----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GMWATCH REVIEW number 323
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
from Claire Robinson, REVIEW editor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear all:
Two studies hyping the supposed benefits of Bt cotton to farmers in India run counter to on-the-ground reality and are deconstructed by the Coalition for a GM-Free India (BT COTTON LOBBYWATCH).
New US government data show that GM crops are still massively increasing pesticide use, way above what would have been the case if the same areas were planted to non-GM crops (RESEARCH). And the biotech lobby is busy trying to rewrite US law in its favour, undermining democracy and effectively placing GM companies above the law.
Bill Gates's grant to UK scientists to come up with a GM method by which cereal crops can fix their own nitrogen has been subjected to heavy criticism (GATESWATCH).
Claire <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
www.lobbywatch.org
Profiles: http://bit.ly/12UAI2
Twitter: http://twitter.com/GMWatch
Facebook: http://bit.ly/c6OnaX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONTENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
BT COTTON LOBBYWATCH
OTHER LOBBYWATCH NEWS
AUSTRALASIA
THE AMERICAS
AFRICA
VIDEOS
RESEARCH
GATESWATCH
EUROPE
GM INFORMATION RESOURCES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
BT COTTON LOBBYWATCH
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ GERMAN BT COTTON STUDY MISLEADING
There's a disconnect between the much trumpeted positive findings of a new study on Bt cotton in India by Germany-based researcher Matin Qaim and the ground realities in Indian states like Maharashtra where Bt cotton is the predominant crop and farm suicides continue to climb. Kishore Tiwari, convenor of the Vidarbha cotton farmer group Vidarbha Jannadolan Samiti (VJAS), which has documented cotton farmer suicides since 2002, is demanding a complete ban on GM Bt cotton seed in Vidarbha.
Tiwari said, "The German study says cotton yields and profits increased by 24 and 50 per cent respectively among Bt cotton farmers as against non-Bt crops, whereas in Vidarbha there is an agrarian crisis directly linked to the farmer-suicide-prone district predominantly cultivating Bt cotton." Tiwari added that even India's agriculture minister Sharad Pawar has admitted that Vidarbha dryland farmers are losing money since the introduction of Bt cotton.
This is not the first time that a study by Qaim has attracted incredulity. The Indian policy analyst Devinder Sharma called a previous Qaim study a "scientific fairytale".
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14039
+ CRITIQUE OF STUDIES HYPING BT COTTON
The Coalition for a GM-Free India has issued a critique of two studies that hype the supposed benefits of Bt cotton to farmers -- one of them the Qaim study (see above). The Coalitions' criticisms are summarised below.
1. CSD study
A study ostensibly done by the Council for Social Development, commissioned by farmer group Bharat Krishak Samaj (BKS), is being publicised in press conferences around India by Bharat Krishak Samaj's Ajay Vir Jakhar, with the help of an expensive PR agency, Hanmer MSL. The study is claimed to have found improvement in farmers' livelihoods, better yields and higher returns. But there are a few problems with this publicity blitzkrieg.
The main problem is that the study on the basis of which these claims are being made is neither READY nor RELEASED. Moreover, CSD's Dr Haque has asked Mr Jakhar to refrain from publicising the findings in a misleading manner. A letter sent by Dr Haque of CSD to Ajay Jakhar of BKS reportedly says: "We told you clearly that we are not sharing the report with anybody at this stage as some editorial changes have to be made”¦ I shall appreciate if you kindly issue a corrigendum to the press, mentioning exactly what I said at the press conference which is as follows: 'The impact of Bt cotton varies from region to region and farmers in some cotton growing areas are in distress because of high cost of production, low yield, low returns, indebtedness etc. This is particularly true about Vidarbha in Maharashtra and some parts of Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh, while there was appreciable yield improvement in Punjab and Gujarat. Even at the national level, there is a decelerating trend
in the
yield in the past few years for which there is need for further technological improvement'." Dr Haque adds, "Also the pesticide consumption continued to be high because of various sucking pest attacks in several places".
As far as can be understood from the summary released:
*The study is based on the discredited methodology of farmer recall -- known to be unreliable.
*The study's conclusions as told to the media (astonishingly high yields and returns to farmers) have no relation to reality on the ground or to official yield data from state governments.
