Even bird-brains know what's good for them

It seems that chicken feed is not as simple as it's reputed to be, the Oppenheimer family have discovered.

News - Environment: Smart chickens weren't be duped by foul play:

Chickens refusing to eat the maize they had been fed has led to the discovery that their feed had been genetically modified to include a well-known weed and insect killer.

Strilli Oppenheimer was recently approached by Dawid Klopper, the head gardener at the family estate, Brenthurst, informing her that her indigenous African chickens were refusing to eat the mealies in the chicken feed bought from a large supplier. Concerned that the birds may be ingesting genetically modified maize, she instructed Klopper to have the maize tested.

The chickens' diet was immediately changed to include organic vegetables, Oppenheimer stopped consuming the home-grown eggs and the maize was sent to the GMO testing facility at the University of the Free State for analysis.

GM food conference in the Vatican hijacked

John Vidal on a GM conference in the Vatican | Environment | The Guardian:

Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo is the chancellor of the Vatican s Pontifical Academy of Sciences the official voice of Catholic science. Alas he appears to have no idea how far his organisation has been hijacked by the genetic modification GM companies and their chums. This week the academy is hosting a 'week of study' about food and Sorondo says the intention has been to gather 'an objective' group of experts. Ho-hum. Of the 40 people invited all are well-known GM enthusiasts claims Spinwatch an independent organisation that 'monitors the role of public relations and spin in contemporary society'. One of the participants Eric Sachs is a Monsanto employee; another Robert Paarlberg is an adviser to Monsanto s CEO; and several others work for companies heavily backed by Monsanto.

What's in your rice?

Message from Greenpeace

The world's most important staple food is under threat and we need your help urgently.

Sign the petition

Rice is daily food for half of the global population. It has been grown around the world for over 10,000 years and is cultivated in 113 countries. For millions of people rice is not just a food - it's a way of life.

Bayer, the German chemical giant, has created a genetically engineered (GE) variety of rice that will put our health, our agriculture and our biodiversity at risk.

The European Union (EU) will soon decide whether or not Bayer's GE rice can end up on European dinner plates. But this will not only affect Europeans. If the EU approves the import of Bayer's GE rice, farmers in the US and elsewhere may soon start planting the manipulated crop.

Stopping GE rice is not just about consumer choice or the environment - it's a lot bigger than that. It's a matter of global food security, human rights and survival.

You can tell the EU to keep Bayer's hands off your rice - sign the petition.

Thanks for your help saving the world's most important food. Please send this onto your friends today - we don't have much time before the decision is made.

With best wishes
Jan, Natalia, Lisa and everyone on the rice team at Greenpeace

P.S Ecological farming is the safest solution to the food crisis and looming climate change disasters. By signing the petition you're adding your voice in support of global sustainability in the face of climate change.

urban sprout | green news organic eco directory

urban sprout | green news organic eco directory: "The Department of Trade and Industry has handed down a ruling for mandatory labelling of genetically modified foods in South Africa.

From now on, you have a choice as to whether or not you want to buy GM, but better still, you will actually know which foods contain GM."

Gordon Brown does a Tony: falls for GM hype

Press Statement

Gordon does a Tony: falls for GM hype

19 June 2008

Fact: GM crops dont increase yields, do have negative health impacts

Against all the evidence and in direct opposition to the recommendations of
his Chief Scientist [1], Gordon Brown, like his predecessor, is being
bamboozled by PR from the Agrobiotech lobby that GM crops can feed the
world.

Contrary to the claims of some government ministers that are there are no
scientific arguments against GM crops, there is a strong body of published
evidence that shows GM crops do not increase yields and also indicating
negative health impacts for livestock eating GM feed and potentially for
humans consuming produce from those animals. This research is set out below.
[2]

But the main argument against GM crops is that they reinforce an outdated
model of agriculture that is wholly unsuited for adapting to and contending
with the conditions that climate change and more costly, scarcer oil bring for
global food security. [3]

Patrick Holden, Soil Association director said,
"The GM industry is desperate to prove it offers any benefits beyond the
self-interested, commercial one of locking farmers into dependency on its own
patented seeds and linked inputs of pesticides and fertilisers. The evidence
after decades of claims is that GM crops are no better and often poorer in
terms of yields, and more worryingly that there are real animal and human
health concerns.

