GMWatch News Review archive

from Claire Robinson, WEEKLY WATCH editor
------------------------------------------------------------

Our main story this week is Thailand's apparent capitulation to US pressure over the commercialization of GM crops. However, after massive opposition from just about everyone other than US lobbyists, the biotech industry and self-interested local advocates, the Thai government appears to have put the decision on hold, at least until next week.

Meanwhile, the US's tedious pretence that it relies solely on 'sound science' in its GM policy is given the lie by its failed attempt to prevent the EU from calling in scientific evidence in the WTO dispute over the EU's moratorium on GMOs (EURO-NEWS).

Claire This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
www.lobbywatch.org / www.gmwatch.org

------------------------------------------------------------
CONTENTS
------------------------------------------------------------
THAILAND SPECIAL REPORT
OTHER NEWS FROM ASIA
GM ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTERS
FOCUS ON AFRICA
EURO-NEWS
FOOD SAFETY
THE AMERICAS
LOBBYWATCH
COMPANY NEWS
DONATIONS

------------------------------------------------------------
THAILAND SPECIAL REPORT
------------------------------------------------------------

+ THAI GOVT GIVES GREEN LIGHT FOR GM - BUT CABINET STALLS AS OPPOSITION MOUNTS
Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra on 20 August bestowed the government's blessing on the planting and trading of GM crops by promising to revoke an earlier ban. The ban only permits GM crops to be grown in laboratories for experimental purposes but the revision would allow open planting and commercialisation of GM crops.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4242

However, the go-ahead has been stalled by protests. The Cabinet was expected to ratify the policy at its weekly meeting on Tuesday. But after encountering strong opposition from exporters, farmers, environmentalists and consumer groups, the Cabinet put the issue on hold.

Rushing to get their foot in the door, Monsanto on 25 August sent delegates to meet senior officials from the Agriculture Ministry. "The company's representative from Singapore met with me seeking a clear policy on field testing," said Chawanwut Chainuwut, the ministry's deputy secretary-general.

"My reply will depend on the Cabinet," he said.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4262

+ WHY THE THAI GOVT MADE ITS DECISION
The latest news from Thailand follows the extraordinary trade pressures brought to bear ever since Thailand introduced a modicum of GM food labelling and its moratorium on growing GM crops.

In 2001 the head of the Thai Food and Drug Administration revealed how a visiting US trade delegation had threatened trade sanctions against Thai imports, worth about US$8.7bn a year, if labelling went ahead. The threats to invoke Section 301 of the US trade laws were made during an official visit.
http://www.just-food.com/news_detail.asp?art=37810&c=1

Then earlier this year, the Thai Environment Minister publicly objected to the US's insisting that Thailand grow GM crops as a condition of a bilateral free trade agreement.
http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/service117.htm

Now - surprise, surprise - the Thai Prime Minister says he is going to revoke an earlier ban on the commercial use of GM crops, in defiance of wide opposition.

This is reminiscent of what happened in Sri Lanka after it introduced a ban on GM food in May 2001 in order to allow time for the health risks to be studied. At the time of the announcement, Sri Lanka's Director General of Health Services said that the safety of consumers was paramount and that the ban would remain in place until worldwide concerns about GM foods were settled. After intense pressure from the US and the WTO, however, Sri Lanka's ban was indefinitely postponed.

The Thai PM's embrace of GM seems particularly ironic in the light of Greenpeace's recent exposure of GM contamination of papaya seeds. The seeds, which have been sold to Thai farmers, appear to have been contaminated by GM crop trials carried out at a Thai research station in contravention of the existing ban.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4182

Yet the Prime Minister's response to what is potentially one of the worst cases of GM contamination of a major food crop in Asia, is not to tighten the existing ban but to try and revoke it!
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4242

+ BAD-IDEA VIRUS GRIPS THAILAND'S PM
In a Philippines' newspaper, the Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra is quoted as saying, "If we (Thailand) don't start [GM] now, we will miss this scientific train and lose out in the world."