*The study attributes socioeconomic benefits such as better education to Bt cotton, without controlling for other factors.
*The study's conclusions are at odds with those of a joint conference of CSD and other civil society groups three weeks ago, which concluded that Bt cotton needs a thorough review (see CONFERENCE REVIEWS 10 YEARS OF BT COTTON IN INDIA, below).
2. Kathage & Qaim (2012) Economic Impacts and Impact Dynamics of Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) cotton in India. PNAS (www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1203647109)
Qaim has been an author of other controversial papers related to Bt cotton in India. For instance, the author's findings in a 2002 study were dismissed by former Syngenta man, Dr Shantu Shantharam, one of the staunchest GM promoters in India, as a "shoddy publication."
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14039
While the new study claims "more effective pest control and thus lower crop losses" are due to Bt cotton, no control groups are described. Also no baseline data are given on pest incidence prior to Bt cotton, so it cannot be said that Bt cotton produced reductions in pest incidence. What is known is that cotton bollworm incidence was low before Bt cotton was introduced, so whether it brought any benefit at all is dubious. The authors have also not accounted for the real confounders, which are the major factors for cotton yield increases in India: the shift from varietal seed sources to hybrids and more irrigation.
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14053
+ CONFERENCE REVIEWS 10 YEARS OF BT COTTON IN INDIA
A 10-year review of Bt cotton in India was initiated by the Centre for Environment Education (Ahmedabad), the Centre for Sustainable Agriculture (Hyderabad) and the Council for Social Development (New Delhi), through a national conference in Delhi on June 11-12.
Neha Saigal, campaigner for sustainable agriculture with Greenpeace India, reports on the proceedings: "While arguments and counter-arguments were made relentlessly on the success of Bt cotton, one thing which everyone seems to agree to and something that study after study documented is that the cost of cultivation is high for Bt cotton. There is an increased usage of chemical fertiliser, irrigation and surprisingly pesticides. The last one is because of an increased attack of secondary pests. Some of the studies also talked about bollworms getting resistant to Bt cotton. There was also an agreement that Bt cotton probably is not right for non-irrigated regions. Well, this means that Bt cotton is not suitable for 65 percent of cotton area in the country.
"The macro-economic studies showed another interesting factor. If we take the 10 years of Bt cotton in India, the rate of growth of cotton yields was highest in the period 2002-07 when Bt cotton area grew from zero to 41 percent of the total cotton area. In the next five-year period, when the area under Bt cotton increased to almost 90 percent, the growth in yield has stagnated and even slumped. So it proves that Bt cotton adoption alone is not the reason for increase in growth."
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14047
+ MAHARASHTRA FARMERS WELCOME POSSIBLE BT COTTON BAN ON MAHYCO-MONSANTO
Farmers in Maharashtra have welcomed the state government's threat of banning Mahyco Monsanto Biotech from marketing Bt cotton seeds in the state because fo all the problems they've created. The move was announced in the Maharashtra legislature by Agriculture Minister Radhakrishna Vikhe-Patil.
The minister said the decision was based on many complaints from the farming community and reports of agriculture officers that the Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (MMB) had been supplying sub-standard seeds. According to the farmers' group Vidarbha Jan Andola Samiti, the government move is most welcome as the company has failed to supply good quality seeds to farmers despite taking huge amounts in advance from debt-trapped cotton farmers in the region. MMB is a joint venture between Mahyco and the US based multinational.
”Žhttp://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14061
http://www.smetimes.in/smetimes/news/top-stories/2012/Jul/13/maharashtra-farmers-welcome-bt-cotton-ban.html
+ NON-GM COTTON TO THE RESCUE IN INDIA
In Vidarbha, the leading suicide belt of debt-ridden farmers, the state of Maharashtra has stepped in to seek ways of making cotton cultivation sustainable through a programme that marks a clear shift from dependence on GM and other high-tech solutions. The new program uses traditional non-GM varieties of cotton. Farmers can save seed, cutting seed costs, and fewer inputs are needed. The move was prompted by soaring costs of inputs and poor yields that have made cultivation of Bt cotton untenable. Farmer leader Vijay Jawandhia said: "It's good that the authorities have finally accepted that Bt cotton is not good for the region. But we will support this move only if there is a clear policy on cotton. Bt cotton must be withdrawn from the state."
http://www.gmwatch.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14044
+ CHILD LABOUR IN BT COTTON FIELDS
Parents in Gujarat, India are being bribed to send their children to work in Bt cotton fields in terrible conditions.