"GMs greatest flaw is that it reinforces agricultures inherently
unsustainable reliance on vast inputs of fossil-fuel derived inputs in the
form of fertilisers and pesticides which are becoming economically, as well
environmentally unaffordable. Poor farmers in developing countries cannot
afford expensive chemicals and even big arable producers in the UK question
their viability as fertiliser costs double in price to over #350 a tonne. [4]
GM crops will add to climate change, by requiring the added inputs of the same
old chemical fertilisers that consume half of all the energy used in
agriculture, so giving off vast amounts of damaging greenhouse gases. [5]

"The Prime Minister would do better to listen to his Chief Scientist at Defra,
Professor Bob Watson, who chaired the recent international agricultural
assessment that concluded business as usual is no longer an option and
called for a shift to agroecological food production. The assessment
questioned GMs claims to be the solution to global poverty, hunger or climate
change and in contrast inclined towards organic, causing the GM
representatives to storm out of the process." [6]

Ends

For media enquiries please contact Clio Turton, Soil Association senior press
officer, 0117 914 2448 / cturton@soilassociation.org

Notes to editor:

[1] Professor Bob Watson, Chief Scientist at Defra, chair of the International
Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development
(IAASTD). Previously Chief Scientist at World Bank. Leading expert on climate
change. Discovered the Ozone Hole whilst working at NASA.

[2] Scientific evidence of health impacts of GM crops:
Despite GM industry claims, over a dozen GM feeding trials (12 animal, 1
human) show negative health impacts of GM:

a.. Russian rat trial of GM soya: high mortality and stunted growth in
offspring (Ermakova, 2005)
b.. Italian mice trial of GM soya: metabolic effects on body organs
(Malatesta et al, 2002 and 2003; Vecchio et al, 2004)
c.. FSA-commissioned human trial of GM soya by Newcastle University: GM DNA
transfers out of food into the bodys gut bacteria (Netherwood et al, 2004)
d.. Monsanto rat trial of GM maize: changes in body organs indicating toxic
effects (report by Monsanto, 2002; review by Dr Pusztai, 2004; Siralini et
al, 2007)
e.. Aventis chicken trial of GM maize: mortality doubled and significant
change in composition of meat (reports for the Chardon LL hearing, 2002;
review in Food safety contaminants and toxins, CABI publishing, 2003)
f.. Aventis rat trial of the novel protein of GM maize: reduced body weight
and metabolic effects (same references as for Aventis chicken trial)
g.. UK study on sheep: in a few minutes, the genes in the GM maize move into
the bacteria in the mouth, changing their characteristics (Duggan et al, 2003)
h.. Monsanto rat trials of GM oilseed rape: reduction in body weight and
increased liver weight (significant as the liver is the organ of
detoxification) (US FDA, 2002; Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Genetically
Modified Organisms, 2004)
i.. Australian mice trial of GM peas: allergic reactions, including
inflammation of lungs (Prescott et al, 2005)
j.. Calgene mice trials of GM tomatoes: gut lesions and 7 of 40 died within
two weeks (review in Food safety contaminants and toxins, CABI publishing,
2003)
k.. UK Government-commissioned rat trial of GM potatoes by Rowett Research
Institute: gut lesions (Ewen and Pusztai, 1999)

NB: These studies were all designed to identify health impacts; the animal
trials often referred to by the GM companies as showing no negative impacts
are largely irrelevant as proof of safety, because they are mostly studies
carried out for commercial purposes on the efficacy of the feed, rather than
toxicological studies involving tissue analysis.

GM Crop do not increase Yields: the Science

GM crops in general
a.. Firstly, the current generation of GM crops were modified for insect
resistance and weed control), not to increase the intrinsic yield capacity of
the plant.
b.. An April 2006 report from the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA) states that currently available GM crops do not increase the yield
potential of a hybrid variety. In fact, yield may even decrease if the
varieties used to carry the herbicide tolerant or insect-resistant genes are
not the highest yielding cultivars. (Fernandez-Cornejo, J. and Caswell, 2006)
c.. UN Food and Agriculture Organization 2004 report on agricultural
biotechnology acknowledges that GM crops can have reduced yields (FAO, 2004).
d.. 2003 report published in Science stated that in the United States and
Argentina, average yield effects [of GM crops] are negligible and in some
cases even slightly negative. (Qaim and Zilberman, 2003).
e.. Yields of both GM and conventional varieties vary - sometimes greatly -
depending on growing conditions, such as degree of infestation with insects or
weeds, weather, region of production, etc. (European Commission, 2000)

Roundup Ready (RR) GM soya
Studies from 1999 - 2007 consistently show RR GM soya to yield 4 12% lower
than conventional varieties:

a.. A 2007 study by Kansas State University agronomist Dr. Barney Gordon
suggests that Roundup Ready soya continues to suffer from a yield drag: RR
soya yielded 9% less than a close conventional relative.
b.. A study by University of Nebraska agronomists found that RR soya
varieties yielded 6% less than their closest conventional relatives, and 11%
less than high yielding conventional lines (Elmore et al, 2001). This 6%
yield drag was attributed to genetic modification, and corresponds to a
substantial loss in production of 202 kg/ha.
c.. In 1998 several universities carried out a study demonstrating that, on
average, RR soy varieties were 4% lower in yield than conventional varieties
(Oplinger et al., 1999). These results clearly refuted Monsantos claim to the
contrary (Gianessi, 2000).