The Thai PM's announcement is then described as "a move which may place the Philippines in the 'laggard' category" for GM. The headline of the article says it all: "Thailand may overtake RP [Republic of the Philippines] in biotech race".

But in reality, outside the developing world, GM crops are in serious retreat, as witnessed by Monsanto's recent announcements that it will:
*"defer" all further efforts to introduce GM wheat globally
*stop its GM canola breeding programmes in Australia
*and withdraw its cereal programmes from Europe.

Other GM firms, like Bayer and Syngenta, have suffered similar setbacks. But in the article, a GM supporter is quoted as saying that the Philippines "cannot afford to ignore the growing support for biotechnology from various Asian governments." Among those cited are China, India and Indonesia.

But Monsanto has pulled out of GM in Indonesia, where it is under investigation for corruption, China's political leaders appear ambivalent about going further down the GM route, and India's political leaders are under attack for being in the laggard category!

The GM supporter who is quoted in the article is said to have "lauded the move by the Thai government, saying this will 'send positive signals across Asia...'"

This is an industry that lives by hype and duplicity and the "biotech race" provides Asia's leaders with a handy distraction from the crude realities of US mercantile power and the abysmal failure of governments and international institutions to address the problem of hunger.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4257

+ BIOTECH TRAIN MAY BE PANDORA'S BOX
An excellent article in Thailand's The Nation newspaper by Varoonvarn Svangsopakul of Greenpeace Southeast Asia is at
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4256

EXCERPT:
When Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra announced on Friday that Thailand would embrace genetically engineered (GE) crops, he declared that, "The government won't let the country miss the biotechnology train."

The message was clear: Thailand must adopt this new, cutting-edge technology as a matter of national competitiveness. But a closer look at the reasoning behind the National Biotechnology Policy Committee's decision suggests that the government knows very little about this train, or even where it's going.

Take for example Thaksin's claim that the EU is now open to GMOs. Clearly he was trying to reassure Thailand's farmers and food exporters that the introduction of GE crops would not hurt exports. But it's not very reassuring if it isn't true. The EU's de facto moratorium on GMOs remains intact, and approvals of GE crops remain blocked.

Only one GE food crop - Syngenta's Bt11 sweet corn - has slipped through, but Syngenta has now announced that it will not be commercialised. More importantly, the EU's new GMO labelling and 'traceability' laws, requiring comprehensive documentation of all every step, impose the strictest possible limits on unintended GMO contamination in food products - further indicating that consumer rejection of GE food remains strong.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4256

+ FARMERS, ACTIVISTS TAKE TO THE STREETS
Organic farmers and other concerned groups from around the country on 24 August held a protest in front of Government House in an attempt to pressure the Cabinet into rejecting a proposal to lift the ban on the widespread testing of GM crops.

BioThai and the Consumer Protection Network led the protest. "If Thaksin chooses GM crops [today], he won't receive any votes from our members at the general election," BioThai director Witoon Lianchamroon said. "And we will also lunch hundreds of measures to stop field testing, which would harm the public and environment significantly."

Witoon added that some companies would benefit if the policy was reversed and that was why the new policy was being rushed through.

Thaksin on 23 August said he stood by his decision. "Criticism is acceptable but it does not mean I have to believe it. I will make my decision based on scientific information, even though it contradicts what the critics are saying," he said. "Sometimes there are not many critics but they speak out loud through the media."
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4252

+ PM's POLICY DRAWS IRE OF ACTIVISTS
Activists have slammed the government's recent policy on GM crops. Meanwhile senators cast doubt over whether its main motivations related to the Thai-US free trade agreement (FTA). Two Senate committees - the Committee on Social and Human Security and the Committee on Foreign Affairs - will jointly organise a special session to investigate FTA influences in setting GM policy. The session is planned for next Wednesday at Parliament.