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14047
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OTHER LOBBYWATCH NEWS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ NEW CAMPAIGN TAKES ON MONSANTO'S SPIN MACHINE
The Union of Concerned Scientists has come up with a series of advertisements, prominently displayed in public places, that challenge Monsanto's dubious claims. One of the company's ads (coincidentally, the one that appeared across the street from UCS's Washington, DC, office earlier in this year) says their "better seeds can help meet the needs of our rapidly growing population, while protecting the earth's natural resources". UCS's response points out that the company's Roundup Ready crops have increased herbicide use by 383 million pounds and have been associated with an estimated 81 percent fewer monarch butterfly eggs in the Midwest.
UCS is also using its campaign to take issue with Monsanto's suggestions that its GM technology is improving US crop yields (nope, not much) and conserving water (not at all). Instead, as UCS's ads and analysis show, the company's products are spawning an epidemic of "superweeds" and crowding out more sustainable alternatives.
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14045
+ POLLAN: GM DEBATE WILL BE DEAD WITHIN A DECADE
The discussion about GM will be dead within ten years, according to journalist and food activist Michael Pollan. Pollan said anticipated GM breakthroughs - particularly higher crop yield - hadn't born fruit and conventional breeding is more effective.
http://thefoodsage.com.au/2012/07/11/pollan-gm-debate-will-be-dead-within-the-decade/#comment-1627
+ SERIOUS LAPSE BY THE NEW STATESMAN
The New Statesman, a publication that has long been a stronghold of the intellectual left, has seized the commercial shilling. The New Statesman has published a supplement "supported" by the Crop Protection Association, a pesticide industry interest group whose members include BASF, Bayer, Dow, DuPont UK, Monsanto and Syngenta. The opening essay sets the tone -- it's a piece about pesticides written by the CPA's chief executive, Dominic Dyer, and disingenuously titled, "Medicine for Plants". On its inside cover, the supplement provides a table of unidentified provenance which purports to show that attitudes to GM are softening. Colin Tudge, biologist and 3-time winner of the Science Writer of the Year Award, deconstructs the contents of this shameful lapse by the NS in an incisive comment article that's well worth reading in full:
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14043
+ GM AND THE LESS-THAN-IMPARTIAL BBC
BBC's Today programme featured an interview with former Oxford zoologist and pro high-tech Lord Krebs going head-to-head with former Edinburgh ecologist Pete Riley of GM Freeze. As reported by science writer Colin Tudge, BBC interviewer Evan Davis allowed Krebs's unscientific assertions to go unchallenged, such as the claim that millions of people have been eating GM crops for years and it's impossible to ascribe any particular illness to them. On the other hand, Davis interrupted Riley at every turn.
More seriously, Tudge reports, Davis said it was not up to the GM industry to prove its products were safe, but up to opponents of GM like Riley to prove that they are unsafe. This startling claim from Davis not only runs counter to the precautionary principle as enshrined in EU law and international agreements, but even contradicts the stance of agencies such as the European Food Safety Authority, which insists that it is the job of industry to prove its products are safe -- however, EFSA's actions may or may not bear out this claim! Sadly this is far from the only example of the BBC taking an uncritical approach to the promotion of GM
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14046
+ MONSANTO SPENDS USD 1.4 MILLION ON LOBBYING IN 1ST QUARTER OF 2012
According to Food & Water Watch, the agbiotech industry spent $547.5 million on lobbying between 1999 and 2009. It employed more than 100 lobbying firms in 2010 alone, in addition to their own in-house lobbying teams. Monsanto spent $1.4 million on lobbying in the first three months of 2012, after shelling out $6.3 million total last year, "more than any other agribusiness firm except the tobacco company Altria," reports the money-in-politics tracker OpenSecrets.Org.
