News Stories:

Biotech Blunders--A Catalogue of Disasters in 2002
1. Mexico's Vital Gene Reservoir Polluted By Modified Maize
2. GM Contamination- Government Experts Disagree
3. GM crops pose risk to organic farms - EU scientists
5. GM Crops Are an Economic Disaster Shows New Report
6. USDA Report Exposes GM Crop Economics Myth
7. Soya Soya everywhere
8. Failure of Bt. Cotton in India
9. Monsanto's Modified Soya Beans are Cracking Up in the Heat
10. Genetically-Modified Superweeds "Not Uncommon"
11. Glyphosate- Resistant Weeds - Will They Decrease Land Value?
12. Adverse Environmental Impacts of GE Bt Cotton Chinese Experience Illustrates the Need for International Liability Rules
13. Biotech Firm Mishandled Corn in Iowa
14. Would You Like Frankenfries With That?
************************

1. Mexico's Vital Gene Reservoir Polluted By Modified Maize
News Release from the Guardian.
Date: 19 April 2002 Paul Brown
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,686955,00.html

  The Mexican government has confirmed that despite its ban on genetically
modified maize, there is massive contamination of crops in areas that act as
the gene bank for one of the world's staple crops. The announcement of the
worst ever contamination of crops by GM varieties was made yesterday at the
biodiversity convention meeting in the Hague.
  It fuels the controversy stirred by the discovery of mutant strains of
maize, which was originally reported in November in the journal Nature and
then embarrassingly disowned by the journal earlier this month. But speaking
at the Hague, Jorge Soberon, a senior civil servant and the executive
secretary of Mexico's national commission on biodiversity, said government
tests had now shown the level of contamination was far worse than initially
reported. Mexico is the home of hundreds of varieties of maize which are
allowed to crossbreed to produce the best crops for extreme conditions. To
preserve this gene bank, the government banned planting of GM crops in 1998.
  At first, Mexico rejected the claims of contamination which were published
in Nature by Ignacio Chapela and David Quist, of the University of
California at Berkeley. But the government went on to take samples from
sites in two states, Oaxaca and Puebla, said Ezequiel Ezcurra, the director
of the institute of ecology at the ministry of the environment in Mexico.
The states are the genetic home of maize. A total of 1,876 seedlings was
taken, and evidence of contamination was found at 95% of the sites. One
field had 35% contamination of plants. Mr Soberon confirmed this
infiltration of supposedly pure strains was the worst recorded anywhere.
"There is no doubt about it," he said. "We found it in 8% of seeds kernel by
kernel."
  It appeared that maize imported into Mexico from the US for the production
of tortillas may have been used as seed by farmers who were unaware that it
contained grain derived from GM crops. The worst contamination was found
near main roads, along which maize is sold to villagers. In remote areas,
contamination was down to between 1 and 2%. The revealing factor was the
presence of the cauliflower mosaic virus, which is used widely in GM crops
to "switch on" insecticides which have been inserted into them. Mr Soberon
said the GM developers Monsanto, Syngenta and Aventis all used the same
technology.
  The government could not find out which of the three varieties of GM maize
was responsible for the contamination because the companies refused to
disclose which protein they used in such a commercially sensitive project.
"I find that extremely difficult to accept," he said. "How can you monitor
what is going on if they do not allow you the information to do it?" The
research is continuing and, after the dispute that followed the publication
of the original paper, the Mexican government is having it carefully
reviewed by peers before offering it for publication in a scientific
journal.

*************************

2. GM Contamination- Government Experts Disagree
Press Release from Friends of the Earth UK. Date: 2 January 2002
http://www.foe.org.uk/pubsinfo/infoteam/pressrel/2003/20030102150652.html

  Advice issued by the Government's main GM scientific advisory committee is
in direct conflict with the findings of a major government-commissioned
report on GM oilseed rape pollination, Friends of the Earth said today. The
report [1] on GM cross pollination of oilseed rape crops and wild plants was
published in full this week, after a summary was posted on DEFRA's website
on Christmas Eve. Its findings put the early commercialisation of GM oilseed
rape in question, revealing significant contamination. But the Advisory
Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE)'s advice, also published on
Christmas Eve, played down the significance of the findings, saying
contamination was expected.
  The report concludes: "if transgenic oilseed rape is grown on a large scale
in the UK, then gene flow will occur between fields, farms and across
landscapes" [2]. It also highlights the difficulties in gathering
information on the likely extent of contamination if GM oilseed rape is
grown commercially in this country and calls for further research: "Gene
flow at this level should be investigated on a landscape scale using larger
numbers of transgenic pollen sources, and examining different genotypes
(both of the transgenic plants and conventional varieties), the extent of
pollen flow at further distances from sources, a range of environmental
conditions, geographical location and patterns of cropping of GM and non-GM
crops.
 It is only when these studies have been concluded under a range of UK
conditions that farmers and seed producers will be able to accurately
predict out crossing levels and develop appropriate strategies for managing
it" [3]. In contrast, ACRE's advice concludes: "ACRE considered the results
of the monitoring carefully. ACRE's risk assessment of GM oil seed rape has
always assumed some gene-flow will occur and that this does not in itself
constitute a risk to human health or the environment. It was concluded that
the extent of gene flow observed in the monitoring between GM oilseed rape
and adjacent crops, feral oilseed rape and wild relatives was entirely
within expectations.
  The persistence of GM volunteers and feral oil seed rape plants were also
entirely within expectations. ACRE members were content that the results of
the monitoring were consistent with the existing risk assessment and no
further action was necessary"[4]. The consultants report also reveals the
extent to which seed contamination has occurred: "Tests of certified seed of
a particular variety imported from North America since 1996, conducted by
NIAB detected GM contamination in c 40% of samples ranging from 0.05% to
0.5%" [5].
  Current EU proposals for oilseed rape seed purity would set a maximum
contamination rate of 0.3%. Other key information emerging from the final
report includes: Seed spillages and failure to clean combine harvesters are
likely to be a significant source of GM contamination. One volunteer GM
plant per square metre in a field of oilseed would produce contamination
rates of between 0.6% and 1.5% depending on variety. The discovery of weedy
population of wild turnip co-existing and hybridising with oilseed rape in
England. One plant sampled had 81 GM seeds out of 167 (48.5%). 0.5%
contamination rates in crops at distances up to 200m. 3.2% contamination
rates at 105m in some oilseed rape varieties [5]. GM oilseed rape volunteers
(weeds in following crops) survived for at least four years (up until the
research was terminated in 2000). Wild oilseed rape close by crop fields was
also contaminated. The report recommends more research into the
hybridisation of oilseed rape with wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum) and
wild turnip (Brassica rapus).
  The full report does not provide metrological data for any of the study
sites making it impossible to judge whether the reported results could be
considered the "worst case". Contamination of crop plants was only monitored
and found up to 250 metres from the GM crops and no further. Current
separation distances for GM oilseed rape are a maximum of 200 metres [6].
  Commenting, Friends of the Earth GM campaigner Pete Riley of Friends said:
"ACRE seems to have missed the main conclusions of the report. In fact they
appear to be more interested in defending their earlier advice than
listening to the science. Such complacency is completely unacceptable.
 The report shows there are still big holes in the science of cross
pollination, and that more research is needed before GM crops can be given
the go-ahead. "The Government must resist the pressure from the biotech
industry to approve GM oilseed rape for commercial growing in the next 18
months and consider the full facts. Proving the safety of GM is going to be
risky and costly.
 Surely the only sensible course is to abandon GM and instead help British
farmers get off the agro-chemical treadmill by investing in sustainable
farming."

Ends Notes:
[1] Monitoring large Scale Releases of Genetically Modified Crops (EPG 1/5/
84) Incorporating Report on Project 1/5/30: Monitoring Releases of
Genetically Modified Plants By Carol Norris and Jeremy Sweet National
Institute Agricultural Botany, Cambridge ®¢ www.defra.gov.uk/environment/gm/
research/epg-1-5-84.htm
[2]Section 11.2 General Discussion page 113.
[3]Ibid
[4]ACRE advice www.defra.gov.uk/environment/acre/advice/advice21.htm
[5]As 2 above.
[6]Current oilseed rape separation distances agreed between the Government
and SCIMAC (the biotech industry body responsible for drawing up of the
proposals for separation distances) Certified seed crops 200metres
Registered organic 200metres Conventional varieties and restored hybrids
50metres Varietal associations and partially restored hybrids 100metres
(Joint press release from DETR and MAFF (46/01) 6 February 2001). Varietal
association varieties of oilseed rape have up to 80% of plants which do not
produce their own pollen and are therefore more susceptible to cross
pollination. Such varieties are sold commercially in the UK, eg Gemini and
Synergy.

