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

Dear all:

A shocking example of how, far from wanting to feed the world, the biotech industry and its supporters shamelessly exploit human suffering for PR purposes is made clear by our story, "GM VULTURES FEED OFF AFRICA" (AFRICA section).

Don't miss two important CAMPAIGNS OF THE WEEK - one very urgent.

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

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONTENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASIA
AUSTRALASIA
EUROPE
AFRICA
THE AMERICAS
GM ON THE FARM
PATENTS ON LIFE
CAMPAIGN OF THE WEEK

------------------------------------------------------------
ASIA
------------------------------------------------------------

+ ASIANS CALL FOR BAN ON GM RICE
A coalition of 17 organisations from across Asia have issued a World Food Day (14 October) statement calling for a global ban on the introduction of GM rice.

"Rice is the world's most important staple food crop and we simply cannot allow a small number of biotech companies and GE scientists to determine the future of rice development," said Varoonvarn Svangsopakul of Greenpeace Southeast Asia. "GE rice is not a solution to world hunger. It poses unacceptable risks to health and the environment, as well as people's livelihoods."
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5832
More Asian views on GM rice:
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5838

+ CHINA "MORE CAUTIOUS" ON GM RICE
China has been widely touted as the first country to give GM rice the green light. However, a recent shift in the State Agricultural Genetically Modified Crop Biosafety Committee indicates that China is taking a more cautious approach to approving GM crops. The structure of the new committee reduces the influence of GM crop researchers and makes it more likely that decisions about commercialising GM crops will be based on ecological and food concerns.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5850

+ SCEPTICISM OVER GM RICE CLAIMS
Crop researchers have voiced scepticism over claims that GM rice needs less pesticide than conventional varieties.

US and Chinese researchers published a paper in Science this April saying that farmers growing GM rice used 80 per cent less pesticide than those growing non-GM rice.

But in this week's issue of Science, several different researchers raise concerns over the findings, questioning the study's reliability, legality and financial implications.

Amongst the critics are K. L. Heong, from the International Rice Research Institute, and colleagues who argue farmers could well have been using less pesticide for their GM rice crops because they had decided beforehand that they would need fewer chemicals, not because they saw fewer insects.

Farmers tend to spray more insecticide than is needed to ensure all insect pests are wiped out, say Heong's team. Indeed, other research has shown that pesticide use can be reduced without reducing yields, and without the need for GM rice.
Letters, Science, Vol 310, Issue 5746, pp.231-233, Oct. 14, 2005.
http://www.sciencemag.org
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5842

+ CAMBODIA TARGETS ORGANIC MARKET
Cambodia is looking to diversify its sources of income - and one of the areas under consideration is organic farming. The government says it hopes the country could become the "green farm of Asia".
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5844

+ BANGLADESHI FARMERS BANISH INSECTICIDES WITHOUT GM
A 2004 article we've previously reported describes how 2,000 poor rice farmers, whose average farm income is around US$100 per year, proved that insecticides are a waste of time and money, and that they could significantly reduce the amount of nitrogen fertiliser they used. They also saved, on average, US$17 per year.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5842

+ IMPACT OF GM CROPS IN INDIA "DISASTROUS"
An article for Outlook India by KPS Gill, president of the Institute for Conflict Management, points to strong regressive trends in Indian agriculture, which should give pause, he says, "to those who are thinking of grand schemes for another wave of the Green Revolution on the back of the GM crops currently and aggressively being hawked by various multinational corporations - already with disastrous impact on farmers who have sunk deeper into debt in at least some areas where experimentation with these varieties has combined with adverse weather conditions to produce crop failure, indebtedness, pauperisation and, in many cases, eventual suicides."
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5843

+ PESTICIDE-FREE VILLAGE IN ANDHRA PRADESH
EXCERPT from excellent article:
Symptoms of acute toxic poisoning in farm workers and ill effects due to long-term pesticide exposures are a common phenomenon in India, with abnormalities in newborn babies found in many villages. Chemical pesticides including Monocrotophos and Methyl Parathion, which are categorized as extremely hazardous by the WHO, are sold to farmers without restriction.

