Addressing the Assembly chamber this afternoon, he said: "I will be urging that Wales should become, for a period time, a GM-free zone, that there should be no licencing of sites in Wales and that the Welsh food, the product of Wales, should become GM free.

"The most important thing is the need for public health - this must be paramount.

"Governments of all persuasions and of all countries have had a depressing record on the release of scientific data - think of the BSE situation and the recent scare in Belguim.

"So that is why I think we need a GM-free period until we know its safe and I think a three-year moratorium will be safe," he added.

Following the success of his motion - supported by 31 with 26 abstentions - Assembly agriculture secretary Christine Gwyther will consult with scientific and technical advisors to draw up a special policy on the issue.

It is news that is likely to please one of Wales's leading farming unions - the Farmers' Union of Wales (FUW) They have been urging that growing unease over genetically-modified food should be turned to the advantage of Welsh producers.

The FUW proposes that this should continue until such products are proven to be 100% safe for human and livestock consumption.

"Declaring Wales a GM-free zone can be a major selling point for all food produced here," said FUW president Bob Parry.

GE honey could contain drugs or vaccine

June 26, 1999
New Scientist

Dutch biologists are genetically engineering plants so that honey made from theirnectar will contain drugs or vaccines, New Scientist reports. The honey could either be fed directly to patients, or drugs could be extracted from it.

"It's a production system that would require very little purification," says Tineke Creemers of the Centre for Plant Breeding and Reproduction Research in Wageningen. "The protein is concentrated by the bees, so it's a very cheap production method."

Creemers and her colleagues are doing their experiments in glasshouses, to ensure that their bees feed only on the modified plants and to minimize concerns of the vaccine genes being spread by pollen, the magazine reports. Because of this they are using bumblebees, which are easier to manage in a contained environment than large colonies of honeybees.

Italy says consumers at risk without GMO moratorium

June 26 1999
Reuters

Italian Environment Minister Edo Ronchi told the Rome daily, La Repubblica, that the European Union's decision to stop authorizing new genetically modified crops before 2002 didn't go far enough. Without a moratorium, consumers remain at risk, he said.

"We were asking for a commitment for a moratorium. We wanted to block the introduction of new GMOs altogether until the law lays out much stricter guidelines. Our proposal was not passed, even if the political agreement reached between Italy, France, Greece, Denmark and Luxembourg should have been enough to secure a de facto moratorium.

"It's not a case of stopping the technology but of using it in the right way. As things stand today the safety measures in place are not adequate, and this is a risk for consumers...and for the biotechnology industry. If another case of dioxin happened in gene technology the impact on the sector's companies would be devastating. Prevention is in everybody's interest."

EU OKs Tighter Modified Food Rules

June 25, 1999
The Associated Press

European Union environment ministers have agreed to tighten rules on trading and selling new genetically modified seeds in the 15-nation EU, but rejected a French moratorium on sales, AP reported. The European Parliament must now approve the measure, which calls for stricter labeling and monitoring of such foods. Officials said it may take many months, even up to a year, for the EU assembly to vote on the proposal.

AP says that tightening the rules on GM foods is "bound to upset the United States, which already complains about European heel-dragging in approving U.S. foods that have been genetically manipulated."

The proposal, AP reports, would stop permanent authorization for GM seeds and replace it with a system of temporary approvals.

``If any evidence does arise of risk to human health or environment, approval can be withdrawn,'' said Michael Meacher, Britain's agriculture secretary.

Rockefeller Foundation calls for labeling, ban on terminator

June 25, 1999
Comtex Newswire

Gordon Conway, president of the Rockefeller Foundation, is calling for labeling of genetically engineered foods and a ban on "terminator" seed technology.

The Rockefeller Foundation has funded more than $100 million in biotechnology research and continues to support genetic engineering as a way of improving the food supply to poor people in developing countries. However, Conway says that many concerns from consumers and environmental groups are "legitimate" and need to be addressed.