A number of activists interviewed by The Nation expressed strong disappointment over the GM crop policy launched last Friday by Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra that allows farming and trading of the controversial crops. Said Saree Ongsomwang, coordinator of the Foundation for Consumers, "Which part of the brain did they use to make such a decision? How can the government put the lives of millions of Thai people into the hands of a group of scientists like this?"

"Hasn't the government learned anything from its mistake at our home?" asked an activist from the Northeast, referring to the recent spread of GM-contaminated papaya in the region.

Senator Niran Phitakwatchara said the government should reconsider the controversial policy. "It is obvious that the past ban on GM crops was to prevent their potential impact on consumers and the environment. Why change the policy now? What other reason could there be if not pressure from the FTA?" he asked.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4250

+ US BULLIED THAILAND THROUGH FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Banthoon Setsirote of the National Human Rights Commission said that one of the articles in the draft freetrade agreement with the US stated that Thailand had to remove any limitations or obstacles relating to biotechnology goods.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4252

+ GREENPEACE CONDEMNS NEW POLICY
Greenpeace has condemned the Thai government's decision to open Thailand to GM crops as leading the country into disaster. At a time when the basic principles of genetic engineering are under challenge from new scientific research, the government seems to be deliberately ignoring the warnings of many scientific institutions around the world.

Whereas the policy assumes that GMO and natural crops can co-exist, evidence from around the world shows that there is no way to prevent contamination. The latest example is in the province of Khon Kaen where the government's GMO papaya field trials have been identified as the source of contamination of a farmer's papaya farm 60 kilometers away from the field trials.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4255

+ ALARMED RICE EXPORTERS JOIN ANTI-GMO MOVE
The country's leading rice exporters have joined activists, farmers and environmentalists to oppose the prime minister's decision to allow open-field trials of GM crops, saying it was a big mistake which would jeopardise Thailand's rice markets overseas.

"None of our customers wants to buy GM produce,'' said Wanlop Pichpongsa, a company executive. "Importers, particularly in European countries, always ask for the GM-free labels or non-GMO certificates for rice and farm products from Thailand.''

The country was likely to lose several markets in Europe if it promotes open-field trial and commercial plantation of genetically modified crops, said the executive, who called Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra's move "unreasonable''.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4252

+ NOT WISE FOR THAILAND TO GM TAG JASMINE RICE
The National Biotechnology Committee of Thailand plans to use GM technology to "improve" the quality and productivity of jasmine rice, ordinary rice and rice for food processing. The plan for jasmine rice is to use genetic engineering and molecular breeding to introduce resistance to flood and drought. Suman Sahai of Gene Campaign says this is not a wise move. Flood and drought tolerance can be more easily achieved by conventional breeding than by genetic engineering and the price for adding the GM tag may be too high.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4245

------------------------------------------------------------
OTHER NEWS FROM ASIA
------------------------------------------------------------

+ INDIA: ICRISAT AND ISAAA TRAIN MEDIA ON GM
The inter-governmental research body, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), has become proactive in promoting GM technology in India. The main agenda of ICRISAT is to generate awareness among the media about the possible benefits of GM technology.

ICRISAT has recently, in collaboration with the US-based International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), launched a 'knowledge centre' in India. This 'knowledge centre' will be housed in ICRISAT's liaison office in Delhi and will become operative from mid-September, this year.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4251

ICRISAT is the only organisation of the Consultative Group of International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) headquartered in India (in Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh). In 2002, without prior consultation, CGIAR's chairman appointed Syngenta Foundation to CGIAR's board.
More on CGIAR: http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=295

+ INDIA: SWITCH OT ORGANIC NEEDED AS PESTICIDES CAUSE CANCER DEATHS
A study conducted by the Chandigarh based Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER) on behalf of the Punjab government has once again revealed that excessive use of chemical pesticides is the cause of a series of deaths due to cancer in Talwandi block in Bhatinda district in Punjab.

Bhatinda district grows largely cotton and rice and is infamous for excessive use of chemical pesticides.

