Guest guest Posted August 20, 2005 Report Share Posted August 20, 2005 WEEKLY WATCH 137 " GM WATCH " <info Fri, 19 Aug 2005 12:07:43 +0100 --------------------------- WEEKLY WATCH number 137 --------------------------- --------------------------- from Claire Robinson, WEEKLY WATCH editor --------------------------- Dear all: There's a special focus on food safety this week, with Prof Mike Gasson giving some bizarre and improbable reasons why GM foods should not be tested for safety! (FOOD SAFETY) Meanwhile, the people who helped create the atom bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are combining two risky technologies, nanotechnology and genetic engineering, to make GM trees for the US paper industry (NANOTECHNOLOGY). What timing! The website of the Japanese newspaper, The Mainichi Shimbun, has recently been publishing copies of their front pages as they were printed 60 years ago. This is from the front page of an article about the atomic bombing of Hiroshima: " The new-type bombs dropped by enemy planes on Hiroshima on Aug. 6 are, after all, not so powerful as to cause great anxiety, declared Lieut.-Colonel Akatsuka on his arrival in Osaka on Aug. 8 after inspecting the stricken area in Hiroshima. " http://martinjapan.blogspot.com/ As with the biotech brigade, a case of eyes tight shut. Claire claire www.gmwatch.org / www.lobbywatch.org ------- CONTENTS ------- FOOD SAFETY EUROPE THE AMERICAS AFRICA ASIA AUSTRALASIA NANOTECHNOLOGY NEW RESEARCH GM MYTHS CORPORATE CRIMES CAMPAIGN OF THE WEEK --------------------------- FOOD SAFETY --------------------------- + MICHAEL MEACHER CONDEMNS SEVEN YEARS OF SECRECY OVER GM SAFETY On the seventh anniversary of the first disclosure of scientific concern about GM food safety (the Pusztai research), former UK environment minister Michael Meacher has demanded sound science and freedom of information on GM food and animal feed. Questions were raised at the Food Standards Agency Open Board Meeting on 15 August. Meacher is supporting calls for freedom of access to the data used by the government to approve GM foods. He points out: ***In 1998 a GM maize, called T25, was approved in the EU as a cattle feed. Only one feeding study looked at the effects of eating the whole maize; a short 10 week trial - on chickens - even though the active life of a dairy cow is over six years. 50% more chickens eating GM maize died than in the control group fed non-GM maize, but the Government felt this was not significant. The research was not peer-reviewed and was not of a quality suitable for academic publication, but the crop was approved. ***The latest GM feed crop to be approved was MON 863 maize in July. This was despite the eventual disclosure of a secret Monsanto feeding study on rats that suggested harmful effects on kidneys and levels of white blood cells. Now, despite these concerns, it is about to be approved for human consumption. http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5613 + GM FOOD SAFETY RESEARCH - WHY HAS IT NOT TAKEN PLACE? Robert Vint wrote a letter to Prof Mike Gasson in early December 2004, querying " the almost total absence of long-term, independent, published, peer-reviewed studies of the effects of feeding GM foods to humans or animals. " Robert writes, " I received a reply on 13 June [2005]. It came after 2 reminders from me, 2 from my MP and the threat of a PQ [Parliamentary Question] asking why there was no reply. [in his reply, Gasson is] ....basically trying to argue the case against the one kind of trial that could prove dangers or identify unsuspected or generic problems with GM foods. " Gasson is Head of Food Safety Science at the Institute of Food Research, a member of the Government's Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food (ACMSF) and since September 2003 he has been Chair of the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes (ACNFP). He also served on the UK Government's GM science review panel. Gasson is also a member of the European Food Safety Authority's GMO Panel. Gasson is a consultant to Danisco Venture - a venture capital company that invests in biotechnology companies. It is also part of Danisco, which together with Monsanto wants to market GM fodder beet in the EU. He also has shares in Novacta - a pharmaceutical and biotechnology company. EXCERPTS from Gasson's mealy-mouthed reply: In January, Committee members noted that feeding trials are an important tool under specific circumstances but re-iterated that there is no scientific justification for insisting that novel foods (including GM foods) should routinely be tested in this way. .... The papers highlighted in your letter [animal feeding studies on whole foods] reported on studies that were conducted to test specific