March headlines and summaries

Return to March article index

Hostility to GM food may cause new brain drain

March 14
The Independent (UK)

Public hostility to genetically modified food and other areas of scientific endeavour may drive industrial investment overseas and cause a new brain drain, according to a report by a House of Lords committee.

There is a crisis of public confidence in science that could be damaging for British jobs and for children who are being dissuaded from pursuing a scientific career, the Select Committee on Science and Technology says in its report on science and society. "Many people are deeply uneasy about the huge opportunities presented by areas of science including biotechnology and information technology, which seem to be advancing far ahead of their awareness and assent," the select committee says.

"In turn, public unease, mistrust and occasional outright hostility are breeding a climate of deep anxiety among scientists themselves."

The committee identifies public resistance to GM technology, cloning for medical purposes, food irradiation and the deep-sea disposal of offshore installations as examples where Britain could ultimately suffer if public hostility results in a lack of investment in research.

Wales set to throw GM policy into chaos

March 13
The Independent (UK)

The Government's policy on genetically modified crops is likely to be thrown into chaos this week when Wales is expected to move towards declaring itself a GM-free zone.

In a test case to come before the Welsh Assembly's Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee this week, a new variety of GM maize is likely to be blocked, a decision that will in effect scupper the approval of GM crop seeds across Britain. In a quirk of devolution that will infuriate Downing Street, seed listing and marketing cannot go ahead in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland unless all parts of the United Kingdom agree separately.

The move is being led by Christine Gwyther, the vegetarian Welsh Agriculture Minister, who wants to keep Wales GM-free.

Ms Gwyther has put the decision on the GM maize – the T25 strain from Aventis Crop Science – to the Assembly committee. She is likely to be backed by a majority grouping of Liberal Democrat, Tory and Plaid Cymru members on the committee but opposed by the Labour minority. Eight more varieties of maize, oil seed rape and fodder beet are likely to be considered later this year.

Although biotechnology companies have agreed to a three-year moratorium on commercial planting, they say the placing of the seeds on the national list of those approved for sale is vital. Some firms want to grow the crops under controlled conditions to build up seed stocks for sale when the moratorium ends in 2003.

The T25 maize will not be grown here yet, but its developer says it must go on the list as a signal to farmers that high-quality varieties are available. T25 has already been approved by the English, Northern Irish and Scottish agriculture ministers.

Cardiff's rebellion is being backed by Friends of the Earth. The head of campaigns for the group's Welsh branch, Gordon James, said a GM-free Wales would bring economic advantages. "Welsh farmers and food growers would gain a market advantage by being clearly GM free. Wales can lead the way," he said.

Westminster MPs said they would vigorously oppose any attempt to remove Cardiff's right to block GM crops. Joan Ruddock, the Labour MP and former minister who is spearheading a women's campaign against genetically modified organisms (GMOs), said ministers would have to thrash out a solution. "It is the right of any country, however small, to protect its environment and its biodiversity. At the moment no one can be certain that GM crops are entirely safe, and so I would very much support any decision taken by representatives in Wales," she said.

Lawyers for the Welsh Assembly and for Friends of the Earth have been preparing opinions on whether Wales is legally entitled to impose a GM ban. However, a Cabinet Office spokeswoman confirmed that the responsibility for seed listing was devolved and would remain a joint decision between the four parts of the UK.

A spokesman for Aventis Crop Science said politics should not come into the listing process, which was designed simply to show that seeds were distinct, uniform and stable, and that they had a value for cultivation and use in the UK.

Genetic protesters rip out pineapple crop

March 13
Reuters

Protesters against genetic modification have attacked a trial crop of pineapples near Australia's city of Brisbane.

A group calling itself Free Seed Liberation claimed responsibility for pulling up about 100 genetically modified pineapples being grown in a trial crop by the Queensland Department of Primary Industries.

``They knew what they were doing, it wasn't a disorganized attack,'' said Anna Manzoney, public affairs director for Avcare Ltd, an industry body representing biotechnology companies and manufacturers of agricultural chemicals.

Protesters breached a two-and-a-half meter high barbed wire fence to carry out the late night raid last Wednesday, in an attack echoing similar episodes in Europe.

The pineapples, part of an experiment to produce greater levels of proteins, vitamins and sugars, were expected to survive and had been taken to a secret location for re-planting.

Australia is trialing 21 genetically modified crops at secret locations around the country. Commercial production of genetically modified crops is presently limited to cotton and carnations.

Participants to differ on safety standards for GM foods

March 13
AP

Tokyo - Members of an international commission on food standards are expected to clash on safety standards for genetically modified (GM) foods during a four-day meeting from Tuesday in Chiba Prefecture, east of Tokyo, Japanese government sources said Monday.

In the first meeting of the Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Codex Task Force on Foods Derived from Biotechnology, a body under the 165-member Codex Alimentarius Commission, nations such as Denmark will insist GM food products should not be commercialized unless their safety is guaranteed, while the United States will object to singling out such foods and screening them, the sources said.