Yields of GM soybeans are especially low under drought conditions. Due to
pleiotropic effects (stems splitting under high temperatures and water
stress), GM soybeans suffer 25% higher losses than conventional soybeans(
Altieri and Pengue, 2005)
5 studies between 2001 -2007 show that glyphosate applied to Roundup Ready
soybeans inhibits the uptake of important nutrients essential to plant health
and performance. The resultant mineral deficiencies have been implicated in
various problems, from increased disease susceptibility to inhibition of
photosynthesis. Thus, the same factors implicated in the GM soya yield drag
may also be responsible for increased susceptibility to disease. (Motavalli,
et al., 2004; Neumann et al., 2006; King, et al.,2001; Bernards,M.L, 2005;
Gordon, B., 2007).

The yield drag of RR soya is reflected in flat overall soybean yields from
1995 to 2003, the very years in which GM soya adoption went from nil to 81% of
U.S. soybean acreage. By one estimate, stagnating soybean yields in the U.S.
cost soybean farmers $1.28 billion in lost revenues from1995 to 2003 (Ron
Eliason, 2004).

More recent evidence shows that the kilogram per hectare ratio of soybean has
been in decline since 2002, leading to the conclusion that RR soy does not
have an impact on yield (ABIOVE, 2006a).

Bt Maize
Only GM maize has shown a persistent trend for yield increase, but even here
the rate of increase is no greater than those being achieved by conventional
varieties.

a.. A US study conducted under controlled conditions demonstrated that Bt
maize yields anywhere from 12% less to the same as highly similar, but
conventional varieties (Ma & Subedi, 2005).

Bt Cotton
Despite the claims, Bt cotton has delivered no significant impacts in real
terms:
a.. Average cotton yields have increased 5-fold since 1930, surging from
1980 to the early 1990s. Cotton yields then went flat, and stagnated during
the seven years of GM cottons rise to dominance. The steep yield and
production increases in 2004 and 2005 were chiefly attributable to excellent
weather conditions (Meyer et al., 2007).
b.. Bt cotton, introduced to Australia in 1996, has not offered a boost to
the cotton sector, and since its adoption has not provided improvements in
either yield, or quality (ISAAA, 2006b).
c.. Cotton South Africa show constant yield levels before and after adoption
of Bt cotton (Witt et al 2005, cited in FoEI Who Benefits 2007), in
contradiction to ISAAA claims that Bt has brought about a 24% yield increase
in the region.
d.. Outbreaks of the secondary pests that are not killed by the Bt
insecticide have rendered Bt cotton ineffective in China (Connor, S., July 27,
2006), and are also becoming a problem in North Carolina (Caldwell, D. 2002)
and Georgia (Hollis, P.L., 2006).
e.. An article in Nature Biotechnology notes that the poor performance of Bt
cotton varieties used in India (which were developed for the short U.S.
growing season) is linked to the loss of their insecticidal properties late in
Indias longer growing season, and because Bt cotton insecticide is not
expressed in 25% of the cotton bolls of Indias preferred hybrid cotton
varieties (Jayaraman, K.S., 2005)

[3] Agriculture, like all sectors, must cut its greenhouse gas emissions that
drive climate change by 60-80%. Detailed studies of ten agricultural sectors
by Cranfield University for Defra, and earlier studies of five other
vegetables, show that organic farming uses on average around 26% less energy
per tonne of output than conventional systems

[4] In the UK, the price of nitrogen fertiliser has doubled over the past year
to around #330 per tonne. With oil currently at over $130 a barrel and with
OPEC warning it could reach $200 by the end of the year, it has been suggested
that the price of fertiliser could hit #500 a tonne. At these prices, the
claimed efficiency of fossil-fuel and fertiliser dependent industrial farming
begins to collapse.

