August headlines

Return to August article index

French activists destroy more crop test sites

August 26
Reuters

CLEON D'ADRAN, France -- Hundreds of activists destroyed test sites for genetically modified maize in southern France Sunday, the fifth incident of GM crop destruction in the country since late June.

Armed with scythes and shears, members of the left-wing Confederation Paysanne attacked two fields used by U.S. biotechnology giant Monsanto Co. in the southeastern towns of Cleon D'Adran and Salettes.

``These tests are not for medical research but for pesticide testing,'' said Confederation Paysanne spokesman Bruno Clavel.

In Salettes, around a hundred activists destroyed a patch of GM maize covering roughly 1,000 square meters. In Cleon D'Adran, some 300 protesters destroyed another parcel of land about the same size.

``We are here because we oppose the uncontrolled development of GM crops. If no one does anything, the future could prove dangerous,'' said activist Jean-Claude Perignac.

Wednesday, around 150 activists tore up bio-engineered maize being grown on around 800 square meters in the southern French town of Beaucaire.

French Environment Minister Yves Cochet said last week he wanted a public debate on whether GM crops should be grown in open fields rather than enclosed sites. Cochet condemned test site destruction but said the issue it raised was legitimate.

In June the Farm Ministry was forced to publish the list of districts where genetically engineered plants were being tested.

The following month French food safety agency AFSSA said it had found traces of GM organisms in non-test fields, but it insisted the small amount found posed no threat to human health.

Agriculture Minister Jean Glavany called for a stricter process in sorting out open field tests in an interview published Sunday in French news weekly Le Journal du Dimanche.

``We cannot put all the GM tests on the same level,'' he said.

``It's necessary to establish a difference between experiments conducted for public research, which are essentially geared toward deepening our knowledge and evaluating the benefits and potential risks of GM crops, and private sector tests, which aim for research into productivity.''

Glavany has said that although he is ``suspicious and wary'' of GM crops it is necessary to allow research to continue.

Poor nations can't afford biotech food fear

August 24
Grand Forks Herald column

NORWICH, ENGLAND -- David Walker, an agricultural economist who lives on his family's farm outside Norwich, England and recently served as senior economist in London for the Home-Grown Cereals Authority and previously was executive director of the Alberta Grain Commission, writes in this opinion piece that the delay in the commercialization of genetically modified crops in affluent Western Europe may be acceptable in the context of the peace of mind it brings to consumers even though it lacks any kind of scientific basis. This implicit waste, however, is not an indulgence appropriate for those faced with poverty.

The condition of absolute poverty historically has been defined as income insufficient to purchase food, clothing and shelter of adequate quantity and quality - the bare bones ingredients of minimal comfort.

While the standards of adequacy of quantity and quantity rise with the affluence of an economy and other more or less necessary elements have been added, in much of the world beyond North America and Western Europe, the three basic needs still set the threshold.

Indeed, anyone living 100 years ago in what now is the developed world almost certainly would have doubted anybody could spend as much as we do today without being wasteful. That's an indulgence few of us could deny. The reality is that the marketplace has been very effective in providing things that we think we need. And we are by and large  accepting of our neighbor's right to spend as they see fit, provided it does not impinge unduly on our existence.

In today's complex society, of course, the actions of individuals can effect the well-being of many, so society has accordingly given the responsibility of protecting the many to the state.

Two issues relevant to biotechnology in general, and genetically modified crops in particular, are food safety and the environment. If there are risks of adverse consequences, state-imposed controls may be justified, subject to cost considerations.

In the case of genetically modified crops, governments have chosen to limit or defer their use, not because of any specific risk, but because they are new and unknown in the context of their impact. Britain and most of Europe are now firmly in the grip of this 21st-century Luddism. A couple of years ago, opinion polls indicated that most people in Britain were concerned about potential risks of modified food. While governments are elected to represent the interest of their electorate rather than directly reflect their opinion, it takes a courageous leader to ignore public opinion, even if he has  science on his side.

Under such circumstances, a science-based policy supported by a three-year research program to demonstrate the science is as much as could have been expected. And in the court of public opinion the three years as a cooling-off period may be as important as the science itself. But where poverty exists, the expense of deferring the use of a technology that will bring real and immediate benefits is no tradeoff for peace of mind from an unidentified risk.

Indeed, even where risks have been proven, the choice to use a technology still may be a reasonable one. While DDT has been banned in the developed world for almost 30 years for proven environmental reasons, no caring person would deny its use where human life is threatened by a malarial swamp. No evidence of threats The situation with genetically modified crops is, of course, far less extreme. There is no evidence of a threat to the environment from these crops, and any saving of life is likely to be indirect through the improvement of the quantity, quality and cost of food. But as less-affluent economies naturally place a higher value on these benefits, they can be expected to be more accepting of the technology. For the Third World, the most compelling characteristic of this biotechnology is its shrink-wrapped nature.