In an effort to deal with this problem, farmers in the Penta Srirampuram village in Andhra Pradesh have, over the last 3 years, successfully eliminated pesticides from their paddy fields. The farmers learnt how to cultivate without the use of toxic chemicals, controlling 'problem' pests by releasing specific beneficial insects onto their crops.

... During this period of change, some farmers in the village prepared to introduce spraying against 'leaf folder' which was then in its initial stage. Seeing this opportunity, the Agricultural Officer asked that these farmers postpone their spraying for a week, citing the chance of the development of predators. The Agricultural Officer was right, and within a week these farmers had come to realize that spraying with pesticide was not necessary. At the same time, Trichogramma egg parasitic cards were placed in the paddy fields, releasing between 100,000 -200,000 parasites into the paddy agro ecosystem. This has shown an impressive reduction in the populations of yellow stem borer and leaf roller pests.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5844

+ INDIA MAY OK GM MUSTARD, RICE IN 2 YEARS, SAYS BIOTECH LOBBYIST
GM mustard is likely to get the go-ahead in less than a year, Sahandra Nair, managing director of India's Biotech Consortium, said. "Rice is still at the contained-field-trial stage, so that will take longer, maybe around two years," he told Reuters at a biotech conference in South Africa.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5853

------------------------------------------------------------
AUSTRALASIA
------------------------------------------------------------

+ CALL FOR GM CONTAMINATION TRIBUNAL
A Victoria farmers' group is pushing for a tribunal to fine GM companies when contaminations occur.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5846

+ CONTRACT HARVESTERS UNHAPPY
Australian contract harvesters are angry that protocols acceptable to all parties have not been established for dealing with canola crops contaminated with GM material. They say there is no protection for them against liability claims should they be accused of transporting contaminated material from farm to farm. President of the Australian Grain Harvesters Association, John Murphy, says it is worrying that no one knows for sure which crops might contain contaminated material.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5835

+ CROP ABARE-ATIONS
An excellent article has been published in the Australian Financial Review on the lunatic report from the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE) that claimed the GM crop bans in Australian states would cost billions.

ABARE, it may be remembered, deduced this massive loss by taking Australia's entire crop output (including wheat) and saying 5-10% of that figure is what is being lost by not going GM!

In fact, it should be simple maths to calculate the fact that GM canola - the only GM crop under discussion - yields less in Australia, costs more and will trigger market rejection. All of which adds up to a serious potential loss for Australia's farming industry.

EXCERPT FROM FINANCIAL REVIEW:
Geoff Wells, an adjunct senior lecturer at the International Graduate School of Business at the University of South Australia, has concerns about the lack of evidence supporting ABARE's assumption that consumer resistance to GM food is not an issue. "The market reaction to the product with which we have had longest experience, GE soybean, suggests opposite assumptions are more reasonable," Wells says.

... Richard Denniss, economist and deputy director of the Australia Institute, suggests ABARE's assumptions on consumer take-up of GM foods "reads more like a wish-list than an assessment of the state of play".
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5831

+ORGANIC FARMERS FACE GM CONTAMINATION
The announcement of 0.5% contamination of canola seed sold commercially to a Victorian canola farmer, Geoffrey Carracher, is a nightmare for organic grain farmers, said Scott Kinnear, spokesperson for Biological Farmers of Australia and Australian Certified Organic. Kinnear said: "Contamination of organic grain production is a very real possibility in Australia with this latest announcement. While the loss of premiums due to GM contamination might be arguable with conventional grains, it is a major reality with organic grains where premiums can be up to 100% above conventional prices."
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5835

------------------------------------------------------------
EUROPE
------------------------------------------------------------

+ EU WILL NOT ACCEPT TOLERANCE LEVELS
An important test case involving a cereal manufacturer in Germany is clarifying the EU GM labelling issue. At the moment, food manufacturers do not have to label a product as containing GM ingredients if it contains material of less than 0.9% content as long as it is "adventitious" or "technically unavoidable".