Conway supports labeling GE foods not, he says, because they are inherently dangerous, but because consumers have a "right to know" what they buy and consume.

FDA Documents Show They Ignored GMO Safety Warnings From Their Own Scientists

June 24, 1999
Press Release, Alliance for Bio-Integrity

Statement by Steven M. Druker, J.D., executive director of the Alliance for Bio-Integrity, coordinator of the lawsuit against the FDA to obtain mandatory safety testing and labeling of gene-spliced foods, and an attorney on the case (in collaboration with the Legal Department of the Center for Technology Assessment in Washington, D.C.).

In May 1998, a coalition of public interest groups, scientists, and religious leaders filed a landmark lawsuit against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to obtain mandatory safety testing and labeling of all genetically engineered foods (Alliance for Bio-Integrity, et. al. v.Shalala). Nine eminent life scientists joined the coalition in order to emphasize the degree to which they think FDA policy is scientifically unsound and morally irresponsible. Now, the FDA's own files confirm how well-founded are their concerns. The FDA was required to deliver copies of these files--totalling over 44,000 pages--to the plaintiffs' attorneys.

False Claims and a Policy at Odds with the Law

The FDA's records reveal it declared genetically engineered foods to be safe in the face of disagreement from its own experts--all the while claiming a broad scientific consensus supported its stance. Internal reports and memoranda disclose: (1) agency scientists repeatedly cautioned that foods produced through recombinant DNA technology entail different risks than do their conventionally produced counterparts and (2) that this input was consistently disregarded by the bureaucrats who crafted the agency's current policy, which treats bioengineered foods the same as natural ones.

Besides contradicting the FDA's claim that its policy is science-based, this evidence shows the agency violated the U.S. Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act in allowing genetically engineered foods to be marketed without testing on the premise that they are generally recognized as safe by qualified experts.

FDA Scientists Protest Attempt to Equate
Genetic Engineering with Conventional Breeding

The FDA admits it is operating under a directive "to foster" the U.S. biotech industry; and this directive advocates the premise that bioengineered foods are essentially the same as others. However, the agency's attempts to bend its policy to conform with this premise met strong resistance from its own scientists, who repeatedly warned that genetic engineering differs from conventional practices and entails a unique set of risks. Numerous agency experts protested that drafts of the Statement of Policy were ignoring the recognized potential for bioengineering to produce unexpected toxins and allergens in a different manner and to a different degree than do conventional methods.

According to Dr. Louis Priybl of the FDA Microbiology Group, "There is a profound difference between the types of unexpected effects from traditional breeding and genetic engineering which is just glanced over in this document." He added that several aspects of gene splicing "...may be more hazardous."

Dr. Linda Kahl, an FDA compliance officer, objected that the agency was "...trying to fit a square peg into a round hole ... [by] trying to force an ultimate conclusion that there is no difference between foods modified by genetic engineering and foods modified by traditional breeding practices." She said: "The processes of genetic engineering and traditional breeding are different, and according to the technical experts in the agency, they lead to different risks."

Moreover, Dr. Jim Maryanski, the FDA Biotechnology Coordinator, acknowledged there is no consensus about the safety of genetically engineered foods in the scientific community at large, and FDA scientists advised they should undergo special testing, including toxicological tests.

Misrepresenting the Facts in Order to Approve the Foods

Nonetheless, so strong was the FDA's motivation to promote the biotech industry that it not only disregarded the warnings of its own scientists about the unique risks of gene-spliced foods, it dismissed them and took a public position that was the opposite. Its official policy asserts: "The agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way...." Thus, although agency experts advised that genetically engineered foods should be subjected to special testing, the bureaucrats in charge of the policy proclaimed these foods require no testing at all.

Violating Federal Law

Besides violating basic canons of ethics, the FDA's behavior flagrantly violates the U.S. Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, which mandates that new food additives be established safe through testing prior to marketing. While the FDA admits that bioengineered organisms fall under this provision, it claims they are exempt from testing because they are "generally recognized as safe" (GRAS), even though it knows they are not recognized as safe even by its own scientists let alone by a consensus in the scientific community.