As with a cell phone, once the box is opened and, if relatively simple instructions are read and followed, almost anybody can use what is complex technology and benefits almost immediately. 

The rapid adoption of genetically modified crops in North America over the last five years was possible only because adoption did not require investment by or training of the farmer user. This ease of use is critical in the developing world. Typically, subsistence farmers do not have the financial resources to invest or the time to devote to elaborate training. Surely conventional technology implicit in such popular development staples such as irrigation, mechanization and market infrastructure have a role to play. But they do not provide the kind of almost-instant impetus to well-being genetically modified crops can offer.

Attempting to impose developed world values on the developing world is not only misplaced but immoral. While we may be able to afford the peace of mind of avoiding any risk, we must recognize this luxury has little value where pestilence with resulting malnutrition and starvation is an immediate reality.

Increasingly, the success of those opposed to genetically modified crops in creating doubt appears misguided. Their success in Western Europe simply may be viewed as wasted opportunity. But if they succeed in deferring the adoption of the technology in the developing world, it would be a tragedy.

Sri Lanka: Lobbying puts ban on GE food at risk

August 24
Inter Press Service

COLOMBO -- Four months ago, Sri Lankan environmentalists were a jubilant lot. Now they are disappointed as a landmark ban on genetically engineered (GE) foods from Sep. 1 may be deferred due to protests from western governments and the private sector here.

One of the fresh concerns raised in the implementation of the ban is whether it would affect food aid like wheat flour from the United States.

The ban was to have been effective from May 1, but this was put off to September as local companies wanted time to get GE-free certification on imported foods like cheese and soy products, and to delay shipments.

''The decision in May was a landmark one and we completely backed the government on this,'' says Hemantha Vithanage, an environmental scientist and executive director of the Environmental Foundation Ltd (EFL), expressing disappointment in the then postponement.

But in an Aug. 22 letter to President Chandrika Kumaratunga, the EFL expressed concern about a new official committee that had been appointed by Health Minister John Seneviratne to look into the ban. ''We understand the aim of this committee is to move towards lifting the ban, which was so courageously promulgated by the Food Advisory Committee (FAC) of the health ministry.''

EFL appealed to the president not to lift the ban on one of the most progressive GE-free legislative measures in the world, saying millions of farmers, consumers and peoples' organizations working for safe food around the world were adamantly opposed to the genetic modification of food, its development and commercialization.

While most countries ordered the labeling of food items to ensure they are GE-free, Sri Lanka went further in its decision and said it was banning all types of GE foods.

As the effectivity date of the ban nears, green groups have accused western governments, including the United States, of putting pressure on Sri Lanka to abandon the ban. But Stephen Holgate, chief U.S. spokesperson in Colombo and director of the U.S. Information Service, denied the charges and said the United States had only raised some concerns about the implementation of the regulation.

''At no time did we oppose the ban. Our concerns were based on the fact that there is no evidence,'' he said. In May however, Weyland Beeghly, a trade counselor attached to the U.S. embassy in India, told reporters in Colombo that the ban was unwarranted.

He denied what he called speculative reports that the U.S. was testing this ''very risky'' GE technology on poor populations in developing countries. ''More than one third of the shelf space of any supermarket in the US is occupied by foods obtained by using biotechnology,'' he pointed out.

Thilak Ranaviraja, the civil servant in charge of the health ministry, also agreed that the United States had not opposed the ban. He said no decision has been taken to revoke the ban, except that a new committee was reviewing the move before its implementation on Sep. 1. ''We have received a lot of representations for and against the ban and hence we need to be cautious.''

Ranaviraja said the U.S. government was among countries that had sought clarification on the Sri Lankan government's ban, while some other countries, concerned with the issue, did not make written comments.

''One of the issues we need to look at is whether the ban would impact on a lot of food aid that we get from donor countries and international organizations,'' he said, adding that the government did not want to antagonize ''friendly'' countries without proper investigation before enforcing the ban.

He said the committee's findings were unlikely to be ready by September.

EFL said that though GE foods are still untested, it has not been proven safe for consumption. ''It is deplorable that the government is willing to put economic gain before the health of the nation and has succumbed to the pressures of both international and local parties who have vested interests in this matter,'' said Withanage in a letter to the president.

Withanage said a request from the Chamber of Commerce, the country's biggest chamber group, to the health ministry to defer the ban until 2004 was also ''disconcerting''.

