|
You'll be pleased to know that the mood in Europe has been rather upbeat and rebellious, following the WTO's ruling last week that the de facto moratorium and regional bans on GMOs in Europe are illegal barriers to trade.
Observers noted that instead of bowing to pressure from the US and WTO, consumer opinion is likely to harden against eating unwanted GM foods. Retailers are unlikely to use GMOs since they know that the obligatory labelling laws will only mean that consumers will choose to avoid GM.
Europeans can take comfort from their stance when reminded of the health uncertainties around GMOs, in particular from numerous studies carried out in 2005 which showed various health impacts. These included allergic reactions in mice to a GM pea, birth and weight abnormalities and high death rate in baby rats whose mothers were fed GM soya, and Monsanto's own study on GM maize which showed a wide range of negative health impacts including blood, kidney and immune system abnormalities, and possibly allergic and toxic reactions.
Sue Mayer of Genewatch UK points out that if it were not for the moratorium on GMOs, the EU would not have had a chance to carry out field trials such as the UK Farm Scale Evaluations which demonstrated environmental harm from GM crops, nor would there have been a chance to put stringent EU labelling and traceability laws in place. And Greece, Poland, Hungary and Austria all made clear their lack of respect for the WTO's opinion on these matters by extending or confirming their bans on GM crops.
But this decision has the potential to influence countries outside the EU, which is why solidarity and resistance against the ruling is so important. We must not forget that countries do have the right to exercise the Precautionary Principle under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, an international agreement on GMO regulation. The WTO seems to have completely ignored this instrument of international law, and would like to think of itself as over and above all other laws, international or national.
You are therefore invited to join in the Joint International GM Opposition Day (JIGMOD), which will be held on the 8th April. It is an important opportunity for movements in all countries across the world to reject attempts to force GM on an unwilling public, to demonstrate the extent of the global resistance to GM, and to link, join and inspire each other. Find out more on: http://altercampagne.free.fr/
*******************************************
1. GM Food Goes on Trial
John Feffer. Date: 16 February 2006
http://www.alternet.org/story/32317/
2. Announcing: April 8th, Joint International GM Opposition Day
Date: 13 February 2006
http://www.indybay.org/news/2006/02/1802198.php
4. Cut and Dried?
Article from the Guardian. Date: 15 February 2006
Sue Mayer, Genewatch
http://society.guardian.co.uk/societyguardian/story/0,,1709490,00.html
5. 2005, a Scary Year for Genetically Engineered Crops
Article from Spilling the Beans. Date: 14 February 2006
Jeffrey M. Smith (author of Seeds of Deception)
http://www.foodconsumer.org/777/8/2005_a_Scary_Year_for_Genetically_Engineered_Crops.shtml
***********************************************
1. GM Food Goes on Trial
John Feffer
http://www.alternet.org/story/32317/
The fundamental rule of retail is: The consumer is always right. The World Trade Organization (WTO) has once again disregarded this rule by declaring the majority of European consumers wrong.
In poll after poll, Europeans have voiced their skepticism of food that's been altered at the genetic level. Their governments initially responded with a moratorium on new GM products and subsequently adopted a Europe-wide policy on product labeling. But in its latest ruling, the WTO did some labeling of its own, declaring Europe's cautious policy on genetically modified organisms (GMO) an unfair barrier to trade.
The 800-page report, the longest decision in the WTO's short history, has not yet been released to the public. But the U.S. government and its co-plaintiffs, Canada and Argentina, are already treating it as a historic ruling. The European Union, on the other hand, has dismissed the report as simply a ruling about history, since it lifted its moratorium against GMOs in 2004. Still unclear is how the ruling will affect different regions within Europe that continue to declare themselves GM-free.
The Europeans will likely appeal the ruling. If it still goes against them, they may well steal a page from their other longstanding dispute with the United States overhormones in beef: Pay the penalty and maintain the cautious policy.
What's the big deal? you might ask. They say tomato and we say GM tomato, so let's forget about the whole thing. But the United States has been downright pushy in its approach to biotech. The Agency for International Development (AID) is a big booster of GM, and some offending grain has found its way into shipments of food aid to GM-wary countries. The Trade Representative's office pushes GM through bilateral and multilateral treaties. The State Department tries to twist arms through rather undiplomatic letters of protest, like the one it sent to Nicosia in July when new EU member Cyprus proposed to put GM food on separate shelves at grocery stores.
http://www.agbios.com/main.php?action=ShowNewsItem&id=6638
This pushiness is not simply a byproduct of the usual missionary arrogance of Americans. The underlying story is that biotech has hit a few roadblocks.
