WEEKLY WATCH number 220
from Claire Robinson, WEEKLY WATCH editor
------------------------------------------------------------

Dear all:

The big story this week is that EU ag ministers have decided to allow up to 0.9 percent GM contamination in organic food. The problem is that many people who buy organic food rely on the organic label to indicate a GM-free status. (EUROPE)

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

------------------------------------------------------------
CONTENTS
------------------------------------------------------------

TECHNO UTOPIANISM
EUROPE
THE AMERICAS
ASIA
BT COTTON FIASCO CONTINUES
AFRICA
AUSTRALASIA
FOOD SAFETY
NEW RESEARCH
WORLD BANK
VATICAN LATEST
SYNTHETIC LIFE FORMS

------------------------------------------------------------
TECHNO-UTOPIANISM
------------------------------------------------------------

+ DOES THE KNOWLEDGE-BASED BIO-ECONOMY ADD UP?
What's the real basis for the vision of biotech as a major engine of economic growth, the key means of feeding the world, the cure for deadly diseases, etc.? After all, there's remarkably little evidence to support such a vision. An article in the Wall Street Journal sums up the economic picture, "Not only has the biotech industry yielded negative financial returns for decades, it generally digs its hole deeper every year." Yet this truth, according to the WSJ, gets lost in the periodic bursts of enthusiasm for biotech stocks.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4134

A lifeline for the industry has been public money and support from local and national politicians desperate to lure biotech companies to their neck of the woods. "This notion that you lure biotech to your community to save its economy is laughable," according to Joseph Cortright, a U.S. economist who co-wrote a report on the subject. "This is a bad-idea virus that has swept through governors, mayors and economic development officials."
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4134

Now an incisive, and at times funny, critique of the gung-ho-for-GM BIO4EU report for the European Parliament has been published by BioscienceResource.org, which points the finger at technological utopianism.

EXCERPTS: Experts do not have an entirely unblemished record of predicting the future of agriculture. In the 1950s it was envisioned that agriculture would be irrigated with water from icecaps that had been melted by nuclear explosions, this water (naturally) would be stored in ponds, also "dug" by nuclear explosions. In the 1970s another generation of experts were predicting an era of remote control tractors and multi-story farms. Electromagnetic ploughing would prepare the soil for crops that would require only half an inch of recycled water per year and specially coated seeds would be blasted from pipes into crop-specific patterns channelled by underground magnetism. More recently, official predictions of the future have been more biological in character and centred on the "knowledge-based bio-economy" (KBBE).

[In the BIO4EU report] ... outcomes of biotechnology that can be construed as positive are explored in some detail while outcomes of biotechnology that are, might be, or might become, less than positive in their consequences, are sidelined or ignored ...

On economic issues also, BIO4EU sometimes pushes the envelope of optimism to breaking point... Including GMO detection in a list of economic benefits seems no different to arguing that crime has benefits since it boosts the economy by increasing the need for police officers and prisons.

...the difficult part of futurism is not imagining technical possibilities but the factoring in of the inevitable confounding influences imposed by legal, social, cultural, economic and biological realities that collectively determine the course (and value) of technological uptake. These factors are not mere details that can be ignored.

John Gray, the English political philosopher, has proposed that a fundamental characteristic of western thought is "technological utopianism", the belief that we will eventually attain a heavenly state of social and economic bliss in which all our needs will be painlessly met through technology. This belief, he suggests, is essentially irrational, in that it is supported by neither science nor history. He would find nothing to contradict his thesis in BIO4EU.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8004

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

+ IRELAND AIMS TO BECOME A GMO-FREE ZONE
In Ireland, following the Green Party agreement to form a coalition government with Fianna Fail, the two parties revealed their agreed policy "to negotiate for the whole island of Ireland to become a GMO-free zone." The announcement was received with jubilation by farmers and food producers on both sides of the border who have spent the last nine years campaigning to achieve this goal.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8008

+ MINISTERS OPEN DOOR FOR GMOs IN ORGANIC FOOD
EU ministers have decided to allow contamination of organic food with GMOs. The ministers adopted a new law which allows organic food containing up to 0.9 percent "adventitious or technically unavoidable" GMO content to be classed and labelled as organic.

