from Claire Robinson, WEEKLY WATCH editor
------------------------------------------------------------
Dear all:
The most intriguing news this week is the report that 90 American cotton farmers are suing Monsanto and other biotechs for the failure of their Bt cotton crops. Predictably, Monsanto is seeking to avoid exposure to a jury trial and to get the suit settled behind closed doors (THE AMERICAS).
Claire This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
www.gmwatch.org / www.lobbywatch.org
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONTENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE AMERICAS
EUROPE
ASIA
AUSTRALASIA
BIOETHICS
LOBBYWATCH
CHURCHES
------------------------------------------------------------
THE AMERICAS
------------------------------------------------------------
+ COTTON FARMERS SUE MONSANTO AND OTHERS FOR CROP LOSS; MONSANTO SEEKS TO AVOID JURY
More than 90 Texas cotton farmers have sued Monsanto and two affiliated companies, claiming they suffered widespread crop losses because Monsanto failed to warn them of a defect in its GM cotton. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Marshall, Texas, seeks an injunction against what it calls a "longstanding campaign of deception," and asks the court to award both actual and punitive damages.
In addition to Monsanto, the suit names Delta & Pine Land and Bayer CropScience, producers and retailers of Monsanto's biotech cotton.
Monsanto, which denies the allegations, wants the complaints removed from the court system (which would involve a jury) and handled through arbitration. About half of the farmers agreed this week to enter into arbitration, but others have not.
The farmers' essential claim is that Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" cotton did not tolerate applications of Monsanto's Roundup weedkiller as it has been genetically altered to do.
The farmers claim there is evidence that the promoter gene inserted into the cotton seeds in the genetic modification process does not work as designed in extreme high heat and drought conditions, allowing herbicide to eat into plant tissue, leading to boll deformity, shedding and reduced yields.
The plaintiffs claim Monsanto knew this but did not disclose it so the farmers would continue to buy and use Monsanto's Roundup herbicide. "We feel like Monsanto's been lying to us all along," said B.B. Krenek, a Wharton, Texas cotton consultant who is working with a number of affected farmers.
Monsanto spokesman Andrew Berchet said the weather is to blame for the crop losses.[!]
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6284
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6290
+ MONSANTO TO PAY UNIVERSITY $100 MILLION IN PATENT CASE
Monsanto has agreed to pay the University of California more than $100 million to settle the school's claim that the company infringed on a patent related to a GM hormone that makes cows produce more milk. The university's Board of Regents and Monsanto announced the settlement as the bovine growth hormone case was scheduled to go to trial.
The university alleged that three researchers at UC San Francisco first isolated the DNA used to make the hormone. The lawsuit said Monsanto knew about the research as early as 1985, but sold the product anyway, under the brand name Posilac.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6290
+ HAWAII LAWMAKERS LIMIT GM FIELD TRIALS
Hawaii state senators have advanced two bills putting limits on the genetic modification of taro and coffee, crops that are key to Hawaii's identity. The bills would ban until 2011 the field testing of GM strains of both plants. The modified plants could, however, be grown in greenhouses.
The taro bill also would place a five-year ban on genetically modifying Hawaiian varieties of the plant, whose roots are made into poi, one of the state's best-known foods. In Hawaiian folklore, taro is considered to be a sacred ancestor of Native Hawaiians, linking them to island soil. The bills now head to the full Senate.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6300
+ ARE THERE HUMAN GENES IN YOUR FOOD?
A professor at Washington State University and a private Canadian company, SemBioSys, have applied for permits to turn two common food crops - barley and safflower - into virtual factories for synthetic drugs or chemicals.
On its website, SemBioSys declares its plan to inject safflower with human genes to produce experimental insulin and a drug for heart attacks and strokes. WSU confirms that it plans to grow barley, injected with human genes, to produce artificial proteins with pharmaceutical properties. Where these fields will be is secret; nearby farmers and residents won't be notified.
Pharma crops are supposed to be rigorously regulated. But the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not review biopharmaceutical crops before planting, even though many of them have toxic or anti-nutritional effects on human health or the environment.
A recent audit by the US Dept of Agriculture's inspector general found the USDA failed to inspect field trial sites as promised and didn't even know where some experiments were planted. The inspector general also found that USDA didn't follow up to find out what happened to the biopharm harvests. Two tons of a drug-laden crop was stored for more than a year at two sites without USDA's knowledge or inspection.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6293
------------------------------------------------------------
EUROPE
------------------------------------------------------------
+ LEAKED REPORT: U.S. MISLED THE WORLD ON BIOTECH FOODS "VICTORY"
Friends of the Earth International has made available online a leaked World Trade Organization (WTO) ruling on the trade dispute on GM foods.