Further, the statute prescribes that additives like those in bioengineered foods can only be recognized as safe on the basis of tests that have established their harmlessness. But no such tests exist for gene-spliced foods. So, although the GRAS exemption was intended to permit marketing of substances whose safety has already been demonstrated through testing, the FDA is using it to circumvent testing and to approve substances based largely on conjecture--conjecture that is dubious in the eyes of its own and many other experts.

Consequently, every genetically engineered food in the U.S. is on the market illegally and should be recalled for rigorous safety testing. The FDA has deliberately unleashed a host of potentially harmful foods onto American dinner tables in blatant violation of U.S. law.

Japan tightens rules on GM crops to protect environment

June 24, 1999
Nature

Japan will tighten its safety regulations on genetically modified crops following the publication last month of research suggesting that pollen from Bt corn could harm the larvae of monarch butterflies, Nature magazine reports.

The Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) announced that it will suspend approval of Bt crops for agricultural purposes until its committee on genetically modified organisms has established criteria for evaluating the safety of such crops.

Japan already has approved the importation of six types of Bt corn, but the commercial planting of seed produced by US companies, such as Monsanto, has not yet been approved.

Yutaka Tabei of the ministry's safety evaluation division says the harmful effect of Bt toxins on non-target insects was not entirely unexpected. "The results were not surprising, given that the butterfly larvae were fed leaves dusted with pollen from Bt corn," he says. "But we must carry out further studies -- including those on the spread of pollen -- to assess any potential impact such crops may have in the natural environment."

The move represents the first major step by the government to review the potential ecological risks of GM crops. Until the launch of a research project in April to examine the long-term effects of herbicide- and insect-tolerant crops on ecology and agricultural practices, the main safety concern about GM foods had focused on the risk to health.

France steps up fight against genetically modified food

June 23, 1999
Associated Press

France has stepped up its fight against genetically modified foods by asking its European Union partners to ban any new marketing of the crops, the Associated Press reported.

France is a leader against genetically engineered foods and wants better labeling and uniform EU rules on production and marketing, according to AP.

"French President Jacques Chirac said biotechnologies could bring progress, but he said more and more scientists are worried by the development of so-called biofoods," according to the newswire.

Brazil court ruling bars planting of biotech soybeans

June 23, 1999
Wall Street Journal

A Brazilian federal court barred the planting and distribution of genetically engineered soybeans in Brazil, the Wall Street Journal reports.

"The ruling demands that an environmental impact study be presented before the seeds are commercially distributed," said Marilena Lazzarini, executive secretary of the Brazilian Institute of Consumers' Defense.

"The ruling effectively prohibits U.S. giant agribusiness company Monsanto from commercial distribution of its genetically modified Roundup Ready soybean seeds," the Journal reports. "Their planting was expected to start in September, following the registration of the seed species two weeks ago with the Agriculture Ministry."

GM code 'could wipe out wildlife'

June 22, 1999
Farmers' Weekly Magazine (UK)

British government advisers warned that farmers could "eliminate all wildlife from their fields" by following a government-endorsed code to grow genetically modified crops, Farmers' Weekly Magazine reports.

English Nature, the government's wildlife advisers, say a voluntary code approved by the government last month is "very limited" and is not designed to protect biodiversity. The guidelines were developed by the Supply Chain Initiative on Modified Agricultural Crops (SCIMAC), a group of organizations that support GM crops.

"Even if growers followed the code to the letter, they could eliminate all wildlife from their fields," the briefing says, adding that the guidelines are intended to protect the supply chain and should not be seen as reducing any environmental risk from GM crops.

English Nature has called for a delay in the commercial introduction of GM crops until further research is completed.

"Biotechnology is such a powerful way of producing radically new crops that we believe statutory on-farm controls are essential," English Nature says.