Environmental groups criticised the decision as it goes against the principle of consumer choice. Organic farming is the most competitive and environmentally friendly agricultural sector. In Europe it is creating new jobs and has wide public support.

Helen Holder of Friends of the Earth Europe said: "Now that the EU has declared traces of genetic contamination in organic crops acceptable, organic farmers will find it increasingly difficult to keep their crops GM-free. The EU must urgently introduce cross-border legislation to protect organic and conventional farmers from genetic pollution."

The European Parliament and environmental groups had called for the threshold of contamination of organic food to be 0.1 percent, the lowest level at which GMOs can be detected.

The European Commission's defence of the 0.9% level of GM contamination is that any lower level would "effectively wipe out" the organic sector by making it too expensive for organic farmers to keep contamination below this level, but Jonathan Matthews of GM Watch dismissed the move as "bureaucratic convenience. It suits their ideas about co-existence of GM crops alongside non-GMO crops. The threshold they have set for conventional farming is 0.9%; they don't want organic farmers popping up with a much lower tolerance of GMO contamination."

Peter Melchett, Policy Director of the UK organic regulatory body, the Soil Association, said that regardless of the Minsters’ decison, "Organic farmers and producers must aim for zero GMO contamination, they must have the processes and procedures in place to protect the purity of organic produce. Any contamination over 0.1% should be clearly labeled."
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8000
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8006

+ COMMENTS ON EU ORGANIC CONTAMINATION DECISION
Italian environment minister Alfonso Pecoraro Scanio: "The Council of Agriculture Ministers' decision is wrong and damages both organic producers and the rights of consumers. We must see at once what countermeasures the Italian government and parliament can take to protect producers and consumers who want to be sure they are buying GMO-free products."

Carlo Petrini, president of Slow Food International: "...on March 29, the European Parliament passed a directive setting the threshold at 0.1% - virtually zero - by a broad majority. Not only has the Council of Ministers failed to listen to the wishes of European citizens who want to be certain that, when they buy organic, they do not buy GMOs as well, but it has also played deaf to the indications of these citizens' representatives in Parliament."

New Zealand's Soil & Health spokesperson, Steffan Browning: "New Zealand has zero tolerance to GE contamination and with organic food the world's fastest food sector growth area, there are fantastic opportunities here for both genuine GE Free organic and conventional growers".
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8009
http://www.freshplaza.com/news_detail.asp?id=2959

+ JEFFREY SMITH IN ENGLAND AND IRELAND
The author of Genetic Roulette is part way through a speaking tour of England and Ireland:
Sat. 16 June: north of Bristol, 8.00 pm, Acton Court Mon. 18 June: Hedon, near Hull, 7.30 pm to 9.30 pm, Haven Arms
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7987

Monsanto man attacks Jeffrey's book see Claire's response.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7987

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

+ ANNISTON'S NIGHTMARE CONTINUES
An article for Daily Home Online chronicles the continuing serious pollution problems near Anniston, Alabama, caused by Monsanto's dumping of toxic PCBs for over 40 years. EPA is telling residents and developers to consult them before moving any dirt in the flood plain in the area.

The problems originally began when PCB-laden wastewater left Monsanto's plant at the edge of town before entering streams, ditches and landfills in the mostly black west end of town. During heavy rains the ditches and landfills flooded, sending the wastewater into homes and contaminating soil in gardens, unleashing a toxic nightmare onto the black homeowners.

What's so revealing, though, about Anniston is not just the scale of the pollution but the conspiracy of silence. As the Washington Post reported in 2002, "thousands of pages of Monsanto documents - many emblazoned with warnings such as "CONFIDENTIAL: Read and Destroy" - show that for decades, the corporate giant concealed what it did and what it knew." (Monsanto Hid Decades Of Pollution, PCBs Drenched Ala. Town, But No One Was Ever Told)

According to the Washington Post article:
"In 1966, Monsanto managers discovered that fish submerged in that creek turned belly-up within 10 seconds, spurting blood and shedding skin as if dunked into boiling water. They told no one."