However, this case has established that if your product is tested by the authorities and found to contain, say, 0.6-0.7% GM material, you must label it as containing GM ingredients *unless* you can prove that the contamination was truly adventitious or technically unavoidable.

To prove this, you would have to demonstrate your efforts to avoid the use of such material. And you must submit evidence proving that no equivalent ingredient at less than 0.1% GM is available on the market. Knowingly processing ingredients above 0.1% GM content does not meet the adventitious criterion. Consequently, in such cases even GM content below 0.9% will result in labeling.

A "blending down" to a GM content below the 0.9% threshold can be no solution to avoid labeling.

The national legislation of Germany sanctions infringements with fines up to 50,000 euros ($61,000) and with prison terms.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5836

+ GM REJECTION SPREADS IN EASTERN EUROPE
Greenpeace has published evidence that consumers and food producers in Poland and Russia have become strong opponents of GM food. In Poland, an opinion poll commissioned by Greenpeace shows that 76% of Polish consumers do not wish to eat food products that contain GM ingredients. The Russian Consumers' Guide reveals more than 450 food companies in the country that have adopted a GM-free policy. Among them are well-known international brand names such as Nestle and Coca-Cola.

Greenpeace also published a statement by the Russian Soy Union stating that at present there is no commercial production of GM soya on Russian territory and that the Union "supports a moratorium on the cultivation of transgenic soya in Russia".
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5848

+ FOOD PRODUCERS ASSAIL GREENPEACE BLACKLIST
Russian food companies targeted by Greenpeace Russia for allegedly providing false information about GM ingredients have denied that they misled consumers.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5848

+ G8 SUMMIT POLICE LIED, SAYS REPORT
The trial of 28 police officers accused of beating up protesters during the G8 summit in Genoa in 2001 is due to start 21 October.

The chief prosecutor investigating an Italian police raid in Genoa during the 2001 G8 summit concluded "the police must have lied" about the operation, according to a leaked copy of his report. It is also known that police planted evidence.

Ninety-two demonstrators were injured, several of them seriously, during the raid on the city's Armando Diaz School on the night of 22 July 2001.

It may be remembered that Andrew Apel, the former editor of the biotech industry newsletter, 'AgBiotech Reporter' and a regular attack dog on C S Prakash's email list, AgBioView, said of the behaviour of the police in Genoa at the time: "From everything I have seen, the police in Genoa never did anything other than defend themselves... Only a fool goes against them, and in Genoa many fools have received their due."

In the chief prosecutor's report one officer describes what occurred as a "bloodbath". He describes officers "beating youths like wild beasts".

British independent journalist Mark Covell was one of the most seriously injured in the Diaz raid - he suffered eight broken ribs, a shredded lung and a broken hand. He also lost 10 teeth and needed transfusions because he lost so much blood.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5834

+ JUDGE DELAYS DECISION ON SAINSBURY'S GM-FED MILK TRIAL
Five protesters arrested and trialled after preventing the distribution of Sainsbury's GM-Fed milk must wait until November 1 to hear the judge's decision. The case is scientifically, morally and legally complex, and the judge expressed the need for time to give the case proper thought and a written judgment.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5829

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFRICA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

+ AFRICA SEEN ACCEPTING GMOs, SAYS WAMBUGU
GM promoter Dr Florence Wambugu is claiming that the Bill Gates-funded multi-million dollar GM sorghum project her lobby group is coordinating is "absolutely an African driven project" and nothing to do with "foreign companies introducing technology that may not be appropriate to Africa". She says that GM crops are expected to gain wider acceptance in Africa as more homegrown projects emerge that will spread benefits among the poor.