hypotheses concerning the effects of the relevant foods and food ingredients. It would be reasonable to conduct similar studies in the case where a novel or GM food is plausibly anticipated to have a specific biochemical effect that is relevant to human health. It has been accepted since the earliest discussions on testing of 'whole' foods that feeding trials with novel and GM foods are not a practical way of gathering evidence of their general safety. Instead, the safety evaluation focuses on detailed examination of the observed differences between the novel or GM food and its existing counterparts - for example by isolating novel constituents and testing them at high doses in animal models. GM WATCH comment on Gasson's reply: ***Gasson says there's " no scientific justification " for testing GM foods with feeding trials. Surely, the justification of any scientific experiment is that you want to know something, e.g. " Are GM foods safe? " People do want to know. Why not find out? ***Next, Gasson says we can only test GM foods if we " plausibly anticipate " some effect on health. What Gasson seems to be saying is that to justify testing GM foods, there has to be more evidence suggesting an effect on health. But how can there be more evidence when there have been so few studies? Gasson has constructed a convenient circular argument. In addition, ill effects from GM foods have not only been plausibly anticipated, but *found* in the tiny number of existing studies. ***What can Gasson mean by saying that feeding trials with GM foods are " not a practical " way of gaining evidence of safety? Are they too expensive, too difficult, misleading, or what? He favours noting the differences between the GM food and its non-GM counterparts, omitting to mention that this method can only find what is being looked for and thus what is already known about. In practice, these looked-for differences are in things like protein or fat levels. This method cannot find unexpected toxins or allergens - exactly the risks that FDA scientists warned could be posed by GM foods. Such risks CAN show up in feeding trials. As Robert Vint says, these are exactly the kind of trials Gasson doesn't want. http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5615 + " GM IS SAFE AND THAT'S A FACT " " GM is safe and that's a fact, " say Julian Little and Bernard Marantelli of the Agricultural Biotechnology Council in the journal Chemistry & Industry. Little and Marantelli were responding to a guest editorial in the same journal by Dr Arpad Pusztai. Dr Pusztai had written, " The basic rule must be that, because we all eat GM foods, we are all entitled to scrutinise the evidence relating to their safety. Therefore, secrecy is against the public interest and unjustified. Similarly, all ethical concerns raised by GM organisms must be settled inclusively by society. " Dr Pusztai responds to Little and Marantelli's nonsense, including catching them out in a blatant lie about the results of the UK field scale trials, at http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5616 Marantelli works for the PR firm Lexington Communications. He has helped Lexington with its work for UK biotech industry lobby group, the Agricultural Biotechnology Council (ABC), which Little heads. The ABC was founded in 2002 by Monsanto along with Bayer CropScience, BASF, Dow Agrosciences, Dupont and Syngenta. Little is employed by Bayer while Marantelli, prior to joining Lexington, worked on PR for Monsanto. --------------------------- EUROPE --------------------------- + EU FACES BUSY GM TIMETABLE BUT NO END TO DEADLOCK EU governments face a slew of decisions in the next few months on whether to allow more imports of GM foods but nothing is expected that might break Europe's deadlock over biotechnology. Agriculture ministers will resume their monthly meetings from September, when they should discuss whether Greece should lift its ban on 17 types of a Monsanto GMO maize seed. The pace may quicken in October as the Commission is keen to present several more GMOs for approval by the end of the year. October's ministerial meeting may also see voting on two Monsanto maize types: GA21, for use as a food processing ingredient, and MON 863, for use in food. Environment ministers may also debate another GMO maize approval that month. And that's not all. The whole atmosphere on biotechnology could change in Brussels in early October due to the World Trade Organization's expected ruling on a case brought against EU biotech policy by the United States, Canada and Argentina. http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5618 + GM AND CONSUMER EXPERTS CONVERGE IN BOLOGNA A panel of international experts on GM and consumer rights will be speaking at a