NOFA/Massachusetts Social Action Center

Genetic Engineering News

April, 2008
compiled by Jack Kittredge
NOFA/Mass Social Action Coordinator

Maine Town Votes Binding Moratorium On Planting GE Crops
On March 29, in a show of hands among the more than 100 voters at their annual town meeting, the town of Montville, Maine, passed a binding ordinance banning the cultivation of genetically engineered crops. Opponents of genetically modified organisms have been organizing on the local level. A few towns -- neighboring Liberty, and Lincoln and Brooklin -- have passed non-binding resolutions in recent years to be "GMO-free zones." But supporters say Montville is the first American community outside California to pass an enforceable ban. The impact of the ordinance may be more symbolic than practical, however. It gives growers of genetically modified crops two years to phase them out and only one town farmer has been growing genetically-engineered crops, on leased land.

The town of 1,000 residents has no school. No store. Not even a post office. But for 19 years Claudette Nadeau has pursued her passion for plants here. Nadeau's Roots-n-Shoots Greenhouses has been selling an expanding mix of organically grown, open-pollinated seedlings, varieties that sprout true to seed. That means this season's tomato seeds will produce seedlings next year that are exactly like the parent plant.

Many organic gardeners value these plant varieties. They save exotic seeds to create heirloom plants, cultivars that can be handed down for generations. For Nadeau, any threat from engineered seeds that could cross-pollinate with her heirloom varieties and change their genetic makeup is a big concern. She was one of the leaders of the effort to pass the ban.

A Maine group that represents large biotechnology companies says the ban could chill research and development efforts and hurt the state's economy. Meanwhile, the Maine Department of Agriculture is asking the attorney general for an opinion on whether Montville's ordinance is legal, or violates the state's right-to-farm rules.
source: http://morningsentinel.mainetoday.com/news/local/4963400.html

Maine Rule Protects Farmers from GE Suits
The Maine Legislature has approved a major revision in the rules surrounding the use of genetically engineered crops in the state, changes that provide Maine's organic farmers protection against lawsuits and require specific growing practices for GE crops.

The legislation:
o Prevents lawsuits for patent infringement against farmers who unintentionally end up with genetically engineered material in their crops.
o Ensures that lawsuits that do occur against farmers involving GE crops or seeds will be held in the state of Maine.
o Directs the Maine Department of Agriculture to develop and implement Best Management Practices for GE crops. Previously, GE crops had the same BMP's as all other conventional and organic crops.

An amendment by the House of Representatives, that was not included in the final Senate version, would have required manufacturers of GE seed to submit an annual report to the Department of Agriculture giving the total number of potential acres that could be planted in each type of genetically engineered crop. This would have allowed the Department of Agriculture to track the use of genetically engineered crops, see trends in their use, and be alerted to new crops coming into the state.

"The legislation is important in that it begins to clarify responsibility," Russell Libby, executive director of the Maine Organic Gardeners and Farmers Association said Wednesday. "By establishing Best Management Practices, this gets the [Maine] Department [of Agriculture] and farmers into a conversation about how to solve problems before they arise. To me, that is a good step forward."

Douglas Johnson of the Maine Biotechnology Information Bureau in Stonington, said the bill was a win-win piece of legislation. "Farmers on both sides of the biotech issue had input into the final bill," he said. "Both sides can claim victory. This is what Maine needs, solutions that work for all farmers."
source: http://bangornews.com/news/t/news.aspx?articleid=162819&zoneid=500

D.C. Circuit Court says "No" to Scotts and Monsanto on Biotech Grasses
The Federal Court of Appeals for the Washington, DC Circuit has tossed out the appeal of Scotts Grass Company, ending a long-running dispute over the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) approval of the open-air field testing of genetically engineered "Round-up Ready" (GE) grasses without assessing any potential environmental impacts. The GE grasses are owned by Scotts Grass Company using patents owned by Monsanto.

In 2007 a federal district court ruled that the USDA's approvals of the tests were illegal because they did not comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The court also ruled that USDA had to re-assess whether the GE grasses were "noxious weeds" under the Plant Protection Act. Scotts intervened in the case before the lower court's ruling. Scotts then appealed the decision, challenging the plaintiffs' ability to bring the case and the lower court's decision.