The leaked report reveals that despite claims of victory by the US administration and the biotech industry, the three countries that started the trade dispute against the EU (US, Canada and Argentina) failed to win most of their arguments.
The leaked WTO report argues that:
***Europe's 4-year moratorium on GMOs only broke trade rules because it caused "undue delay" in the approval of new GM foods. The WTO dismissed eight other complaints in relation to the moratorium, and did not recommend any further action, since the moratorium ended in 2004.
***There was also an "undue delay" in the EU's approval procedures for over 20 specified biotech products. However, eleven other claims of the complainants related to the product-specific EU measures were dismissed by the WTO.
***National bans by EU member states broke trade rules because the risk assessments used by the countries in question did not comply with the WTO requirements.
Said Adrian Bebb of Friends of the Earth Europe, "This is the report that the WTO didn't want the public to see. It reveals that the big corporations that stand behind the WTO failed to get the big win they were hoping for. Free trade proponents needed a clear victory in this dispute to be able to push governments in the EU and the developing world to accept genetically modified food. They failed and now is the time to build a consensus that the WTO, with its business-only agenda, is the wrong place to decide on what people eat and how we protect our environment."
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6292
+ AUSTRIA TO REOPEN EU GM DEBATE
Austrian agriculture and environment minister Joseph Proell said he will ask national environment ministers meeting in Brussels on March 9 to take another look at the EU's GM authorisation procedures.
EU capitals consistently fail to reach a qualified majority agreement on new GM crop approvals, leaving the European commission free to rubber stamp authorisations through a default "comitology" procedure.
"These procedural powers of the commission are far from ideal," said Proell.
Proell said he will field two questions to Europe's environment ministers, one on the way the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) deals with conflicting advice on GMOs and the second on changing the GM approvals process to accommodate a straight majority decision.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6298
+ KRAKOW DECLARATION FOR A GMO FREE EUROPE
Participants of the conference entitled "A United No to GMO" held in the City of Krakow-Kalwaria, on February 24-25, 2006, accepted a Krakow Declaration calling on national governments and the European Commission to respect the voices of their citizens and to halt imports, sales and planting of GM foods and seeds.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6288
+ SCOTLAND: McCONNELL'S U-TURN ON GM CROPS
Scotland's first minister has signalled a U-turn on the Scottish executive's ban on growing GM crops. Jack McConnell has launched a public consultation to identify ways of preventing GM organisms from contaminating conventional crops, paving the way for the commercial exploitation of the technology.
A "voluntary" ban was agreed by ministers in 2004, after commercial trials in Fife and Inverness-shire.
The consultation document will seek comments on "a proposed co-existence regime for Scotland that would aim to minimise any unwanted GM presence in non-GM crops".
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6285
+ EU FARM CHIEF LUKEWARM ON PLAN FOR GM CROP LAW
Europe's farm chief may have frozen her project for EU-wide rules to separate traditional, organic and GM crops, calling for more time for countries to develop their own national crop laws.
So far, the European Commission has said the EU's 25 member states must take responsibility for how their farmers segregate the three farming types and minimise cross-contamination: an issue known in EU jargon as coexistence.
EU Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel has often said she will address the matter, floating the idea of a vague legal framework sometime in 2006 setting parameters around which governments can enact their own national crop-growing laws.
Now, that idea seems to have been placed in the deep freeze. In a document drafted by the Commission's agriculture department, the thinking has changed. It mentions the need to gather "further experience" on national coexistence laws, and on the EU's wide array of civil liability laws. The document should be published on March 10.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6291
------------------------------------------------------------
ASIA
------------------------------------------------------------
+ MEETING BUSH? KEEP FARMING OFF THE MENU
The Deccan Development Society (DDS), an NGO promoting organic farming and revival of local food cultures, has appealed to Andhra Pradesh chief minister Y S Rajasekhara Reddy not to discuss agricultural issues with American President George Bush during his six hour visit to Hyderabad as it would only push the state onto the path of destruction and despair.
"Except for its brute power, the US has nothing to offer to a civilised state like Andhra Pradesh, more so in the area of agriculture," said DDS Director P V Satheesh.
Pointing out the "duplicitous" role of the US in conservation-related conventions, Satheesh said the US was pushing India to sign various international charters on biodiversity and climate change when Washington itself had not signed any of them. While the state was recommending pathbreaking methods in managing pests, the US had increased its pesticide use by 40 times in the last 50 years. Besides, it exploits 85 per cent of all its freshwater resources in that country for agriculture.
