From <gaia@gaianet.org>
10/28/04

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

Although GM development continues apace around the world, scientists still
continue to remind us that genetic engineering in food and agriculture
carries risks, and we still do not know enough to ensure that these products
are safe for our food and environment.

"The short-term benefits for small groups of researchers and business people
who are engaged in the production and distribution of genetically modified
foods must not outweigh Russia's long-term national interests," said a group
of Russian scientists in a recent letter to their president Vladimir Putin.

"Consumers get no benefit and they take all the risk,''says Dr Judy Carmen
of the Public Health Association of Australia. "There may be only a small
possibility of something happening but the consequences could be awful
because of the number of people eating GM (genetically modified) food. There
is an urgent need to stop and fully test all the GM food on the market, and
make sure any new ones get fully tested before they go on the market.''

In India, the Indian Council of Agricultural Research and Consumers
International-Asia Pacific have both pointed out the many areas of risk on
which not enough is known about, for example pollen flow, horizontal gene
transfer, pharma crops and the impact of these crops on agri-ecosystems.

In Europe, Dr Mae-Wan Ho points out the inefficiency of industrial farming
like GM. 'The model of agriculture proposed by science in the last 40 years
has focused on high yields through high inputs, and has led to a loss of
biodiversity. Yet biodiversity and productivity go together - farmers have
always known that. Research shows that biodiverse fields are up to three
times more productive than their industrial equivalents.'

These comments in just the last few weeks show how little we really know
about the impacts of GM crops. These are the same concerns that many have
been voicing for years, and yet they have still never been addressed. GM is
a radical new technology, and we should not just assume that transferring
genes between species is safe. Neither can we consider our ignorance about
the risks as good reason to push ahead with commercialisation of GM crops.

Best wishes,

Teresa

***********************************
1. Environmental Groups and Scientists Call for Restrictions and Research on
GM Food
Article from Associated Press. Date: 25 October 2004
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4570

2. Russian Scientists Warn Putin of GM Food Threat
Article from MosNews (Russia). Date: 14 October 2004
http://www.mosnews.com/news/2004/10/14/Scientist_Warn_Putin_of_Biogenetic_Th
reat.shtml

3. Gaps in GM Tests: Scientist
Article from Geelong Organic Gardeners (Australia). Date: 14 October
2004
Jane Bunce
http://www.geelonginfo.com.au/readarticle.asp?articleid=13328

4. India Urged to Assess Health, Eco Hazards of GM Harvest
Article from Financial Express (India). Date: 18 October 2004
Ashok B Sharma
http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=71680

5. Politicians, Professors and Protesters Target Sustainable, GM-Free
Agriculture
Article from Cordis News. Date: 21 October 2004
http://dbs.cordis.lu/cgi-bin/srchidadb?CALLER=NHP_EN_NEWS&ACTION=D&SESSION=&
RCN=EN_RCN_ID:22805
************************************

1. Environmental Groups and Scientists Call for Restrictions and Research on
GM Food

Article from Associated Press. Date: 25 October 2004
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4570

More than 35 people, most of them leaders of scientific or environmental
activist groups, released a letter recently urging Russian President
Vladimir Putin to set limits on the development and use of genetically
modified foods.

The letter said that it was a response to growing efforts, which it
suggested originate largely in the United States, to "inculcate" Russia with
agricultural production based on genetically modified organisms.
It said those who carry out "the interests of transnational, mostly American
biotech companies are silent about the risks and dangers to human health and
the environment from GM technologies, which have not been fully studied."

The letter calls for a ban on the use of genetically modified products in
baby food, a moratorium on commercial production of genetically modified
brands until they are proved harmless by independent experts, a law on
"biosecurity," and the harmonization of Russian laws on genetically modified
foods with the legislation of other countries.

It also calls for state support of independent research on the effects of
genetically modified organisms and products on people and the environment.

"The short-term benefits for small groups of researchers and business people
who are engaged in the production and distribution of genetically modified
foods must not outweigh Russia's long-term national interests," the letter
says.