The PGIMER study conducted under the leadership of Prof Rajesh Kumar, head of the department of community medicine, cytology and gynecological pathology confirms the findings of the earlier two studies conducted by the local NGO, Kheti Virasat - one in collaboration with Greenpeace India. Kheti Virast is convincing farmers to switch over to organic farming.

The IPIMER study compared Talwandi Saboo in Bhatinda district with the control area, Chamkaur Sahib in Ropar district. The study covered a population of 85315 in Talwandi Saboo and 97928 in Chamkaur Sahib. A total of 7,441 deaths were recorded in the last 10 years (1993-2003). Age adjusted cancer death rate per 1,00,000 population per year at Talwandi Sahib was 51.2 while that at Chamkaur Sahib was 30.3. Age adjusted prevalance of confirmed cancer cases per 1,00,000 was 125.4 in Talwandi Saboo and 72.5 in Chamkaur Sahib. Five most common sites in confirmed cancer cases were breast, uterus, leukemia/lymphoma, oesophagus, skin and ovary.

There were 107 confirmed cancer cases in Talwandi Saboo out of which 27 were males and 80 were females. There were 71 confirmed cases of cancer deaths in Chamkaur Sahib out of which 25 were males and 46 were females. Death rate in Talwandi Saboo was 4.48 as compared to 3.69 per 1000 in Chamkaur Sahib.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4254

------------------------------------------------------------
GM ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTERS
------------------------------------------------------------

+ GM CROPS HURTING MONARCH LARVAE
The number of milkweed plants in the Upper Midwest carrying the monarch butterfly's larvae is in its third consecutive slump, due to factors that elude researchers, a local monitoring project shows. Research by the Monarch Larva Monitoring Project at the University of Minnesota shows that the numbers are below average and at their lowest level since 1998. Milkweed is the only plant on which monarchs will lay their eggs, and also serves as the sole food source for larvae.

In 2002, the project found that about 7 percent of milkweed plants examined in the Upper Midwest carried larvae. In 2003, that number was about 8 percent. This year, volunteers are finding that slightly fewer than 5 percent of milkweed plants carry larvae. That's extremely low, said Karen Oberhauser, the project's founder and an assistant professor in the university's Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Conservation Biology.

In 2001, nearly 25 percent of all milkweed plants carried larvae. Since the project began keeping tabs in 1996, the average has been 13 percent.

Although a link has not been proved, Oberhauser said, one factor in the decline in the number of egg-carrying plants could be the growing use of herbicide-tolerant soybeans, which are genetically engineered to permit larger amounts of weed-killing chemicals to be applied without hurting the crop. This may have increased the spraying of herbicides and thereby the destruction of milkweed. The project's findings show that the use of herbicide-tolerant soybeans grew from 50 percent in 2000 to 85 percent in 2003.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4241

+ ROUNDUP RESISTANT WEEDS CAUSE BIG TROUBLE IN US
Report from Agricultural Research Service, USDA [US Dept of Ag's chief scientific research agency]:

Like the plant in "Little Shop of Horrors" a little-known weed is growing fast. Tropical spiderwort, inconsequential for seven decades, has recently spread in alarming proportions in fields in Georgia, Florida and North Carolina.

First detected in the US in the 1930s, the weed has made major gains in Georgia, according to Agricultural Research Service agronomist Theodore Webster of the Crop Protection and Management Research Unit in Tifton, Ga. Webster and his colleagues--Michael Burton and Alan York of North Carolina State University, and Stanley Culpepper and Eric Prostko of the University of Georgia - are monitoring the weed's advances.

In 1999, it was found in five counties in southern Georgia. By 2002, 41 Georgian counties reported tropical spiderwort was present, and 17 listed it as moderate to severe.

A 2003 survey revealed that tropical spiderwort was entrenched in Georgia, affecting 52 counties, with 29 counties listing the weed as moderate to severe. More than 195,000 acres in Georgia are infested. It's now widespread in Florida, and has been discovered on about 100 acres in Goldsboro, N.C.