Curious, then, that one of the key partners in Wambugu's consortium is Pioneer Hi-Bred International, a subsidiary of DuPont. And Wambugu's lobby outfit Africa Harvest takes a chunk of money from Croplife International for its "communication" activities. In other words, Wambugu's words on this topic come to you courtesy of a global corporate federation led by Dow, DuPont, Monsanto, BASF, Bayer and Syngenta.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5849

+ SOUTH AFRICAN EXPORTERS TO CERTIFY MAIZE GM-FREE
South African company SGS and ACE Coctcene has been engaged to inspect all the maize being imported in Zambia to ensure that it is not GM. Caleb Mulenga, President of the Millers Association of Zambia, said, "All crops to be exported must therefore be tested and if it is condemned at the border, it will be seized, destroyed and the exporter has to bear all the costs."
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5840

+ GM VULTURES FEED OFF AFRICA
We recently posted an article about an international conference on Genetic Engineering and Sustainable Agriculture in Lusaka, Zambia, where scientists and other stakeholders "hailed" the southern African states that had stood up and demanded non-GMO food aid despite the arm-twisting of the US.

But not all those at the conference supported the stance of Zambia and others. One of the contributors, Dr Mae-wan Ho, sent us an image which had been used at the conference by two pro-GM scientists, Luke Mumba from Zambia and Joseph M Wekundah, his counterpart from Kenya.

You can see this shocking image here: http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/c/kevincarter.htm

It shows a starving African infant crawling along the ground with a vulture watching over it. Mae-wan tells us that people were given the impression that the child was crawling towards food aid. The child, the audience were also told, had managed to survive. The photographer had soon after committed suicide.

However, neither of the pro-GM scientists made it clear to the audience that this picture was taken in the early 1990s in Sudan, long before GM food aid became an issue. Instead, both GM proponents used it emotively with the clear implication that any blocking of GM food aid or GM technology could result in the tragedy of a child being unable to find the relief it desperately needed.

In fact, the whole context of this picture was misrepresented, as can be seen from the information at:
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5828

Mae-wan reports that though most of the audience did not know about the misrepresentation, the use of the image "disgusted a number of the Africans there, basically because it so crudely exploited the terrible suffering of African children in an attempt to peddle GM crops for Africa."

In case anyone has forgotten, there is no credible evidence that anyone died as a result of the concern among southern African countries over GM food aid. This has not, however, stopped biotech lobbyists from conducting the most disgusting black propaganda campaign aimed at painting critics of GM as responsible for mass murder in southern Africa.

As for Dr Mumba, he has said that the priority of his lobby group is the conducting of an "aggressive awareness campaign". His use of this image would certainly seem to fit that bill!

One way or another, vultures feeding off the suffering of Africa may not be such an inappropriate image.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5833

+ SUSTAINABLE FARMING CAN SAVE THE WORLD
In an interview with swissinfo, Swiss ag specialist and winner of the World Food Prize Hans Rudolf Herren says that hunger can be overcome if farming practices are improved:

EXCERPT:
swissinfo: In Africa, some countries have accepted the introduction of genetically-modified (GM) crop varieties, others haven't. Is this really an issue, particularly in developing countries?

H.R.H.: We need to see if there is real need for these crop varieties. We already have plant varieties that can produce far more than they produce today.

The real constraints are elsewhere, such as soil fertility or the agronomic system. So what is really needed is more research in agronomy and sustainable farming practices... we need to promote agriculture in developing countries that helps maintain a healthy soil rather than industrial farming that impoverishes it.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5837

+ BIOWATCH SOUTH AFRICA SAYS AMENDED GM LAW DOESN'T GO FAR ENOUGH
The GMO Amendment Bill tabled in Parliament did not go far enough to ensure that South Africans' constitutional right to a safe environment was upheld, environmental group Biowatch SA said.

"In contrast to the call by parliamentarians two years ago to completely reshape the regulatory framework for GMOs, this bill is a superficial attempt to mend cracks in a wall, when the building is crumbling," Biowatch said. The bill would do little to tighten the existing industry-friendly GMO legislative regime, the group added.