[5] The environmental imperative of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 60-80%
across all sectors to curb dangerous climate change already make intensive
agricultures dependence on nitrogen fertiliser unsustainable:

a.. The manufacture of nitrogen fertiliser is the main use of energy in
agriculture, accounting for 37% of total energy use Agriculture in the UK,
2004
b.. Globally agriculture is the single largest source of the powerful
greenhouse gas, nitrous oxide over 310 times more damaging than carbon
dioxide
c.. For each tonne of fertiliser made 6.7 tonnes of carbon dioxide
equivalent greenhouse gases are emitted
d.. Fertiliser manufacture is also a major user of water, requiring 37
tonnes of water to make 1 tonne of nitrogen fertiliser

Organic farming does not use artificial chemical fertilisers, instead building
soil fertility through crop rotations and particularly the use of clover that
fixes nitrogen naturally from the atmosphere using the Suns energy and
photosynthesis. Clover can fix 200 kg of nitrogen per hectare over a year.
Average applications of N fertiliser across all arable and grassland are 110
kg/ha (arable = 150kg/ha; grassland = 77kg/ha). Fertiliser Statistics, 2005
report, AIC)
6. Representatives of the biotechnology industry, for example, stormed out of
the negotiations earlier this year, arguing that the potential of GM crops to
help poor farmers and comabat global warming was being overlooked and undue
weight given to alternatives such as organic farming, NewScientist feature on
IAASTD report, 5/4/08.

For full references for note [2] above please see the following press release:
'Soil Association report shows GM crops do not yield more - sometimes less '
http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/848d689047cb466780256a6b00298980/3cacfd251aab6d318025742700407f02!OpenDocument
For further comment and information contact the Soil Association Press Office
T: 0117 914 2448 E: press@soilassociation.org ISDN: 0117 944 6711

Soil Association, the UK's leading environmental membership charity
campaigning for people and planet-friendly food and farming
South Plaza, Marlborough Street, Bristol BS1 3NX

http://www.soilassociation.org

Clio Turton
senior press officer
0117 914 2448
07795 562 556

The Genetically-Modified Food Gamble

Heads Monsanto Wins, Tails We Lose;
The Genetically Modified Food Gamble
By Robert Weissman
March 18, 2008

There have been few experiments as reckless, overhyped and with as little potential upside as the rapid rollout of genetically modified crops.

Last month, the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), a pro-biotech nonprofit, released a report highlighting the proliferation of genetically modified crops. According to ISAAA, biotech crop area grew 12 percent, or 12.3 million hectares, to reach 114.3 million hectares in 2007, the second highest area increase in the past five years.

For the biotech backers, this is cause to celebrate. They claim that biotech helps farmers. They say it promises to reduce hunger and poverty in developing countries. "If we are to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) of cutting hunger and poverty in half by 2015," says Clive James, ISAAA founder and the author the just-released report, "biotech crops must play an even bigger role in the next decade.

In fact, existing genetically modified crops are hurting small farmers and failing to deliver increased food supply -- and posing enormous, largely unknown risks to people and the planet.

For all of the industry hype around biotech products, virtually all planted genetically modified seed is for only four products -- soy, corn, cotton and canola -- with just two engineered traits. Most of the crops are engineered to be resistant to glyphosate, an herbicide sold by Monsanto under the brand-name Round-up (these biotech seeds are known as RoundUp-Ready). Others are engineered to include a naturally occurring pesticide, Bt.

Most of the genetically modified crops in developing countries are soy, says Bill Freese, science policy analyst at the Center for Food Safety and co-author of "Who Benefits from GM Crops," a report issued at the same time as ISAAA's release. These crops are exported to rich countries, primarily as animal feed. They do absolutely nothing to supply food to the hungry.

As used in developing countries, biotech crops are shifting power away from small, poor farmers desperately trying to eke out livelihoods and maintain their land tenure. Glyphosate-resistance is supposed to enable earlier and less frequent spraying, but, concludes "Who Benefits from GM Crops," these biotech seeds "allow farmers to spray a particular herbicide more frequently and
indiscriminately without fear of damaging the crop." This requires expenditures beyond the means of small farmers -- but reduces labor costs, a major benefit for industrial farms.

ISAAA contends that Bt planting in India and China has substantially reduced insecticide spraying, which it advances as the primary benefit of biotech crops.

Bt crops may offer initial reductions in required spraying, says Freese, but Bt is only effective against some pests, meaning farmers may have to use pesticides to prevent other insects from eating their crops. Focusing on a district in Punjab, "Who Benefits from GM Crops" shows how
secondary pest problems have offset whatever gains Bt crops might offer.

Freese also notes that evidence is starting to come in to support longstanding fears that genetically engineering the Bt trait into crops would give rise to Bt-resistant pests.