Creeping Bentgrass and Kentucky Bluegrass, two robust, weedy perennial grasses, pose significant environmental risks to the environment when genetically engineered for Round Up resistance, including the threat of biological contamination of naturally occurring grass species through pollen transfer. In this case, the illegally-approved GE grass field trials were later found in two studies to have contaminated surrounding areas, including a National Grassland.
source: press release from Center for Food Safety, March 19, 2008

Wal-Mart Goes GM Hormone-Free Canada's Globe and Mail reports that March
20 was 'the day the ground shifted'. Giant food retailer Wal-Mart Stores Inc. announced that its store brand milk in the US will now come exclusively from cows not treated with Monsanto's GM bovine growth hormone (rBGH). The move, says the Globe and Mail, sends a powerful signal to food manufacturers about what consumers want.
source: http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8915

Kroger Battles Monsanto Over GM Hormone Labels
Food retailer Kroger Co. and chemical giant Monsanto are in a state-by-state spat over how milk should be labeled in stores. Kroger wants to tell consumers through a product label that the milk produced and sold by Kroger dairy plants is free of a hormone produced by Monsanto called Posilac or rBST. Kroger has found a powerful ally in the International Dairy Food Association.
source: http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8926

New Report Shows GM Crops Do Not Yield More - Sometimes Less
Britain's Soil Association has published a report on the latest available research on GM crop yields over the last ten years. The yields of all major GM crop varieties in cultivation are lower than, or at best equivalent to, yields from non-GM varieties.

Peter Melchett, Soil Association policy director, said: "GM chemical companies constantly claim they have the answer to world hunger while selling products which have never led to overall increases in production, and which have sometimes decreased yields or even led to crop failures. As oil becomes scarcer and more expensive, we need to move away from oil dependent GM crops to producing food sustainably, using renewable energy, as is the case with organic farming."

According to the United States Department of Agriculture, "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".

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization acknowledges that GM crops can have reduced yields. This is not surprising given that first-generation genetic modifications address production conditions (insect and weed control), and are not intended to increase the intrinsic yield capacity of the plant.

A 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". This was despite the authors being strong supporters of GM crops.

Studies from 1999 - 2007 consistently show RR GM soya to yield 4 - 12% lower than conventional varieties. 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. A carefully controlled 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. This 6% 'yield drag' was attributed to genetic modification, and corresponds to a substantial loss in production of 202 kg/ha. Five 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.

Despite claims of increased yield, Bt cotton has had no significant impact in real terms. Bt cotton introduced to Australia in 1996 has not provided improvements in either yield, or quality. South Africa show constant yield levels before and after adoption of Bt. 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 India's longer growing season.
source: http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/

Former Secret Service Agents Spied on Anti GMO Activists
James Ridgeway of Mother Jones reports that "A private security company organized and managed by former Secret Service officers spied on Greenpeace and other environmental organizations from the late 1990s through at least 2000, pilfering documents from trash bins, attempting to plant undercover operatives within groups, casing offices, collecting phone records of activists, and penetrating confidential meetings. According to company documents provided to Mother Jones by a former investor in the firm, this security outfit, called Beckett Brown International (later called S2i), collected confidential internal records - donor lists, detailed financial statements, the Social Security numbers of staff members, strategy memos - from these organizations and produced intelligence reports for public relations firms and major corporations involved in environmental controversies.
source: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/041208Z.shtml

Monsanto's Harvest of Fear
An excellent article in Vanity Fair examines Monsanto's persecution of small farmers through ruthless legal battles, as well as its decades-long history of toxic contamination. The article looks at the shocking case of store-owner Gary Rinehart, who was threatened in front of his customers by an aggressive private snoop working for Monsanto. The snoop claimed Rinehart had planted Monsanto's GM soybeans in violation of the company's patent. Better come clean and settle with Monsanto, Rinehart says the man told him - or face the consequences. The problem was that Rinehart was not a farmer and had not planted any soybeans! The article also tells the stories of other farmers who were pursued through the courts by Monsanto.
source: ?http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8955