The chamber wrote to the ministry on Aug. 17, saying that Sri Lanka should follow the Codex Alimentarius Commissions (CAC) -- a joint body of the World Health Organization and the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization) which is promulgating guidelines and standards for GM foods by end-2003 for implementation in 2004.

The health ministry in May gazetted a list of 21 items which were to be banned unless proved that they are not GE foods.

The list included a range of soy foods including soy milk, soy bean, soy sauce, soy nuggets or textured vegetable protein (TVP) -- which has fast become a substitute for beef among health-conscious consumers -- other soy-based products, tomato sauce, tomato paste and tomato-based products. The United States is a major exporter of soy, a good amount of which are now genetically modified.

The health ministry said such foods would be allowed into the country only after a GE-free certificate is provided. Importers of the list of restricted items were asked to clear the food by a competent authority in the producing country.

Private sector officials and environmentalists said Sri Lanka was the first country in Asia to resort to a ban on GE foods and probably among the few in the world that had taken this move instead of the labeling process that is prevalent in many countries.

''There was going to be a lot of confusion over the ban,'' said S Balachandran, a council member of the National Chamber of Commerce. ''We repeatedly told the government not to rush into this legislation and instead resort to labeling measures.''

Balachandran noted that the company that he worked for, Millers Ltd, had however obtained the necessary GE-free certification for the import of Kraft cheese from Australia. ''We have got certifications of our products from Australia but such certificates have been refused from the United States where we import some products,'' he added.

The debate over GE foods has been raging for over two years in Sri Lanka and follows a worldwide controversy over GE food, which contains ingredients that have been genetically modified for certain qualities, be it longer shelf life to flavor.

In fact, as early as more than 16 months ago, there was a move by the government to enforce a ban on GE foods in the country. ''Yes, in fact we placed an advertisement in the newspapers informing the trade of a possible ban on genetically engineered food imports,'' said S Nagiah, chief food inspector of the health ministry.

Sri Lanka decided to enforce a ban instead of implementing GE- free labeling of food because it is a major food importer, unlike other Asian or European countries. ''For instance, India or Britain doesn't import as much food as we do. We need to take more precautions that the west and we have a responsibility to the consumer,'' the health ministry's food chief noted.

Nagiah said the decision to enforce a ban was taken after several months of discussion, debate and deliberation. ''There may be little or no evidence to show the impact of GE foods on humans, but genetic engineering is a dangerous thing. If we allow a GE seed to invade our local species, it could be disastrous.''

Protesters arrested at GM crop farm

August 23
BBC

Police arrested two people who had apparently chained themselves to the tractor carrying out the work at the farm at Munlochy on the Black Isle, near Inverness.

Four more people tried to block the tractor and their arrests followed five more made earlier on Thursday.

Police said the five protesters arrested in the afternoon had been charged with a breach of the peace after allegedly lying in front of the tractor.

Up to 30 people were involved in the protests over the trials of GM oilseed rape at Roskil Farm.

Police said the people arrested were members of the Highlands and Islands GM Concern group, which has raised fears about the effects of a herbicide to be used in the trials.

The Black Isle site is one of four in the north of Scotland which the Scottish Executive this week gave approval for the farm trials of GM crops.

Officials said planting would take place this autumn as part of a UK-wide farm scale evaluation program.

Dr Kenny Taylor, chairman of Highlands and Islands GM Concern, said the protests were a result of frustrations boiling over.

Biodiversity

He said: "It is a reflection of the sheer frustration that people in the area feel.

"Despite polls which show that the vast majority of people in the area don't want the crop trials in their area, it has still been approved by the Scottish Executive."

He added: "We sincerely hope that there will be no further arrests and sincerely hope that Ross Finnie (rural affairs minister) will listen to the concerns of people."

The group is seeking legal advice on ways of blocking the planned trials on the Black Isle.

Ministers have said that no GM crops will be commercially grown in Scotland if the results of the program suggest that they could pose a threat to biodiversity.

Judicial review

However, trials in the UK have been subject to opposition from environmental activists with some crops damaged or destroyed.

Last month, a survey by Highland Council reported that a majority of people were opposed to GM trials.

And environmental campaigners are hoping to win a judicial review of the way ministers handled trials at the Black Isle farm.

Highlands and Islands GM Concern is seeking advice on the range of legal options available.

But Rural Development Minister Ross Finnie said he is "quite satisfied" that the executive is operating within the law.

Greenpeace alleges U.S. intervention in Thai GMO labeling rule

August 23
Kyodo News

Bangkok -- Greenpeace Southeast Asia on Thursday alleged intervention by the United States in Thailand's drafting of a regulation for food containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in order to protect U.S. food producers.