*******************************

3. GM crops pose risk to organic farms - EU scientists
News Release from Reuters (fwd by Genet). Date: 18 March 2002 Robin Pomeroy
http://www.gene.ch/genet.html

 BRUSSELS - Some genetically modified (GM) crops are highly likely to
cross-breed with organic or wild plants, posing a risk to farms certified as
GM-free, according to a European Union report obtained by Reuters. The
European Environment Agency (EEA), the EU environmental data body, looked at
six crop types to see how much cross-pollination occurs with neighbouring
crops or wild relatives. The study found that oilseed rape, sugar beet and
maize - three key GM crops - had a medium or high likelihood of transferring
genetic material. Potatoes, wheat and barley were unlikely to cross-breed,
it said. "Oilseed rape can be described as a high-risk crop for crop-to-crop
gene flow and from crop to wild relatives," the report said.
  "At the farm scale low levels of gene flow will occur at long distances and
thus complete genetic isolation will be difficult to maintain." The findings
will increase environmentalists' concerns that GM crops could introduce
unwanted genetic changes to wild plants and could strengthen the hand of
organic farmers who want to ensure GM crops are kept well away from their
fields.
  CONTAMINATION FEAR
  Earlier this week a British organic farming group said 111 organic farms
were at risk of contamination by nearby GM crops despite government-imposed
separation distances to keep the GM crops away from other farms. The EEA
report said there was, as yet, no sure way of ensuring GM crops could be
completely isolated from conventional strains or organic farms. "The use of
isolation zones, crop barrier rows and other vegetation barriers between
pollen source and recipient crops can reduce pollen dispersal, although
changing weather and environmental conditions mean that some long distance
pollen dispersal will occur," the report said.
  A spokesman for the EU biotech industry association Europabio said organic
farmers were being unreasonable to demand absolutely no cross-pollination.
"Cross-pollination is normal and natural, it happens," Europabio's Simon
Barber told Reuters. "(The organic lobby) has unilaterally declared 'our
standard is zero and if we find anything it causes us harm'."
  Organic farmers set thresholds for the presence of small amounts of
pesticides from other farms, he said, and should do the same for
cross-pollination. The European Union is struggling to create a coherent
policy on GM foods, caught between pressures from the biotech and farm
lobbies and the U.S. government to allow the new crops and fierce anti-GM
lobbying by environmental and consumer groups. The 15-country bloc has had
an informal ban on new GM strains since 1998 while it draws up tough new
measures on testing crops to ensure their safety, labelling them so
consumers can, if they wish, choose GM-free food. Because of the moratorium
on new strains, at present only a handful of GM crops may be imported or
planted in the EU.
**************************************

4. Secret EU Study Shows Genetically Engineered Crops Add High Costs for All
farmers and Threaten Organic
Press Release from Greenpeace Europe. Date: 16 May 2002
http://www.greenpeace.org/~geneng/highlights/gmo/may16coexist_report.htm

  Brussels, 16 May, 2002 - A secret EU study leaked to Greenpeace states that
all farmers would face high additional, in some cases unsustainable costs of
production if genetically engineered (GE) crops were commercially grown on a
large scale in Europe. The study predicts that the situation would become
particularly critical for organic farming of oilseed rape as well as for
intensive production of conventional maize.
  The EU Commission ordered the study on the co-existence of GE and non-GE
crops in May 2000 from the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies,
of the EU Joint Research Centre. The study was delivered to the EU
Commission in January 2002 with the recommendation that it not be made
public (1).
  "The European Commission has tried to keep this study secret", said Lorenzo
Consoli, Greenpeace EU policy advisor, "because it was afraid of its
political implications. The question is, if the introduction of GE crops on
a commercial scale in Europe increases costs of production for all farmers,
makes them more dependent from the big seed companies, and require
complicated and costly measures to avoid contamination, why should we accept
GE cultivation in the first place?" The EU study states that in oilseed rape
production the co-existence of GE and non-GE crops in a same region, even
when "technically possible", would be "economically difficult" because of
the additional costs and complexity of changes required in farming practices
in order to avoid genetic contamination.
  Both, organic and conventional farmers "would probably be forced to stop
saving seed and instead buy certified seed", because of the increased risk
of GE impurity for seeds that have been exposed to field contamination. The
study predicts that smaller farms would face relatively higher costs
compared to larger entities, and that cultivation of GE and non-GE crops in
the same farm "might be an unrealistic scenario, even for larger farms".
  The main specific findings of the report were: Commercialisation of GE
oilseed rape and maize and to a lesser extend potatoes will increase costs
of farming for conventional and organic farmers at a range between 10 and 41
per cent of farm prices for oilseed rape and between 1 and 9 per cent for
maize and potatoes. Coexistence of GE farming and organic farming would be
actually impossible in many cases.
  Generally,coexistence would only be possible with massive changes in farming
practices, especially for conventional farmers; it would also require
co-operation between farmers in a region and the willingness of all farmers
concerned to participate in such cooperation; it is not clear who would
implement these changes, who would be responsible for controlling their
correct implementation, who would shoulder their costs. Seed and crop purity
from GE at a detection level of 0,1% would be virtually impossible in most
cases, i.e. all products and seeds of oilseed rape and maize would be
contaminated with GE to a certain extent.
  The study, based on a combination of computer modelling and expert opinion,
analysed the consequences of an increase in share of GE crops in Europe. It
focused on three crops of which GE varieties are currently available:
oilseed rape for seed production, maize for feed production and potatoes for
consumption.
  The study covered several farm types, both organic and conventional farming.
It also considered three different threshold levels for genetic
contamination: 0,1% (analytical detection level) for all the three crops,
0,3 % for oilseed rape and 1% for maize and potatoes. For more information:
Lorenzo Consoli, Greenpeace EU Advisor on GMO, Mob: +32496122112; Teresa
Merilainen, Greenpeace International Press Office, Tel: +31205236637 ;
A copy of the executive summary and conclusions of the study available from
Lorenzo Consoli, email: lorenzo.consoli@diala.greenpeace.org or downloaded
at http://www.greenpeace.org/%7Egeneng/reports/eu_ge_coexist.pdf
***********************************************************

5. GM Crops Are An Economic Disaster Shows New Report
Press Release from the Soil Association. Date: 17 September 2002
http://www.soilassociation.org/sa/saweb.nsf/librarytitles/GMO12092002.html

  Genetically modified (GM)crops have been an economic disaster in the USA and
Canada according to a new report published by the Soil Association,
Britain's leading organic organization. Engineered soybeans, corn and canola
are estimated to have cost the US economy at least $12 billion (£8 billion)
since 1999 in farm subsidies, lower crop prices, loss of major export orders
and product recalls. Farmers are not achieving the higher profits promised
by the biotechnology companies as markets for GM food collapse.
  Widespread GM contamination at all levels of the food and farming industry
is the major cause of these difficulties. "GMOs have been a legal,
environmental and financial disaster for American farmers," said Jane Doe,
an Iowa soybean farmer and a member of Iowa Farmers, one of several US farm
groups that co-released the Soil Association report today. "This report is
overwhelming proof that farmers have everything to lose and little to gain
by growing GMO crops." The severity of problems with GM crops has led to
more than 200 groups representing farmers and the organic sector in the USA
and Canada to call for a ban or moratorium on the introduction of the next
major proposed GM food crop, GM wheat.
  Some politicians in the USA are so concerned that in May this year,
legislation was introduced to Congress to address the economic, market and
legal issues. The Soil Association's report is the first to reveal the
serious widespread impacts of GM crops in North America on the food and
farming industry, where three-quarters of the world's GM food is grown. It
is the most comprehensive review of the situation to be produced from a
non-biotechnology industry perspective. Peter Melchett, the Soil
Association's Policy Director said: "A decision will be made next year
whether to allow GM crops to be grown commercially in the UK.
  With agriculture still suffering a deep economic crisis, the temptation to
seize a new technology is great. GM was introduced to the USA when farmers
were financially vulnerable.. The biotechnology industry's claims that their
products would bring benefits were widely accepted, but GM crops have now
proved to be a financial liability. Growing GM crops in the UK will
undermine the competitiveness of British agriculture. We hope farmers in the
UK will take our findings seriously. Most of the world is GM-free and there
is no market for GM crops in the EU.
  The Soil Association hopes that this report will result in a better informed
public debate, and a more independent, less pressurised decision about the
possible commercial growing of GM crops in the UK. We can still avoid the
mistakes made in the USA and Canada, but only if we don't open the can of GM
worms that commercial growing of GM crops represents.
  The Government is publicly committed to ensuring that the expansion of
organic farming is not undermined by GM crops - our report shows that the
two cannot coexist." Seeds of doubt: experiences of North American farmers
of genetically modified crops, is available from the Soil Association Mail
Order Department on 0117 929 0661, mtrowell@soilassociation.org or from
http://www.soilassociation.org/gm for a price of £12.
Source: Soil Association
******************************