Group submits 500,000 signatures calling for labeling

June 21, 1999
Associated Press

The Natural Law Party, along with consumer groups, scientists and farmers, has gathered 500,000 signatures of Americans who support government labeling of genetically engineered foods. They will submit the signatures to the White House, members of Congress and government agencies.

�We say why rush it onto the market before we know it�s safe?� said Bob Ross, a Natural Law Party spokesman. �Why not give consumers a choices?�

"It's just another piece of news that has eroded the consumers confidence in the whole process of genetic engineering," Ross said. "The American people ... are not going to sit back anymore and take food being forced on them by the biotech industry."

�Until we are satisfied that we know what questions to ask and that we are fully empowered to test the products of biotechnology, industry and regulators will be operating by seat-of-the-pants assessment,� added Sheldon Krimsky, professor of urban and environmental policy at Tufts University.

Industry resists labeling. �The products of ag biotechnology have been subjected to more scrutiny than any other products in humanity,� claimed Val Giddings, vice president of the Biotechnology Industry Organization. �There is no scientific basis for putting that on. If you put on a label, the implication will unavoidably be that this has some health significance, and it does not.�

A federal task force, including representatives from the Agriculture Department, Food and Drug Administration, State Department, Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Trade Representative�s office, is studying the issue.

Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman says it is the government�s policy to label food only when ingredients change the nutritional content or could cause allergies.

"My confidence in biotechnology and the industry's confidence in biotechnology are ultimately irrelevant if the consumers aren't buying," Glickman said last May. "We can't force-feed GMOs (genetically modified organisms) to reluctant consumers. We have to bring them along. The public opinion poll is as important as the test tube."

GM food �threatens the planet�

June 20, 1999
The Observer

�The world�s most powerful leaders yesterday labeled genetically modified food, alongside AIDS and the millennium bug, as one of the greatest threats facing the planet,� the British newspaper The Observer reported.

Leaders at the G8 summit in Cologne agreed to a new inquiry into the safety of GM foods, in a �significant blow� to British Prime Minister Tony Blair and President Clinton.

Tony Juniper, the director of Friends of the Earth, said: 'It shows just how far the thinking of the US and British Governments is from those in other leading nations. If this G8 initiative is to have any credibility, there must now be a five-year freeze on all GM food used commercially.'

Monsanto, one of the key American companies responsible for GM crops, welcomed the move. It hopes the inquiry will speed up international approval of their products.

The United States has threatened an all-out trade war if Europe tries to ban GM foods.

A Franco-German alliance �symbolizes the growing opposition on the Continent to the new technology,� The Observer reports. The German Chancellor, Gerhard Schroder, and French President Jacques Chirac, put the issue in the meeting�s agenda.

Bees could carry GM pollen to organic crops

June 17, 1999
BBC

BBC reports that genetically-modified crops will �inevitably� contaminate organic crops, according to new research funded by the British government.

Pollen and seed pollution cannot be entirely avoided, according to the report, and �acceptable levels� of contamination would have to be set.

Organic farmers are balking at contamination of their crops, since organic certification requires that their produce be entirely GM-free.

The research was conducted by the John Innes Centre, a leading European research institute on GM crops. BBC says that �up to now, the government has denied organic growers� fears that their crops are at risk from pollen carried by wind and insects.�

The British government requires buffer zones of 200 meters around GM oil seed rape and corn, and 600 meters for sugar beets. �But earlier this year,� BBC reports, �research by the organic pressure group, the Soil Association, showed that more than 80 percent of rape seed pollen is carried by bees and that bees can fly at least three miles. Wind could carry the pollen further.�

The new report includes evidence that one percent of organically grown plants in a given field could become genetically contaminated.

Friends of the Earth food campaigner, Adrian Bebb, agreed new rules are needed, saying: "The Government has got to go back to the drawing board and establish whether GM farming and non-GM farming can co-exist in this country. This latest report suggests they can't."