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

2. Russian Scientists Warn Putin of GM Food Threat

Article from MosNews (Russia). Date: 14 October 2004
http://www.mosnews.com/news/2004/10/14/Scientist_Warn_Putin_of_Biogenetic_Th
reat.shtml

Russian scientists have warned about the dangers of genetically modified
products in a letter to President Putin. Importing genetically modified
foods is jeopardizing both Russia's health and agriculture, they claim.

Alexander Baranov, president of the National Association for Genetic
Security, explained that genetically modified products are putting the
health of the nation in serious danger, RIA News Agency reported. The letter
to Vladimir Putin, signed by more than 30 key public, political, and
scientific figures, reads:

"This address is imposed by the growing vulnerability of Russia's biological
security. There is a process of substituting environmentally friendly foods,
which are typical for Russia, with imported genetically modified products.
Russia is becoming a site for testing foreign biotechnology."

Among other precautions, the letter advises a ban on using GM products in
baby food, a moratorium on growing GM crops before they are proved to be
harmless, and a new federal law concerning biological security. The letter
also notes that the Russian food market is flooded with imported genetically
modified and transgenic products that are not subject to any state control.

"These products are dangerous in their unpredictability, especially
considering their prolonged use. We don't know their eventual effects on the
human body," Vladimir Kuznetsov, head of the scientific council of the
Russian Academy of Sciences, said.

Kuznetsov also warned that some branches of Russian agriculture, such as
seed-farming, are disappearing because of the use of genetically modified
cultures. Russia's agriculture risks becoming completely dependent on
transnational corporations, which will lead to Russia losing its status as a
producer of environmentally sound products, he said.

Alexei Yablokov, president of the Center for Environmental Politics, echoed
this opposition to "biogenetic terrorism". He said that the roots of
biologically modified products are in biological weapons.
The scientists hope that the president will react to the letter, ending "the
affair of GM products" quickly.

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

3. Gaps in GM Tests: Scientist

Article from Geelong Organic Gardeners (Australia). Date: 14 October 2004
Jane Bunce
http://www.geelonginfo.com.au/readarticle.asp?articleid=13328

AN anti-genetic engineering scientist is maintaining that a link between
human disease and genetically modified food may exist even if such a link is
never found.

The Public Health Association of Australia's Dr Judy Carmen told a forum
organised by Geelong Organic Gardeners this week that a link would be
difficult to prove scientifically because people could not be expected to
remember everything they ate.

"There are surveillance systems only for a few existing diseases,'' she
said. "There may be only a small possibility of something happening but the
consequences could be awful because of the number of people eating GM
(genetically modified) food. There is an urgent need to stop and fully test
all the GM food on the market, and make sure any new ones get fully tested
before they go on the market.''
Dr Carmen said genetically modified products entered the human food chain
through modified cottonseed oil, for example in potato chips, and animals
fed modified soy meal and and corn, whose milk, eggs or meat could be eaten
by humans.

"Consumers get no benefit and they take all the risk,'' she said. Dr Carmen,
one of three national and international speakers at the meeting, believes
the testing of genetically modified foods is not sufficient to determine a
health risk to humans.

She said Food Standards Australia and New Zealand, which regulates the sale
of genetically modified foods, required companies to test their own products
and present their data for assessment.
Food Standard's website confirms there are no official mechanisms for
monitoring the long-term impacts of genetically modified foods, but adds:
"Industry must demonstrate . . . that products are safe for human
consumption before they can be legally sold in Australia.''