Though it's impossible to tie lobbying to specific outcomes, the agbiotech lobby has been active recently on two fronts. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders' proposed amendment to a farm bill to allow states to label GM foods collapsed amid fears of lawsuits from Monsanto. And biotech lobby groups spent $625,000 in the first three months of 2012 rolling out the Coalition Against the Costly Food Labelling Proposition, which aims to defeat the Californian initiative to require GM labelling.
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14038
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AUSTRALASIA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ GM CANOLA CONTAMINATION COURT SHOWDOWN
Western Australian organic farmer Steve Marsh lost his organic status when GM canola seed blew onto his farm in 2010. Marsh is now suing his GM-growing neighbour Michael Baxter for alleged negligence and nuisance. Marsh said, "It's totally about freedom of choice. The GM proponents, they've argued for their rights to grow and use GM, this tool in the toolbox. All I'm asking is for the same right to be able to produce a GM-free product which we've traditionally done for years."
http://www.gmwatch.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14048
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE AMERICAS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ CRAZY GM PATENT SYSTEM UNRAVELS IN BRAZIL
Since GM soy was legalised for planting in Brazil, Monsanto has charged Brazilian farmers 2 per cent of their sales of Roundup Ready soybeans. Monsanto tests even those soybean sold as non-GM, and if they turn out to be Roundup Ready, it charges the farmers a higher trait fee -”” 3 per cent of their sales.
In April, a judge in Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil ruled in favour of the producers and ordered Monsanto to return royalties paid since 2004 or a minimum of $2 billion. Monsanto appealed and a federal court ordered that the ruling would apply nationwide. Now Monsanto will have to pay the $7.5 billion back. "The law gives producers the right to multiply the seeds they buy and nowhere in the world is there a requirement to pay (again)," argues the farmers' lawyer. A decision on this may take years and meanwhile Monsanto continues to collect royalties. But Brazilian farmers expect they will win in the end. If so, it could spark a series of legal challenges elsewhere, including in India.
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14051
+ CANADA/U.S.: FARCE OF PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON GM APPLE BASED ON NO DATA
The US Dept of Agriculture has posted data from Okanagan Specialty Fruits relating to their request for approval of the GM Arctic non-browning apple. The US public now has 60 days to comment before a final decision is made by US regulators.
This public comment period in the US comes just six days after the closing of a public comment period in Canada, July 3, 2012. However, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's comment process was based on two pages of bullet points describing the data submitted by the company -- the data itself was not provided.
"The CFIA should be deeply embarrassed for wasting Canadians' time on a false invitation to comment on the GM apple," said Lucy Sharratt of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network. "The CFIA public comment period was always a sham because it was based on no data but this farce is now completely exposed."
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14054
+ U.S. PLANS TO CUT GM CROP OVERSIGHT
A provision included in the US's new Farm Bill would allow GM crops to be planted even if courts rule they were approved illegally. Opponents call it the "Monsanto Rider" because Monsanto's GM alfalfa and sugar beets have been subject to court challenges for illegal regulatory approvals. Effectively, the provision offers a way for biotech companies to act outside the law. This is just one of several measures being written into US legislation to make life easier for biotech companies and harder for groups that challenge GM crop releases.
"They are trying to change the rules," said George Kimbrell, senior attorney at the Center for Food Safety, which has lawsuits pending against government regulators for failing to follow the law in approving certain GM crops. "It is to the detriment of good governance, farmers and to the environment."
Even the National Grain and Feed Association, representing the likes of Archer Daniels Midland, Bunge and Cargill, is alarmed at what's happening, saying the provisions could have "unintended consequences in domestic and export markets."
http://gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14062
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14076
+ TOXIC BIOTECH PROVISIONS OF THE U.S. FARM BILL
Lawyer Deniza Gertsberg comments on the "toxic biotech provisions of the Farm Bill": "If you thought that the regulatory framework for regulating genetically engineered crops in the United States was weak before, the new proposed changes in Sections 10011-10014 of the House Agriculture Committee's discussion draft of the 2012 Farm Bill, will practically eviscerate the oversight function of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA)."
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14071
+ COMING YOUR WAY: TOXIC CLOUD OF 2,4-D
Dow hopes to commercialise its 2,4-D-resistant GM corn. But Dr Charles Benbrook, a scientist with the Organic Center, said this attempt to control herbicide-resistant weeds while also creating GM crops that can withstand the harsher chemicals will not succeed. In an April 2012 report, Benbrook found 16 species of weeds already resistant to 2,4-D.