Tropical spiderwort, Commelina benghalensis, is now the most troublesome weed in Georgia cotton and the second most problematic weed in peanut. The weed competes with crops for water and nutrients, and smothers the crops at the same time.

One reason for the surge in the weed's growth is its resistance to the commonly used herbicide glyphosate. Conservation tillage [undertaken in conjunction with the use of GM glyphosate-resistant crops].

For more on this and 2 other serious outbreaks of glyphosate resistant weeds see:
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4263

------------------------------------------------------------
FOCUS ON AFRICA
------------------------------------------------------------

+ UGANDA: FARMERS, CIVIL SOCIETY STILL AGAINST GM
Farmers and civil society organisations in Uganda are still sceptical about plans to introduce GMOs in the country. At a national GMO symposium in Mukono recently, farmers groups expressed fear that GMOs might be destructive to the environment and harmful to human health.

They argued that GMO methods do not take into consideration the interests of small-scale farmers because the multinational biotech companies are targeting large-scale farms where huge quantities of seeds and agro-chemicals are required.

Rather than embracing GMOs, participants resolved that the solution lies in rectifying the structural problems facing agriculture in the country. They said the existing technologies and crop varieties, including the ones developed by National Agricultural Research Organisation (NARO) centres, could yield better than GMOs.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4258

+ KENYAN FARMERS AGAINST GM TOO
Farmer leaders in Kenya came out against GMOs in agriculture in a strongly-worded statement which expressed their fears that patented GM crops will threaten their livelihoods, indigenous seeds, environment, and human and animal health.

The Kenya Small Scale Farmers Forum, a coalition of regional small-scale farmers groups, were responding to the Kenyan government's apparent enthusiasm for GM crops, and the investment of millions of dollars into GM research. Farmers accused multinational companies of arm-twisting the government, and called for the inclusion of small-scale farmers in policy formulation on agriculture research.

Kenyan farmers were particularly worried by anecdotal stories from around the world of animal health being affected by GM feed (in particular, the reported sterility of GM-fed sheep in Germany). For small-scale farmers, livestock is a crucial aspect of mixed farming.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4258

+ TWELVE REASONS FOR AFRICA TO REJECT GM CROPS
An article in Seedling magazine (published by GRAIN) lists 12 reasons why Africa should reject GM crops. These are:
1. GM Crops will contaminate non-GM crops; co-existence is not possible
2. GM crops will foster dependence on a corporate seed supply
3. GM crops will usher in 'Terminator' and 'Traitor' technologies
4. GM crops will increase the use of chemicals
5. GM crops are patented
6. GM crops favour industrial agriculture systems
7. GM crops threaten organic and sustainable farming
8. The biosafety systems required are unrealistic for African countries
9. GM crops will not reduce hunger in Africa
10. GM crops will not resolve problems with pests
11. GM crops will encourage the arbitrary destruction of biodiversity
12. GM crops are a threat to human health.
You can read more details on each point at
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4248

+ GM AFRICA: AN A-Z
A guide to GM in Africa from Seeding magazine provides a useful A-Z of the diverse involvement and policies towards GM crops of countries in Africa.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4249
The map is available in the pdf version of the article: http://www.grain.org/seedling_files/seed-04-07-04.pdf

+ SA JUDGE ORDERS SYNGENTA TO STOP DISTRIBUTING GM MAIZE SEED
The Pretoria High Court has ordered Syngenta not to distribute GM maize seed until a Dept of Agriculture appeal board has considered Biowatch South Africa's contention that Syngenta should not have been permitted to grow the maize in the first place.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4244

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
EURO-NEWS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

+ EU MORATORIUM STILL APPLIES
According to an article on AgBioView, what was heralded as a turning point for accepting GM crops in the EU now appears to be "a farce". When the EU decided to allow imports of Syngenta's biotech Bt-11 sweet corn last spring, the industry breathed a sigh of relief. It was the first biotech approval in six years. Was the EU finally making strides to end its five-year moratorium on approval of new biotech crops? It seems not.