GM WATCH comment: The row over attempts to improve South Africa's regulatory framework for GMOs is of particular importance because a key part of the US-industry campaign to push GMOs into Africa involves locking African countries into weak biosafety regimes like that introduced under the old apartheid regime in South Africa - a country where the uptake of GM crops has been amongst the most rapid anywhere in the world and where the line between corporate lobbyists and regulators has been non-existent.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5851

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

+ "THIS IS RIGHT OUT OF HITLER'S HANDBOOK"
The UK Guardian has published an article with the above title about Steve Kurtz, the US artist whom the FBI accused of bio-terrorism after they found petri dishes containing harmless bacteria intended for an art project in his house.

EXCERPT:
Last June a federal grand jury was convened to evaluate bio-terrorism charges against Kurtz. He was indicted, but not under the biological weapons anti-terrorism act. He and Robert Ferrell, a professor of human genetics at the University of Pittsburgh, were charged with mail and wire fraud, accused of colluding to illegally furnish Kurtz with $256 (GBP146) of harmless bacterial cultures. The crime carries a sentence of up to 20 years. Kurtz's lawyer, Paul Cambria... is arguing the case should be thrown out of court. The government's "paranoid over-reaction" is, he says, a political attack on Kurtz's subversive art.

... Over some steak Kurtz tells me that his persecutors "have to have something to show for the millions of dollars they've spent on this. They're trying to create a kind of hysteria, a horrible kind of vigilantism. It's right out of Hitler's handbook. The final goal is to silence and intimidate voices of dissent."
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5852

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
GM ON THE FARM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

+ TROUBLE ON THE FARM: THE FIRST 9 YEARS
Last week Monsanto tried to cheer itself up by arranging publication of a report it had commissioned on 9 years of GM farming, which claimed GM crops had been an unmitigated success. By way of retort, our selection of land agent Mark Griffith's collection of links to articles and reports on the farming problems with GM crops 1996-2005 is at
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5839
NB: almost all these come from the farming press, USDA data and reports, scientific research, etc.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
PATENTS ON LIFE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

+ ONE-FIFTH OF HUMAN GENES HAVE BEEN PATENTED
A new study shows that 20 percent of human genes have been patented in the US, primarily by private firms and universities. The study, which is reported this week in the journal Science is the first time that a detailed map has been created to match patents to specific physical locations on the human genome.

Researchers can patent genes because they are potentially valuable research tools, useful in diagnostic tests or to discover and produce new drugs.

"It might come as a surprise to many people that in the U.S. patent system human DNA is treated like other natural chemical products," said Fiona Murray, a business and science professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, and a co-author of the study. "An isolated DNA sequence can be patented in the same manner that a new medicine, purified from a plant, could be patented if an inventor identifies a [new] application."
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5847

+ GENETIC HERITAGE UP FOR GRABS
EXCERPT from article from ZNet:
The biodiversity that the capitalist industrialist system has spent the last 100 or so years trying frantically to destroy, is now regarded as the basis for the next industrial revolution and is rapidly increasing in value. The framework for enclosure is in place and our genetic heritage - the biological diversity that is and that sustains the richness of life on planet earth - is now up for grabs. Research teams of some of the world's largest corporations are scouring the surface of the earth for potentially valuable genetic property and taking patents on anything from cell lines from indigenous people in Papua New Guinea, to seeds of staple food crops.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5847

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPAIGNS OF THE WEEK
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

+ BAN TERMINATOR - JOIN GLOBAL CAMPAIGN
Terminator Technology - "Suicide seeds" are back! Your action is needed.