6. USDA Report Exposes GM Crop Economics Myth
Article from NLP Wessex. 22 August 2002
http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/usdagmeconomics.htm

  "Perhaps the biggest issue raised by these results is how to explain the
rapid adoption of GE crops when farm financial impacts appear to be mixed or
even negative." 'The Adoption of Bioengineered Crops' US Department of
Agriculture Report, May 2002 "In short the 'success' of the introduction of
GM crops in the US owes more to marketing hyperbole than it does to
objective science and agronomic delivery." 'USDA Report Exposes GM Crop
Economics Myth' nlpwessex, August 2002 The United Kingdom is about to embark
on a national debate about whether it should permit the commercial growing
of GM crops.
  The Prime Minister claims to want a scientific discussion. He thinks the
introduction of this technology will provide worthwhile economic benefits.
At the same time there is widespread belief within sections of the UK
farming community that the availability of GM crops will enable British
agriculture to compete in a cost efficient way in international markets -
the so-called 'competitiveness' factor.
  This belief stems largely from the assumption that farmers in America are
already enjoying such a competitive advantage (albeit a belief which seems
to ignore the most important question as to how much of a market there is
for GM produce outside of America). Reinforcing this perception the UK's
leading agricultural journal 'Farmers Weekly' published an article 12 July
entitled "Data shows economic success for GM crops" based on a study
produced by the US National Centre for Food and Agricultural Policy (NCFAP).
This report made some strong claims regarding the economic performance of GM
crops.
  However, agricultural journalists rarely have time to read such reports in
detail, and often do not pay much attention to who has funded them - in this
case the study was part financed by Monsanto and the Biotechnology Industry
Organisation (BIO). BIO's remit since 1993 has included responsibility for
"Shaping political and public reaction to the genetically modified foods
that were poised to enter supermarkets".
  However, in the same month that the NCFAP report was published the Economic
Research Service (ERS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
released its own extensive analysis of the economic performance of GM crops
in America. This revealed a completely different picture. Indeed, the USDA
report goes so far as to conclude that "Perhaps the biggest issue raised by
these results is how to explain the rapid adoption of GE crops when farm
financial impacts appear to be mixed or even negative." Mark Griffiths, the
editor of the nlpwessex GM news service wrote to Farmers Weekly on this
subject.
  A copy of the letter providing a summary of his analysis of the USDA report
was printed in the 16 August edition of the journal as reproduced below.
Following the publication of the USDA report it is clear that British
farmers can be confident that the proposed introduction of
herbicide-tolerant GM crops in the UK is unlikely to add to the
profitability of their farms (although it will almost certainly alienate the
general public who are both their customers and the funders of agricultural
subsidies).
  As economics are the principal reason for farmers' interest in GM crops, it
is important to recognise in these circumstances that British agriculture
has little to lose and much to gain if the country as a whole decides to
remain GM-free at the end of the national debate . Quite apart from the
issue of crop marketability (which it does not focus on) the USDA's latest
detailed analysis of national farm data reveals that GM crops have not
generally delivered economic competitive advantage to US farmers - even
though that is what many farmers themselves believe.
  This is a situation which has been documented at length by nlpwessex on its
web site and which has been disseminated via its email news service over a
long period. It has collated and made available extensive material
originating from as far back as 1996 when GM crops were first introduced on
widespread scale. However, the latest USDA report reveals for the first time
from an official US government source using unequivocal language, that most
of the basic economic claims made for GM crops are either false or suspect.
 That the myth of such economic 'benefits' should have lasted so long says a
great deal about the nature of modern agricultural science and the way it is
communicated to farmers by vested interests. Most of the points in the USDA
report highlighting the disappointing agronomic performance of GM crops will
be familiar to regular readers of nlpwessex bulletins.
 However, there is one aspect of the new report which has not received much
previous attention, but which is especially interesting. Based on its
analysis of the most widely grown GM crop, soya, the report confirms that
"Using herbicide-tolerant seed did not significantly affect no-till
adoption". This finding sits in stark contrast to the claims of those who
have attempted to promote GM crops on the back of rising economic and
environmental interest in no-till crop husbandry. As the USDA report points
out, the no-till acreage in America had already been steadily rising before
the introduction of GM crops.
 That prior trend has since simply continued. In fact to some degree it has
subsequently stagnated according to the USDA analysis. It has never been
necessary to grow GM crops in order to carry out no-till agriculture. In
fact the countries that have been expanding no-till agriculture at the
fastest rate in proportion to their total arable area are in Latin America,
where only Argentina grows GM crops on a substantial commercial scale
(no-till was introduced on tractor-mechanised and large farms in Paraguay in
1990 and by 1997 51% of its total cultivated area was 'no-tilled'. The
relative figures in 2000/1 are for Paraquay 52%, Argentina 32%, Brazil 21%,
and the United States 16%.).
  In the end the USDA report struggles to explain why there has been such a
rapid uptake of GM crops in the US, although it refers to a possible
'convenience' factor. However, a separate study funded by Iowa State
University carried out in 1998 reveals that GM crop uptake can be driven as
much by how well farmers believe the crops deliver, as it is by factual data
on their real performance. In the world of commerce and marketing perception
is, of course, everything. The Iowa study confirmed that over half of
farmers planting herbicide-tolerant GM soya did so because they believed
that it gave them higher yields compared to conventional varieties.
  However, when the university analysed the harvest results of the farms
concerned they found the opposite was true despite the belief of the farmers
to the contrary (it is in fact now recognised that genetic modification has
actually reduced the yield potential of GM soya by inadvertently disturbing
other aspects of the plant's functioning). A subsequent study from the
University looked in detail at the on-farm financial performance of soya
crops in Iowa.
  It confirmed that after taking into account costs relating to seed,
herbicides, fertiliser, all machinery operations, insurance, and a land
charge "there is essentially no difference in costs between the tolerant and
non-tolerant fields". However, because of their higher yields the non-GM
crops made a profit for their growers, whereas the GM varieties did not. The
study suggests advertising pressure as one possible reason for the rise in
the use of herbicide-tolerant soya beans despite their disappointing
economic performance. In short the 'success' of the introduction of GM crops
in the US owes more to marketing hyperbole than it does to objective science
and agronomic delivery.
  This regrettable development has been apparent for some time. Professor
Charles Hagedorn, an Extension specialist working in conjunction with
Virginia State University and the US Department of Agriculture,
characterised it in September 1998 as "a classic case of what has been
described in the [scientific] literature as a situation where commercial
development and marketing is way ahead of the science." It is surely
important that the future of world agriculture is developed on the basis of
sound science, and not on the basis of those technologies which simply have
the biggest PR and marketing budgets or on which the largest number of
academic posts are perceived to depend (the potential loss of such posts as
a result of public opposition to GM technology is a natural but misplaced
fear of the scientific community. Other aspects of modern biotechnology are
widely acceptable to the public and are in fact recognised even by industry
as having greater long term potential than the incorporation of recombinant
DNA into organisms.
 This area in fact offers a potential 'solution' to the GM debate where the
aspirations of both the scientific community and the wider public can be
simultaneously satisfied). If the greatest public good is to be served by