Some comments from other media sources:

Greenpeace director Doug Parr said that by allowing GM trials, the government is consigning the organic farming sector to its �death-bed.�

�This research indicates that all crops, both conventional and organic, can be contaminated by GM crops. It proves that GM trials could be a complete nightmare for food producers who are desperately trying to sell GM0-free foods,� he said.

Patrick Holden, director of the Soil Association, told reporters that the research proved that no crops grown in the UK could be described as GM-free.

�The government has always said that they will only act on scientific evidence. Now their own research has provided irrefutable proof of the likelihood of contamination,� he said.

�Tony Blair and his ministers are operating on a �pollute now, pay later� policy. Farm-scale trial plots are rather like letting a rat with bubonic plague out into the environment and then seeing what happens.�

London�s Independent newspaper reports that �the government�s policy on GM foods is in disarray after its own research found that GM crops could pollute other plants.�

�It presents the Government with a simple but devastating implication: GM agriculture and organic food and farming cannot co-exist in Britain, and a choice will have to be made between them,� the newspaper writes.

U.S. ruling aids opponent of patents for life forms

June 17, 1999
Washington Post

�The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has turned down a scientist�s controversial request for a patent on creatures that would be part animal and part human�bizarre life forms that no one has made before, but that might prove useful in medical experiments,� the Washington Post reports.

Scientist Stuart Newman, a New York Medical College biology professor, applied for the patent, but celebrated when it was turned down. He �never intended to make the animal-human hybrids,� the newspaper says. �He applied for the patent to gain the legal standing to challenge U.S. patent policy, which allows patents on living entities.�

The patent office ruled that Newman�s invention is too human to be patentable.

"When we applied for this patent a year and half ago, people reacted to it as if it was some kind of science fiction scenario," Newman said. "Developments in the past year have shown that similar things are already on the table and being considered seriously."

"This puts a big question mark on all commercial interests involving human embryos and embryonic . . . cells," said biotechnology activist Jeremy Rifkin, a co-applicant on Newman's claim, who has rallied religious leaders against patents on life forms.

Thailand cautious toward biotechnology

June 15, 1999
NewsEdge Corporation

Growing world concern over food derived from genetically modified organisms is forcing Thailand, a leading world commodities producer, to be cautious about adopting controversial new biotechnology, NewsEdge reports.

Agriculture Minister Pongpol Adireksan said the Thai government has created a panel to study GE crops. But he added that the technology would benefit farmers if applied carefully.

NewEdge reports that Pongpol�s comments represent a shift toward a �more cautious approach� to GE foods. In the past, Thailand has said it is interested in promoting the use of biotechnology to boost farm output.

``Biotechnology which allows us to modify genes of crops and animals is part of human evolution... Thailand's stance is that we welcome it, but with extreme caution,'' Pongpol said.

200 Indian farmers demonstrate in France against GM foods

June 14, 1999
AFX

Some 200 Indian farmers demonstrated at the headquarters of Rhone-Poulenc near Lyon to denounce the company�s policies and globalization.

"They are here to denounce globalization, which is widening their debt, as well as nuclear technology and genetically modified foods," said William Durand of the French organization Chiche. "This action is aimed at peacefully denouncing the company's catastrophic policies for the environment and farmers from Third World countries."

Sesha Reddy Vengiala, 63, vice president of the KRRS union, one of the largest in India with 10 million members, said he hoped the group's action throughout Europe would raise awareness on the impact multi-national companies have on developing
countries.

"They are trying to destroy our forests, our water, our ecosystem. They destroy everything with their chemicals," Vengiala said. "These companies are affecting our life in India. Our crops no longer have immunity to the chemicals they are producing here."

The Indian farmers are part of a group of 500 � 400 from India and the remainder from other countries including Nepal, Brazil and Mexico -- who have been travelling across Europe since May 22 carrying out similar protests.