WHAT YOU CAN DO:
- Groups and communities please "Endorse the Campaign" so we can show governments how strong the global opposition is http://www.banterminator.org/take_action/sign_on_to_ban_terminator
- Subscribe to receive Action Alerts and breaking news so that you can take immediate action when it is needed the most
http://www.banterminator.org/take_action/subscribe
- Join with others in your area to pressure your government to ban Terminator nationally and at the United Nations. We can help provide materials and contacts.
- Visit http://www.banterminator.org for action ideas, information and campaign materials

HOW YOU CAN CONTACT US:
Visit http://www.banterminator.org
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
More info: http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5845

+ URGENT: LOBBY UK GOVERNMENT OVER MON863
**Write to Margaret Beckett about the upcoming vote on Monsanto's GM maize (MON863)**

On 24/25 October, the Agriculture Council is due to vote on the authorisation of Monsanto's MON863 insect resistant maize.

In June 2005, the majority of Member States abstained or voted against the approval for import and use as animal feed. But because a 'qualified majority' was not reached, the final decision reverted to the European Commission, who approved the maize.

This next vote is for use of the GM maize as import and use as food. There are many concerns about the safety and potential environmental impact of MON863 maize, so we need to put pressure on the UK Government to vote against the approval. If Member States voted against the food authorisation, the previous animal feed decision would also be blocked!

A suggested letter is included below, personalise and email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Thanks for your support,
Liz Wright
Friends of the Earth
......

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Dear Margaret Beckett MP

EU Agriculture Council vote on food import and use authorisation for genetically modified maize (MON863)

I am writing to you to express my concern about the proposed authorisation of Monsanto's genetically modified maize (MON863) which the UK will vote on at the upcoming EU Agriculture Council on October 24-25th

I am particularly concerned about the following issues:

Antibiotic resistance genes

I understand that MON863 contains an antibiotic resistance gene, conferring resistance to a number of antibiotics. Although this has been dismissed by the German authorities and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the antibiotics in question are still important for specific purposes such as treatment of neonatal infections. Horizontal gene transfer could have adverse effects on human and animal health where these medicines are being used.

Despite a deadline of the end of 2004 for the phasing out of antibiotic resistance marker genes in GMOs according to Directive 2001/18, the European Commission has yet to issue any official conclusions on this issue. Until the requirements of the Directive have been met, MON863 should not be authorised. I understand that in its comments on the original application, the German authority suggested it would limit registration of the maize to 31st December 2004.

Food safety and lack of transparency

I am concerned that a feeding study on rats showed significant changes in factors such as levels of white blood cells, kidney weights and kidney structure. Although this led to criticism from a number of scientists from different Member States, this was disregarded by EFSA who delivered a positive opinion on the maize. Monsanto also refused to publish the initial rat study and had to be forced to do so in a court ruling in a case brought by the German Government.

Scientific opinions obtained by Greenpeace since the full feeding report was released indicate that MON863 has the potential to affect rats' health negatively. Independent reviews of Monsanto’s study have also concluded that the methodology and statistical analyses are poor.

Risk to the environment

I understand that Monsanto and the German authorities have concluded that, because the application is for import of food and feed only, there is negligible risk to the environment and that a monitoring plan is unnecessary. I strongly disagree with this. In Mexico, only food and feed imports of GM maize were allowed, yet local varieties of maize were found to be contaminated. This was probably due to the inadvertent planting of GM maize grains sold as food or feed, and this scenario could also happen in European countries. A monitoring plan is essential to ensure that GM maize grains sold for food and feed really are restricted to this purpose.

In June 2005, most member states did not support MON863. But as no qualified majority was reached, the European Commission authorised the import and use of MON863 as animal feed in August. Less than half of Member States supported MON863 for food at a regulatory committee vote in May 2005. I understand that the UK voted in favour of the authorisation on both occasions I urge you to reconsider the UK's position on this next vote.

Please support the precautionary underpinnings of EU legislation and vote against the authorisation of this GM maize, which reports and scientific evidence point to being harmful for both the environment and human health.

Further detailed information is available in the comments made by Friends of the Earth Europe on the original Monsanto application (May 2003)
http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/pending/MonsantoGM_Maize863.pdf

I look forward to hearing from you

Yours sincerely,