any new technology it is essential that the science on which it is based is
subject to thorough analysis and scrutiny. In this respect it is worth
examining a number of aspects of the NCFAP report prominently featured in
Farmers Weekly in July. A large part of the report is in fact concerned with
what it is hoped GM crops might do in the future as opposed to the known
performance of currently approved varieties.
 In addition the NCFAP report indicates that in the process of producing the
range of results presented it has changed the methodology used in its
earlier studies. It can be expected that there will be some scientists who
will seek to challenge a number of the new assumptions deployed (nonetheless
the study does acknowledge that some results from others researchers which
have previously suggested improved GM yields may be accounted for by higher
fertiliser use). Although the report cites various references, remarkably it
ignores what is arguably the most rigorous scientific work ever completed in
the discipline..
 This research carried out by the University of Nebraska has confirmed the
poor yield performance of GM herbicide resistant soya, the world's biggest
GM crop. In particular it concluded that the low yields appear to have been
caused by the genetic modification itself and not by any adverse effect from
the new herbicide to which it had been engineered to be resistant: "Yields
were suppressed with GR [glyphosate resistant] soybean cultivars....
  The work reported here demonstrates that a 5% yield suppression was related
to the gene or its insertion process and another 5% suppression was due to
cultivar genetic differential. Producers should consider the potential for
5-10% yield differentials between GR and non-GR cultivars as they evaluate
the overall profitability of producing soybean." The NCFAP report's failure
to acknowledge this study is all the more astonishing because it is one of
the few tightly controlled agronomic trials of a GM herbicide resistant
crop - using as near isogenic sister line controls as available - to have
been published in a peer reviewed scientific journal (Agronomy Journal
93:408-412 (2001)).
  Few studies, if any, have been subjected to the same degree of scientific
rigour in this field. There is, however, general agreement amongst
scientists that Bt insecticide cotton (a crop not relevant to the UK) has
resulted in reduced insecticide applications. How sustainable this proves to
be due to concerns over the development of insect resistance to any toxin
based approach (whether dealing with chemical sprays or toxins genetically
engineered into plants) remains to be seen.
 Moreover Bt cotton has never eliminated the use of insecticides; and
research on Bt varieties in Australia has showed insecticide applications
steadily rising over the three years ending 1999. Even at this stage
'Innovate Australia' (representing Australia's food, fibre and natural
resources research and development corporations) states "Economic benefits
for growers from the new [Bt cotton] technology have been variable but
generally only small when compared to conventional cotton". Already there
are plans to phase out the first generation of Bt cotton varieties in
Australia because of problems in this area.
  The relief offered by the replacement 'twin' toxin Bt varieties due to be
introduced may be short lived. According to an article published in Cotton
World September 2001 the chief executive of the Australian Cotton
Cooperative Research Centre, Dr Garry Fitt, warned that 'two gene' cotton
will further alter the balance of insect pests, with possible increases in
aphids and green vegetable bug populations.
  It seems unlikely, therefore, that this approach will provide a satisfactory
long term alternative to insect predator based Intregrated Pest Management
(IPM) techniques which the Australians are now developing with some
considerable success. Interestingly the NCFAP report states that "Bt cotton
is credited with saving the cotton industry in Alabama." By chance nlpwessex
corresponded with an agricultural Extension specialist in Alabama from
Auburn University in May 2000.
 He was a Bt cotton enthusiast. Nlpwessex asked him a number of questions
related to cotton husbandry practices in Alabama and the use of IPM
techniques. One question was "How often is cotton grown in the same field?"
to which the response was "in north Alabama there are fields that have not
been out of cotton production since before the civil war (ours) about 150
years.... and some of those fields are down to nil in the organic matter
department".. More generally he advised that rotation practice varied from
continuous cotton to - at best - cotton every other year and that "Most
plant at least half [the farm in cotton]. Some all."
  This situation is not confined to Alabama. According to Professor Robert
Hayes of the University of Tennessee: "Unfortunately, most cotton producers
do not practice crop rotation, and if they do it is short rotation".
Nonetheless, the USDA report confirms that the majority of cotton farmers
(63%) did not plant Bt varieties in 2001 - presumably because they
considered it either unnecessary or uneconomic. Meanwhile an article in New
Scientist 17 August 2002 reported on new chemical patents secured by
Monsanto which acknowledge that insect control through transgenic plants
"may not be desirable in the long term" because it produces resistant
strains and "numerous problems remain... under actual field conditions".
  And it's not just Bt crops where the basic functionality of the technology
is in danger of faltering. University weed science specialists reported at a
meeting of a 'No-Till Field Day' earlier this month that
glyphosate-resistant 'marestail' is now a problem on around 200,000 acres of
soya beans in west Tennessee. The same problem is reported to be affecting
36 percent of all cotton acreage in the state. Monsanto are now recommending
changes in weed control practices for next year (the prospect of post
adoption changes in GM crop husbandry practices as exemplified here is one
which brings into further question the usefulness of the UK's own GM farm
scale trials).
  Little of this sounds like significant progress towards sustainable
agriculture, one simple test of which is to ask the question "can you keep
doing it?". The latest situation in Tennessee also represents a very rapid
development as the first glyphosate-resistant marestail did not arise until
1999. A simplistic 'one size fits all' approach to farm management of the
kind encouraged by the arrival of GM 'input trait' crops is always going to
be at risk of creating agro-ecological problems that ultimately become a
husbandry burden. In this case there have been a few years of supposedly
trouble free production and then what amounts to technology breakdown.
  Glyphosate-tolerant soya volunteers in follow-on 'Roundup Ready' cotton
crops are also becoming a problem which is "especially challenging"
according to Professor Hayes. To deal with this and other emerging weed
control failures in GM cotton crops increasingly the advice is to use
glyphosate in conjunction with additional herbicides. The same is happening
with other crop categories and with glufosinate-tolerant varieties. A
herbicide mixtures patent obtained by Monsanto in 2001 suggests that it
expects this problem to become widespread.
  These difficulties are not addressed in the NCFAP report despite the Farmers
Weekly article describing it as "Considered to be the most comprehensive
study to date on the economic and environmental benefits of biotech crops in
the US". Fortunately, beyond cotton and the big animal feed sectors served
by soya and maize production, few US producers seem to be buying into the
technology. The NCFAP report confirms that Florida sweet corn growers are
not planting transgenic cultivars even though these have been commercially
registered since 1998.
 Packers do not wish to jeopardise the market for US sweet corn which is used
for direct human consumption. For similar reasons GM sugar beet and
potatoes, although also approved for cultivation, are not being adopted by
US farmers either. The NCAP report confirms that processors have not been
accepting these crops and that Monsanto closed its potato division in 2001.
  A United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) report published in
2000 revealed that the world is able to more than adequately feed itself
decades into the future without recourse to GM crops.
 It forecasts large increases in production in the developing world using
'present-day' technical knowledge only. Given the overall agronomic and
market performance of GM crops in practice, the increasing resistance to
their introduction in the world's poorer countries - much publicised in
recent weeks - seems to be well advised. However, it remains to be seen
whether this view will be allowed to prevail at next week's World Summit on
Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, South Africa. If there is to be a
genuinely scientific approach to the future sustainability of global
agriculture, then this view must not be trampled on.