According to WTO rules, says Kim Nill, technical issues director for the American Soybean Association, "If the EU approves one new biotech product, they're no longer considered to be blocking biotech's progress. In this case, they (EU) knew Syngenta wasn't going to actively market sweet corn there."

The fallout is that the EU has as much as two to three more years before they'll have to approve another biotech product to remain in compliance with WTO rules. Since the EU approved the sweet corn, it essentially ends the offending action which ends the moratorium. "The farce of Bt-11 approval has given them (EU) breathing space," says Nill. "This whole approval issue has taken a step backward. It's a joke."

Currently, there are about 30 GM products and foods in the pipeline awaiting approval for import into the EU. "Even if they march forward at one every six months, it's just too slow," says Nill. "The products are already outdated in the US by the time they get through the approvals."
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4260

+ GM TRADE WAR DELAYED: US FIGHTS TO PREVENT SCIENTISTS BEING CALLED IN
The outcome of the transatlantic trade dispute on GM foods has been substantially delayed as scientists are called in to debate the safety of GM foods and crops. The move is a blow to the Bush Administration who fought to stop any debate over scientific safety.

The US had argued in its WTO submission 'Comments on the EC's final position whether to seek scientific advice', that there is "no need or value in consulting experts". See
http://www.foeeurope.org/biteback/US_comments_whether_seek_expert_advice.pdf

The US, Canada and Argentina started proceedings last year in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) over Europe's position on GM foods. The WTO set up a three-person Panel to meet in secret to decide on the case.

In recent months the US Government has been fighting to prevent the Panel from calling in scientists and has argued their case on narrow trade rules. The EU however has questioned whether the WTO is the appropriate place to settle such disputes and has been pushing for scientists to be involved in the debate. In a previous case over the use of beef hormones the scientific debate lasted for over 600 days.

In May this year campaigners delivered a petition to the WTO signed by more than 100,000 citizens from 90 countries and more than 544 organisations representing 48 million people. The signatories, including Archbishop Desmond Tutu and French small farmers' leader Jose BovŽ, have called on the WTO not to undermine the sovereign right of any country to protect its citizens and the environment from GM foods and crops.

Adrian Bebb of Friends of the Earth Europe said: "The first round of this dispute may have gone to Europe but the long term implications of this case could be devastating for everyone. The World Trade Organisation is a secretive and undemocratic organisation and should not be deciding what we eat. The long term effects of GM foods and crops are unknown. Every country should have the right to put public safety before the economic might of the biotechnology industry."
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4264

TELLING QUOTE: "GM lobbyists accuse us [anti-GM campaigners] of being anti-science Luddites. But we are the ones who are asking for more science." - Jeffrey Smith, author of Seeds of Deception, on a 2004 UK lecture tour

+ PLEASE SUPPORT DUTCH INITIATIVE FOR GM-FREE TOWN
A group of Dutch activists would like support in their initiative to make their town, Lelystad, a GM-free zone. Please send an e-mail to Miep Bos, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. saying that you support this initiative. Lelystad is a Dutch town with many organic farmers. On 16 September the local council will vote on whether or not to ban GM crops in the area. If you live anywhere in Europe, you probably eat food grown in the Netherlands, so you have a legitimate interest.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4259

+ UK: SAINSBURY'S SUCCESS WITH NON-GM MILK
Supermarket giant Sainsbury's announced on 26 August that it would be expanding its trial of non-GM milk to over 190 stores by Christmas 2004.

Earlier in the summer Sainsbury's announced plans for a limited trial of non-GM milk in 105 stores in the South of England to examine how well the product sold. The decision to almost double the size of trial comes as a result of "very encouraging" sales of the non-GM milk.

