the promises and based on aggressive marketing that they will bring greater financial security. But then, because 65 percent of cotton farms in India are rain-fed and don't have access to irrigation, the crops inevitably fail... So they've gone into insurmountable debt to purchase the inputs. They don't have the yields. They repeat this cycle for a couple of seasons. And by the end of it, they're simply trapped in a cycle that they can't get out of, and they consume the very pesticide that they purchased, in order to kill themselves."
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13144
+ INDIA'S GOVERNMENT LIKELY TO KEEP BT BRINJAL MORATORIUM
The moratorium imposed on Bt brinjal last year is likely to continue, despite the expert committee, set up by the environment ministry, favouring "limited release" of the crop. Environment minister Jairam Ramesh has made it clear that his ministry is against such a move.
"There is no such thing as limited release," Ramesh said. The moratorium was imposed in February 2010 because there was insufficient evidence on the crop's health and environmental impacts. Over a year later, there is hardly any more evidence.
http://www.gmwatch.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13152
http://gmwatch.eu/latest-listing/1-news-items/13156
+ QUESTIONING GM BRINJAL
The following excerpts from the 'fieldquestions' blog of Glenn Davis Stone, Professor of Anthropology and Environmental Studies at Washington University in St Louis, question the need for, and cultural suitability of, Bt brinjal in India.
- At one boisterous public hearing on Bt brinjal, one person asked if "we really need more brinjal" which, upon closer inspection, is a good question. [Environment] Minister Ramesh's report points out that the question of "why Bt-brinjal" remains unanswered, as "there does not seem to be any over-riding food security, production shortage or farmer distress arguments" for it. Just last month, the Times of India reported that "heavy flow of [brinjal] produce due to high yields has resulted in a slump in prices" bad enough to lead vendors to abandon their piles of brinjal in disgust.
Interesting how often these new production-increasing technologies come along during gluts. Monsanto's first commercial GMO was rBGH, designed to raise milk production ... just as the USDA paying dairy farmers $1.8 billion to slaughter cows to reduce overproduction of milk.
- Genetic engineering seems to be inherently incompatible with Ayurveda [an ancient system of traditional medicine widely practised in India]. In 2008 scientists at two institutions genetically modified Brahmi and Kariyat, two herbs commonly used in Ayurveda, to boost their expression of compounds thought to be anti-carcinogenic. The GM plants were roundly condemned by Ayurvedics, whose formulations are based on the holistic character of plants and synergistic effects of plant combinations rather than on individual phytochemicals.
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13125
+ GM APPRAISAL SHOULD INCLUDE SOCIAL UTILITY, SUSTAINABILITY
At a time when India is about to introduce a Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) Bill in Parliament for applications related to GMOs - and also when the Bt brinjal debate is coming to the fore again with the GEAC consulting experts several of whom represent conflicting interests - a visiting biosafety expert pointed out that GMO impact assessment should include social utility and sustainability requirements before their environmental release.
Dr David Quist, a senior scientist at the Centre for Biosafety, Genok, Norway, said, "The [Norwegian Gene Technology] Act recognizes that the risk appraisal of GMOs is a multi-dimensional issue, and not just a scientific one. Norway hence opts for a "Impact Assessment", which integrates a scientifically-based environmental risk assessment with an analysis of the social utility and contribution to sustainable development of the GMO on a case by case basis."
"Combining these aspects in one assessment allows Norway to consider not only whether the GM product is safe, but whether it is necessary, and contributing to a sustainable future. This applies not only to GM production in Norway, but also to its production in countries from which GM may be imported from. Safety for Norway and safety for other countries is regarded as no different."
GMWatch comment: Quist's last sentence is a wake-up call for European regulators, who have sought to dismiss citizens' concerns about the impacts of GM soy production in South America by claiming that they are the problems of the producer countries.
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13133
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
VIDEOS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ BT COTTON FIASCO IN INDIA
With outrageous claims about increased yields and reduced pesticide costs, Monsanto convinced thousands of poor Indian farmers to switch to its Bt cotton. According to this documentary, this has proved a disaster.
http://www.gmwatch.org/gm-videosb/27-gm-in-india/13078-bt-fiasco-in-india
+ A DISASTER IN SEARCH OF SUCCESS - BT COTTON IN GLOBAL SOUTH
This classic documentary describes how Bt cotton has failed small-scale farmers in the Global South.
http://www.gmwatch.org/gm-videosb/22-gm-and-agriculture/12210