NATURAL LAW PARTY WESSEX nlpwessex@btinternet.com http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex
**********************************

7. Soya Soya everywhere
Article from Corporate Watch. Date: 2 December 2002

  As Argentina tumbles further into financial crisis, an inspiring popular
rebellion has been spreading across the country. The revolt exploded on
December 20th 2001, when over a million people took to the streets, banging
their pots and pans, ousting the government and calling for 'Que Se Vayan
Todos' - 'they all must go'. This radical movement is demanding that the
entire political class should leave the stage - politicians from every
party, the supreme court, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the
corporations, the banks - so that the people themselves can decide the fate
of their economically crippled country.
  The political space that has opened up out of the chaos has seen amazingly
creative response. From the 'Trueque' barter network which 7 million people
are using instead of money, to 'asambleas' - neighbourhood meetings based on
consensus which have started to squat and develop social centres. Also
workers occupying factories and self-managing their workplaces.
  The downside of this political chaos has seen multinationals running
rampage, in particular our old friends, Monsanto. Monsanto arrived in
Argentina in 1996, seducing farmers with the promise of Roundup Ready
soybeans. Pretty soon over 90% agreed to adopt the technology which gave
Monsanto a higher take-up rate among farmers in Argentina than in the whole
of the USA. Argentina is now the 2nd biggest producer of GM crops after the
USA.
  Looking at the crude statistics since the adoption of GM crop technology,
Argentina's total soya crop has doubled to 27 million tons, and exports have
increased rapidly. However, this growth in output is solely a result of the
increase in acreage under soybean cultivation, as farmers switch from maize,
cotton and wheat production. In fact, RoundUp Ready soybeans have had a 5-6%
lower yield, and Argentina's farmers are now worse off, as the increase in
soya production has caused global prices to drop.
  Biotech farming has also caused the dislocation of 300,000 small and medium
farmers from their land, and the take over of farming by investment funds
and 'pooles de siembra', big anonymous farm management companies. Of course,
the increase in trade has been to the advantage of the big grain traders,
Dreyfus, Cargill et al, who are also said to be evading taxes (to the tune
of around US$1300 million) and regulation in the political chaos. Compare
this to the $8000 million of external debt that Argentina had to pay this
year. Argentina's environment has also suffered.
  Native woodland has disappeared as the soya front has advanced. Sales
figures suggest farmers are overdosing the 12 million hectares of land under
GM cultivation with 80 million litres of herbicide each year; this has
seriously damaged soil quality. Monsanto has not only infiltrated
Argentina's agriculture, but is now totally transforming the Argentinean
diet. While much of the soya produced in Argentina is exported, Monsanto is
also flooding local markets full of desperate hungry people with GM soya,
usually used for animal feed, for human consumption.
  The generous grain traders are also donating 1 tonne in every 1000 tonnes of
Argentinean soya as food aid through a 'charity' programme called 'Soya
Solidair'. This soya aid is everywhere, in homeless shelters and soup
kitchens, and Monsanto is essentially being paid to distribute its soya -
which it can't find a market for in Europe - to the poor of Argentina. Soya
is not a traditional food for the Argentineans - it is generally grown as
cattle feed.
  As the staple diet of milk and meat is being replaced by soya, aid agencies
are having to send out recipes telling people how to cook it. Meanwhile,
various native grains are no longer available in the grocery shops of Buenos
Aires. There are also serious potential health considerations that will
result from an over reliance on soya in the diet. Argentina is a crucial
market for Monsanto. During the nineties, they invested heavily in
Argentinean and Brazilian seed companies as well as offering extensive
credit to farmers to purchase their seeds and pesticides.
  With the Argentinean economy collapsing, Monsanto has had to write off
around $2 billion of 'goodwill', as the seed companies have now become
worthless and, with the massive devaluation of the peso, much of the credit
extended to farmers will never be recovered. This explains why they are
trying to squeeze every last penny out of an impoverished Argentina. Times
are also hard for Monsanto.
  Now purely an agrochemical and seed business, it is under pressure from
persistently low commodity prices and industry consolidation - bigger
competitors competing for a shrinking market. Before the economic collapse,
Argentina had been a major customer. The irony of this all is the fact that
many Argentineans, even the left wingers, see genetically engineered soya as
their salvation. Soya animal feed is Argentina's main export, and its only
way of generating foreign income. With the major presence of Monsanto, the
Argentinean people have had little access to information about the health
and environmental risks of GM crops, and little information about the
worldwide rejection of GM technology.
 More than this, there must be a realisation that if Argentina does not want
to repeat the cycle of debt and structural adjustment imposed on it by the
IMF, it must break free from the corporations that are exporting its wealth
and destroying its economy. A more sustainable and small scale agriculture
that invests in the long term health of the environment must form a part of
the solution.

Sources
*Monsanto Earnings Down on Bad Debt' by Julianne Johnson. 23 July 2002.
Agweb.com
*Email from Craig Sams 'Re: Monsanto's Earnings Down on Bad Debt' on
www.ngin.org
*Genetically Modified Company' The Economist August 15 2002
*Argentina is not a social laboratory it is a soya laboratory' by Javiera
Rulli
*Why Argentina can't feed itself' Sue Brandford. The Ecologist. Oct 2002.
www.argentina.indymedia.org
******************************

8. Failure of Bt. Cotton in India
Press Release from Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology
(RFSTE). Date: 26 September 2002