"We could see a 73-fold increase in the pounds of 2,4-D applied to corn by 2019, compared to 4 percent of acres treated with 2,4-D in 2002," Benbrook said, adding that a recent US Dept of Agriculture report on pesticides shows 85 percent of drinking water had residues of 2,4-D. "This phenoxy herbicide is known to be a significant risk factor for a host of reproductive problems, birth defects and cancers," he said.
Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, senior scientist at Pesticide Action Network, said 2,4-D was known to have problems of drift, resulting in killed and damaged nontarget crops. Ishii-Eiteman said more than 70 doctors and public health scientists wrote to the Environmental Protection Agency in June, urging the agency to reject Dow's application for new uses of 2,4-D, citing fears of lasting harm to public health.
http://gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14077
+ US ORGANIC FARMERS FILE APPEAL AGAINST MONSANTO
Seventy-five family farmers, seed businesses, and agricultural organizations representing over 300,000 individuals and 4,500 farms have filed a brief with the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington asking the appellate court to reverse a lower court's decision from February dismissing their protective legal action against Monsanto's patents on GM seed.
In February 2012, despite the fact that the plaintiffs are at risk for being contaminated by GM seed and then sued for patent infringement by Monsanto, Judge Naomi Buchwald of the Southern District of New York dismissed the case because she didn’t find a case worthy of adjudication, saying "it is clear that these circumstances do not amount to a substantial controversy and that there has been no injury traceable to defendants."
Yet every year Monsanto investigates over 500 farmers for patent infringement with their now notorious "seed police". To date, 144 farmers have had lawsuits brought against them by Monsanto without a binding contract with the multinational corporation, while another 700 farmers have been forced to settle out of court for undisclosed sums.
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14049
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFRICA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ BAN AGENT ORANGE GM MAIZE IN SOUTH AFRICA
The GMO authorities in South Africa have given the green light for the importation of Dow's controversial 2,4-D tolerant GM maize (variety DAS 40278-9) into South Africa, where it will be used as food. 2,4-D was one of two active ingredients in the infamous chemical weapon, Agent Orange, used to devastating effect during the Vietnam war. Exposure to 2,4-D has been linked to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a cancer of the white blood cells.
TAKE ACTION: Sign petition to ban the maize in SA:
http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/Ban_Agent_Orange_GM_maize_in_South_Africa/?fYuMaab&pv=0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
VIDEOS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ BILL MAHER ON GM LABELLING
The outspoken TV host gives his views on why Americans should have GM labelling.
http://www.gmwatch.org/gm-videosb/37-labeling/14079
+ JUST LABEL IT -- WHY LABELLING MATTERS TO MOMS
Robyn O'Brien, mother and founder of the AllergyKids Foundation, shares her story on why she wants the FDA to label GM foods.
http://www.gmwatch.org/gm-videosb/37-labeling/14078
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESEARCH
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ NEW BENBROOK DATA BLOW AWAY CLAIMS OF PESTICIDE REDUCTION DUE TO GM CROPS
Dozens of papers in peer-reviewed journals assert GM crops reduce pesticide use, either based on no data or proprietary surveys of "representative fields". But these claims are exposed yet again as lies by a new updated analysis by Dr Charles Benbrook of pesticide use on GM and non-GM equivalent crops over the first 16 years of use, from 1996 to 2011, based on US government data. Crops considered are herbicide-tolerant (HT) corn, soy, and cotton; Bt corn; and Bt cotton.
Benbrook's analysis shows:
*Use of glyphosate on GM Roundup Ready (RR) soy acres INCREASED from 0.69 pounds per acre in 1996 to 1.56 in 2011.
*Use of all herbicides on GM RR soy acres INCREASED from 0.89 pounds per acre in 1996 to 1.68 in 2011.
*The differential between herbicides used on GM RR soy and non-GM soy is growing, showing that GM RR soy is increasing the use of herbicides over time whereas non-GM soy is decreasing herbicide use. In 1996 GM RR soy needed 0.30 pounds per acre less herbicide than non-GM soy. But in 2011 GM RR soy needed 0.73 pounds per acre more herbicide than non-GM soy.