The biotech seeds are themselves expensive, and must be purchased anew every year. Industry leader Monsanto is infamous for suing farmers for the age-old practice of saving seeds, and holds that it is illegal for farmers even to save genetically engineered seeds that have blown onto
their fields from neighboring farms. "That has nothing to do with feeding the hungry," or helping the poorest of the poor, says Hope Shand, research director for the ETC Group, an ardent biotech opponent. It is, to say the least, not exactly a farmer-friendly approach.

Although the industry and its allies tout the benefits that biotech may yield someday for the poor, "we have yet to see genetically modified food that is cheaper, more nutritious or tastes better," says Shand. "Biotech seeds have not been shown to be scientifically or socially
useful," although they have been useful for the profit-driven interests of Monsanto, she says.

Freese notes that the industry has been promising gains for the poor for a decade and a half -- but hasn't delivered. Products in the pipeline won't change that, he says, with the industry focused on introducing new herbicide resistant seeds.

The evidence on yields for the biotech crops is ambiguous, but there is good reason to believe yields have actually dropped. ISAAA's Clive James says that Bt crops in India and China have improved yields somewhat. "Who Benefits from GM Crops" carefully reviews this claim, and offers a convincing rebuttal. The report emphasizes the multiple factors that affect yield, and notes that Bt and Roundup-Ready seeds alike are not engineered to improve yield per se, just to protect against certain predators or for resistance to herbicide spraying.

Beyond the social disaster of contributing to land concentration and displacement of small farmers, a range of serious ecological and sustainability problems with biotech crops is already emerging -- even though the biotech crop experiment remains quite new.

Strong evidence of pesticide resistance is rapidly accumulating, details "Who Benefits from GM Crops," meaning that farmers will have to spray more and more chemicals to less and less effect. Pesticide use is rising rapidly in biotech-heavy countries. In the heaviest user of biotech seeds -- the United States, which has half of all biotech seed planting -- glyphosate-resistant weeds are proliferating. Glyphosate use in the United States rose by 15 times from 1994 to 2005, according to "Who Benefits from GM Crops," and use of other and more toxic herbicides is rapidly rising. The U.S. experience likely foreshadows what is to come for other countries more recently adopting biotech crops.

Seed diversity is dropping, as Monsanto and its allies aim to eliminate seed saving, and development of new crop varieties is slowing. Contamination from neighboring fields using genetically modified seeds can destroy farmers' ability to maintain biotech-free crops. Reliance on a narrow range of seed varieties makes the food system very vulnerable, especially because of the visible problems with the biotech seeds now in such widespread use.

For all the uncertainties about the long-term effects of biotech crops and food, one might imagine that there were huge, identifiable short-term benefits. But one would be wrong.

Instead, a narrowly based industry has managed to impose a risky technology with short-term negatives and potentially dramatic downsides.

But while it is true, as ISAAA happily reports, that biotech planting is rapidly growing, it remains heavily concentrated in just a few countries: the United States, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, India and China.

Europe and most of the developing world continue to resist Monsanto's seed imperialism. The industry and its allies decry this stand as a senseless response to fear-mongering. It actually reflects a rational assessment of demonstrated costs and benefits -- and an appreciation for real but incalculable risks of toying with the very nature of nature.

Robert Weissman is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Multinational
Monitor, and director of Essential Action.

Don't Plant GMO Beets

A total of 63 leading U.S. restaurant, food, beverage and candy companies - including such household names as McDonald's, Campbell Soup, Kellogg, Kraft Foods, Sara Lee, PepsiCo, Wendy's and Hershey's - are the focus of a major Web-based campaign at www.dontplantgmobeets.org seeking to block the April 2008 planting of genetically modified sugar beets. The genetically modified sugar beet crop would be used to make the sugar contained in thousands of the most widely consumed food products in the U.S., according to the Web site created by the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR) - a broad-based coalition of nearly 300 faith-based investors with over $100 billion in invested capital.

Don't Plant GMO Beets

Leslie Lowe, director, Energy & Environment Program, Interfaith Center for Corporate Responsibility, said: "This is a front-burner brand, reputation and consumer confidence issue for the biggest U.S. companies that sell food, drink, candy and other products containing sugar. These companies face major potential backlashes if they do not act now to stop the use of genetically modified sugar from sugar beets. Not only can these companies send a clear signal that they will not buy, but they have done this sort of thing before.

McDonald's does not use genetically engineered potatoes. General Mills will not use genetically engineered wheat. Anheuser Busch does not use genetically engineered rice. Heinz has a policy of 'seeking to avoid' genetically modified organisms. Campbell's Soup Co. does not use genetically engineered tomatoes even though the company helped to develop such a tomato. Now, it is time for these companies and others to make it clear again that they are not going to try to sneak genetically modified sugar into the diets of Americans."