In 2005, according to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, the rate of growth of GM crops was 11 percent. That might seem like a lot. But it's the slowest growth rate since GM was introduced in the mid-1990s. The rate is down from 20 percent in 2004 and 15 percent in 2003. Even taking into account the saturation of certain markets -- GM soy, for instance, now accounts for 85 percent of the soybeans grown in the United States -- such a slowdown translates into lost revenue for biotech firms and less buzz for the movement as a whole.
Governments around the world remain circumspect. Even China, which has moved quickly on some GM crops like cotton, recently stepped back from commercializing GM rice in November, citing safety concerns.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3487776a6026,00.html
Responding to pressures from the Japanese and others, Monsanto pulled back from bringing GM wheat to market in 2004. The Europeans, meanwhile, point out that 131 countries back their cautious approach, for that is the number of signatories to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. This international treaty, attached to the Convention on Biological Diversity, underscores the right of each country to make a sovereign decision on how to handle the cross-border trade in GM products and technology.
http://www.biodiv.org/biosafety
Even here in the United States, where the largest amount of GM food is grown, biotech is showing a certain failure to thrive. The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) released a report last year pointing out that the industry is not pushing new products through the U.S. regulatory system. Meanwhile, the biotech industry still opposes relatively simple reforms that would boost consumer confidence here in the United States.
http://www.cspinet.org/new/200502021.html
"We do not have a mandatory pre-market approval process for GM crops at the Food and Drug Administration," CSPI's Gregory Jaffe points out. "We only have a voluntary consultation process. We're the only country in the world with such a process."
If governments are wary, the public is even more so. Contrast the WTO process with a very different trial that took place in Mali last month. Facilitated by the International Institute for Environment and Development, 43 Malian farmers grilled 14 international experts and then debated among themselves the merits of biotech. After five days of deliberations, they decided that GM was not for them. Citizen juries held elsewhere in the world -- in Brazil and in Karnataka and Andra Pradesh in India -- have produced similar verdicts.
http://www.iied.org/mediaroom/releases/290106.html
A case can certainly be made for GMOs. GM crops are popularly used in South America along with no-till agriculture, a technique that both prevents soil erosion and reduces the amount of fuel used in farming. By cutting down energy inputs in farming, according to one recent report, GM crops may have contributed to a reduction in greenhouse gas production equivalent to removing nearly 5 million cars from the road annually. Scientists are developing GM crops that can desalinate fields and even turn color in the presence of landmines. New techniques, such as RNA interference technology, rely on the cell's own underutilized capacities rather than introducing foreign genes.
http://www.agbioforum.missouri.edu/v8n23/v8n23a15-brookes.htm
The global jury is still out on whether GMOs are a boon or a bust. The farmers of Mali and the legal experts of the WTO have both spoken. Ultimately, consumers might have the final word. Inspired by the Europeans, labeling laws are spreading around the world. No matter how hard the United States lobbies or the WTO deliberates, if a GMO label translates into a skull and crossbones in the public mind, then supermarkets won't be able to give the stuff away.
John Feffer is working on a book about the global politics of food.
*******************************************
2. Announcing: April 8th, Joint International GM Opposition Day
Date: 13 February 2006
http://www.indybay.org/news/2006/02/1802198.php
*5 April : March for GMO-free regionsduring the GMO European Conference held in Vienna, Austria.
*6 April :National Call-In Day to the US Congress, in support of the "Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act,USA
*8 April : JIGMOD, Earth
8th of April 2006: Joint International GM Opposition Day (JIGMOD)
The World Trade Organization (WTO) -- whose Deputy Director General previously served as the European general counsel for the agrochemical and biotechnology giant Monsanto -- has ruled in favor of genetically modified (GM) crop producers against the European Union (EU). International critics of GMOs (genetically modified organisms) are confident that European citizens remain opposed, and that GMOs will not significantly break into the European market. However, they are concerned that it will open the way to the development of GM crops, as well as the contamination of both GM-free fields and food chains. Furthermore, the WTO is thus dictating a message to the world that it is useless to attempt to regulate GMOs.
In this context, 100 international organizations from more than 40 countries[i] are now announcing April 8, 2006 as a Joint International GM Opposition Day. The day will feature major public events in several of these countries to demonstrate continuing global opposition to genetically modified foods and crops.