The current six-article draft covers 24 food products made from soybeans and soybean products as well as corn and corn products.

It is the third draft, which is an outcome of a compromise between demands of GMO producers and consumer protection groups, Greenpeace Southeast Asia executive director Jiragorn Gajaseni said.

''The original draft is better because it forces producers to show all ingredients containing GMOs, instead of only the three under the current one,'' he told reporters.

International standards allow only 1% of GMO contamination in food but the proposed Thai regulation favors GMO producers, Jiragorn said.

The draft was revised after several rounds of meetings between the Thai Public Health Ministry's Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and U.S. officials who threatened trade retaliation if the Thai authority issues precise labeling rules on GM foods, he said.

The U.S., a major producer of GMO foods, considers fears of GMOs raised in Europe and some Asian countries as a kind of trade protection measure since alleged dangers of the gene-engineered products have not been scientifically proved.

Greenpeace Southeast Asia is heavily campaigning against GMOs in Thailand and the Philippines, where people are becoming increasingly conscious of their health.

Precise labeling of GMOs is useful not only for consumers but also for the producers themselves since it allows consumers to more easily decide on the products, he said, adding that consumers tend to shift to other products if they lack clear information.

Greenpeace proposed that all food and ingredients containing GMOs or produced wholly or in part from GMOs must be labeled.

The Thai FDA will finalize the draft by November and the health ministry is expected to approve the proposed draft by the end of this year.

But the ministry's notification on GMO labeling will take effect after the lapse of one year following its official announcement.

Industry push for delay on GM label

August 23
The Australian

EXISTING stocks of genetically modified food could escape the Federal Government's new labeling regime for another year under a draft plan that has outraged consumer advocates.

The Australia New Zealand Food Authority proposal would postpone the recall of existing transgenic products without proper labeling until December 2002 – 12 months after the scheme was to take effect and more than two years after health ministers announced the new labeling rules.

The extra year's grace would apply to foods made or imported into Australia or NZ before December 7, 2001 – but not after that date.

Australian Consumers Association food policy officer Rebecca Smith blasted the proposal as "outrageous" and accused ANZFA of "kowtowing" to industry interests.

She said food manufacturers had already been given a year to work labeling requirements into their operations.

Health ministers agreed in July last year to introduce labeling of foods with more than 0.1 per cent of GM ingredients.

Exemptions included unpackaged food from restaurants, highly processed oils, sugars and starches, processing aids and additives.

"By December 7 this year, you were to have total compliance – not this extra 12 months as a honeymoon period for the industry," Ms Smith said.

She said ANZFA was now condoning non-compliance with its new regulations, leaving shoppers in the dark about the GM content on supermarket shelves for another year.

"It just shows that they're held to ransom by the food industry on this one," Ms Smith said.

However, ANZFA's discussion paper said the wholesale recall of existing grocery stocks could be seen as an "unwarranted and arbitrary imposition" on industry and consumers.

"ANZFA's preliminary view is that it is unreasonable to require retailers to remove GM foods from their shelves on December 7, 2001 that were able to be lawfully sold the day before," it stated. "To do so would potentially mean the removal of substantial quantities of food ... "

About half the food in supermarkets, including bread, chips, lollies and softdrink, are believed to contain modified ingredients.

Food manufacturers have predicted the new labeling regime will drive up grocery prices.

Federal report on biotech foods is panned by one of its own authors

August 23
Canadian Press

Ottawa -- A federal advisory committee is calling for long-term monitoring of the health effects of genetically modified foods, but critics say that's impossible without mandatory labeling of GM foods. In an interim report Thursday, the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee says mandatory labelling of GM foods should be considered only if voluntary standards don't work.

"It's a good question," said Arnold Naimark, chairman of biotechnology advisory committee, when asked how scientists can monitor the health effects of foods that can't be traced.

"Not only do you have to be able to trace a compound but you have to know who's eating it and when and what are they eating in addition to that and how many confounding variables are there.

"It's a very complicated issue, there's no question about that," Naimark of the University of Manitoba, added in an interview.

Dozens of GM foods are already being marketed in Canada, but they don't have to be labeled as such.

Tests exist to identify some GM ingredients but these are limited in availability and effectiveness, the report says. Even food processors have no way of knowing how much GM material they are using.

Naimark said the question of tracing GM food is separate from the labeling of such food.

But critics, including one of the committee's own members, say the issues are inseparable.

"How can you do this long-term monitoring (of health impact) if there is not mandatory labeling?" asked Anne Mitchell, who was appointed to the federal committee last year.