ABOUT ICCR

The Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility is a coalition of nearly 300
faith-based institutional investors, representing over $100 billion in
invested capital. ICCR members bridge the divide between morality and markets
by envisioning a civic economy that integrates ethical, environmental and
social values. Inspired by faith, committed to action, ICCR members work to
build a just and sustainable global community. For more information on ICCR,
visit Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility : Home.

Biowatch Bulletin

THE BIOWATCH BULLETIN JANUARY 2008
**********************************

1. COMING UP

*** Public discussion forum on pesticide control - 20 February ***

Biowatch and UCT's School of Public Health and Family Medicine Occupational and Environmental Health Research Unit are jointly hosting this discussion. Dr George Ekstroem, an international expert in the field, will lead the discussion.

Wednesday, 20 February 2008 at 17h00 for 17h30

Conference Room 1 & 2, Barnard Fuller Building, University of Cape Town Medical School Campus, Anzio Road Observatory

Please RSVP to biowatch@mweb.co.za or ring Nicci on 021 447 5939 by
Friday 15 February 2008.

*** Launch of Biowatch DVD - SEEDS OF CHOICE - 28 February ***

We have completed a 15 min documentary about our approach to outreach work.

We are having a launch of the documentary on Thursday, 28 February 2008
from 17h30 to about 19h30 at the TH Barry Theatre at the Iziko SA National
Museum in Queen Victoria Street.

SEEDS OF CHOICE will be on sale through our website (www.biowatch.org.za) and through our offices (021 447 5939 or biowatch@mweb.co.za) after the launch at an amount R100. Free to NGOs.
__________________________________
2. CALLING ALL CONCERNED CONSUMERS

South Africa requires GM crop permit applicants to advertise their application in at least three newspapers circulating in the area where the GM crops will be released. This is how the public - and that includes organisations like Biowatch - gets to know of a GM permit application.

We don't have the resources to subscribe to all the possible newspapers in South Africa in which these adverts could appear. So, if you spot an advert for a GM application, please let us know by ringing 021 447 5939, faxing 021-447 5974 or emailing biowatch@mweb.co.za
__________________________________
3. POLICY WATCH

* Consumer Protection Bill - It's anticipated that this bill will be introduced into Parliament in March, according to Parliament's 2008 provisional legislative programme. An early draft of the Bill called for genetically modified (GM) ingredients in food to be labelled. Subsequent drafts, however, omitted this clause. Will it be re-introduced when the bill gets to Parliament? In July 2007 Parliament's Portfolio Committee on Environmental Affairs and Tourism held a public hearing on GM food at which the issue of labelling GM ingredients in food came up repeatedly as an important means of enabling consumer choice.

* Amendment of Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations

The Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism is expected to provide an update on
the EIA streamlining process to Parliament's Select Committee on Land and Environment on 12 February. New EIA Regulations came into effect in July 2006.

* National Environmental Management Amendment Bill

This amended the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) of 1998 by providing for tools other than EIAs, among others. The Cabinet approved the Bill in July 2007 and Parliament's Portfolio Committee on Environmental Affairs and Tourism held public hearings on the bill in November 2007. The Portfolio Committee on Environmental Affairs and Tourism and the Portfolio Committee on Minerals and Energy will meet jointly on 26 February to try to resolve controversial provisions in the bill related to the competent authority for EIAs in mining.
__________________________________
4. BIOWATCH COSTS APPEAL UPDATE

Biowatch is still awaiting the judgement of Judge Justice Poswa before making a decision about what its next steps will be around an order that it pay the legal costs of Monsanto South Africa (Pty) Ltd., the Minister of Agriculture, the Registrar Genetic Resources and the Executive Council for GM Organisms.

In November 2007, two of the three judges who heard Biowatch's appeal in the Pretoria High Court dismissed that appeal. In the costs appeal judgment, signed by judges Fanie Mynhardt and Mpho Molopa-Sethosa, agreed that Biowatch, in its initial approach to the courts for access to information about the permitting of GM crops, had acted in the public interest, had been substantially successful in obtaining the relief it had sought and had been forced to go to court to get this relief.

Biowatch had appealed before judges Fanie Mynhardt, Justice Poswa and Mpho Molopa-Sethosa for a withdrawal of the order that it pay the legal costs of Monsanto South Africa (Pty) Ltd. and for the statutory bodies to be ordered to pay Biowatch's legal costs. The costs order arose as a result of Biowatch's successful case for the government to provide access to information about the permitting of GM crops.
__________________________________
5. ORGANIC COTTON GETS A BOOST

Major food and clothing retailer Woolworths has committed itself to supporting locally-grown organic cotton. In January Woolworths announced it was setting up a pilot programme to source organic cotton in South Africa.