Denmark and some other European countries will stress the need to label GM foods in order to protect consumers. They will propose a "precautionary principle," which would ban the commercialization of products if their safety is not guaranteed, the sources said. 

The U.S., the world's largest exporter of GM products, however, will point out that ingredients of foodstuffs are altered not only by genetic modification but also by growers' selection of desirable crops. The U.S. will express opposition to special safety checks being conducted only on GM crops, the sources said.

South Africa will suggest labeling of GM foods should be a major issue on the meeting's agenda, but New Zealand will try to exclude the labeling issue from discussions on the safety of GM foodstuffs, the sources said.

Japan will attest to the efficiency of biotechnology, but will seek the careful application of that technology to secure products' safety and to win public confidence, according to the sources.

Tokyo will suggest promoting the disclosure of information related to the safety of GM foods and creating an international database on allergens and genes.

The ad hoc task force, whose creation was decided upon during the commission's plenary session in Rome last July, aims to draw up scientific safety standards for GM foodstuffs by 2003. It will meet every year with the participation of nongovernmental organizations as observers.

The Rome-based commission was jointly established by the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization in 1962. Its food standards are treated by the World Trade Organization (WTO) as de facto international criteria, and WTO members are required to follow the standards in principle.

Modification plays no role in pricing, says maize body

March 13
Africa News Service

Johannesburg - Indications are that tough negotiations lie ahead to determine the cost of maize that is free of genetically modified organisms compared to genetically modified maize, as food industry players scramble to take positions.

Since the industry held a meeting recently to thrash out ways of separating the proverbial wheat from the chaff - literally from the farmers' field to the road or rail truck, inside the silo and beyond - talk has been rife of massive cost implications for consumers wanting non-genetically modified maize.

Unitrade, the trading company behind last month's meeting, said that the meeting of maize buyers and millers showed that the non- genetically modified maize could carry a premium of about R200 a ton. 

Does this mean consumers are going to have to stick to genetically modified chicken or cough up to get the product free of the scientific touch?

Grain SA, the organization representing SA's maize and other grain farmers, says for the time being there is no difference in price between the genetically modified and non-genetically modified maize. 

The organization has adopted the view that grain is grain, irrespective of whether it has been modified, or not. Consumers who require non-modified maize will have to enter into special contracts with farmers, the organization said in a policy statement at its annual congress last week.

A Woolworths spokesman on food technology, Jan Ferreira, said that at this stage it is too early to say what it is eventually going to cost to run parallel systems of products on shop shelves.

"At this stage, we are only looking at the technical aspects of identification," said Ferreira. By June, Woolworths hopes to be able to have a system in place to at least inform its customers of which products are which regarding engineered and non-modified food.

Grain SA marketing director Kit le Clus said his organization has been queried on the cost implications of its policy.

He said: "Are the cost savings that farmers can generate by planting modified maize bigger than the premium that can be gained from non-genetically modified maize?"

By planting engineered maize, farmers are able to increase their yields as well as save on chemical costs normally needed to fight pests and diseases on the crop. But modified maize seed is about R100 a packet more expensive than non-genetically modified maize.

Le Clus said the country's big maize buyers have not yet "offered" more money for the non-modified product as there is still more than enough of it available.

Receiving end

Only 6% of the yellow maize crop, or 90% of the irrigated crop, is modified at present.

"We will examine all the benefits of genetically modified cultivators that come on stream and monitor the premiums that are paid for non-modified maize.

"Premiums are not with us yet, but when they hit the market, European, Japanese and moneyed local buyers are the ones likely to be at the receiving end of the stick," said Le Clus.

The Lome Convention provides for exports at reduced tariffs from other African countries to the European Union. In terms of the agreement, maize and other products like soya have to be completely conventional, with no tampering.

The food may not be genetically engineered, which means that the genes may not have been removed or added between species to boost any specific traits in the plants.

The exported food may also not contain any growth hormones, another scientific technique in farming often mistaken as genetic modification. Nevertheless, Le Clus said that consumers in the European Union (EU) and Japan have "expressed strong opposition to genetically modified organisms. It is  suspected that the EU is exploiting this resistance to scupper the importation of maize and soya into EU countries. 

"Japan will insist this year that 1,5-million tons of maize of the 14- million tons it normally imports, must be genetically free of modification. This maize will probably be going to Japan's dry and wet-milling industries.

"It is further expected that Japan's manufacturing sector of high fructose maize syrup will also be insisting on non-genetically modified maize; that will shift a further 2-million tons of maize to this category."

The Grocery Manufacturers' Association of SA said it is also still working out an exact stance on labeling of modified food in SA and costs associated with such a move.

"At a recent conference of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in Edinburgh, it was agreed that genetically modified foods have a clear potential to bring real economic benefits to developing countries," Nick Tselentis, the association's GM, said.

"But there is as yet little benefit from the first generation of genetically modified food for industrialised nations. There is the possibility that the second generation products will offer tangible health benefits."