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

4. India Urged to Assess Health, Eco Hazards of GM Harvest

Article from Financial Express (India). Date: 18 October 2004
Ashok B Sharma
http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=71680

As countries across the world are preparing to celebrate the week beginning
from the World Food Day on October 16, global consumers and scientists have
cautioned India and other developing countries to carefully assess the
health and environment risks associated with genetically modified (GM)
crops. They expressed concern over reported hazards in different parts of
the globe. The apex body Consumers International (CI) along with the
Thailand based Foundation for Consumers has launched a global anti-GM
campaign. Margarita Escaler of International Service for the Acquisition of
Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) who was in India on occasion of a media
workshop in transgenic technology, however, defended the relevance of
transgenic technology in food and nutritional security. She also admitted
that the ³slow rate of adoption² of GM crops and food in developing
countries is on on account of "various policy-related, financial,
regulatory, technical, infrastructure and public acceptance constraints."

The director of the Consumers International for Asia-Pacific region, Dr
Sothi Rachagan who was also in India on the occasion of sub-regional
workshop on nutrition, food safety and biotechnology jointly organised in
Delhi by the consumers' body VOICE, a leading NGO, Gene Campaign and the
World Health Organisation said that GM foods should not be imposed on
unwilling consumers. A full pre-market evaluation and social and safety
impact assessments of GM foods should be taken up on basis of the guidelines
adopted by The Codex Alimentarius Commission in June 2003.

Dr Rachagan said that there are genuine public concerns over GM foods like
health safety and acceptance on basis of culture and religion. Apart from
these there are environmental risks like transfer of pollen from GM crops to
non-GM ones. "The scientists have found that pollen transfer can take place
up to 20 km. This calls for strict surveillance for environment safety and
protection of natural biodiversity," he said.

The other issue, he said, is the issue of intellectual property rights
(IPRs) on GM seeds. This results in increasing corporate control over
agriculture and make farmers pay huge amount on royalty, he said.

Dr Rachagan said while health safety can to some extent be addressed through
labelling and food recall systems, the issues of environment safety and IPRs
remain yet to be resolved. He said that keeping in view the unaddressed
concerns, there should be a moratorium on cultivation, marketing and
donation of GM food as aid. He said that the world has enough food for its
population and yet over 800 million people suffer from hunger and food
insecurity. The problem, therefore, is not with the availability of food but
accessibility to food, he said and added that Consumers International
believes that food security means safe, nutritious and culturally accepted
food.

Former assistant director-general of Indian Council of Agricultural Research
(ICAR) and now working with the Chennai-based Swaminathan Research
Foundation, Dr S Bala Ravi said : "Vertical and horizontal gene flow is the
major environmental risks from GM crops. Depending on the gene involved,
this may create super weeds, diminish biodiversity and harm non-target
species. The threat of horizontal gene transfer from GM plant food or feed
or its residues to soil bacteria, gut and intestinal or rumen bacteria in
humans and animals and spread of antibiotic resistance to pathogenic
organisms remain another concern."

Dr Ravi further said: "The recent induction of GM crop plants for industrial
production of pharmaceutical products is fraught with very high danger. A
recent expert consultation published by FAO on environmental effects of GM
crops concluded that current understanding of the effects of these crops on
the agri-ecosystems is very limited and there is also a paucity of
quantified long-term impact of these crops on environment. It recognised the
gene flow from GM crops, changes in farm inputs and practices associated
with these crops as issues of concern."

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

5. Politicians, Professors and Protesters Target Sustainable, GM-Free
Agriculture

Article from Cordis News. Date: 21 October 2004
http://dbs.cordis.lu/cgi-bin/srchidadb?CALLER=NHP_EN_NEWS&ACTION=D&SESSION=&
RCN=EN_RCN_ID:22805

'We will continue with our fight against GMOs even if we have to be punished
and even if we have to go back to prison,' Jose Bove, a leading French
campaigner against genetically modified organisms, told a conference of
experts and policy makers in Brussels on 20 October.

Mr Bové was justifying a campaign of civil disobedience in France that has
so far resulted in the destruction of several experimental fields of
genetically modified crops, prompting condemnation by national research
heads. 'Individual, local and regional democracy [in France] isn't working.
If we can't work within the law, we will have to work outside it,' he
explained.