The programme is a collaboration with ComMark, Cotton SA and Organic Exchange, an international charitable organisation promoting organic agriculture and the Agricultural Research Council's Institute for Industrial Crops. The three-year programme aims to develop a viable business model for organic cotton farming in South Africa.

This year it will involve pilot plots in North West, Limpopo, the Eastern Cape and the Makhathini Flats in KwaZulu Natal - where GM crops (GM cotton) first gained a foothold in South Africa. Demonstration plots in Makhathini Flats will focus on empowering small-scale farmers and research.

Woolworths is the third largest consumer of organic cotton in the world - after USA corporations Wal-Mart and Nike - and has committed to buying the crop from the pilot programme when it is harvested this year. In 2007, Woolworths used 1.8 million kilograms of organic cotton fibre and estimates that it will use about 2.2 million in 2008. But all the organic cotton they use is sourced outside South Africa.

The top 10 organic cotton-producing countries are Turkey, India, China, Syria, Peru, the USA, Uganda, Tanzania, Israel and Pakistan. Global organic cotton products earned 1 billion dollars in 2006 and estimates project a tripling of this amount by the end of 2008, according to Organic Exchange.
_________________________________
6. BIOTECH COMPANY WANTS CARBON CREDITS FOR GM CROPS

USA biotechnology company Arcadia Biosciences is planning to use money paid by green consumers to offset their flights and by companies that go carbon neutral to fund the planting of genetically modified (GM) crops. Arcadia is working with the Chinese government to reward farmers growing the company's GM rice with carbon credits which they can sell for cash.

Arcadia says its GM rice needs less nitrogen fertiliser and that farmers growing it would lower their emissions of nitrous oxide. The Chinese scheme is scheduled to be up and running by 2012. (The Guardian 8 January 2008)
__________________________________
7. INDUSTRIAL AGRICULTURE IS MAJOR CLIMATE CHANGE CONTRIBUTOR

More than half of all fertiliser applied to soil ends up in the atmosphere or in local waterways but agriculture has the potential to change from being one of the largest greenhouse gas emitters to a net carbon sink. So says a new report from Greenpeace International.

Solutions include reducing the use of fertilisers by applying only the amount that crops need, protecting the soil by increasing its carbon content through measures such as cover crops, improving rice production by keeping rice paddies dry out of season, adopting methods that increase yield without depending on fertilisers and cutting the demand for meat, especially in developed countries.

"The future of farming lies in agriculture that works with nature and with people, not against them. Millions of farms on all continents already prove that organic and sustainable farming can provide sufficient food, increase food security, replenish natural resources and provide a better livelihood for farmers and local communities," the report says. The report was written by Professor Pete Smith, a lead author of the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report and his research team at the University of Aberdeen.
__________________________________
8. SOUTH AFRICA'S CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION STUDY ALMOST COMPLETE

South Africa's long-term climate change mitigation scenario study is in its "final stretch", Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism Minister Marthinus van Schalkwyk has been reported as saying. Once the study is finalised it will be submitted to Cabinet which will use it as a reference - together with other related climate change documents - to deliberate on legislation to give effect to South Africa's policy.
__________________________________
9. MOUNTING OPPOSITION TO GM CROPS

More than 80% of consumers in the USA prefer to buy dairy products that do not contain the GM hormone rBGh (also known as rBST), surveys show.

Rising consumer demand prompted Starbucks to making all its milk supply free of the GM hormone by the end of 2007, followed by USA grocery retailer Kroger and several major dairies that required their milk supplies to be free of Monsanto's GM hormone.

A report funded by the US Department of Agriculture found that 89% of Americans want mandatory labelling of food containing GM ingredients. A poll commissioned by the GM industry showed only a minority of Americans viewed GM foods in a favourable light. Since 2006, several US federal district judges have slammed the GM regulatory system in the USA and called for a halt on approvals of new GM field trials with weedkiller tolerant bentgrass until more rigorous environmental reviews are conducted and a halt to further commercial sales of GM alfalfa seeds.

About 70% of USA processed food contain GM ingredients. Like South Africa, the USA does not have mandatory labelling of GM ingredients in food.

In South Africa, Monsanto was twice ordered to withdraw adverts claiming that GM food is safe. And South Africa's GM regulator turned down an application to use GM yeast in wine fermentation. A decision on a field experiment with GM grapevines is still pending.