“This international day follows the WTO decision to restrain European governments from protecting their farmers and other citizens from the threat of GMOs," explained one of the US promoters of the event. We will join with our allies around the world to condemn the WTO decision, and to denounce the US administration's attempts to impose this hazardous technology on us all.”
On the 8th of April, "Information Sites" distributed worldwide will allow the general public to learn more about the social, scientific, environmental and health dimensions of the GMO file. Some of these sites will be linked through a video-conference that will provide a forum for GM opponents to dialog across the world, including the historical figures of the movement. A letter, written by a team of scientists and others, which emphasizes health risksand problems of genetically engineered organisms, will notably be presented during this conference.A public demonstration will occur in Chicago, USA, where the biotechnology industry is holding its annual convention. A promotion of "peasant seeds," as the pre-existing alternative to GM crops, will be launched in several countries. Among other joint initiatives, a NO-to-GMO Mosaic composed of pieces originating from many regions of the world will be exhibited in Turkey. Concerts, movies, discovery walks and peasant markets will accompany exhibitions by sponsoring organizations.
"We are concerned about our quality of life, and want to prevent our farms and our dinner plates from being touched by GMOs," said Dominique BEroule, of the JIGMOD Coordinating Team in France. For ten years, organizations worldwide have followed parallel and complementary tracks toward this goal. Now, whereas the WTO intervenes to extend the GMO market and suppress protective regulations, environmentalists, farmers, and consumer organizations are joining in to inform the public of the increasing evidence against genetically modified crops and food, on the occasion of a worldwide appointment."
"The more people learn about the hazards of GMOs for our health, the environment, and traditional agricultural communities, the more they oppose this technology," explained Brian Tokar, of the US-based Institute for Social Ecology. "And in many countries, this concern has been translated into sound public policies to limit the importation and growing of GM products. That is why corporations work to suppress public awareness in the US, and why our government has pressed theWTO to overrule sound protective actions in other countries."
"The countries that have adopted GM are facing higher costs and market rejection which is why they want to force the GM problem on other competitive countries. Farmers want to market what consumers want, and it is not GM. Contamination is not controllable and economic loss will occur but it should be the GM companies, not the non-GM farmers, that should be forced to accept the liability for the losses GM crops will cause." said Julie Newman, of the Australian Network of Concerned Farmers.
According to Ignacio Chapela, microbial ecologist and Professor at the University of California (Berkeley), "We want to make sure that GMOs are not released into the environment without public transparency and informed consent, but to recognize that some manipulations of organisms might be useful, provided there is a high degree of public responsibility and technical capacity to ensure that they do not come out of a laboratory."
Dr Arpad Pusztai, who pioneered research on the nutritional and developmental impacts of transgenic food, declares:"Will the biotech company executives pushing GM crops on an unwilling public be able to face their own children and grandchildren when the health damage and environmental dangers of GM crops will come true?"
Events during the period leading up to the 8th of April include:
o 24 February :Conference of the European GM-free regions, 24 February, in Krakow, Poland.
o 3 March :National demonstrations in several towns of Germany
o 5 April : March for GMO-free regionsduring the GMO European Conference held in Vienna, Austria.
o 6 April :National Call-In Day to the US Congress, in support of the "Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act,USA
o 8 April : JIGMOD, Earth
The full program and complete list of sponsors will be updated until the 8th of April on the dedicated website:http://altercampagne.free.fr/
altercampagne.free.fr/
******************************************
4. Cut and Dried?
Article from the Guardian. Date: 15 February 2006
Sue Mayer, Genewatch
http://society.guardian.co.uk/societyguardian/story/0,,1709490,00.html
The World Trade Organisation has ruled that Europe's moratorium on GM organisms was wrong. But biotech companies beware - the decision does not mean that countries are ready to roll over, says Sue Mayer
Last week, industry analysts were predicting that markets for GM crops would soon be expanding globally. Their claims were based on reports that the US, Argentina and Canada had "won" in their World Trade Organisation (WTO) dispute with Europe over GM crops and foods. For the GM crop growing countries and the biotech industry, the tactic of using the WTO to steamroller European recalcitrance over GM organisms (GMOs) seems to have come up trumps. But the reality is likely to be less clear, although the determination of the US to bully countries into accepting GM food shouldn't be underestimated.
The US, Argentina and Canada made their complaint to the WTO in May 2003. Europe's moratorium on approvals for importing and growing GM crops, introduced at the end of 1998, had angered the three countries, which grow around 90% of all GM crops. They also complained about bans by six countries, Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy and Luxembourg, on certain GM crops that had been approved before the moratorium.