Monsanto Doubles the Price of Roundup
A decade after Monsanto introduced GM seed that made crops immune to Roundup, the price of the herbicide has doubled in the last year. On Sept. 15, 30 gallons of Roundup Weathermax cost $1,570.50 through one dealer. On March 1, the same product was going for $2,409 at the same dealer's. "Roundup Ready" traits are used in 95 percent of the U.S. soybean acres, 90 to 95 percent of the U.S. cotton acreage, and a growing percentage of corn acreage.
source: http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8957

GM Safe? That's a Lie
?'Any scientist who tells you they know that GMOs are safe and not to worry about it, is either ignorant of the history of science or is deliberately lying. Nobody knows what the long-term effect will be.' - Geneticist, David Suzuki, giving the 2008 Commonwealth Lecture in London
source: http://www.westender.com.au/stories.php?s_id=867

Organic Crops Impressively Productive
Organic alfalfa and wheat, and to a lesser extent corn and soybeans, can be as productive as conventional counterparts, according to a new University of Wisconsin-Madison study. The researchers compared results on Wisconsin farms over 8-13 years, and said their results should apply to prairie right across the upper Midwest of the US.
source: http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8931

Ten Reasons Why Organic Can Feed the World
An excellent article in the latest issue of The Ecologist explains why organic farming can feed the world and solve the energy crisis. ?The arguments against GM include the industry's failure to deliver any useful GM crops. sources: http://www.theecologist.org/archive_detail.asp?content_id=1184,
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8923,
http://www.theecologist.org/archive_detail.asp?content_id=1185

GM Is A Sin - The Vatican
'Genetic modification' is on a new list of seven modern deadly sins announced by one of the Pope's close allies, Monsignor Gianfranco Girotti. The other sins on the list are: polluting the environment; causing social injustice; causing poverty; becoming obscenely wealth; experimenting on humans and taking drugs. Some commentators have suggested Girotti was referring specifically to the genetic modification of human beings.
source: ?http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8866

Thoughtful Report on International Agriculture Released
The International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) is a kind of intergovernmental panel looking at climate change in agriculture. It has issued a draft report which, according to the NGO Bioscience Resource Project, 'comes as close to providing wise guidance for agriculture and development as we have yet seen. Its chief message is appropriately revolutionary: we have so far fed the world principally by depleting natural capital and we must now look beyond business as usual if we really want to address poverty.' The report ?considers wider issues such as food quality, sustainability, water use, land tenure, energy use, etc. as important components of any solution and recognizes the rights and needs of small farmers, women farmers and the hungry while also giving emphasis to the significance of power and its unequal distribution in the creation and maintenance of poverty.

Monsanto and Syngenta withdrew from the IAASTD process. Science journals such as Nature and Nature Biotechnology blamed IAASTD for creating a climate of over-cautiousness about GM. Now, the biotech industry is expected to try to discredit the report as biased and to derail its adoption. source:
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8974

UK: Warning to Takeout Shops Over GM Ingredients
Chip shop and takeout shop owners face six months in jail and fines of up to GBP 5,000 if they use GM ingredients and fail to tell customers. Norfolk trading standards officers surveyed independent caterers across the county including chip shops, sandwich bars, cafes, restaurants and private members' clubs and found that customers were eating GM foods whether they wanted to or not. A spot-check of ingredients used by independent businesses found GM products in soya, vegetable oils and mayonnaise.
source: http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8968

New Boost For German Soy Market
With the publication of Germany's new biotech act, animal products can also carry the GM-free label 'without genetic engineering' ('ohne Gentechnik') from 1 May. The retail industry wants the label on the assumption it will provide a strong boost for the GM-free soy market. The larger retailers such as REWE and Edeka seem intent to move ahead with 'GM-free' labels.
source: http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8971

Romania to Ban GM Maize
In announcing a ban on GM maize MON810, Romania becomes the seventh of Europe's leading maize producers to ban the growing of the only GM variety approved for cultivation in the EU. Romania is following France, Hungary, Italy, Austria, Greece and Poland. In the past, Romania has been one of the most receptive markets in Europe for GM crops, leading to its U-turn being labelled a 'seismic change'. The Financial Times calls Romania's ban a 'fresh blow to the biotechnology industry'. Romania is the EU's top maize producer in terms of hectares. Even so, only 300 hectares of MON 810 have been cultivated in Romania since 2007, representing only 0.01 per cent of Romania's total maize production.
sources: http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8933
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8928,
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8936
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8939

