These are genetically engineered varieties of the following crops approved in the US:

*Soy

*Corn

*Canola

*Cotton Flax

Papaya

Tomatoes

Potatoes

Squash

Sugar Beet

Radicchio

*These four crops make up about 99% of all the genetically engineered (GE) crop acreage in the US today.

Herbicide Tolerant (including soybeans, corn, canola, cotton and sugar beet): These crops are genetically engineered to withstand direct application of herbicides. These chemicals would kill natural crop plants, but farmers can now spray weed killers directly onto GE herbicide tolerant varieties. This could mean more chemicals on our food and in our environment. About 70% of GE crops growing in the U.S. today are herbicide tolerant varieties.

Insect Resistant (including corn, cotton and potatoes): Also called "plant pesticides," because the plant is a pesticide. As it grows, the plant produces an insecticide, so certain insects die when they feed on the crop. Industry claims that these GE crops will mean that fewer chemical insecticides are sprayed. But scientists have warned that insects will develop resistance in just a few years. The insecticide produced by these crops is one that is used as a common, biological alternative to chemical sprays. When insects become resistant to this non-chemical insect control, farmers who use the safe alternative - including many organic growers - will lose out, while other farmers may be forced to turn back to toxic chemicals.

Year 2001 plantings – figures from USDA (US Dept of Ag):

COTTON: 9.99 m acres equivalent to 64% of all US grown cotton. For Bt and Hr (last year 9.48 m acres – 61% total cotton crop)

MAIZE: 18.4 m acres equivalent to 24% total corn crop. Note this is a drop of 1% from 19.9 m acres planted last year.

SOYA. A big jump up to 48.3 m acres equivalent to 63% of total soy crop. (last year 40 m acres or 54% total crop)

1. It was hard for farmers in many regions to get gmo free seed supply at all, and there were no guarantees that conventional seeds would not be contaminated as well. Some cotton farmers in the Missippi Delta are trying to save their cotton seeds because GMO free seed supply is almost nonexistant.

2. Lack of unbiased information. Eg Extension workers push GMO crops. As does prolific biotech PR campaign targetting farmers. Monsanto is the nation's largest soybean seed marketer and collects a royalty from seed companies it licenses to use its gene. Wider use of the genetically modified seed also spurs sales of Monsanto's herbicide. In 4 p.m. composite trading on the New York Stock Exchange Friday, Monsanto shares were up $1.61 at $35.46.

3. Farmers find GMO crops less work eg it is easier to control weeds and therefore less time consuming.

FUTURE PREDICTIONS?

Note three years ago the industry said that by the year 2000, 90% of our plant food would be GE. Today wheat, rice and potato farmers are rejecting GE seeds.

Three examples: Wheat farmers in North Dakota are working to pass a law for a moratorium on GE wheat growing; Monsanto announced it was ending its GE potato project, farmers would not buy the GE seed because food processors would not buy GE potatoes. Rice farmers in California worked to pass a law requiring that there must be a segregation plan before any new rice variety can be brought to market (the bill did not specifically mention GE, but it was clearly meant to insure segregation of any GE rice).

Soybean farmers have largely escaped the twists and turns of the debate over genetically modified crops in the past year. Roundup Ready soybeans are approved for import by major trade partners such as the European Union, which nonetheless requires food companies to put warning labels on products that might contain genetically modified ingredients

U.S. OPINION POLLS ON GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOOD

The most recent polls (commissioned by the Pew Trust, www.pewagbiotech.org) show that most Americans still don’t know they are eating GM food. But 75% said it was important to them to know if foods are made from GM ingredients.

An April 2001 poll with over 21,000 respondents found that 65% said we should not grow genetically engineered (GE) crops.

A February 2001 poll found that just 37% of Americans support the Food and Drug Administration’s policy on labeling GE foods, while 58% support critics of the agency who call for mandatory labeling of all GE food.

A December 2000 poll found that 85% of Americans support labeling of GE foods, with 88% supporting safety testing. Only half of women surveyed say they would eat GE food, with only 37% saying they would give GE food to their children. 47% of women say they would pay more for non-GE food.