The US and its allies said the moratorium, "undue" delays in approvals, and national bans could not be justified scientifically. This was, they said, delaying progress in the development of GM crops and their role in tackling world hunger.
Europe responded by arguing that it had taken a justifiable precautionary approach because the science of GM crops and foods was uncertain.
The interim report of the WTO's dispute panel was finally sent to the parties on February 7. It was about 18 months behind schedule and ran to more than 1,000 pages, the longest in the WTO's history. Like the whole of the dispute proceedings, the report is confidential to the parties, and public access is limited to leaks. Only the conclusions and recommendations of the interim report are currently accessible via a leak to the Geneva-based Institute of Agricultural Trade and Policy.
In a nutshell, the WTO dispute panel has said that Europe's moratorium on GMOs - which ended in 2004 with the approval of a GM maize variety - led to trade rules being broken because it caused "undue" delays in the approvals process. In relation to individual products, the panel has also said that 24 of 27 applications awaiting approval were subject to "undue" delays.
Scientific investigation
At a time of considerable political controversy, active revision of regulations and further scientific investigation into GMOs, the WTO's dispute panel has made the rather extraordinary judgment that Europe's assessments of GM crops and foods were simply taking too long.
The dispute panel also said the bans by six member states were not based on an adequate risk assessment and so were not scientifically justified according to WTO rules. This represents an intervention into countries' freedom to establish the levels of environmental and human safety they deem appropriate.
But what practical effect could the panel's report have? On the one hand, it could be used to pressurise countries to evaluate GMOs according to a narrow risk assessment that gains WTO approval, and to do this without "undue" delay. Any bans on GMOs could be judged to conflict with trade rules. Consumer choice, time for public deliberation, protecting non-GM or organic agriculture, or seeking maximum environmental and health protection seem, according to the WTO panel, not allowable. No doubt the US, Canada and Argentina will be pointing this out to other countries that have taken what they see as an unhelpful position on GMOs.
On the other hand, there is the public and political reaction to the WTO's decision. There is little evidence of increasing support for GM crops and foods, and moves to coerce countries and citizens into accepting GM food could backfire. There are now 172 regions and provinces in Europe that have declared themselves GM-free. A recent poll showed that 58% of European citizens are worried about GMOs. Austria and Greece have made defiant statements in response to the report and, in a national referendum last year, the Swiss voted for a five-year moratorium on the commercial growing of GM crops.
Scepticism about GM is not restricted to Europe. All the states in Australia growing oilseed rape have moratoriums on growing, despite federal-level approval for GM oilseed rape. Farmers in Mali have rejected GM crops as an attack on their way of life, and consumer surveys in Russia, China and South Africa demonstrate a lack of appetite for GM products. From this perspective, the WTO's intervention looks set to intensify controversy.
For trade between Europe and farmers in the US, Canada and Argentina, the decision will have little if any effect. The loss of trade in GM crops has not come as a result of regulatory delays, but because food producers have responded to consumer concerns by removing GM ingredients from products. There seems to be no intention on the part of European food companies to move from this position.
Serious consequences
If there had not been a moratorium in Europe while new rules were agreed, several serious consequences would have arisen. The indirect effects on farmland wildlife of growing GM herbicide-tolerant crops would not have been considered in assessments, even though the UK's farm-scale evaluations showed that bird populations could be adversely affected by growing GM oilseed rape or sugar beet. There would have been no requirement to monitor environmental or human health effects. Consumers would not have been able to make a choice about products derived from GM crops, as new labelling laws now allow for. And there would have been no traceability requirement for GM foods, so if an adverse effect had emerged it would have been impossible to withdraw the product quickly and easily. Following bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), traceability is a cornerstone of European food safety systems.
Europe's moratorium on GM crop approvals was not an "undue" delay - it allowed for the introduction of important new rules. All countries should be able to establish the safety rules that they consider appropriate for safety without fear of bullying and arm twisting.
Although the panel's interim report is provisional, based on past performance it is unlikely it will be modified before it has final approval. The EU can then appeal, but, if the appeal is upheld, the WTO will then ask the EU and member states to comply with the findings of the panel. Because the moratorium no longer exists, this is partly irrelevant. However, at least some of those countries with national bans look unlikely to roll over and submit. Only then will sanctions be discussed.