Mexico Approves Rules To Begin Planting GM Corn
Mexico, widely thought to be the birthplace of corn, said on March 19 that it will begin allowing experimental planting of genetically modified crops, despite resistance from some farmers who question their safety. The regulations published in the official gazette are the last step needed to implement a law passed by Mexico's Congress in December 2004 that authorizes controlled GMO plantings. Farmers in Mexico's rural south, where corn has been grown for thousands of years, worry GM corn will cross-pollinate with native species and alter their genetic content.

Under the new rules, the farmers who want to plant GMO crops must register with the agriculture ministry and environmental authorities to request a permit. GMO corn seeds will not be allowed into certain parts of the country that are determined to be "centers of origin" for genetically unique corn strains found only in Mexico. Bio-tech food producer Monsanto Co welcomed the decision in a statement, although the company noted that "the passage of these rules does not mean that permission will automatically be granted" to plant GMO crops.

Corn was first planted in Mexico as some 9,000 years ago and the country is now home to more than 10,000 varieties. The grain was adopted by Spanish conquistadors in the early 1500s and eventually spread to the rest of the world. On Jan 1 Mexico, the United States and Canada lifted all corn tariffs under the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement. Mexico now imports between 8 million and 9 million tons of U.S. yellow corn a year, close to 35 percent of local consumption.
source: http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSN1935401720080320

Protests Take Place Against GMOs Across India
An amazing array of protests took place across India around 8 April marking the global day of action, 'People's No Genetic Engineering Day'. In the southern State of Andhra Pradesh (AP), for instance, more than 5000 farmers participated in anti-GM rallies organised by the Deccan Development Society (DDS). And other organizations organized anti-GM rallies in AP the following day, with the DDS also organizing village level rallies in 50 villages in the Medak district where more than 3000 women farmers participated in demonstrations. Among many colorful events elsewhere, there was even a funeral procession held by farmers in Jhabua in Madhya Pradesh, organized by Beej Swaraj Abhiyaan. The death procession symbolized the impact on India's farmers of GM crops like Bt brinjal (aubergine/eggplant). The farmers and citizens in Andhra Pradesh demanding that the state government make Andhra Pradesh a GM-free state, included farmers who've suffered losses with Bt cotton, ?workers who suffered allergies while working in Bt cotton fields and livestock owners whose animals died or fell sick after grazing on Bt cotton fields.
sources: http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8970
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8975

Kerala: Big Political Support For GM Ban ?
Agriculture minister Mullakkara Ratnakaransaid that the state government was determined not to turn Kerala into a site for GM crop trials. And in what has been described as the most significant statement from any senior politician in India, the Chief Minister of Kerala said that his 'government will not entertain any policy that will give a death blow to the farmer and the environment of the State through the unsubstantiated claim to produce more with the technique of genetic engineering'.
sources: ?http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8978
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8984

Colombians Suffer Roundup Poisoning in US 'War on Drugs'
In Colombia, more reports are surfacing concerning human and animal sickness and environmental issues facing crop and food distribution because of herbicide spraying. Monsanto's Roundup has been used over thousands of acres of land in a bid to destroy coca plantations as part of the US-backed 'war on drugs'. Thousands of health complaints from herbicide spray victims have found their way into a US District Court in Washington, DC, and the Colombian government has taken its case to the International Court of Justice in The Hague in the Netherlands. The herbicide is sprayed by a US contractor, DynCorp International, and is manufactured by Monsanto as part of the 'Colombia Drug War Plan'.
source: http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8938

Contamination In Kenya
Farmers in one of Kenya's largest grain-producing areas have been cultivating GM maize MON810 that is potentially harmful to human health without knowing it. The seeds are sourced from a South African company that is a subsidiary of Dupont. Kenya has never approved commercial cultivation of GM maize. Sale of the suspect seeds in Kenya has been suspended.
sources: http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8921
http://www.nationmedia.com/dailynation/nmgcontententry.asp?category_id=1&newsid=120121