France has introduced a ban on Monsanto's MON 810 GM maize - the only GM crop grown in that country. And European Union environment officials, having determined that two types of GM maize could harm butterflies, modify food chains and disturb life in rivers and streams, have proposed a ban on the sale of the maize seeds. Pioneer Hi-Bred, Dow Agrosciensces and Syngenta manufacture the seeds.

In Brazil, there were no GM approvals in 2007, following a federal judge ruling against the use of maize manufactured by Bayer, Monsanto and Syngenta.

Greece has extended its ban on GM maize seed for a further two years and has banned the import of GM maize. And Cyprus wants to declare itself GM-free, according to its Agriculture Minister.

Most consumers surveyed in the Chinese cities of Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou would not choose GM food (65%) and would not buy GM rice (77%). China is the world's top rice producer and has shelved proposals for commercial production of GM rice for the fourth time since 2004.

Forty-one of the world's largest rice exporters, processors and retailers have issued written commitments to stay GM-free and rice producers in the USA have called for a ban on commercial GM rice growing and all outdoor experimental planting of GM rice. This follows the major contamination incident in 2007 when an experimental and illegal strain of GM rice produced by Bayer was found in rice consignments exported from the USA.

Meanwhile, a non-GM drought-resistant maize variety has been developed in The Philippines. The maize variety, developed by a Philippines scientist was able to survive drought for 29 days.

In Kenya a non-GM maize has been developed to withstand the larger grain borer - one of the most damaging pests for maize. The International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre (CIMMYT) developed the maize strain.

Other non-GM crops that have been developed include allergen-free peanuts, Striga-resistant cowpeas, beta-carotene rich sweet potatoes, virus-resistant cassava, iron-fortified maize and Pierce Disease resistant grapevines. (GM Watch 8 and16 January 2008)
__________________________________
10. BIOPROSPECTING POLICY - NEW ARTICLE TRACKS INTERNATIONAL DEBATE

The exploration of biological material for commercially valuable genetic and biochemical properties has the potential for major benefits - new drugs to cure diseases, innovative food and plant products, technology for developing countries and potentially rich rewards for those providing the biological material and knowledge. But bioprospecting has been bedevilled by mistrust, misunderstanding and regulatory confusion. New negotiations are now underway
to develop an international access and benefit sharing system and to resolve some of the intractable issues.

Biowatch trustee and senior researcher at the Environmental Evaluation Unit at the University of Cape Town Dr Rachel Wynberg and Sarah Laird, director of People and Plants International examine the key policy issues in BIOPROSPECTING: TRACKING THE POLICY DEBATE, an article published in the December 2007 volume of Environment. A copy of the article may be obtained from Rachel Wynberg at rachel@iafrica.com or purchased from the journal at http://www.heldref.org/env.php
__________________________________
11. MONSANTO AND SYNGENTA WITHDRAW FROM INTERNATIONAL ASSESSMENT ON
AGRICULTURE

An editorial in the journal Nature has criticised the withdrawal of Monsanto and Syngenta from the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology.

The Assessment is a four-year project that aims to detail how science, technology and good farming practices can be used to reduce hunger and improve life for rural people in developing countries.

A spokesperson for the agriculture industry body CropLife International told Nature that Monsanto and Syngenta had decided to pull out of the Assessment because their industry perspectives were not reflected in the draft reports.

One of these perspectives is that biotechnology is key to reducing poverty and hunger.

According to Nature, "the views outlined in the draft chapter on biotechnology, although undoubtedly over-cautious and unbalanced, nonetheless do not represent the rantings of a fringe minority. The idea that biotechnology cannot by itself reduce hunger and poverty is mainstream opinion among agricultural scientists and policy makers.

"For example, biotechnology expansion was not among the seven main recommendations in HALVING HUNGER: IT CAN BE DONE, a report commissioned by former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan. The writing for this report included Kenya's Florence Wambugu, perhaps the strongest proponent for biotechnology in Africa," Nature said.

A meeting to agree on the final text is scheduled for April. The writing and review teams comprise some 4 000 experts include scientists, government officials, representatives from seven UN agencies, farmers' groups, non-governmental organisations and industry.
(GM Watch January 2008, Nature 17 January 2008)
__________________________________
FOR COMMENTS AND QUERIES OR MORE INFORMATION GO TO www.biowatch.org.za

Di Mellon
Secretary
Southern African Faith Communities' Environment Institute
Ph: 021 7018145
Fax: 0866 969666
(H) 021 7974589
cell: 072 2776035
secretary@safcei.org.za
skype: safcei

“Faith communities committed to cherishing living earth.”