In today's world, with such widespread opposition to GM, the WTO complaint and the panel's report may look increasingly misjudged. Investors would be advised to show some caution about the future of GM crops because the instincts of the biotech industry in relation to consumer reaction are usually wrong.
Sue Mayer is director of GeneWatch UK, one of a coalition of 14 international organisations that made a submission to the WTO dispute panel.
********************************************
5. 2005, a Scary Year for Genetically Engineered Crops
Article from Spilling the Beans. Date: 14 February 2006
Jeffrey M. Smith (author of Seeds of Deception)
http://www.foodconsumer.org/777/8/2005_a_Scary_Year_for_Genetically_Engineered_Crops.shtml
Genetically modified(GM) crops were introduced 10 years ago, but 2005 saw plenty of evidence that the technology was introduced long before the science was ready. Here are some of last year's highlights, so to speak.
At a conference in October, a leading scientist from the Russian Academy of Sciences reported that more than half (55.6%) of the offspring of rats fed GM soy died within three weeks. By contrast, only 9% of rats died whose mothers were fed non-GM soy. The study is preliminary, but the American Academy of Environmental Medicine asked the NIH to immediately repeat it. [1]
In June, a German court ordered Monsanto to make a study public, in which rats fed GM corn developed kidney inflammation, altered blood cell counts and organ lesions. These and other changes suggested possible allergies, infections, toxins, anemia or blood pressure problems. The rats were fed corn genetically engineered to produce a pesticide called Bt-toxin. A French expert who reviews GM safety assessments for the government says that these and other studies indicate that Bt crops create reactions similar to chemical pesticides. Monsanto, however, was able to convince regulators to overlook the findings using arguments that were widely criticized as unscientific.[2]
In November, a 10-year, $2 million GM pea project in Australia was abandoned when the peas were found to create immune responses in mice. The results, which indicate that the peas might create serious allergic reactions in people, were discovered only after scientists employed advanced tests that have never been used for evaluating GM food. If those peas had been studied in the normal way, they could have been approved. The findings suggest that undetected problems may be common in GM crops on the market.[3]
Medical reports from India say that farm workers handling Monsanto's GM cotton developed moderate to serious allergic reactions, forcing some to the hospital. There were also reports that numerous animals died after eating the Bt cottonseed.[4]
The Indian government confirmed that Bt cotton's disastrous yields cost millions. One state even kicked out Monsanto, after they refused to compensate farmers' losses. Tragically, hundreds of debt-ridden cotton farmers committed suicide.[5]
Monsanto was fined by the US Justice Department for bribing up to 140 Indonesian officials over several years, trying to get Bt cotton approved.[6] But widespread crop failure had left farmers in ruins there too, so even the bribes didn’t work. [7]
A three-year UK study showed that GM crops damage biodiversity and threaten birds and bees.[8] Another study surprised scientists when GM crops cross pollinated with a distant relative.[9] And some Indian farmers found that after planting GM cotton, their fields became sterile and could not support subsequent crops.[10]
According to USDA statistics, much more Roundup herbicide is used due to Monsanto’s Roundup Ready GM plants. Roundup was found to be far more toxic to humans and animals than previously thought. [11] Furthermore, its over use has resulted in the proliferation of herbicide-tolerant weeds in the US.[12]
Contamination was also a big issue.
* In March, the US government revealed that an unapproved GM corn variety by Syngenta had been sold for four years. By late December, Japan had rejected 14 contaminated corn shipments.[13]
* Illegal GM papaya showed up in Thailand. [14]
* Illegal GM varieties were about to be identified in Turkey, but the research project was mysteriously canceled.[15]
* According to a UK study, even when GM crops are grown in special government-supervised field trials for just a single year, unharvested seeds continue to grow and re-seed fifteen years later.[16]
* And farmer Percy Schmeiser, whose contamination by GM canola made it to the Canadian Supreme Court, has again discovered windblown GM seeds from passing trucks.[17]
The Danish government passed a law in which they compensate farmers for losses due to GM contamination and then seek to collect from the offending GM farmer. Vermont's proposed Farmer Protection Act, which passed the senate last April by 26-1, offered a different solution. It placed the financial responsibility on the biotech seed company. This allowed contaminated farmers to recover their losses while shielding GM farmers that had planted their crops in accordance with the seed company's directions. Biotech proponents who lobby around the world to make sure their companies don't pay for damage created by their products, flocked to Vermont's state house. Sure enough, on the first day of the 2006 session, a close house vote struck down the bill in a New Year's gift to industry. A conference committee of senators and representatives may yet take this up and reinstate strict liability for seed producers.