�Monsanto wants to control water, the very basis of life�

June 14, 1999
By Vandana Shiva

In a report circulated on the Internet, Vandana Shiva, Director of the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology, New Delhi, writes:

�Over the past few years, Monsanto, a chemical firm, has positioned itself as an agricultural company through control over seed�the first link in the food chain. Monsanto now wants to control water, the very basis of life.

�In 1996, Monsanto bought the biotechnology assets of Agracetus, a subsidiary of W. R. Grace, for $150 million and Calgene, a California-based plant biotechnology company for $340 million. In 1997, Monsanto acquired Holden seeds, the Brazilian seed company,
Sementes Agrocerus and Asgrow. In 1998, it purchased Cargill's seed operations for $1.4 billion and bought Delta and Pine land for $1.82 billion and Dekalb for $2.3 billion.

�In India, Monsanto has bought MAHYCO, Maharashtra Hybrid Company, EID Parry and Rallis. Mr. Jack Kennedy of Monsanto has said, �we propose to penetrate the Indian agricultural sector in a big way. MAHYCO is a good vehicle.� According to Mr. Robert Farley of Monsanto, �what you are seeing is not just a consolidation of seed companies, it's really a consolidation of the entire food chain. Since water is as central to food production as seed is, and without water life is not possible, Monsanto is now trying to establish its control over water. During 1999, Monsanto plans to launch a new water business, starting with India and Mexico since both these countries are facing water
shortages.�

�Monsanto is seeing a new business opportunity because of the emerging water crisis and the funding available to make this vital resource available to people�.

�Monsanto's water and aquaculture businesses, like its seed business, aimed at controlling the vital resources necessary for survival, converting them into a market and using public finances to underwrite the investments. A more efficient conversion of public goods into
private profit would be difficult to find. Water is, however, too basic for life and survival and the right to it is the right to life. Privatization and commodification of water are a threat to the right to life. India has had major movements to conserve and share water. The pani panchayat and the water conservation movement in Maharashtra and the Tarun Bharat Sangh in Alwar have regenerated and equitably shared water as a commons property. This is the only way everyone will have the right to water and nobody will have the right to abuse and overuse water. Water is a commons and must be managed as a commons. It cannot be controlled and sold by a life sciences corporation that peddles in death.�

Australian company ships GE flower technology to U.S.

June 14, 1999
from a press release

NEW YORK -- Florigene, the world's leading flower biotechnology company, launched its Moonshadow flower into the US market. Moonshadow is a new carnation flower with a unique violet colour.

Florigene, based in Australia and Holland, uses biotechnology to develop new commercial varieties of flowers.

Florigene CEO, Peter Molloy, said the new carnation followed many years of research and development and was the first of a range of new flowers incorporating the company's patented blue gene.

"Colours in the blue spectrum�violet through to blue�don�t normally exist in many types of flowers. By introducing the blue gene, we have opened up the opportunity for a whole new range of novel-coloured flowers. The new carnations are our first products, but we will move to roses and other flowers. Eventually we hope to develop a range of new flowers in colours from violet through to blue," he said.

Molloy said the first crop of the flowers was being harvested this month in Ecuador for sale in the US. Until now, production and marketing has been limited to small scale quantities and mainly in Australia. "We have committed to a major crop for the US market and expect it to reach volumes of 500,000 flowers per month," he said.

Supermarkets join forces on GM animal feed

June 13, 1999
Sunday Independent (London)

Britain's supermarkets are planning to take from their shelves meat from animals fed on GM crops because of consumer concerns about possible health risks, the Sunday Independent reports. The move comes as a huge blow to the GM industry.

�Earlier this year, Sainsbury became the latest in a string of British supermarkets, including M&S and Iceland, to remove all GM ingredients from its own-brand range of foods,� the Sunday Independent reports. Now the supermarket giant has teamed up with food producers to ask the world's biggest grain producers to grow them GM-free crops for poultry, cattle and pig feed.�

A Sainsbury spokesman said: �We took the decision to remove GM ingredients from our own-brand products earlier this year because our customers wanted that. The logical next step is to try to find GM-free animal feed.People want the meat they eat to be fed on non-GM feed."