"Sylvester Harris, 63, an undertaker who lived across the street from the plant, said he always thought he was burying too many young children. 'I knew something was wrong around here,' he said."
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7999

+ WHERE'S THE SCIENCE? ASSESS BT MAIZE BEFORE APPROVAL IN BRAZIL
A national committee on biosafety is meeting on 11 June to decide on the commercial release of GM Bt maize, which has already been approved for release by biotech regulator CTNBio. Nagib Nassar of the University of Brasilia, Brazil points out that there has been no scientific assessment of Bt maize under Brazilian conditions, and this should be made a priority before the committee makes its decision.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8007

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

+ INDIAN FARMERS' LEADER ON U.S.-INDIA FARM PACT
As a result of the US-India farm pact that trades Indian germplasm for US nuclear technology, the Indian agricultural scientist will work at the dictates of American multinationals, converting the entire country into a big research lab of corporations, says Dr Krishan Bir Chaudhary of farmers' organization Bharat Krishak Samaj.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7996

+ INDIA: MONSANTO AND BAYER STILL BEHIND CHILD LABOUR PROBLEMS
Multinational corporations still have much work to do to eliminate child labour from their cotton supply chains, according to a new report. The report, titled "Seeds of Change", singles out Bayer and Monsanto for failing to eliminate child labour from farms producing cotton seeds in India.

The report follows on from the scandal exposed back in 2003 of around 17,000 children being used by Monsanto, and its Indian subsidiary Mahyco, in hazardous forms of child labour in cotton seed production in India.

Children were found to be working 13 hours a day for less than 40 Eurocents (Rs. 20) and were also found to be repeatedly being exposed to poisonous pesticides during their work. They were also getting no education. The new report says Monsanto and Bayer have still not addressed the root of the problem the uneconomic amounts they pay farmers for cottonseed prodcction, which necessitate the use of child labour.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7998

+ AVOID EXPENSIVE GM SEEDS - SUMAN SAHAI
Suman Sahai, one of India's foremost agro-economists, feels the country should avoid buying expensive GM seeds from global monopolistic corporations when it has the resources to develop indigenous technology. What is required, she says, is to develop a methodology to solve problems at an affordable cost. She also questions why the Indian government has just approved 62 varieties of Bt cotton without any review of Bt cotton’s past performance.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7991

+ VIETNAM AGENT ORANGE GROUP TAKES ITS CASE TO U.S.
Vietnamese people whose lives have been devastated by the Agent Orange herbicide, sprayed by the Americans during the Vietnam war, are taking their lawsuit against the companies that produced the herbicide, including Dow and Monsanto, to a New York federal court on June 18.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7997

------------------------------------------------------------
BT COTTON FIASCO CONTINUES
------------------------------------------------------------

+ BT COTTON ARTICLE SELECTIVE, BIASED AND FALSE
Kavitha Kuruganti of the Centre for Sustainable Agriculture (CSA) in India has responded to a recent article claiming to both represent the concerns of the CSA over Bt cotton and to critique them.

The article was by C Kameswara Rao of the Bangalore-based Foundation for Biotechnology Awareness and Education (FBAE). Rao based his article on discussions he had when visiting the CSA with two other ardent GM supporters - Shanthu Shantharam, also of the FBAE and a former Syngenta and USDA employee; and Ronald Herring, an anthropologist at Cornell.

The FBAE is a controversial organisation. It claims to be a "non-profit", "grassroot", "movement" but in reality has since its inception been initimately tied in to the biotech industry. The President of the FBAE, for instance, is the General Manager of Nunhems Seeds India - a wholly owned subsidiary of Bayer CropScience.

And the main spokespeople of the FBAE have a history of stunningly inaccurate claims about those with concerns about GM.

Given this, it's hardly a surprise that Kavitha was less than impressed with Rao's article, finding its representation of the CSA's position not only selective and biased but in part the product of the "fertile imagination of these (FBAE) guys".

See Kavitha's response to Rao:
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8005

+ BUTHELEZI COMES CLEAN ON BT COTTON
Claire's review of the film, "A Disaster in Search of Success: Bt cotton in global south", made by Indian women farmer-filmmakers about the failure of Bt cotton in India, Africa, and Indonesia is at
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7994

Among the most interesting parts of this award-winning film are the interviews with T J Buthelezi, a South African cotton farmer who has long touted GM Bt cotton around the globe for Monsanto, and his wife. Mrs Buthelezi states on camera that her family makes no profit from the crop. Even Mr Buthelezi seems low-key, saying that Bt cotton is only suitable for large holdings and that farmers need other options.