The subsidising of big, export-oriented farmers in the US to the extent of $350,000 per year had indirectly resulted in the suicides of farmers in India, he said. Also, US agriculture actually uses 10 fossil fuel calories for each calorie of food produced. "Can we emulate this model... (that would) turn farmlands in this state into a desert?" he asked.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6299
+ THREE FARMERS TO INTERACT WITH BUSH
An article for New India Press reports, "Three progressive farmers... will have the rare privilege of interacting with US President George W Bush..."
Exactly what makes these farmers "progressive" and suitable for presenting to Bush is suggested later in the article in a comment about one of the group of farmers: "A team of scientists from Manasanto [sic: Monsanto] company in America has inspected the agricultural farms in 2003. He said that he has been using Bt cotton seeds, which are yielding high profits."
This smells exactly like the usual misleading use of token farmers for PR purposes that we have seen repeatedly from Monsanto and the US administration.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6299
+ INDIA: GM CROP TRIALS SHROUDED IN SECRECY
The Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) and the state governments have accepted that they are not kept informed by the companies on where the GM crop trials are happening. This was revealed at a meeting convened by the GEAC to look into irregularities in GM field trials brought up by the Monitoring and Evaluation Committee (MEC) led by Greenpeace India and Centre for Sustainable Agriculture.
Two important points of discussion were:
***violation of biosafety guidelines. The companies claimed that material from the trials was being bought back from trial farmers and destroyed whereas the MEC had evidence of the farmers selling it in the local market.
***unscientific nature of trials: only data from good plots is being presented for approval. The companies denied this allegation. However, GEAC promised that this would be looked into further.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6289
+ MONSANTO'S BT COTTON HAS FAILED IN INDIA
The Andhra Pradesh government will move the Monopoly and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (MRTPC) over the issue of "abnormally high trait value" imposed by Monsanto and other companies selling GM Bt cotton seeds to farmers.
Gene Campaign conducted a field study to analyse the performance of Bt cotton and non-Bt cotton. The survey was conducted in Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh and included a total of 100 farming families selected by random sampling. The study found:
*** Lower than average yield per acre in the case of Bt cotton
***Shorter duration of crop (90-100 days) in Bt cotton than non-Bt cotton (100 to 120 days), with the plants showing less vigorous growth, fewer branches and smaller leaves ***Premature dropping of bolls in Bt cotton that were on average smaller in size than the non-Bt cotton bolls
***Fewer bolls and shorter fibre length in Bt cotton. Non-Bt cotton was graded as A and B quality whereas Bt cotton was graded as B and C, fetching on an average Rs. 300/quintal less on the market.
***No protection against pink bollworm from Bt cotton varieties. Pink bollworm attack was found to be severe after 60 to 70 days.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6287
------------------------------------------------------------
AUSTRALASIA
------------------------------------------------------------
+ AUSTRALIA: SPINNING FARMERS' CAUTION INTO PRO-GM FERVOUR
Julie Newman of the Network of Concerned Farmers in Australia reports on how the cautious policies on GM of the main farm lobby group in Western Australia have been spun to the media as demands for GM trials and an end to Western Australia's GM crops moratorium.
For instance, a policy that calls for an end to the moratorium only "when markets clearly indicate their preparedness to accept GM produce" has been twisted into a demand for an immediate end to the moratorium and an assertion that markets are ready to accept GM produce!
Julie comments, "While the policy advisor may be pro-GM, the policy is quite conservative and yet WAFarmers is making public statements that is certainly putting a new twist on the policy."
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6296
+ NEW CHIEF SCIENTIST MAKES WAVES WITH GM AND NUKES
Just a day into the job, Australia's new chief scientist is already generating controversy. Environmental groups and some farmers have expressed alarm at Dr Jim Peacock's comments supporting an expanded use of nuclear power and a wider use of GM crops.
Juliet McFarlane of the Network of Concerned Farmers commented on Peacock's record in an interview with ABC radio: "I've heard him say quite publicly that it's time the states drop their moratoria and that we allow GM food crops to be planted in Australia, but what he never addresses is what states have to address, and that is the economics and the marketing side of GM crops.
"The GM-free farmers are expected to provide the buffer zones and he's the one expected to keep his crop GM-free rather than the other way round. At the moment we are seeing markets in China paying Canada $30 a tonne less for their canola, which is not segregated, than for GM-free canola."
Jim Peacock is CSIRO's leading plant researcher. Although ostensibly "publicly funded", CSIRO has been encouraged to get 30% of its funding from business, with CSIRO's top management encouraging its staff to go to 40%.