BT Cotton Faces Rising Pest Problems
Evidence from China has already shown any initial reductions in pesticide use on Bt cotton being eroded by new pest problems. The researchers warned the same pattern was likely to be repeated over time elsewhere, and this seems to be exactly what's happening. Mealy bug populations on Indian Bt cotton 'have multiplied to assume perilous proportions', reports an article in the Business Standard. ?In the Southeast and Mid-South of the USA, stink bugs and plant bugs including lygus, tarnished plant bugs and cotton fleahoppers have become the primary problems on Bt cotton, which has provided an ideal environment for stink bugs and plant bugs to flourish. American bollworms are developing resistance to Bt cotton - bollworms being the pest that Bt cotton was supposed to kill - and commercial pressures look set to weaken the refuge strategy that might have slowed down rising resistance. In South Africa the Agricultural Research Council (ARC) has published trial results that indicate stalk-borer larvae have developed resistance to Bt maize plants. sources:?http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7432,
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8868,
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8868,
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8868?

'Puramaize' and Biopiracy
There is a gene from teosinte that causes gametophytic incompatibility in corn between corn plants that do not carry the gene and those that do.?Simply stated, it is used to prevent genetic contamination from pollen drift?between different types of corn. It has been used for over 40 years in?crops like popcorn and white corn where pollen drift from yellow dent corn (?including GM corn ) makes the crop unsuitable for itıs intended use.?When the risk of contamination from GM corn became a problem for organic?farmers, several corn breeders including Walter Goldstein of the Michael?Fields Institute and Margaret Smith at Cornell began work on incorporating?this gene into their best non-GM corn inbreds as a way to prevent GM?contamination of the seed stock and to make the crop much less susceptible?to contamination from pollen drift. I understand there are already a few?varieties that have this gene.

About 3 or 4 years ago, we learned that a patent application had been filed?by Hogemeyer seeds (my spell check wants to make it Hog Meyer) calling it?'Puramaize' claiming that they had 'discovered' this gene and wanted patent?rights on it. The patent office refused to accept evidence from corn?breeders who had worked with this gene prior to the patent claims and?granted him the patent. Upon getting the patent, Hogemeyer contacted?Margaret, Walter and the others who were already working with the trait to?demand that they stop using it unless they obtained a license from him to?use it (and of course they pay him a royalty on any sales they make.)

We were contacted last fall by Blue River seeds to tell us that they would be selling corn with the 'Puramaize' gene and hoping we would promote it to?our customers. We told him that we would not sell any seed that had the?'Puramaize' trait as long as Hogemeyer held an illegally (as far as we are?concerned) granted patent on it. That is a tough ethical choice for us. We?need to do everything we can to limit GM contamination yet we canıt reward?bio-piracy by making it profitable. I feel we need to send a strong message?to Hogemeyer and other bio-pirates that we will not reward their criminal?actions financially."The 'Puramaize' patent is going to be challenged in the courts this year.?In the mean time though, my hope is that organic farmers will let him and?other aspiring bio-pirates know that we wonıt let them profit from their?rights to stolen genes by not buying corn seed that is licensed with the?'Puramaize' trait regardless of what happens in the courts.?I want to ask all of you to spread the word about this and to help us?boycott the commercial sale of products containing pirated genetics. If?Hogemeyer succeeds in stealing this trait and profits from it, we are?opening the door to more piracy in the future. He is putting on a big push?to market his ill gotten patent right now. Please tell your seed?suppliers not to carry Puramaize products and that you wonıt buy from them?if they do. We need to alert consumers about the story behind Puramaize?so that they donıt mistakenly support bio-piracy."I am afraid that if we donıt show bio-pirates in no uncertain terms that we?will not tolerate this kind of theft, and nip this in the bud, they will be?encouraged to try to keep on stealing genes.Thank you,Klaas
source: Email from Mary-Howell and Klaas Martens, Fri, Mar 28, 2008

This page was last modified on April 18, 2008 at 10:09:13 AM.