GM group hits out over chemicals

March 12
BBC

Environmental campaigners fighting genetically-modified crops are being accused of making Britain dependent on chemicals and pesticides.

A group set up to argue the case for GM foods, CropGen, has accused the campaigners of "condemning Britain to a chemical future".

The group says that in trials, GM plants have needed up to a third less artificial pesticides than conventional crops and this could help reduce farmers' over-dependence on chemicals.

On Friday, the government committee overseeing GM trials gave the go-ahead to the next phase after suitable test sites had been identified.

Since GM trials began in the UK, some opponents have vandalized and destroyed certain crops.

They say not only are the effects on humans and the environment unknown, but also ordinary crops could become contaminated.

GM crops can be devised to kill insects but the environmentalists' concern is to what extent insects will develop resistance to the modified crops

'Devastation' warning

Now, CropGen, which represents the biotech industry, wants to nip opposition to the new trials in the bud.

The group says GM food is the way forward for meeting the world's demand for supplies.

And it even argues that biotechnology could help enhance diversity in the countryside.

Dr Guy Poppy, a member of the CropGen panel, said if "alternative" agricultural practices are not allowed, the effect on wildlife and the environment could be "devastating".

He said: "While organic farming provides an alternative with its lower use of pesticides, it alone cannot provide a sustainable food supply for the UK population.

"GM crops hold one of the best hopes we have for not only preserving but enhancing diversity in the countryside."

Organic future row

CropGen said the proposed farm-scale trials will provide extra UK evidence of the effects, if any, of GM crops on bio-diversity.

Panel chairman, Professor Vivian Moses, said: "We have to expose the hypocrisy of organizations which call for more research into the safety of GM crops, as they destroy the very evidence they demand must be collected."

The argument now is likely to focus on organic farming. Anti-GM campaigners argue that this is the best solution, but CropGen says organic methods cannot satisfy the demand for food.

CropGen is sponsored by a consortium including Aventis CropScience, Dow AgroSciences, Monsanto and Novartis Seeds but the companies cannot vto any scientific position taken by the panel of academic scientists.

Chemicals 'irony'

Friends of the Earth said GM crops and the farm-scale trials pose a potential threat to the environment and livelihoods of anyone wanting to farm without the new technology.

It said CropGen is funded by companies that stand to make massive profits from the commercial growing of GM crops.

FoE food campaigner Pete Riley said: "While it is heart-warming to hear its concerns about the dangers of pesticides, it's ironic that CropGen's sponsors include some of the companies that spent a good deal of the last century persuading farmers to use these chemicals in ever greater quantities."

He said the £3m of taxpayers' money spent on trials would be better spent on research into sustainable ways of growing food.

Indian farmers give wary nod to GM trials

March 12
The Independent (UK)

In the first attempt to give a hearing to the farmers of the developing world who are claimed to be the ultimate beneficiaries of GM technology, a "citizens' jury" of Indian farmers, including a man with 60 acres and a landless and illiterate peasant woman, decided on Friday by a majority of nine to four that it would "consider" the option of planting GM crops. But they demanded first that GM producers ensure that the products do no damage to any aspect of their environment. Some of the farmers said they had "no use" for GM technology, as "it is inherently eco-unfriendly and would destroy biodiversity".

Tony Blair last month claimed in the Independent on Sunday that the West had a "moral obligation" to develop and test GM crops in order to enable the developing world to feed itself. Thanks to this experiment, conducted by the British charity Action Aid, a representative sample of farmers in the southern Indian state of Karnataka have given their side of the story. Sitting under a large tamarind tree on an organic farm near the ruined city of Vijayanagar, for three days they heard experts debate the pros and cons of GM crops.

In Friday's "verdict" nine of the 14 said "Yes" (by a show of hands) to the question "Would you consider the option of growing GM crops?" and four said "No". But in a second, secret ballot on the question "Would you sow new commercial seeds proposed by the [Indian government's] Department of Biotechnology and Monsanto immediately on your field?" nine said "No" and four "Yes".

The farmers wrote a series of caveats on which they unanimously agreed to insist before they would accept GM crops. These included stipulations that GM crops should not cause damage to any microbes, insect or animal populations, or to other environmental elements; that they should be lawfully released only after five or 10 years of field trials; and that they should do no damage to adjoining or subsequent crops. The jury also said that it was "very concerned" that multinational companies could ultimately gain control over seed and thus over the sovereignty of Indian farmers. A "proportion" – it was not disclosed how many – said there was "no use" for GM technology "as it is inherently eco-unfriendly and would destroy biodiversity."

The verdict of the citizens' jury is unlikely to bring much cheer to Monsanto. India's population remains about 70 per cent rural and offers a potentially vast market for GM products. The Indian government is disposed to look more favorably than in the past on overtures by multinationals.

But many Indian farmers have almost no capital and are vulnerable to fluctuations of market price and the depredations of money lenders. Thousands have committed suicide because they were unable to repay debts incurred buying herbicide, pesticide, seed and other "Green Revolution" necessaries. Some jurors said they would grow GM crops if