More on CSIRO: http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=187&page=C
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6295
------------------------------------------------------------
BIOETHICS
------------------------------------------------------------
+ BIOTERROR FEARS DIM BIOTECH POTENTIAL
An article for IPS News expresses concern that "Terrorists using biotechnology could create virulent new diseases that threaten millions of people and imperil future development of the technology, ethical experts warn."
The article continues: "World leaders attending the G8 meeting in July 2006 need to establish a global network to help resolve potential conflicts between bioterrorism control and biotechnology development, according to the report 'DNA for Peace: Reconciling Biodevelopment and Biosecurity'.
"'Cutting-edge technologies like biotechnology and nanotechnology potentially carry serious risks to the public,' said Peter Singer, director of the University of Toronto's Joint Centre for Bioethics (JCB), the report's co-author. 'If all we talk about is biosecurity and the risks, then we'll create a huge wall that prevents the development of these new technologies,' Singer told IPS."
GM WATCH comment:
Singer is warning about the dangers of biotech, but at the same time seems to be calling for liberalization of biosafety rules in order to encourage development of the technology. Has he had a logic bypass? There appears to be a sound case for locking them all in the lab - both GMOs and the people who create them.
Singer et al's bio-ethics report is truly disturbing. Countries can't even manage nuclear materials, with issues of nuclear waste and safety remaining unresolved while nuclear weapons proliferate, triggering international crises. Yet the authors of this report argue for the international proliferation of research on GM plants and viruses that can't easily be recalled once they get into the environment. And all this in the name of "DNA for peace" and progress - freedom from poverty and disease - we kid you not!
ETC Group's Pat Mooney poses an important question to these hi-tech zealots: "Why don't the authors of the JCB report, who are supposed to be ethicists, work on an ethical issue like social justice?" In fact, a country like India would benefit far more from investment in basic sanitation than from expensive new genetic technologies aimed at preventing diseases.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6294
+ BIOETHICS CONFERENCE
"Is our food supply safe?" "Should life be patented by corporations?" "Should farmers be forced to abandon traditional farming practices?" "Should the Pentagon develop a bomb that only kills certain races of people?" BioETHICS 2006: "The Voice of Reason" asks these and more questions, aiming to promote consumer choice and what it calls "the safe application of biotechnology".
BioETHICS 2006: "The Voice of Reason" is a parallel conference taking place the same week as the annual BIO (Biotechnology Industry Organization) convention, which is coming to Chicago April 9-12, 2006.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6294
------------------------------------------------------------
LOBBYWATCH
------------------------------------------------------------
+ BIOTECH FOOD DEBATE DRAWS MANY VOICES
Sean Darragh, a representative of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, contended in an interview with the Sacramento Bee that scientists support GM foods. He claimed biotech foods have an unblemished safety record.
Darragh and the industry argue that GM labeling would amount to a "skull and crossbones," frightening consumers. This statement, along with another in which Darragh said he never met anyone with a PhD in biology who didn't believe in the safety of biotech food, irked readers who thought Darragh's position limited his circle of acquaintances.
Here are two published responses to Darragh:
***"I have a PhD, worked for five years as a reviewer of the safety of genetically engineered crops with the Environmental Protection Agency, was a science adviser to the Food and Drug Administration for three years on GE food safety. I have plenty of objections.
"So do many other scientists, as attested by a recent meeting of scientists on this issue convened by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization in Rome in October, or many reports by the US National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Academies of Canada and England, as well as many peer-reviewed scientific publications.
"I guess the operative phrase from Sean Darragh was that he has not talked to any PhD who has objections or concerns about genetic engineering. That is not too surprising, given his employer, since no doubt he carefully insulates himself from direct contact with people who have opposing opinions."
- Doug Gurian-Sherman, senior scientist for the Center for Food Safety, Washington, DC
***"Do a little clicking on your computer to read scientific websites that hold the truth: 828 scientists from 84 different countries voiced concerns to the U.S. Congress, the World Trade Organization, etc. (See www.i-sis.org.uk/list.php.)"
- William Now
More responses at
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6286
------------------------------------------------------------
CHURCHES
------------------------------------------------------------
+ GMOs NOT THE ANSWER TO HUNGER
Fr Sean McDonagh of the Columbans argues in an article for the Irish Times that GMOs are not the answer to world hunger.
EXCERPT:
The pontifical council has an obligation to clarify its position on the use of GMOs. Before it reaches a decision, it must address the issue of patenting seeds and other living organisms - 2005 was the Year of Rice, during which the rice genome was sequenced. This was a wonderful breakthrough for rice production. Almost immediately, giant agribusiness corporation Syngenta filed for 15 global patents on genes and gene sequences. Patenting is about privatising the living world for the benefit of the rich.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6297