  How many more farmers will Monsanto sacrifice for creating profits by
selling deceit On 26th March 2002 inspite of inadequate tests of biosafety
and viability, Monsanto managed to get clearance for commercial planting of
three varieties of genetically engineered Bt. cotton from Genetic
Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) under Ministry of Environment and
Forests (MoEF).
  Ironically, this permission was granted in spite of an ongoing Supreme Court
case, filed by RFSTE, challenging the 1998 field trials and stating that
there were numerous irregularities and violations of biosafety laws and
guidelines in previous year field trials. Even then the GEAC have cleared Bt
cotton for commercial release by Monsanto-Mahyco. The Research Foundation
for Science, Technology and Ecology (RFSTE), Navdanya, farmers unions and
public interests groups in India had warned the government that this
irresponsible, rushed clearance would have high cost for farmers in terms of
the economic sovereignty and seed sovereignty.
  What we have had predicted has come true. In three major states Bt. cotton
has been wiped out completely leaving farmers in great economic and
livelihood crisis. Not only the new pests and diseases emerged, the Bt.
cotton has failed to even prevent bollworm attack for which it has been
designed. While Bt. cotton is sold as pest resistant seed in India, it has
proved to be more vulnerable to pest and diseases than the traditional and
conventional varieties. Madhya Pradesh, the heart of the cotton-growing belt
in India, witnessed total failure of genetically engineered Bt. cotton.
  The farmers of Khargoan district where Bt. is a 100% failure are up in arms
against Monsanto-Mahyco that supplied these GM seeds and are demanding
compensation from the company for the failure of their crop. The failure of
the Bt. cotton has devastated the farmers since they have spent five to six
times to buy seeds of Bt. than the normal seed.
  The economics that was worked out by the Indian Council of Agricultural
Research (ICAR), Genetic Engineering Approval Committee and Monsanto-Mahyco
to promote this unsustainable technology has turned out to be untrue. Bt.
cotton has been afflicted with the 'leaf curl virus' in the whole of
northern states of India. Dr Venugopal, ex-project coordinator of the
Central Institute for Cotton Research (CICR), Coimbatore told Business Line
that while some of the private hybrids and varieties released earlier were
resistant to LCV, Bt cotton was found susceptible to LCV.
  In Maharashtra, the adjoining state of Madhya Pradesh, the same story has
been repeated. In Vidarbha, primarily cotton growing area in Maharashtra,
Bt. cotton crop has failed miserably. The first GE crop has been failed in
30,000 hectares in this district alone, completely devastating the already
poor farming community. The farmers of the area are demanding a compensation
of Rs. 5000 million (500 crores rupees) to meet their economic loss lest
they would take a legal action against the Government of Maharashtra and
Monsanto-Mahyco for allowing sale of inadequately tested GM seeds. The Bt.
cotton crop in Vidarbha has been badly affected by the root-rot disease, a
disease of roots.
  It is believed that this disease is caused due to wrong selection of Bt
genes developed in America and brought to India. Many farmers have recorded
only upto 50% germination of seeds and many others had poor germination,
which is suspected to be caused by both, drought and poor seed quality.
While other cotton varieties have also been adversely affected by the
drought, they report a failure rate of only around 20%. President of the
Vidarbha Jan Andolan Samiti, Mr. Kishore Tiwari, gave a legal notice to
Ministry of Agriculture demanding the recovery of loss of Rs. 500 (5000
million rupees) crore incurred by the farmers due to sowing of Bt.
cottonseeds.
  The main idea behind approving genetically engineered Bt. cotton as a
commercial crop was that this would increase farmers' income by reducing
expenditure on chemical pesticides, which accounts for 70-80% of the total
expenditure on hybrid cotton due to the heavy infestation of pest, mainly
American Bollworm in last 3-4 years and the increased evolution of
resistance to the chemical pesticides.
  However, in Gujarat there is a heavy infestation of bollworm on the Bt.
cotton in the districts of Bhavanagar, Surendranagar and Rajkot. Initially
Bt. Cotton was found resistant to Bollworms in the early phase of plant
growth, but as soon as the formation of boll has started, the worms started
attacking them. The Department of Agriculture, Government of Gujarat has
written to the Gujarat Agricultural University to submit a status report
providing detailed information about the kind and intensity of the damage.
  It has also been found that Gujarat is growing 18,000 hectares of the Bt.
cotton more than the permitted 12,000 hectares by the Government of India.
(Gujarat Samachar, 21st September 2002) The failure of Bt. cotton case in
India reaffirms RFSTE's stand of safety first- commercial release of any new
genetically engineered crops (e.g. transgenic mustard) and organisms must be
frozen till a proper independent tests are conducted, the proper biosafety
structure are put in place and capacity is built at the multiple level of
governments as well as farmers to deal with biosafety issues.
  It is not just in the case of Bt. cotton that corporation like Monsanto are
deceiving poor farmers. Monsanto is pushing the farmers of drought stricken
and famine-ridden Udaipur and neighbouring districts of Rajasthan to take to
industrial farming of maize, and to use its Roundup, no doubt as a prelude
to introducing the genetically engineered Roundup Ready varieties once
farmers are further pushed on to this ecologically genocidal herbicide trap.
  But Monsanto is introducing hybrid corn and Roundup (herbicide) with false
claims to deceive poor and innocent farmers of Rajasthan. Monsanto claims
that as a result of the Humsafar programme, the yield of maize rose from 25
quintals per hectare to 50 quintals per hectare and the profitability of the
farmers also doubled form Rs. 7500 per hectare to Rs. 15000 per hectare,
whereas its publicity brochures distributed among the farmers is claiming
even much higher yields i.e. 50-90 quintals per acre (125-225/ hectare).
  However, a study conducted by RFSTE shows that Monsanto claims are based on
utter lies. Monsanto's own field staff at Wana and Menar villages in Udaipur
reported that their varieties have achieved maize productivity of only 12
quintals/acre (30 quintal/hec.). Three Different and Contradictory
Productivity Claims by Monsanto: ~ Reported by Monsanto field staff: 2.4
qtls/ bigha ; 12 qtls/acre ; 30 qtls/ hectares ~ Reported by Monsanto for
the Humsafar Award: 4 qtls/ bigha ; 20 qtls/acre ; 50 qtls/ hectares ~
Reported by Monsanto in its brochure: 18-20 qtls/ bigha ; 50-90 qtls/acre ;
125-225 qtls/ hect.
  However discussion with farmers growing Monsanto varieties and desi (local)
varieties reveals that there is hardly any difference in the yield compared
to the desi maize varieties. While desi maize varieties yield 6 quintals per
acre (15 quintals per hectare) whereas Monsanto varieties yield 7 quintals
per acre (17.5 quintals per hectare). Moreover there is a vast difference in
the cost of the desi and Monsanto varieties. While cost of these Monsanto
seeds vary from Rs. 250 to 275 for a packet of 5 Kg., whereas the same
quantity of Desi/Local varieties costs only Rs. 25/-. However there have
been no tests, whether these "high yielding" hybrid varieties seeds are
genetic engineered. This is urgently required since Monsanto has recently
extended its operation to 98 villages in Udaipur, Chittorgarh and Banswara
districts of Rajasthan and so far So far about 80 tonnes of seed have been
sold to the farmers of the region.
  However, Monsanto's much-lauded project "Humsafar" actually involves the
introduction of its eco-narcotic, Roundup (the controversial
glysophate-based herbicide) to small and marginal peasants Udaipur, and
turning an important local food and fodder crop into raw material for
industry. Monsanto, through its new varieties of maize, is pushing to
increase the sales of its broad-based herbicide Roundup in Rajasthan. For
Roundup, farmers are being totally misled about its safety in a region,
which is drought prone, the ready recipe for desertification. Herbicide use
is supposed to reduce labour involved in tilling and weeding, and at the
same time, reduce competition for nutrition and space by killing of the
weeds. The concept of weeds as competing for nutrition and space with
cultivated crops is the result of monocultures, where all crops other than
the one being "cultivated" is considered a weed.
  However, small farmers, such as the farmers in Rajasthan, traditionally
cultivate more than one crop at a time. In fact, in typical traditional
Indian agriculture, there is no concept of weeds. Plants that are not sown
often provide food for humans, cattle, and finally for the soil as green
manure. Many of these plants and their roots form the most critical
ingredient of food security in the drought-stricken region, where people
stave off famine through consuming these plants. Often, the supposed weeds
are a source of medicine for humans, for animals and for plants; they also
may have pesticidal or other beneficial properties. Udaipur region in fact,
is rich in its naturally growing medicinal plant diversity used by thousands
of traditional healers for ayurvedic preparations.
  The killing of agro-biodiversity by the broad spectrum herbicide will only
wipeout the rich medicinal plants biodiversity but also the fodder for
animals the which has become more scarce due to drought in Rajasthan.
 Already hundreds of animals have died in Rajasthan, the scarcity of fodder
will lead to increased starvation and deaths of animals. The case of both
Bt. cotton and hybrid corn-Roundup sales confirms that the corporations like
Monsanto are not selling farmers' prosperity but disaster.
  It is time for an independent assessment of Monsanto's seeds and products
worldwide. Meantime the scientific call for a freeze on commercial release
of any genetically engineered crop must be headed if poor peasants have to
be saved.
  For any further information: Research Foundation for Science,
Technology and Ecology (RFSTE) A - 60, Hauz Khas, New Delhi - 110016, INDIA
Tel: +91-11-6561868, 6562093, Fax: +91-11-6856795, 6562093,
Email:rfste@vsnl.com
********************************

9. Monsanto's Modified Soya Beans are Cracking Up in the Heat
Magazine Article from the New Scientist. Date: 20 November 1999. Andy
Coughlan http://www.organicconsumers.org/Monsanto/gmsoydefect.cfm

  Splitting headache
  IT SEEMS barely a week goes by without another piece of
bad news for the agribiotech giant Monsanto. Now researchers in the US have
found that hot climates don't agree with Monsanto's herbicide-resistant soya
beans, causing stems to split open and crop losses of up to 40 per cent.
 This could be a serious blow to the St Louis-based company, which sees
Brazil and other Latin American countries as major markets for its soya
beans. "It has the potential to be quite a problem," says Bill Vencill of
the University of Georgia in Athens. Vencill examined the effects of heat on
the engineered soya beans after farmers in the southern state alerted him to
unexpected crop losses.
  He realised that most severe losses occurred during Georgia's two hottest
springs since the beans were launched in 1996. "In the years we saw the
problems, the soils were reaching 40 to 50 #161#C," says Vencill. His team
replicated these conditions in laboratory growth chambers, comparing the
hardiness of the Monsanto plants with that of conventional strains of soya
bean.
  In soils that reached only 25 #161#C during the day, the genetically
modified Monsanto beans grew just as well as conventional beans. But in
warmer soils, the Monsanto plants appeared stunted. And in soils reaching 45
#161#C, the differences were marked (see Figure). Vencill described the
findings at a meeting of the British Crop Protection Council in Brighton
this week. "We saw lower heights, yields and weights in the Monsanto beans,"
says Vencill. Worse still, stems of virtually all the Monsanto beans split
open as the first leaves began to emerge compared with between 50 and 70 per
cent of the other test plants.
  This same phenomenon had occurred on farms, but had been blamed on fungal
disease. "Instead, we think the stem splits, and it exposes the plant to
secondary infection," says Vencill. Vencill suspects that the phenomenon is
the result of changes in plant physiology caused by the addition of genes
making the beans resistant to glyphosate, the herbicide marketed as Roundup
by Monsanto.
  Plants carrying these genetic alterations have been shown to produce up to
20 per cent more lignin, the tough, woody form of cellulose. "We think it
might make the plants more brittle," says Vencill. Intriguingly, he found
that plants resistant to a different herbicide, gluphosinate, were not
affected by the heat, so he concludes the problem must be peculiar to
glyphosate resistance. "It's not genetic modification per se that's causing
the effects," he says.
  Vencill says that the bacterial enzyme that imparts resistance to glyphosate
affects a major metabolic pathway in the plant, and has the side effect of
sending lignin production "into overdrive". Gluphosinate resistance, by
contrast, is achieved using a gene that simply enables plants to break down
the herbicide. Monsanto says it can't comment in detail on Vencill's results
"until we've seen a published and peer-reviewed article". But a spokesman
suggests that farmers might avoid the problem by choosing a variety of
engineered soya bean that is better suited to hot conditions.
************************************************

10. Genetically-Modified Superweeds "Not Uncommon"
Article from New Scientist. Date: 5 February 2002. James Randerson
http://www.newscientist.com