What makes these comments so remarkable is how they contrast with the way in which the Buthelezis' supposed experience as *"small farmers"* with Bt cotton has been promoted by Monsanto as part of the corporation's declared strategy of "gaining global acceptance of biotechnology". READ ON at
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8002

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

+ ONLINE RESOURCE SHOULD BE USED WITH CAUTION
A SciDev.net "online resource" called "Agri-biotech in sub-Saharan Africa" - should be used with caution. To date the articles made available as part of this "resource" seem to almost systematically exclude - in terms of links and references to their reports - genuine African NGOs. And in the links provided as part of the resource, there seem to be none so far to the African Union's biosafety project and AU biotech policy documents - a curious oversight that may reflect the hostility from GM promoters to the AU's cautious existing policy.

In fairness, the links section does include links to a number of NGOs concerned about GM crops and their impact on Africa, even though the actual section listing "NGOs" at the moment seems to be dominated by industry front groups! SciDev.net, though, will continue to attract suspicion as long as its board for biotech not only fails to contain a single GM sceptic but is stuffed to the gills with hardline GM proponents.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8010

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

+ OZ: THE PEOPLE VS VICTORIA
Rumours that the state of Victoria has decided to lift its GM moratorium have prompted an excellent article in New Matilda on how the pro- and anti- groups are stacked. On the pro-GM side are industry lobbyists, the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), certain politicians, and scientists from industry-aligned research body CSIRO. On the anti-GM side is the "people power", including independent scientists, most farmers, and health and environment groups.

EXTRACT: After the bans were put in place four years ago, I undertook a content analysis of all newspaper articles about GM in Australia's canola-growing States as a postgrad research project. I looked at who was quoted, and I followed the money. Without exception, quoted scientists (many claiming 'scientific consensus' about GM) had received funds from biotech companies, sponsored think tanks, or GM grant and regulatory bodies. Most who made safety claims had no relevant expertise. Not one of the adverse research results or dissenting scientists - and there are many - was reported.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7984

High cost of opening the doors to GM crops excellent article.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7995

+ PROPOSAL TO LIFT GM MORATORIUM ENDANGERS EXPORT MARKETS
Victoria's apparent intention to lift its GM moratorium will endanger export markets, says a commentary in Online Opinion by Susan Hawthorne (EXCERPT):

"The dairy industry is Australia's most lucrative agricultural export sector. The industry has a value of $3.3 billion of which $2.7 billion is achieved from export. This is all GM-free produce and Australia's reputation as a GM-free country has contributed to the value of these exports. Japan is one of Australia's important export markets and 60 per cent of Japanese consumers do not want to buy GM foods. Ending the moratorium on GM crops could have a catastrophic effect on primary producers' exports to Japan."

Comments on Susan's article include the following:
When Australia is anticipating a bumper harvest of non-GM canola, where's the need to embrace GM?

That the Bracks government [of Victoria, Australia] is even thinking about lifting its bans on GM food is undemocratic. In polls taken by AC Neilson, Roy Morgan, Millward Brown, The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald, Swinburne University and Choice magazine, a very large majority of Australians do not want to eat GM foods. No public poll taken to date has shown a mainstream market acceptance of biotech food in Australia or overseas.

Why, then, does the Bracks government think the customer is wrong? Why won't these free market lobbyists listen to the market, instead of risking all Australia's health, environment and economic welfare?
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8001

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

+ GM FOODS AND ALLERGIES PART 2
The second part of Jeffrey Smith's investigation into the potential of GM foods to cause allergies is at
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7988

EXCERPT: The biotech industry is fond of saying that they offer GM crops that resist pests. This might conjure up the image of insects staying away from GM crop fields. But "resisting pests" is just a euphemism for contains its own built-in pesticide. When bugs take a bite of the GM plant, the toxin splits open their stomach and kills them.

------------------------------------------------------------
NEW RESEARCH
------------------------------------------------------------

+ INSECTICIDE STUDY CLAIMED TO SHOW GM BENEFITS
An article in the Guardian claims that GM cotton and maize with a built-in insecticide is better for the environment than conventional crops sprayed with insecticide, according to new research that pulled together data from 42 different studies across the world.

The researchers found that fields of GM crops had considerably more biodiversity because the insecticide in the plant is less harmful to "non-target" insect species.