Unwilling to accept GM contamination at all, Switzerland passed a 5-year moratorium on planting GM crops. Likewise, 4500 European jurisdictions, and regions and countries in Africa, South America and Australia have passed bills or resolutions for GM free zones. By contrast, the US biotech industry rushed legislation through 14 states so far, preventing local governments from creating such zones.
Perhaps in the distant future scientists will be able to safely and predictably manipulate and control genes in plants. But for now, feeding the products of this infant science to millions and releasing them into the environment is foolish and dangerous. In the meantime, pregnant women and children in particular, may want to avoid eating GM foods.
Most of these 2005 stories are elaborated in Jeffrey Smith's free monthly column, Spilling the Beans, available at www.responsibletechnology.
Jeffrey M. Smith is the author of the bestselling book on GM foods Seeds of Deception and producer of the DVD Hidden Dangers in Kids' Meals, available at www.seedsofdeception.com or by calling 888-717-7000. He is working with a team of international scientists to compile all known risks of GM foods.
Spilling the Beans is a monthly column available at www.responsibletechnology.org.
Permission is granted to publishers and webmasters to reproduce issues of Spilling the Beans in whole or in part. Just email us at column@seedsofdeception.com to let us know who you are and what your circulation is, so we can keep track.
The Institute for Responsible Technology is working to end the genetic engineering of our food supply and the outdoor release of GM crops. We warmly welcome your donations and support.
REFERENCES
[1] See Jeffrey Smith, Most Offspring Died When Mother Rats Ate Genetically Engineered Soy, Spilling the Beans, Oct 2005 at www.responsibletechnology.org
[2] See Jeffrey Smith, Genetically Modified Corn Study Reveals Health Damage and Cover-up, Spilling the Beans, June 2005 at www.responsibletechnology.org
[3] See Jeffrey Smith, Genetically Modified Peas Caused Dangerous Immune Response in Mice, Spilling the Beans, Nov/Dec 2005 at www.responsibletechnology.org
[4] Bt cotton causing allergic reaction in MP; webindia123.com, cattle dead, Bhopal, Nov 23 2005, http://news.webindia123.com/news/showdetails.asp?id=170692&cat=Health
[5]See Jeffrey Smith, Un-Spinning the Spin Masters on Genetically Engineered Food, Spilling the Beans, January 2006 at www.responsibletechnology.org
[6]Monsanto fined $1.5m for bribery, BBC News, Jan 7, 2005, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4153635.stm
[7]Pests Attack Genetically Modified Cotton, Jakarta Post (Indonesia) 29 June 2001, http://www.mindfully.org/GE/GE2/Pests-Attack-Cotton-Jakarta.htm
[8]See Jeffrey Smith, Genetically Engineered Crops Damage Wildlife, Spilling the Beans, March 2005 at www.responsibletechnology.org
[9]Paul Brown, Weed discovery brings calls for GM ban, The Guardian, July 26, 2005, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/story/0,9061,1536021,00.html
[10]Abdul Qayum & Kiran Sakkhari. Did Bt Cotton Save Farmers in Warangal? A season long impact study of Bt Cotton - Kharif 2002 in Warangal District of Andhra Pradesh . AP Coalition in Defence of Diversity & Deccan Development Society, Hyderabad, 2003.
[11]Sophie Richard and others, Differential Effects of Glyphosate and Roundup on Human Placental Cells and Aromatase, Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 113, Number 6, June 2005
[12]See for example, Investigation Confirms Case Of Glyphosate-Resistant Palmer Pigweed In Georgia, Sept. 13, 2005, http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/layout/media/05/09-13-05.asp
[13]Japan finds 14th US corn cargo tainted with Bt-10, KTIC 840 Rural Radio, http://ellinghuysen.com/news/biotech.html
[14]Illegal GE papaya in Thailand has antibiotic resistant genes, Greenpeace press release, June 30, 2005
[15]Michael Kuser, Tests reveal presence of GM tomatoes in Turkey, Turkish Daily News, 26 May 2005, http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=14143
[16]Geoffrey Lean, GM crop 'ruins fields for 15 years’, The Independent, 09 October 2005
[17]Sean Pratt, Roundup Ready Canola back in Schmeiser's field. The Western Producer, October 26, 2005
© Copyright 2006 by Jeffrey M. Smith.
***********************************
|