*HT crops have INCREASED herbicide use by a total or 527 million pounds (239 million kgs).
*HT soybeans account for 72% of the total increase in herbicide use across the three HT crops.
*Bt crops produce far more insecticide than the chemical insecticides they are meant to replace -- confirming that GM Bt crops do not reduce or eliminate insecticides, but simply change the way that pesticides are used, from sprayed on, to built in.
*In fields planted to Monsanto-Dow SmartStax corn, total expression of Bt proteins is 3.73 pounds per acre -- 12 X more than the chemical insecticide sprays displaced (0.31 pounds active ingredients).
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14041
+ BT TOXICITY CONFIRMED: FLAWED STUDIES EXPOSED
A new study has confirmed Bt toxicity to non-target beneficial insects and showed how experiments claiming to refute their original results (published in 2009) were designed not to find the effect. The study confirms that the Bt toxin present in GM crops kills the larvae of the two-spotted ladybird, a species that GM supporters claim to be unaffected by the toxin.
The study, by Angelika Hilbeck and colleagues at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, raises questions regarding the integrity of previous work published by GM proponents, whose experimental protocols were re-tested and shown to lack the scientific rigour required to pick up signs of toxicity even in target insects that the pesticide is designed to kill.
Hilbeck and colleagues' 2009 paper showed increased mortality in ladybirds exposed to the activated toxin that had been coated on their food; the team had found similar effects in green lacewings previously.
In response to their original publication, a coordinated effort aimed at discrediting their findings appeared in the journal Transgenic Research, which included two highly charged critiques and a study led by Jörg Romeis from Agroscope, Switzerland, which failed to detect any toxicity. Romeis and colleagues concluded that the results of Hilbeck's team were "false-positives" and artefacts of a poor study design. One critique went as far as suggesting the work was "pseudo-science". Agroscope is linked to the GM giant Syngenta, which along with Monsanto, produces GM Bt crops.
However, Hilbeck and colleagues' new study shows that Romeis and colleagues' study was designed in such a way that it could not have detected the effect!
The new study confirms that regulatory procedures for Bt crops are inadequate and that Bt crops are on the market under false pretences of safety.
http://www.gmwatch.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14058
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GATESWATCH
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ GATES BANKROLLS SPECULATIVE GM NITROGEN-FIXING WHILE SUCCESSFUL METHODS IGNORED
The Gates Foundation has given the John Innes Centre GBP6.4 million to research ways of making cereal plants fix their own nitrogen, including maize in Sub-Sarahan Africa. The project was described by GM Freeze as a waste of money that should have been used on more important and productive research. GM Freeze points out that nitrogen-fixing wheat and other cereals have been promised by the GM industry for several decades, without success. This is because nitrogen-fixing ability is a complex trait that is unlikely ever to be conferred by GM.
Dr Michael Antoniou, a molecular geneticist from King's College London's medical school, commented: "There are safer, proven technologies, so I'm afraid the Gateses have been grossly misled. GM has failed to deliver for farmers."
Pete Riley of GM Freeze said: "GM nitrogen-fixing crops have not shown much progress to date, and waiting decades longer for institutions like The Gates Foundation and John Innes Centre to play around with the genetics, and maybe fail, is not a good use of money when we know where the answers lie."
Indeed, the lead researcher on the project, Prof Giles Oldroyd of the JIC, has admitted that the project is highly speculative. He told the Eastern Daily Press: "It is one of the biggest challenges in plant biology to get nitrogen-fixing cereals. It is never going to be simple and I doubt that this five-year programme will be enough to achieve that, but I see it as a first step and I am keeping an open mind. It is 'blue-sky' research but we have to try because solving this problem is so important. There are no guarantees, that is the nature of science."