A November 2000 poll found that over 54% of Americans say that recalls of products found with an unapproved GE corn raise questions about the safety of the food supply. 33% believe that farmers should not be allowed to grow GE crops, while under 40% believe that GE crops should be permitted.

A June 2000 poll found that 86% of Americans think the government should require labeling of all food from GE crops.

A Spring 2000 poll showed just 39.5% of Americans approve of current government regulation of biotechnology. According to Susanna H. Priest of Texas A&M, their survey shows that "…the U.S. increasingly resembles Europe in having significant amounts of opposition [to GE food]."

A March 2000 poll found that 86% of Americans want labels on genetically engineered foods.

A February 2000 poll found that 79% of Americans said it should not be legal to sell GE fruits and vegetables without special labels.

An internet poll conducted in January 2000 found that 81% of Americans think the government should require labeling of GE food, and 89% think the government should require pre-market safety testing of GE foods, as with any food additive.

A poll conducted in November-December 1999 (reported January 13, 2000) found that "Only 4% of Americans would actually be more likely to buy foods because they are genetically modified. By contrast, 57% [of Americans] would be less likely to buy them. (T)he sharpest distinction between America and Europe lies not in the percentage of people rejecting GM foods, but in public awareness."

A Fall 1999 poll found that 68% of Americans want labels on GE food, even if labeling means higher food costs.

A September 1999 poll found that 92% of Americans support legal requirements that all GE foods be labeled.

A January 1999 poll found that 81% of American consumers believe GE food should be labeled. 58% say that if GE foods were labeled they would avoid purchasing them.

A 1998 poll found that 93% of women surveyed say they want all GE food clearly labeled.

A 1997 poll conducted for the gene food maker found that 93% of Americans agree that GE foods should be labeled as such, with 73% saying they feel strongly about labeling.

In 1992, the biotech industry succeeded in pressuring the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to adopt a hands-off policy on genetically engineered food. That policy, hailed by then Vice-President Dan Quayle as "regulatory relief" for the industry, stands to this day.

But in January 2001, FDA proposed a new rule for genetically engineered food. The "new" policy, touted as tightening U.S. regulations, actually reasserts nearly all of the 1992 proposal. The result is an almost total lack of regulations on any of the gene-altered foods now found in thousands of products in our supermarkets.

Below, a side-by-side comparison of the original and current FDA policy proposals.

*GE foods must be labeled only if they are changed "significantly" in relation to nutritional content or if they contain donor genes from one of the most common food allergens. FDA has never defined what a "significant" change would be, and has been criticized for allowing potential allergens into GE foods without testing or labeling.

A: FDA admits it has not "established any regulations specific to bioengineered food." In other words, the genetically engineered foods that are found in thousands of products on our supermarket shelves have not been subject to any FDA regulation. There are no requirements for any safety or environmental tests for GE foods, and there is no requirement that GE foods are labeled. FDA does not approve GE foods, it simply allows them into our diets and our environment. The agency says it needs no such regulations because genetically engineered (GE) foods are no different and have no different safety issues than natural foods.

A: FDA’s own scientists found that genetic engineering is a different and potentially riskier technology than natural food production. They warned that unexpected allergic reactions, increased levels of food toxins, and other side effects of genetic engineering could harm human health or the environment. The FDA scientist who summarized the opinion of the agency’s scientific experts wrote, "(T)he processes of genetic engineering and traditional breeding are different, and according to the technical experts in the agency, they lead to different risks."

A: FDA says that GE foods must be labeled if they are changed nutritionally or if an allergen is introduced into food by genetic engineering. In fact, none of the GE foods in our supermarkets are labeled. An editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine criticized FDA’s policy on food allergens, noting that the agency does not require labeling or testing of GE foods that contain genes that have never been assessed for their potential to cause food allergies. Other GE foods have been changed nutritionally and functionally, yet FDA continues to keep consumers in the dark about these altered foods. For example, "insect resistant" GE crops are engineered to produce an insect toxin, so the GE plant is classified as a pesticide. When you eat this GE corn, for example, you are eating corn that contains a pesticide that has never before been part of the human diet. FDA says that these insect resistant foods are not labeled because pesticide regulation is EPA’s job. When EPA was asked why these foods are not labeled, they said it was because food labeling is FDA's job!