conference on ' " Co-existence " , contamination and GM-free zones: Jeopardising consumer choice?' in Bologna, Italy (9 September 2005) organised by Consumers International (CI) and Regione Emilia-Romagna. Questions that will be explored include: Is it viable to grow GM crops without contaminating conventional and organic crops? Is consumer choice being threatened by the current growth of GM crops? How can GM-free zones be legally established, and what purpose do they serve? Speakers include Ignacio Chapela. http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5602 + DfID STILL PUSHING GM CROPS At long last the UK government's Department for International Development (DfID) has released its agricultural guidelines. There will be consultation over the next 2 months. Consultation to date has already led to some changes (e.g. " Ensure the participation of representatives of the rural poor in shaping agricultural policies " ) but the thrust is the same, including a commitment to help governments spread GMOs, including those patented by the private sector: " Support governments in resolving contentious science-related issues, such as intellectual property rights and the adoption of genetically modified crops " . It seems they never learn. DfID's support via a controversial GBP65m aid programme for the Vision 2020 project in the Indian state Andhra Pradesh, which included GM crops, led to the overthrow of the AP government by farmers who objected to their backing for the project. As the Independent on Sunday has said that of DFID's previous support for GM projects, " The whole programme legitimises and promotes technology still opposed by many Third World governments and their peoples. Britain has no business doing this. " http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5603 --------------------------- THE AMERICAS --------------------------- + INDUSTRY EXPLOITS NEW STUDY ON GM CONTAMINATION IN MEXICO Biotech proponents are using a new scientific study - which finds no evidence of DNA contamination from GM maize in one area of one Mexican state (Oaxaca) - to claim that Mexico's native maize was never threatened, and even if it was at one time, the issue has now miraculously evaporated. One representative of agribusiness in Mexico eagerly concluded that " this study paves the way for the commercial planting of GM maize in Mexico. " According to Silvia Ribeiro of ETC Group in Mexico: " It's no surprise that the industry is using the findings to serve its own interests - as 'proof' that contamination no longer exists and that GM crops should have free rein everywhere, even in the South's centers of crop genetic diversity. Indigenous and farming communities vigorously disagree with the biotech industry's self-serving interpretation of the study. " According to peasant communities in Oaxaca, the new findings are not surprising. Baldemar Mendoza of UNOSJO (Union of Organisations of the Sierra Juarez of Oaxaca) - who lives in the region covered by the new study - said, " We took samples in 3 of the 18 communities that the new report mentions (San Juan Ev. Analco, Ixtlan and Santa Maria Jaltianguis) and our results were also negative in those three communities. " Mendoza points out that the geographic area sampled by the new study is small and the 18 communities are predominantly forest communities, which means that their main activity is not planting maize. Mendoza also points out, " The new study doesn't refer to any other part of Mexico where contamination has been found but some in the media are already making the false claim that 'there is no contamination in the whole state of Oaxaca or even all of Southern Mexico.' " http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5601 + GM WATCH CALLS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH TO RULE OUT CONTAMINATION http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5604 + TWEAKING THE TRUTH - ALEX AVERY ON QUIST AND CHAPELA'S RESPONSE Alex Avery (son of Dennis), who, like his father, operates out of the Hudson Institute, has written a piece on CS Prakash's AgBioView list purporting to show that the statement issued by Quist and Chapela about the recent PNAS paper on Mexican maize contamination " could have been issued against Chapela and Quist's paper in Nature. " Predictably, Avery's piece is full of misinformation and inaccuracies, particularly when he implies that the pro-biotech brigade had no prior knowledge of Chapela and Quist's paper in Nature before it was published. In fact, following failed attempts to terrorise Chapela into withdrawing the paper, Mexican government officials leaked news of the findings in September 2001 - a good 2 months before the Chapela/Quist paper was published. So the industry's anti-Chapela hate campaign hit the ground running! http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5610 + BIOTECH REVOLUTION RUNNING OUT OF GAS - CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR The biotech revolution is " running out of gas " , says an article in the very mainstream US newspaper The Christian Science Monitor: " It's not clear the world is ready for another food revolution if it involves splicing foreign genes into crops. " 'The initial expectation that this technology would be rapidly adopted turned out to be a bit optimistic,' says Michael Rodemeyer, executive director of the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. 