DNA: The ultimate spy technology

June 10, 1999
The Guardian (UK)

�U.S. scientists have devised the ultimate spy technology: write the secret message in DNA and conceal it on your person,� reports The Guardian. �Since every human carries 3 billion bits of DNA in every cell of the body, it would be very hard to spot.

�Carter Bancroft and colleagues at Mount Sinai school of medicine in New York report in Nature today that since DNA already carries information about how to make proteins, cells and even whole living organisms, it could easily be used to carry cryptic messages
about simple things like atomic bombs, invasions or new laser weapons.�

Herbicide resistance in Australia a "wake-up call" for Canada, expert warns

June 10, 1999
Lethbridge Research Centre press release

Canadian farmers must take immediate steps to reduce reliance on herbicides or face an increasing weed-resistance problem similar to what is happening in Australia, says a veteran weed scientist from the Lethbridge Research Centre. He is part of a new research study under way to help producers by providing specific weed management strategies. Dr. Bob Blackshaw recently returned from a one-year work transfer in Australia, where he observed that country's widespread herbicide resistance problem. He says many Australian farmers have no herbicide options left for some major weeds and have been forced to dramatically change how they farm.

Canadian farmers could face the same situation. In recent years, there has been growing awareness of the threat of herbicide resistance and wide promotion of preventive strategies such as herbicide rotations, but not all producers are taking action. In addition, the Australian example shows that herbicide rotations are not the sole solution; continued reliance on herbicides has led to resistance to many different control products. Combining herbicides with agronomic practices that allow crops to outcompete weeds may be the answer to long-term weed management.

"The Australian example should be seen as a wake-up call," says Blackshaw. "Don't wait until you're forced into a crisis situation. Try and be proactive by adopting better ways of managing your crop."

According to Australia's Grains Research and Development Cor-poration, herbicide resistance is reported to affect up to 10 per cent of the country's cropping area. The main problem is resistance to Group 1 and 2 herbicides among populations of annual ryegrass, which is Australia's major problem weed, comparable to wild oats in Canada.

"Some populations are now resistant to five different herbicide groups, leaving farmers with their backs to the wall," says Blackshaw.

Most recently, several populations of annual ryegrass were found to be resistant to glyphosate (trade names Roundup and Touchdown), a development that severely threatens conservation tillage in Australia.

Sweden calls for ethical debate on GM foods

June 8, 1999
Reuters

Sweden is calling for �ethical considerations� to be taken into account in the approval of new genetically modified organisms, complicating efforts to reach agreement on a new approvals system, EU officials said.

EU diplomats met to discuss the latest paper from the bloc's German presidency, which Germany hopes will allow ministers to agree later this month on plans to tighten rules on releasing GMOs onto the market. ``Sweden -- supported by Denmark, Greece and Spain -- wants the ethical situation to be taken into account, and this is making things a lot more complicated,'' one EU official told Reuters.

Agriculture secretary softens stance on biotechnology

May 30, 1999
St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman has shifted his stance on biotechnology, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports.

�His public shift from cheerleader to probing realist began a month ago in a speech at Purdue University,� according to the newspaper.

��It's not enough to celebrate science for science's sake,� Glickman said in the speech. �When it's all said and done, the public opinion poll is just as powerful a research tool as the test tube."...

�Glickman surprised participants on all sides of the debate, among them Charles Benbrook, a consultant who has worked for Congress and the National Academy of Sciences since the early 1980s.

�When word of Glickman's all-but-ignored speech at Purdue filtered out, Benbrook said, "People's jaws dropped. .. It was probably the most dramatic turnaround in the message of a secretary of agriculture that I've seen."

The newspaper also says that a White House task force will report as early as July on the

prospect of labeling genetically engineered foods. One option is voluntary labeling to give consumers more information.