Meanwhile, successful ways of fixing nitrogen in soil are already practised in agroecological systems but programs to roll out these methods more widely are starved of funds. The methods include rotating crops with crops that naturally fix nitrogen, like legumes; planting nitrogen-fixing plants at intervals in fields; building soil organic matter; improving soil structure; and undersowing cereal crops with a nitrogen fixing crop, such as clover.
http://www.gmwatch.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14066
http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/14069
Proven successful methods of nitrogen management in organic and agroecological systems:
http://gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14075
Permaculture approaches to nitrogen management:
http://permaculture.org.au/2008/09/29/nitrogen-fixing-trees-the-multipurpose-pioneers/
+ GATES GRANT TO JIC DWARFED BY UK GOVT'S GRANT
Gates's GBP6.4 million grant to the John Innes Centre (JIC) is dwarfed by the amount that the UK government gave the JIC for 2011-12: GBP42 million. This was not mentioned in the BBC report that announced the Gates grant. The website Political Cleanup denounced the media manipulation designed to downplay governmental support and funding for an unpopular and risky technology while the claim is repeatedly made that the public is gradually finding GM crops more acceptable. Political Cleanup suggested that this tactic owes a lot to Dr Goebbels's maxim: "If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth."
http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/14070
http://gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14069
+ WHERE GATES GETS HIS ADVICE ON AGRICULTURE
The Gates Foundation's head of agriculture has attracted criticism for his involvement with agribusiness, but he insists his aim is to improve life for the world's poorest farmers. Sam Dryden started life as an economist with the US government, went to chemical company Union Carbide (he left a few years before a gas leak at its Indian factory killed thousands of people) and then set up its biotech branch, which is now Dow AgroSciences, one of the world's largest GM crop companies. He went on to head two of the world's largest GM seed companies, helped buy out India's largest seed companies, introduced GM cotton to the subcontinent, briefly worked for Monsanto when he sold one company to them, founded another that specialised in transgenic animals, advised the World Bank, and, as a representative of private industry, withdrew from the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) - the giant study by more than 400 expert
s and
governments on how to feed the world, which concluded that the benefits of GM crops were "anecdotal and contradictory, and uncertainty about possible benefits and damage is unavoidable".
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14050
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
EUROPE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ GMO-FREE REGIONS CONFERENCE 2012
GMO-free Regions Conference 2012 -- 4-5 September in Brussels
Central topics of the conference will be the upcoming seed legislation and the right to a national ban of GMO cultivation, the import of GM soy in connection with the approaching European CAP reform and the deficient risk assessment of GMOs by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).
For more information and to register:
http://www.jnm.be/forum/viewtopic.php?start=0&t=1244
http://www.gmwatch.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14074
+ FEWER GM CROP TRIALS IN EUROPE
EU data shows that fewer GM trials were submitted for authorisation this year compared with the last couple of years. Only Spain grows GM commercially, allowing trials of more GM crops than any other European country. Of the 41 applications for GM trials up to May, 30 were for trials in Spain.
Two thirds of applications came from big biotech companies such as BASF and Bayer and were for trials of herbicide- and pest-resistant crops that are already grown in other parts of the world. Only 11 of the trials are to test new plant traits and trait innovations.
This highlights the fact that the so called "new generation" of GM crops supposed to feed the world, deliver third world farmers from drought and sort out the world's nutritional problems still mainly exist in press releases.
A third of the trial authorisations have been proposed by universities and public research bodies. This figure is may well increase in the future, with companies saving their money as the EU and the UK press ahead with committing public, taxpayer funds to GM projects that businesses and investors steer clear of.
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14056
+ GERMANY: GLYPHOSATE FOUND IN PEOPLE'S URINE -- ARTICLE IN ENGLISH
According to an article in a German journal, first reported by GMWatch in January this year, a German university study found glyphosate, the main chemical ingredient of Roundup, in the urine samples of city dwellers. Analysis of the urine samples found that all had concentrations of glyphosate at 5 to 20 times the limit for drinking water. Now an English translation of the article is available here:
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14040
+ DUTCH PARLIAMENT MOVES AGAINST GLYPHOSATE
In September 2011 a Green Member of the Dutch Parliament, Rik Grashoff, put forward a Parliamentary motion proposing a ban on the "commercial use" of Roundup outside agriculture. In the motion, Grashoff cited evidence presented in Earth Open Source's report, "Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark?", which revealed that industry's own studies carried out as long ago as the 1980s showed that glyphosate, Roundup's active ingredient, causes birth defects in laboratory animals. These findings, and evidence of other types of harm, have been confirmed in independent peer-reviewed studies, also mentioned by Grashoff in the motion. Grashoff added that Roundup is a threat to drinking water supplies and that alternative methods of weed control are available.