'We're in a stall in the development of new GM foods.' " http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5611 + HAWAII: STATE USES ILLEGAL TACTICS TO PUSH GM ALGAE PROJECT In a controversial case involving 7 strains of GM alga, the Hawaii Board of Agriculture's most recent actions seem to support corporate agenda over the public trust. After the June hearing at which over 120 testimonials were submitted urging the denial of permit, the Board stunned the crowd with a cavalier quoting of Wanda Adams, Food Editor of the Honolulu Advertiser: " remember when we were all warned microwaves were dangerous, and now we all use them. " A vote was called, and the Board approved (6-2) the permit to import, grow, and export the mutated algae. In July a coalition of 22 groups and individuals filed an official request for a contested case hearing with the Board of Agriculture to challenge the permit granted the financially troubled Mera Pharmaceuticals to grow GM algae at the state's Natural Energy Lab of Hawaii Authority (NELHA), Hawaii Island. The coalition, Na Maka o Hawaii Nei, received a letter from the Dept. of Agriculture stating that only the applicant of a permit can ask for a contested case hearing. But this is not true, according to Henry Curtis, advocate and party to the petition, and " contradicts the clear and obvious intent of the Hawaii Administrative Rules " . As well as illegality, the state is guilty of financial naivete, says the coalition. " We don't understand why the State is investing in a failing industry that has losses of over $43 billion, " says Haumea Hanakahi of Hui Hoaka, a party in the petition. http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5617 + INDEPENDENT SCIENTISTS URGE BRAZIL TO STOP GROWING GM SOYA The Independent Science Panel (ISP) has written to the Brazilian government to urge it to stop growing GM soya and any other GM crop in Brazil, in the light of " stiff consumer opposition in Europe and growing rejection around the world on account of serious concerns over the safety of GM food and feed. " http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5621 --------------------------- AFRICA --------------------------- + FOOD AID AND ZIMBABWE There are varying accounts of whether a major food aid shipment held up in Johannesburg, ostensibly over concerns that it might be GM-contaminated, has finally got into Zimbabwe. It's badly needed. Hundreds of thousands of people have been left homeless there thanks to Robert Mugabe's razing of settlements around Zimbabwe's urban centres. The irony is, though, that the food coming in from Jo'burg is courtesy not of the GM-pushing US but of the South African Council of Churches which has publicly affirmed that " GM is a high risk technology " and called for " a moratorium on any further permits granted for GMOs in South Africa. " Mugabe should quit stalling the humanitarian aid of the SACC who are the last people to knowingly force GM-contaminated grain onto those in need of succour. http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5612 --------------------------- ASIA --------------------------- + SEEDS OF SUICIDE: INDIA'S DESPERATE FARMERS Farmer suicide is an epidemic in India. In recent years crop failure can often be traced to Bt cotton. Watch video on this subject: http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/rough/2005/07/seeds_of_suicid.html# EXCERPT from the script: Historically, farmers grew a diversity of food crops but now they grow cash crops for export. Here cotton is king... Then came genetically modified cotton from Monsanto... Monsanto insists this new generation of GM cotton will save farmers money with reduced chemical sprays. The Bt technology should repel bollworms for 90 days but it's only been 60 days and these farmers' fields are covered in bollworms. This leaves the farmers confused. Researcher: That's a non-Bt cotton plot. There are no pests there on that plot. These farmers are essentially guinea pigs for what many experts see as an experimental technology. http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5608 + INDIA'S RECORD GM HYPE Nowhere is the gap between the hype and the reality of GM crops wider than in India. Recently SciDev (website for the journals Science and Nature) reported how a study by Indian government scientists had found that " Indian varieties of cotton that have been genetically modified to resist an important insect pest are 'inadequate'... The findings back farmers' claims that the pest, known as the bollworm, is able to survive on Bt cotton varieties, modified to resist it. " Compare that with a just-published Reuters-India article: " Cotton output in India, the world's third-largest producer, is expected to reach a record 25 million bales this year, thanks to good weather, higher land under the crop and more usuage of genetically modified seeds. " GM WATCH's Jonathan Matthews sent the Reuters piece to some of those who have been following Bt cotton's performance since its introduction to India. PV Satheesh took apart Reuters' figures. The Reuters' piece claims: " The share of transgenic cotton has been estimated at about 90 percent of total plantings in Gujarat, India's largest cotton producer, nearly 75 percent in the neighbouring western state of Maharashtra and some 60 percent in northern India. " But Satheesh says that if those figures were true then that area of planting would give a figure 3 times higher than the entire area given by the Ministry of Agriculture in its official statistics for Bt cotton cultivation in the whole of India! More commentators' responses at http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5605 + FARMERS AND NGOs OPPOSE PROPOSED SEED BILL The Indian government's Seed Bill has run into rough weather with farmers and NGOs describing the proposed legislation as " anti-farmer " . They have called for the Bill's early withdrawal and asked for immediate notification of the Plant Varieties Protection & Farmer's Right Act, 2001, as this law " genuinely protects the interests of the farmers. " They also demanded a law under which farmers would get compensation on account of crop failure and the estimates would be worked out by local village authorities. http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5609 ------- AUSTRALASIA ------- + NZ: ONLY STOPPING BULK GM IMPORTS WILL PREVENT CONTAMINATION Last month New Zealand's Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry rang alarm bells after thousands of tonnes of maize destined for human consumption showed signs of GM contamination. The Ministry have announced that testing has revealed that the maize was not genetically engineered or cross-pollinated with GM varieties, but had come into contact with GM soy meal when in storage prior to the end user company receiving it. " Although it is of course good news that we don't have thousands of hectares of uncontained GE maize growing in our environment, this latest GE contamination does raise real concerns, " Green Co-Leader Jeanette Fitzsimons says. " Why are companies allowed to store human food in the same place as animal feed; or an allergen like soy with a benign grain like maize; or a GE product with anything else? Clearly the rules around the storage of bulk foodstuffs need to be tightened. " The Greens call on conscientious companies whose business relies on New Zealand's GE-Free status to lobby the Government to prohibit the importing of bulk GE flour and meal. Only such a move will prevent this type of contamination happening over and over again. " http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5619 + BIOTECH INDUSTRY BASH IN OZ ABIC 2006 - " Unlocking the potential of Agricultural Biotechnology " 6 - 9 August 2006 Melbourne Australia http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5602 ------- NANOTECHNOLOGY ------- + GM PLANTS USE CARBON NANOFIBRES Researchers are developing new techniques that use nanoparticles for smuggling foreign DNA into cells. For example, at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the US Department of Energy lab that played a major role in the production of enriched uranium for the Manhattan Project, researchers have hit upon a nano-technique for injecting DNA into millions of cells at once. Millions of carbon nanofibres are grown sticking out of a silicon chip with strands of synthetic DNA attached to the nanofibres. Living cells are then thrown against and pierced by the fibres, injecting the DNA into the cells in the process. Once injected, the synthetic DNA expresses new proteins and new traits. Oak Ridge has entered into collaboration with the Institute of Paper Science and Technology in a project aimed to use this technique for genetic manipulation of loblolly pine, the primary source of pulpwood for the paper industry in the USA. .... Carbon nanofibres