A: FDA says that its new guidelines will enable food companies to label products voluntarily. But no food company has voluntarily labeled foods that are made with GE ingredients. Meanwhile, FDA’s guidelines actually make it more difficult for responsible food companies who avoid GE foods to label their products as "not genetically engineered." FDA’s "voluntary" labeling guidelines leave GE foods unlabeled, while creating obstacles for food makers who simply want to sell the same non-GE food they always have.

Q: How is FDA’s policy changed under its new proposal?

A: FDA’s proposal for new GE food regulations makes no substantive changes in its policy; in fact, the agency has stated that it is reaffirming its original policy. Instead of requiring safety testing and labeling, FDA’s new policy will merely require biotech companies to notify the agency when they are about to bring a new GE food to market. FDA has refused to require pre-market testing and labeling despite scientific concerns and overwhelming public demand for labeling.

The biotech industry claims that genetically engineered foods are among the most tested foods ever. Proponents of gene-altered foods show large file folders and long bibliographies to prove that these foods have been the subject of exhaustive study. Monsanto says "…crops that have been developed using advanced biotechnology techniques are among the most tested food products on grocery store shelves. Our food safety team conducts exhaustive safety studies, which are published in peer-reviewed, scientific journals…".

In fact, our search found just three health studies in peer-reviewed journals. None of these met scientists’ recommendations that novel crop plants in the diet be tested for 90 days nor did they meet the FDA’s own testing requirements for food additives that would require, in some cases, up to 2 years multiple feeding studies. Only one study looked for effects other than obvious changes in the animals, such as weight gain. Regulations still do not require tests for toxicity to the immune system, developmental toxicity, or effects on the nervous system despite the advice of scientists.

How can this disparity be explained? When proponents of biotech foods point to their bulging briefcases, they are including as "safety studies" all kinds of analyses of biotech foods other than feeding studies. But these studies only looked at the composition of engineered plants, or acute effects, none of which can substitute for long-term animal feeding studies for effects on health.

Government regulators have been advised by scientists that

It is generally considered that a longer-term study of 90-day duration …is the minimum requirement to demonstrate the safety of repeated consumption of a novel crop plant in the diet.

Yet the longest feeding trial on genetically engineered food found in the peer-reviewed literature was 70 days; the other trials were less than half the 90-day standard.

Some defenders of genetically engineered foods have compared the testing on these foods with testing required for new drugs. In fact, new drug applications first go through pre-clinical animal trials, followed by clinical human trials, which typically involve three-phases of studies that each last from several months to four years or longer.

Even other food additives must go through more rigorous testing than genetically engineered foods. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) trumpets its new regulations as strengthening oversight of biotech foods, yet under the new proposal FDA still fails to require any pre-market safety testing of genetically engineered foods. Before FDA will allow many food additives on the market, it requires multiple 90-day feeding studies, and in some cases, multiple feeding studies of 1-2 years.

Yet biotech foods now on the market include proteins that have never been in the human diet, and no similar requirements as food additives apply. FDA’s current proposal does nothing to change this fact: genetically engineered foods will still be allowed into our diets without any long-term evidence that they are safe.

Greenpeace found a total of eleven published studies (table one). Of these, only three feeding studies were published in peer-reviewed journals. None of these three longer term feeding studies met scientists’ recommendations that novel crop plants in the diet be tested for 90 days nor did they meet the FDA’s own testing requirements for food additives that would require, in some cases, up to 2 years multiple feeding studies.

Of the eleven published studies, four looked only at the composition of a single gene-altered plant. Three studies looked at both composition and acute effects, while another looked just at acute effects. Only three longer-term feeding studies are available in the literature. These three feeding studies were published in peer-reviewed journals. Among the other eight studies are some that were published in books, but were not subject to peer review.