Mitchell, executive director of the Canadian Institute for Environment Law and Policy, said the study's recommendations are inconsistent.

She said it does not go beyond a report last year by a panel of the Royal Society of Canada.

Both studies call for voluntary labeling of GM foods, although the advisory committee suggests a mandatory system could be considered if the voluntary standards don't work.

Mitchell said the lack of deadlines allows for indefinite delay.

"What they say is, if the voluntary labeling does not work, then we may have to consider mandatory, but there's no discussion of how long we give voluntary a chance."

The report also calls on Ottawa to appoint a chief safety officer for GM foods, and a high-level committee to oversee GM food regulation.

It recommends a clear separation between the federal roles in promoting biotechnology and regulating it.

The committee's public consultations were boycotted by many non-government groups that alleged committee members were biased in favor of biotechnology from the outset.

"This report is weak on science, meek on regulation and reeks of another government sales job on behalf of the biotech industry," said Eric Darier of Greenpeace's genetic engineering campaign.

"You need compulsory labeling so that epidemiologists or whoever will be doing the testing will be able to trace the ingredients back to their origin," said Nadege Adam of the Council of Canadians.

Mitchell acknowledged the committee is dominated by people who earn their income through biotechnology or have a vested interest in it. "What do you do? If you're not at the table you've got no influence."

She said she hopes Canadians will press for changes during the period allowed for public comment, which ends in January.

French Green minister wants debate on GM crops

August 23
Reuters

Paris -- French Environment Minister Yves Cochet said on Thursday he wanted a public debate on whether genetically modified crops should be grown in open fields rather than enclosed sites after activists destroyed a test site.

Cochet condemned Wednesday's destruction of a test site of GM maize run by U.S. biotechnology giant Monsanto Co by activists, including members of the left-wing Confederation Paysanne farm union, but said the issue raised was legitimate.

``I think the issues posed by the Confederation Paysanne are real and that a debate on the aim and objectives of growing GM crops on open fields is vital,'' he said on France 2 television.

``It is very difficult, except in a confined area or in certain very isolated regions, to not mix GM crops with others. The issue has been raised, it has to be solved in a democratic manner, through a debate on this matter.''

Around 150 activists tore up bio-engineered maize being grown on around 800 square meters in the southern French town of Beaucaire on Wednesday.

It was at least the fourth incident of GM crop destruction in France since late June, when the farm ministry was forced to publish the list of districts where genetically engineered plants were being tested.

In July, French food safety agency AFSSA said it had found traces of genetically modified organisms in non-test fields, but it insisted the small amount of GMOs found would pose no threat to human health.

Cochet echoed Farm Minister Jean Glavany's opinion that the research on GM crops should continue, even if confined to enclosed areas.

Glavany had earlier said that although he was ``suspicious and wary'' of GM crops it was necessary to allow research to continue.

Food fight: Public fear battles biotechnology

August 22
Roanoke Times & World News editorial

SCIENTISTS have found in biotechnology a powerful tool for extending the green revolution. Yet some of the most promising advances, including a Virginia Tech professor's nutritionally enriched lettuce, may never make it to the world market because of public fears.

The introduction of genetically modified crops demands stringent government regulation. Valid environmental and health issues range from the effect of pest-resistant toxins to possible allergic reactions. But much of the public bases its resistance on little other than vague worries. Most don't even know that they already eat bioengineered foods, according to a recent poll.

Public opposition discourages scientists, many of them environmentalists themselves, from pursuing valuable research and bringing new foods to market. At Tech, Craig Nessler found a way to bolster lettuce with Vitamin C - unfortunately, by adding a rat gene. Additional research, however, may produce another, more appetizing, gene source.

A Canadian professor has engineered a tomato that could grow in the salty soils of India and the Middle East, as well as in California's increasingly salty irrigated fields. Consumer skepticism and noisy opposition, however, mean both breakthroughs may languish in the lab.

At Virginia Tech, scientists are sharing with farmers in poverty- stricken countries around the world, such as Bangladesh, pest- and insect-resistant crops developed through decades of scientific hybridization. Bioengineering is one more tool Tech's plant scientists could use to provide those farmers more nutritional, hardy plants.

The biotech industry will require strict oversight by government agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture to assure environmental safety and to calm public health concerns. The implications are too critical, the billions in potential profits too huge to allow companies to regulate themselves.

At the same time, science should not surrender to hysteria. Research has handed both the United States and impoverished nations the seeds and knowledge to make huge gains in food production since the '50s. Biotechnology is the next step in continuing that progress to feed a growing world.

Those unlocking the keys to plant engineering do not deserve censure as Frankensteins but rather thanks as explorers of the scientific frontier.