have been compared to asbestos fibres because they have similar shapes. Initial toxicity studies on some carbon nanofibres have demonstrated inflammation of cells. A study by NASA found inflammation in the lungs to be more severe than in cases of silicosis, though Nobel laureate Richard Smalley, Chairman of Carbon Nanotechnologies Inc. gives little weight to these concerns: " We are confident there will prove out to be no health hazards but this [toxicology] work continues. " http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5611 ------- RESEARCH ------- + BT MAIZE HAS INFERIOR YIELD - STUDY New research from Canada shows that Bt maize produces similar or up to 12% lower yields than non-Bt maize. The study, by B.L. Ma and K.D. Subedi and published in Field Crops Research, also found that ***non-Bt maize showed higher nitrogen uptake. ***some of the Bt hybrids took 2-3 additional days to reach maturity. ***the Bt maize had 3-5% higher grain moisture at maturity. This may prove significant since grain having higher than 15.5% moisture is subject to spoilage due to molds (the dreaded aflatoxins, which the likes of Denis and Alex Avery are always trying to claim, without ANY evidence, are a particular problem with organic foods). http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5620 + SCIENTISTS WARN OF GM SUPERWEED RISK Scientists have identified 15 weed species that are resistant to a herbicide widely used on GM crops and are warning farmers they may become a serious problem unless a strategy for dealing with them is developed. Some of the most common weed species, including types of ryegrass, bindweed and goosegrass either have some strains with a natural resistance to the widely used GM herbicide glyphosate or have developed one. Writing in the journal Outlooks on Pest Management, scientists based at the State University and the Southern Weed Research Unit in Mississippi argue there is a danger that by ignoring the threat these weeds pose, farmers may be giving them a huge advantage over other plants which are killed by glyphosate. Intensive use of the herbicide combined with the non-rotation of glyphosate-resistant GM crops is expected to increase the problem and it will develop on " a global scale " , the paper says. http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5622 ------- GM MYTHS ------- + FRANKENBANANA - THE MYTH THAT NEVER DIES Yet another outbreak of stories have appeared in the media claiming that the banana is about to go extinct due to attack by a lethal fungus and that the only thing that can save it is genetic engineering. Some examples of the latest crop of stories plus a couple of authoritative antidotes produced to counter previous outbreaks, at http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5614 ------- CORPORATE CRIMES ------- + SYNGENTA - A STEP CLOSER TO OWNING OUR FOOD In an attempt to have monopoly control over rice, Syngenta has sought global patents over nearly 30,000 gene sequences in rice, which has serious implications for the future of rice research and food security of India. If Syngenta's application for global patents is accepted, India will lose all control over the staple grain. " It will be the beginning of a scientific apartheid not only against India but for all third world countries, " said Dr Devinder Sharma, Chairperson of the New Delhi-based Forum for Biotechnology & Food Security. Syngenta has filed 15 global patent applications to give the company control over the gene sequences. Syngenta's patent claims are also aimed at other important food crops such as wheat, corn, sorghum, rye, banana, soyabean, fruits and vegetables. The company claims that most of the gene sequences that it has 'invented' are identical in other crops and therefore the patent needs to extend to those crops also. In all, Syngenta has filed for patents on 15 gene sequences covering thousands of genes, peptides, transgenic plants and seeds and method of genetic engineering, Dr Sharma said. http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5607 ------- CAMPAIGN OF THE WEEK ------- + HELP POLISH FARMER FACING PRISON FOR PROTESTING ILLEGAL GMOs Here's an important request for help from ICPPC - the International Coalition to Protect the Polish Countryside. Their colleague, Marian Zagorny, is facing a prison sentence of 1 year or more for attempting to block illegal shipments of GM grain and actively protesting against the introduction of GMOs and the factory farming of pigs in Poland. We've posted a letter at http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5606 supporting Marian which you can post or fax to the Polish president, the court and the relevant minister. ----------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.