Sainsbury's own-brand milk currently comes from cows fed on imported GM animal feed. Although the company claims to lead its rivals in providing quality food, Sainsbury's is supporting the import of thousands of tonnes of GM feed into the UK every month. Yet the company is in a position to take the lead in making the UK entirely GM-free by ditching GM feed for sustainable non-GM alternatives.

------------------------------------------------------------
FOOD SAFETY
------------------------------------------------------------

+ REPORT TAKES AIM AT FDA
An excellent article by North Dakota farmer Todd Leake recognizes that assurances of GM food safety are baseless.

EXCERPTS:
A recent report from the National Academy of Sciences revealed gaping holes in the regulation and safety testing of genetically engineered foods. This should give us pause, considering we in the United States have been producing GE crops, such as soybeans, corn and canola, that wind up in many of the foods that we put on the table.

The academy, a science advisory body chartered by Congress, prepared the report for the federal agencies that regulate biotech crops and foods. The report says that those agencies and the Food and Drug Administration are falling behind the times and are not keeping up with advances in science.

It says they are not capable of spotting unplanned, manmade, adverse changes brought about in biotech foods or determining the human health effects of those changes. It concludes that we need more rigorous premarket testing and post-market surveillance.
This is what many other countries in the world have told the US for years and is why they regulate, restrict or ban the importation of GE crops and foods from the US.

The FDA's current regulatory process is a voluntary consultation between the biotech company that produced the genetically engineered crop or food and the FDA. Biotech companies voluntarily submit information of their choosing, and the FDA may ask questions about the material.

The FDA does no independent testing or analysis and makes no independent finding. The determination is based on the companies' own findings of safety and nutritional assessment. The FDA has no authority to deny or restrict the release of GE crops.

The report supports the argument that the FDA's process is worth less than a rubber stamp. The process makes no sense. The company makes all the decisions. The FDA cannot request or conduct its own specific scientific studies. In the end, it's just a recording mechanism for the biotech industry's approval of itself.

The FDA's process does not determine safety of GE foods. It does not conduct independent, science-based tests. In fact, in a recent St. Louis Post-Dispatch story, a FDA spokesperson was quoted, "A safety declaration is not something we make" in regard to the review of GM crops.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4246

------------------------------------------------------------
THE AMERICAS
------------------------------------------------------------

+ FARM GROUPS OPPOSE GMO REFERENDA
Worried that county bans on biotech crops could spread throughout the state, mainstream farm groups from the California Cattlemen's Association to the national Farm Bureau are marshaling their resources. The California Rice Commission is developing a 'communications plan' to influence Butte County voters along with a backup litigation plan in case the [anti-biotech] measure passes. Following votes to ban biotech crops in California's Mendocino and Trinity counties, biotech backers are widely rumored to be shopping legislation that would stop counties from regulating biotech crops. Even the US Department of Agriculture reportedly is scouring county initiatives to build a legal case against them.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4259

------------------------------------------------------------
LOBBYWATCH
------------------------------------------------------------

+ PROF JOHN PICKETT DISPLAYS IGNORANCE OF DEVELOPMENT ISSUES
In the UK, the Royal Society and other science research councils have called for better use of science in third world development. In the journal Nature (429, 492; 2004), John Lawton, of the Natural Environment Research Council, described the UK govt's Dept for International Development (DfID) as "complacent, rather arrogant and ill-informed" about science.

Far be it from us to defend DfID, which has a shocking history of imposing GM and other high-input, high-dependence technologies on third world countries. But Lawton's tirade does seem to be a case of the pot calling the kettle black. In a letter to Nature, development expert Edward Allison of the Univ of East Anglia reveals pro-GM scientist Prof John Pickett's ignorance about overseas development issues.

Excerpt from Allison's letter:

At the same parliamentary inquiry at which Lawton addressed DFID's shortcomings, John Pickett, of the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, described how, on a visit to Malawi, his team was "whisked off" to view "some kind of DFID programme in which very, very small bags of seed and very, very small bags of fertilizer were being given out.... This seemed to be a totally unsustainable and non-scientific based [sic] piece of development work which you would not really expect of an organisation like DFID".