   Oilseed rape plants resistant to three or more herbicides are "not uncommon"
in Canada, says a report commissioned by English Nature, the UK government's
advisory body on conservation. The so-called 'superweeds' result from
accidental crosses between neighbouring crops that have been genetically
modified to resist different herbicides. Farmers are often forced to resort
to older stronger herbicides to remove them.
  Brian Johnson, at English Nature is alarmed by the speed of the process:
"This has happened in three or four years," he says. The report predicts
that, in the UK, plants with multiple herbicide resistance will be "almost
impossible to prevent unless the crops are very widely dispersed." Adrian
Bebb, of Friends of the Earth claims the research leaves a stark choice:
"Either we keep the current separation distances between GM and non-GM
crops, in which case contamination and gene stacking looks certain. Or we
can have an effective separation distance - of at least three miles - in
which case GM crops have no commercial future in the UK. There is no third
way."
  However, Paul Rylott of biotech company Aventis argues many herbicide
tolerant crops are created through conventional breeding, "GM crops are no
different." He suggests that crossing between conventional varieties could
have the same result. But Johnson notes that resistance bred into plant
varieties tends to be much weaker and there is no evidence of 'superweeds'
having been created in this way.
  Multiple resistance Oil seed rape, or canola, is typically alternated on a
two-yearly cycle with a cereal crop such as wheat. Multiple resistant oil
seed rape appears as a weed in the following year's crop, especially around
field margins where seeds spilled during harvest can gather. The Canadian
study found that these plants contained resistance genes from up to three GM
varieties - so-called gene stacking.
  Farmers were forced to resort to a different and much more persistent
herbicide, 2,4-D, to control them. Multiple resistant 'superweeds' would not
be capable of taking over the countryside says Johnson. "They would only
have an advantage in agricultural fields," he says. "But agricultural land
is very important for biodiversity in Britain." So widespread use of
persistent herbicides to remove the 'superweeds' could be disastrous. The
biotechnology industry has admitted being slow to engage in the public
debate over GM crops. "We haven't done a brilliant job in the past of
selling the benefits of GM," says Tony Combes of Monsanto, "Support for GM
is dependent on people being able to weigh the benefits against their
concerns."
  An opinion poll commissioned by the industry and released on Tuesday
suggests that two thirds of people feel they do not know enough about GM and
that many would be more favourable to the technology if environmental or
health benefits could be demonstrated.
****************************************************

11. Glyphosate- Resistant Weeds - Will They Decrease Land Value?
Article by Norfolk Genetic Information Network (NGIN).
Date: 23 December 2002 http://www.ngin.org.uk

  The US is being hit by Roundup Ready resistant weeds and an independent
market research study, which has been discreetly circulating and has been
seen by GM WATCH, says Roundup Ready resistance is set to hit the economic
value of farmland wiping around 17% off US land rentals. What's more, 46% of
the farm managers surveyed in the study said weed resistance to glyphosate,
the active ingredient in Monsanto's herbicide Roundup, is now their top
weed-resistance concern.
  The report warns, "Suddenly, glyphosate-resistant weeds have become more
than an in-season production and profitability issue. They can also affect
the long-term value of farmland". It also says, "These survey findings
should make both farm managers and landowners take notice" because "The
economic consequences are significant" and can represent for landowners "a
major loss of cash flow". Glyphosate is being massively used in North
America thanks to Monsanto's GM herbicide-resistant 'Roundup Ready' crops.
But there is growing concern among weed scientists and land owners about the
emergence of glyphosate- resistance. As the report notes, "The high volume
of glyphosate being used across the country as a result of RR technology
adoption makes this a very real concern for growers, professional farm
managers and the owners of farmland." Glyphosate-resistant marestail has
already been found in Delaware, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana and Ohio.
  Marestail (horseweed) is a prolific seed producer and the seeds are easily
blown around by the wind so this is a major problem. But the problem doesn't
stop there.
  Glyphosate-resistant rigid ryegrass has been reported in California. Weed
scientists in Iowa and Missouri are already testing waterhemp from fields
that seem to be showing more tolerance to glyphosate. There are also
complaints about marginal control of velvetleaf, ivyleaf morningglory and
lambsquarters control with glyphosate. The latest bad news for Monsanto,
which has always promoted Roundup as a way of simplifying farm management
issues, comes courtesy of its main rival, the world's largest biotech
company, Syngenta, which commissioned the market research study report and
has been quietly circulating it to farmers and landowners via its PR
company, Gibbs & Soell. Syngenta hopes to profit from the wave of concern
over Roundup resistance as people rush to use extra chemicals, and crop
rotations not involving RR crops, to try and head off the build up of
glyphosate resistance on their land.
  But American famers using Roundup Ready crops could be headed up a cul-de-
sac. According to weed scientists, such as Iowa State University's Mike
Owen, it's doubtful whether this kind of resistance management will be
viewed as economically feasible at least in the short term. As Owen told a
packed-out meeting of North Central Weed Science Society in St. Louis
recently, he expects growers to try and carry on using glyphosate in the
same way to try and avoid the extra expense of other chemicals until they
are finally forced by resistance to switch to something else.
  But an article reporting on the Weed Science Society meeting concludes,
"With few, if any, new blockbuster chemicals in the pipeline, the question
may become whether there will be alternative programs to switch to if
glyphosate loses its effectiveness." [see "Glyphosate resistance dominates
weed science meetings", Mike Holmberg, Farm Chemicals Editor, Successful
Farming December 6, 2002, http://www.biotech-info.net/dominating.html]
Among the CONCLUSIONS in the Syngenta report: -Specific weed resistance can
reduce a farm's rentable value by 17 percent -The greatest weed-resistance
concern is glyphosate tolerance in RR crops -More than half of farm managers
placed it ahead of their concerns about weed resistance to atrazine,
Pursuit, ALS herbicides or propanil -Almost two-thirds (63 percent) of these
professional farm managers expect the importance of glyphosate tolerance to
increase in the future when determining rental values and land appraisals.
"Given the increasing adoption of RR technology in corn,soybeans and
cotton,these professional farm managers and rural appraisers felt the
importance of glyphosate- resistant weeds will increase in the
future.Overall, 63 percent said it will become a bigger problem." -Almost
half (47 percent)now require practices to manage weed resistance.
  This is expected to grow to 54 percent in the future -Seventy percent said
the use of weed resistance-management practices already influence their
tenant selection. The report also looks at western Australia, where weed
resistance to herbicides is becoming a big problem for land productivity.
  Syngenta's 10-page 'White Paper' describing the research and the results is
available as a pdf (requires Acrobat) on line:
http://www.ecast.protusfax.com/redirector.asp?URL=http://www.syngentacropprotection-us.com/Resources/Prod/Touchdown/Land_Values.pdf&BID=45925538&EID=4491.pdf

Or e-mail your request for a copy of the report to Jennifer McManus of Gibbs & Soell at
********************************************************

12. Adverse Environmental Impacts of GE Bt Cotton Chinese Experience
Illustrates the Need for International Liability Rules
Press Release from Greenpeace International. Date: 4 June 2002
http://www.greenpeace.org/%7Egeneng/highlights/gmo/jun3_china.htm

BEIJING/AMSTERDAM, 4 JUNE 2002 -
  A Greenpeace report reviewing Chinese experience of genetically engineered
(GE) Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) cotton shows adverse environmental impacts
after just five years of commercial growing, concluding that the variety
will be ineffective in controlling pests after eight to ten years of
continuous production.
  Bt cotton is the main GE crop variety grown in large-scale commercial
production in China. Laboratory tests and field monitoring conducted by four
Chinese state-owned science institutes verify: - a resistance build-up
towards Bt in the main target pest, cotton bollworm: susceptibility of
bollworm to the Bt toxin fell to 30 percent after 17 generations under
continuous feeding with Bt cotton leaves.
  The resistance of the bollworm increased 1000 times when the feeding was
continued to the 40th generation. - a significant reduction of the parasitic
natural enemies of cotton bollworm. - an increase of secondary pests: e.g.
cotton aphids, cotton spider mites, thrips and others, replaced the cotton
bollworm as primary pests in some of the cotton fields. These factors have
forced farmers to continue the use of chemical pesticides, and increased the
possibility of outbreaks of certain pests due to the destabilized insect
community.
  The author of the study, a researcher at the Nanjing Institute of
Environmental Sciences, and an advisor for Greenpeace, Professor Xue Dayuan,
said: "The report confirms that the Bt cotton is released to the environment
prematurely. After five years of growing, Chinese farmers and scientists are
now faced with serious problems and confronted with the fact that too little
is known about the interaction of GE crops with the environment. High hopes
have been brought crashing down and reality shows that the information from
the GE industry has been unsubstantiated." Bt cotton, a genetically
engineered variety containing a gene from soil bacteria inserted to produce
a toxin that kills certain types of pests, was first introduced to China in
1997 by Monsanto.
  It was advertised as a magical fix to pest problems. Since then the area of
cultivation has increased to 1.5 million hectares in 2001, which is 35
percent of the total cotton area. Monsanto1s Bt cotton accounts for two
third of all GE cotton grown in China. "As farmers growing this GE crop are
now finding themselves entangled in Bt- resistant superbugs, emerging
secondary pests, diminishing natural enemies, destabilized insect ecology,
and the need to keep spraying chemical pesticides to deal with the
increasingly uncontrollable situation, will Monsanto deal with any of these
problems their lack of precaution have caused?" asked Lo Sze Ping,
Greenpeace China Program Manager.
  "The Chinese government has a role in helping the international community to
ensure that corporations such as Monsanto are held liable for the damage
they are causing by having developed and released GE crops," Lo added.