Chris Leaver, a plant scientist at Oxford University who was not involved in the research, gave a pro-GM interpretation of the study: "If you want to have decent yields from maize and cotton you often have to protect the crops against insect pests. This paper shows clearly that GM ways of doing so are less damaging to insect wildlife than the use of chemical insecticides," said.

But one of the researchers involved in the study was more cautious. Michelle Marvier at Santa Clara University in California, said, "The answer you get about whether Bt crops are having side-effects on the environment depends on what you compare them to. If you compare them to insecticides they come out looking pretty good."

But that may not always be the best comparison. "For field maize here in the US there weren't a lot of insecticides being used to begin with. You could make an argument that the proper comparison is to maize grown without insecticide," said Dr Marvier. In that comparison, GM maize comes off slightly worse in terms of harming non-target species.

Dr Marvier also noted, "If people have in the past done crop rotations to control certain insect pests - as they have in maize - Bt technology can allow them to stop doing those rotations and that could encourage more [environmentally damaging] monocultures."

Kirtana Chandrasekaran of Friends of the Earth commented, "This study cannot detract from the fact that large scale planting of GM crops is a significant threat to biodiversity. Sustainable and environmentally-friendly alternatives to GM crops already exist. But these are being sidelined by the massive GM push by biotech companies."
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7983

+ NON-GM RESEARCH CUTS COTTON PESTICIDES 50%, BOOST PROFITS 75%
A relatively low-tech non-GM approach to managing pesticides promises to help hundreds of thousands of cotton farmers across Asia substantially raise yields and reduce environmental contamination.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7990

+ NON PESTICIDAL MANAGEMENT SUCCESS
The success of cotton growing with no pesticides, no Bt cotton and no pests in Andhra Pradesh.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7990

------------------------------------------------------------
WORLD BANK
------------------------------------------------------------

+ CRITICISM OF WORLD BANK SUPPORT FOR BIOTECH
Fr. Sean McDonagh of the Columbans has written a criticism of the World Bank's pro-GM report on Biotechnology and Biodiversity.

EXCERPT: The recipe of the World Bank and your sister agency the IMF of promoting a neo-liberal, economic agenda has had disastrous effects on the poor of the world and on the environment. This paper is totally rooted in those failed economic policies.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7992

------------------------------------------------------------
VATICAN LATEST
------------------------------------------------------------

+ CARDINAL MARTINO EMBROILED IN CONTROVERSY AGAIN
The Vatican Cardinal who delights in providing official platforms for US lobbying for GM crops, looks favourably on climate change skepticism, and even claims man cannot be "considered a disturbing element" within the natural world, now has his sights set on undermining the world's leading human rights organisation. Renato Martino has said that Roman Catholics shouldn't contribute to Amnesty International because of the group supporting the right of access to abortion services for women under certain extreme circumstances (life-threatening illnesses, rape, incest).
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8011

------------------------------------------------------------
SYNTHETIC LIFE FORMS
------------------------------------------------------------

+ GOODBYE DOLLY, HELLO SYNTHIA
Ten years after Dolly the cloned sheep made her debut, the J. Craig Venter Institute is applying for a patent on a new biological bombshell - the world's first-ever human-made species. The novel bacterium is made entirely with synthetic DNA in the laboratory.

The Venter Institute is applying for worldwide patents on what they refer to as "Mycoplasma laboratorium." In the tradition of Dolly, ETC Group has nicknamed this synthetic organism (or "syn") Synthia.

"For the first time, God has competition," said Pat Mooney of ETC Group. "Venter and his colleagues have breached a societal boundary, and the public hasn't even had a chance to debate the far-reaching social, ethical and environmental implications of synthetic life," said Mooney.

Venter's Institute claims that its stripped-down microbe could be the key to cheap energy production. The patent application claims any version of "Synthia" that can make ethanol or hydrogen. Since the research was partially funded by the US Dept of Energy, the US government will hold "certain rights" to the patent, if approved.

"It's purely speculation and hype that syns will be used to ameliorate climate change by producing cheap ethanol or hydrogen," said Jim Thomas of ETC Group. "The same minimal microbe could be harnessed to build a virulent pathogen that could pose grave threats to people and the planet."
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7986