Grashoff's motion gained majority support in the Parliament, so now the relevant minister has to work out a proposal. There has been talk of stopping the use of the herbicide on streets, in parks, and other public places. Our sources in The Netherlands tell us that Monsanto asked for a meeting with the minister. In due course, a "Sustainable Weed Control Support Group" was founded by "users and producers of herbicides", including a website, facebook and twitter sites. These sites promote the notion of the "sustainable use" of Roundup and claim declining levels of pollution in surface water in recent years.
On 25 June 2012 Monsanto placed a large advertisement in De Telegraaf, the biggest newspaper in The Netherlands, claiming that EOS's report was wrong. Monsanto's counter-argument was that the studies highlighted in EOS's report -- all of them -- had been evaluated by CTGB (the Dutch regulatory authority) and other EU authorities and were deemed not "relevant".
We're sure the families that have suffered birth defects, cancers and other problems as a result of exposure to Roundup will be comforted by the assurance that their conditions are not "relevant". And we hope that Monsanto is able to reconcile the paradox that some of the "irrelevant" studies that show that glyphosate causes birth defects in lab animals were commissioned by”¦ Monsanto.
http://bit.ly/QfRMk5
The Parliamentary motion (in Dutch): http://bit.ly/OcM6Df
+ EU AUTHORITIES PAVE WAY FOR GM ANIMALS
European Union officials are paving the way to bring GM animals to the European market. European authorities have developed safety guidelines for the introduction of GM animals -- a precursor to approving such products for commercial sale. But these steps to introduce GM fish, pigs or cows come despite unwillingness to sell them from major retailers, research by Friends of the Earth Europe shows, as well as strong consumer opposition to GMOs.
Mute Schimpf of Friends of the Earth Europe said: "The idea of eating genetically modified meat or milk turns people's stomachs. Leading European supermarkets know it would be bad for business to sell GM animals products and will not stock them. Not a single country allows GM animals for food production. So why is the European Commission starting a procedure to approve such products? It's preposterous."
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14042
EU public consultation on GM animals -- have your say:
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14073
+ ROMANIA UNDER PRESSURE FROM GM GIANTS
Small farms can produce as much or more food as their large competitors, yet they are being killed off under the false promise of increasing yields and economic development. This process is under way in Romania, where biotech firms are lobbying for the massive expansion of GM cultivation and intensive farming.
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14057
+ UK: NFU FALLS OUT WITH MORRISONS AND ASDA
A few months back the UK supermarket chain Morrisons broke ranks with most other UK supermarkets by saying it would allow poultry farmers supplying both meat and eggs to use GM feed, in a move that aligned Morrisons with another UK chain, the Walmart-owned ASDA.
Many of Morrisons' customers were outraged and said they would boycott Morrisons, and interestingly recent reports have shown that Morrisons is now suffering a fall in sales and its market share has gone into decline. But the National Farmers Union (NFU), with its pro-GM leadership, welcomed Morrisons' move.
Now the NFU are targeting Morrisons and ASDA for their poor treatment of UK dairy famers. They draw a contrast with the other UK food retail chains, like Tesco, Sainsbury's, Waitrose and Marks & Spencer, which treat dairy farmers better. But perhaps the NFU should reflect on the fact that those other chains all have better GM-free policies than Morrisons and ASDA.
It's time the NFU stopped supporting Morrisons and ASDA on GM, which is part of their dive to the bottom -- something that is not in the interests of NFU members or consumers.
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14052
+ TURKS DON'T WANT TO EAT GM FOOD
Some 83 percent of Turkish people are against consuming GM food, according to a survey by Greenpeace. The agriculture ministry is working on a labelling system for food from GM-fed animals.
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14055
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GM INFORMATION RESOURCES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ GM SAFETY ISSUES BASED ON SCIENCE
Here's a useful rundown of the scientifically-based reasons why GM crops and foods are risky:
http://www.ofa.org.au/pages/GMO-Safety-Issues-based-on-Science.html
+ GMO MYTHS AND TRUTHS
A new report co-authored by genetic engineers provides the scientific and other authoritative evidence debunking the common claims made for the safety and efficacy of GM crops and foods is available here:
http://www.earthopensource.org/index.php/reports/gmo-myths-and-truths