Mr Bove accuses the French government of seeking to introduce GM crops
without first holding the necessary public debate, and despite the fact that
'the majority of the French population has always been opposed to the
introduction of GM material in their food.' He argues that even when a
majority of municipal mayors and regional authorities declared their
territories GM-free, the government simply pressed ahead regardless.

Given that a number of environmental organisations argue that more research
into the health and environmental impacts of GMOs is needed, CORDIS News
asked Mr Bové to justify his destruction of field-based trials. 'I agree
that we need more fundamental research into the environmental and human and
animal health impacts of GMOs, but this can be done in laboratories and more
controlled environments,' he responded.
'The truth is that these field trials in France are being carried out on
behalf of industry, and what they are really investigating is the industrial
commercialisation of GMOs,' believes Mr Bové. He argues that throughout the
EU's de facto moratorium on GMO authorisations, private firms carried on
testing new varieties in order to certify them so that they could begin
marketing them as soon as the moratorium was lifted.

Ultimately, Mr Bové's opposition to GMOs is based on his view of sustainable
agriculture: 'There is no way that GM and non-GM can co-exist, because these
two fundamentally different approaches to agricultural practice cannot
co-exist, and we know that the day GM food enters the national system, there
is no stopping it.'
The concept of sustainable agriculture was referred to by a number of the
speakers at the event, which was subtitled 'science for a GM free
sustainable Europe'. Professor Peter Saunders, from King's College London,
said that modern farming should be based on the traditional knowledge that
we have developed over the past centuries.

'That's not the same as doing it the old way, as we have the benefit of
modern science. The problem with traditional knowledge is that companies
can't patent it, whereas with GMOs, companies are able to take out patents
on plant varieties,' he added.

By industrialising agriculture, Professor Saunders argues, we have removed a
resource that is plentiful - human labour - and replaced it with
non-renewable resources in the form of fossil fuels, 'all in the name of
efficiency'. He argues that GMOs don't increase yields, they require more
herbicides, and they only lead to more profits for seed producers - not for
farmers or consumers.

Professor Saunders' comments were echoed by Dr Mae-Wan Ho, director of the
UK Institute of Science in Society, who said: 'The model of agriculture
proposed by science in the last 40 years has focused on high yields through
high inputs, and has led to a loss of biodiversity. Yet biodiversity and
productivity go together - farmers have always known that. Research shows
that biodiverse fields are up to three times more productive than their
industrial equivalents.'

Representing the policy makers was Michael Meacher, UK Environment Minister
from 1997 to 2003, who launched an outspoken attack on the commercialisation
and politicisation of science that accompanied the introduction of GMOs.
'The science of GM is owned by a small minority of companies, and the
research they do is never even published if it conflicts with their
commercial interests, which is profoundly wrong,' he said.

Mr Meacher added that when the UK advisory committee on releases to the
environment (ACRE) said following field scale trials that 'there is no
evidence to indicate that GM crops pose any greater risk to human health or
the environment than non-GM varieties,' this is because the trials didn't
explicitly look for such evidence, and the authorities continue to rely on
research carried out by the biotech industry itself.

The former minister also attacked the composition of governmental advisory
committees and regulatory authorities, arguing that estimates suggest that
40 per cent of the members of these bodies have financial links with the
biotech industry. He called for funding for research into GMOs to come
entirely from public sources, and said that contributors to scientific
journals should disclose their current and prior funding sources.

Mr Meacher described US allegations in the World Trade Organisation (WTO)
that the EU's policies on GMOs were hindering the development of the
technology and contributing to world hunger as absurd. 'The US has other
motives - bullying other countries to fall into line with the interests of
its biotechnology industry, but its WTO challenge will backfire.'

In conclusion, though, Mr Meacher admitted that it was unrealistic to expect
an outright ban on GM cultivation and use in the EU. He argued that a new
approach should be taken, characterised by a systematic programme of
research into the environmental and health impacts of the technology,
extension of the criteria for non-approval of novel foods to include cases
that would damage the sustainability of agriculture, and a change in rules
on biodiversity making it impossible to patent plant varieties.