The programme Pickett refers to is known as the Malawi Starter Pack Programme, which, in the 1998 and 1999 planting seasons, aimed to supply Malawi's 2.8 million smallholder farming households with sufficient inorganic fertilizer and hybrid maize seed to plant 0.1 hectare (the average land-holding in southern Malawi is 0.3 ha). These "very, very small" inputs were intended to provide a short-term safety net, to enable Malawi's farmers to survive the consequences of the International Monetary Fund's Structural Adjustment Programme. This had withdrawn subsidies from agricultural inputs (including fertilizer), ordered a dramatic currency devaluation and caused (through withdrawal of state services) the collapse of the agricultural credit system. As a result, most farmers were unable to afford the inputs needed to grow enough food for household consumption (see http://web.africa.ufl.edu/asq/v6/v6i1a8.htm).

Far from being unscientific, the Starter Pack programme was based on a thorough knowledge of the constraints faced by farmers and the production dynamics of Malawian agriculture. ...
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4253

More on Pickett: http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=102&page=P

+ THE FRANKENFOOD MYTH: HOW PROTEST AND POLITICS THREATEN THE BIOTECH REVOLUTION
GM lobbyists Greg Conko and Henry Miller are bringing out a book at the end of this month with the above title. Barely anyone will read it because it's in hardback and costs forty bucks.

Excerpt from publisher's blurb:

[The authors] explain how a "happy conspiracy" of anti-technology activism, bureaucratic over-reach, and business lobbying has resulted in a regulatory framework in which there is an inverse relationship between the degree of product risk and degree of regulatory scrutiny.

The net result, they argue, is a combination of public confusion, political manipulation, ill-conceived regulation (from such agencies as the USDA, EPA, and FDA), and ultimately, the obstruction of one of the safest and most promising technologies ever developed - with profoundly negative consequences for the environment and starving people around the world.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4247

For a profile of Conko: http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=31
Profile of Miller: http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=84

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMPANY NEWS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

+ FOOD COMPANIES FAIL TO DISCLOSE SHAREHOLDER RISK OF GM CROPS
Ninety-five percent of the top food companies in the US fail to properly inform shareholders about the risks posed by GE ingredients, according to Duty to Disclose: The Failure of Food Companies to Disclose Risks of Genetically Engineered Crops to Shareholders, a new report released 19 August by the US Public Interest Research Group (US PIRG).

While one mistake involving GM crops is estimated to have already cost the food industry over one billion dollars, and more shareholder resolutions have been filed regarding GM issues than any issue since apartheid-era South Africa, only two of the top 35 publicly traded food companies mention GE ingredients in their Annual Reports as required, according to Duty to Disclose.

"Shareholders need to know about the products their company makes," said US PIRG Safe Food Advocate Richard Caplan. "By not disclosing the many risks posed by genetically engineered crops, food companies are failing to meet their legal duty to be fully honest with shareholders."

"Duty to Disclose" describes the risks posed to food companies from GM ingredients, including product liability lawsuits, loss of insurance coverage, damage to reputation, consumer rejection, international renunciation, cross contamination, and economic loss due to sudden regulatory changes. While federal regulations require that investors receive full disclosure of any material facts about the companies in which they own shares, only Kraft Foods Inc. (KFT-NYSE) and Interstate Bakeries (IBC-NYSE), makers of Hostess Cupcakes and Wonderbread, disclosed to shareholders that GM ingredients might pose a material risk to shareholders.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4243

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
DONATIONS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our thanks to all of you who have donated to GM WATCH. You can donate online in any one of five currencies via PayPal, at http://www.gmwatch.org/donate.asp OR by cheque or postal order payable to 'NGIN', to be sent to: NGIN, 26 Pottergate, Norwich, NR2 1DX, UK. We appreciate your support.