Further information: "A summary of research on the environmental impacts of
Bt cotton in China" - executive summary - full report [see webpage]
**********************************

13. Biotech Firm Mishandled Corn in Iowa
Article from the Washington Post. Date: 14 November 2002
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51859-2002Nov13.html

  The biotechnology company accused of mishandling gene-altered corn in
Nebraska did the same thing in Iowa, the government disclosed yesterday.
Fearing that pollen from corn not approved for human consumption may have
spread to nearby fields of ordinary corn, the U.S. Department of Agriculture
ordered 155 acres of Iowa corn pulled up in September and incinerated.
  The disclosure raised new questions about the conduct of ProdiGene Inc., a
company in College Station, Tex., that is now under investigation for
allegedly violating government permits in two states. The ProdiGene matter
is proving to be a significant black eye for the biotech industry, which has
been trying to reassure the public it can be trusted not to contaminate the
food supply.
  The new disclosure is also likely to have a political impact in Iowa, where
politicians of both parties have been attacking a new industry-sponsored
moratorium on planting genetically altered corn anywhere in the Midwest corn
belt. The ProdiGene case is an example of the kind of breakdown that
moratorium is meant to prevent. Both the government and environmental groups
have long been keeping watch on ProdiGene, a small company pushing
aggressively to turn corn plants into mini-factories to produce
protein-based pharmaceutical or industrial products. ProdiGene is the only
company to have entered commercial production of such a protein, an enzyme
called trypsin, and it is working on many others.
  In neither Nebraska nor Iowa did gene-altered corn, nor soybeans growing in
the same fields, enter the food supply, the USDA said yesterday. Cindy
Smith, acting head of biotechnology regulation for the department, said that
was because government inspectors have been keeping a close eye on ProdiGene
all year. "It wasn't luck" that inspectors caught the problems before any
unapproved products entered the food supply, she said. "It was planned
luck." She made it clear the government considers the violations significant
and is weighing serious penalties. In addition, she said the USDA may
consider revising its rules to lessen the chance of similar problems in the
future. ProdiGene maintained its silence on the issue last night.
  Since news of its difficulties first surfaced Tuesday, the company has
issued only a general statement saying it would work with the USDA to
correct unspecified "compliance challenges." ProdiGene has been trying to
negotiate a settlement with the government. Before the Iowa case was
disclosed, environmental groups attacked the USDA yesterday for its handling
of a problem in which 500,000 bushels of Nebraska soybeans got mixed with a
small number of genetically modified corn plants, calling the mixing a
"gross failure" of the regulatory system designed to protect the food
supply.
  Several groups assailed the government's refusal to identify the industrial
or pharmaceutical protein that may have been contained in the corn, saying
that even though the soybeans were intercepted before they reached the food
supply, the public still has a right to detailed information. "There is a
genetically engineered pharmaceutical or industrial chemical that mistakenly
entered into the grain supply, only one stop away from getting into our
food, and the government isn't talking," said Matt Rand, biotechnology
campaign manager for the National Environmental Trust. "The public has the
right to know what's going on."
  It was unclear yesterday whether the corn involved in the Iowa and Nebraska
cases was the same variety, or whether they were different varieties
designed to produce two different proteins. The USDA and the Food and Drug
Administration have quarantined 500,000 bushels of soybeans at a grain
warehouse in Aurora, Neb. while deciding what to do. About 500 bushels of
soybeans, containing a small but detectable amount of leaves and stalks from
gene-altered corn plants, were mixed into the 500,000 bushels, compromising
the whole lot.
  The USDA and the FDA have said the beans will likely be destroyed or turned
into fuel. The biotechnology industry argues that work of this type can be
done safely, as long as strict guidelines are followed, but environmental
groups argue that human error is inevitable and the crops will eventually
taint the food supply.
  Most proteins are rapidly destroyed in the human digestive tract, but a few
can survive long enough to potentially cause health problems. Members of the
Biotechnology Industry Organization, a Washington trade group, recently
agreed to stop planting in midwestern states any corn altered to produce
pharmaceutical or industrial proteins, and to stop planting canola altered
in a similar way on the Canadian prairie. Some Canadian biotech companies
don't belong to the trade group and have not endorsed the ban. In both the
Iowa and Nebraska cases, ProdiGene, or farmers working for the company, grew
test plots of gene-altered corn in 2001.
  Ordinary soybeans were planted in the same fields in 2002, but a few corn
seeds left over from the year before sprouted. The company was required to
ensure those corn plants were removed before they could contaminate the
soybeans or spread pollen to nearby corn fields, but the company failed to
do so, the government has said. In the Iowa case, the gene-altered corn may
have been spreading pollen at the same time plants in nearby fields were
receptive, raising the theoretical possibility that genes unapproved for
human or animal consumption could have spread into ordinary field corn, the
USDA said. Government inspectors therefore ordered that 155 acres of nearby
corn be uprooted and burned.
****************************************

14. Would You Like Frankenfries With That?
Press Release from Greenpeace. Date: 17 July 2002
http://www.greenpeace.org/news/details?news%5fid=18279

  A UK study of human volunteers fed a hamburger with genetically modified
soya and a milkshake has found GM genes in human gut bacteria. But more
surprising than the research itself, is the fact that this is the FIRST
human volunteer trial on the effects of GM foods on our bodies. We've known
for years that a meal of hamburgers and a milkshake isn1t good for us, but
now there is new cause for concern.
  A study by Newcastle university for the UK Food Standards Agency revealed
genetically modified (GM) genes are showing up in human stomach bacteria.
  The researchers fed seven volunteers who have had their lower intestines
removed a hamburger with GM soya and a milkshake. The stools tested from the
volunteers' colostomy bags showed that a "relatively large portion of the
genetically modified DNA survived the passage through the small bowel."
   More astonishing, this is the world's first trial of GM foods on human
volunteers. "I'm sorry, did you say world's first study of the effects of GM
food on human volunteers." Yes, that's right. We have been eating
genetically modified organisms in our foods for years now and this is the
first time that the effects have been studied on real live human beings
since the foods were widely introduced. At least for which the results have
been published.
  Yet all along, biotechnology companies have been telling consumers – "it's
safe, it's good for you" – assuming that the genetically engineered genes
would be digested and disappear like asteroids burning up on entry into the
atmosphere. The study went further to see if this genetically modified DNA
could be transferred via bacteria in the large intestine. In laboratory
simulated gastrointestinal tracts, three of the seven samples revealed
bacteria had taken on the herbicide-resistant gene.
  And this was after only one GM meal. There have been no studies of the long
term effects of introducing GM food into people's diets. This study clearly
demonstrates that we can get genetically modified DNA in our stomach
bacteria, something the bio-tech companies used to deny was possible. This
research raises some pretty serious health concerns. For years environmental
and consumer groups have been questioning the safety of bio-tech companies
using antibiotic-resistant marker genes to identify the GM cells during
development. Some scientists believe that eating GM food containing these
marker genes could encourage gut bacteria or oral bacteria to develop
antibiotic resistance.
  This new research suggests that this could very well happen, even at very
low levels after just one meal. The only thing we can surely conclude from
this study is we still don't know enough about the effects of GM foods on
humans or the environment. The companies making millions off this technology
have taken the attitude it is safe until it is proven unsafe, but we must
insist on a new global policy – better safe than sorry.