Proponents of biotech foods claim gene-altered foods are no different than natural foods because they are "substantially equivalent" in composition. Yet there is no scientifically agreed definition about what this means. Some scientists have called this concept "profoundly flawed" and "pseudo science."

Studies that look at the composition of genetically engineered foods generally attempt to answer the question, is the engineered crop "substantially equivalent" in levels of various nutrients and other components of the plant? The four studies in the published literature all find that the engineered variety studied is substantially equivalent to the natural crop. Yet, statistically significant differences have been found even in studies that report "equivalence." For example, Berberich, et al. looked at genetically engineered cotton and found "Several amino acids in cottonseed from lines 531 and 757 showed statistically significant differences when compared to the measured amino acid in cottonseed from the control line."

Despite findings like these, proponents of biotech foods cite these studies as "proof" that gene-altered foods are no different than natural foods. Since there is no scientifically agreed upon definition of "substantial equivalence," there is no standard way to determine how a plant could fail the equivalence assessment. One scientist has called substantial equivalence a "profoundly flawed and scientifically insupportable" concept, while other scientists writing in Nature called substantial equivalence "pseudo science." The British Medical Association has said "The possibility that novel genes inserted into food may cause real problems to humans is a real possibility, and ‘substantial equivalence’ is a rule which can be used to evade this biological fact."

The acute toxicity studies showed no toxic effects from the two proteins from engineered crops that were tested. However, side effects of the genetic engineering process that could occur in the plant cannot be analyzed through acute studies like these, which test only the purified protein produced from bacteria. None of the acute toxicity studies in the literature use whole foods or components from whole foods in the feeding trials. Scientists have advised government regulators that a whole foods approach is recommended:

Adding purified protein in varying amounts to the test food… will not generally help quantify other kinds of toxicity that may arise by chance from interactions of the heterologous protein with food material, nor will it increase the reliability of measures due to food gene disruption. In general there is merit in testing whole foods for toxicity, as they will be used by the consumer." (emphasis added)

None of these three longer term feeding studies met scientists’ recommendations that novel crop plants in the diet be tested for 90 days nor did they meet the FDA’s own testing requirements for food additives that would require, in some cases, up to 2 years multiple feeding studies. Only one study looked for effects other than obvious changes in the animals, such as weight gain. Regulations still do not require tests for toxicity to the immune system, developmental toxicity, or effects on the nervous system despite the advice of scientists.

Of the three papers in the literature that include longer-term feeding trials, two were conducted only on chickens, which are fed for just 40 days – less than half the 90-day standard. In food additive testing, FDA requires both rodent and non-rodent mammalian tests; clearly, chicken tests alone are not sufficient to assess effects on humans or other mammals. In the third study, rats, cows, chickens and catfish were used, though only the fish were fed for longer than 42 days.

The longer-term feeding studies also failed to look for effects other than obvious changes in the animals, such as weight gain. Other than one rat trial in one study, none of the trials looked for changes in internal organs or included any pathological exams. Furthermore, few replicates were used in almost all of the chicken trials, a shortcoming that two British scientists recently criticized in their review of another engineered crop study stating "…if one were seeking to show no effect, one of the best methods to do this would be to use insufficient replication."

Scientists have advised government regulators that longer-term feeding studies should be required when a new crop includes a protein or proteins for which there is no documented human exposure, or when novel proteins are created in a crop via modification of the primary structure of a naturally occurring protein. Either one or both of these circumstances applies for each of the genetically engineered crops currently on the market. U.S. regulations still do not require these studies recommended by scientists. They also fail to require tests for toxicity to the immune system, developmental toxicity, or effects on the nervous system despite the advice of scientists.

Linda Fisher Former vice presicen tof Government and Public Affairs for Monsanto went to become the former Assistant Ad of the USEPA Office of Pollution Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. She is now back as Deputy Assistant to Christine Todd Whitman, current head of the EPA. L. Val Gidings. Former Biotechnology regu tor negotiation at the US Dept of Ag. Now VP for Food and Ag of the Biotechnology Industry Organisation, a lobby group which represent industry.

Marcia Hale. Former Assistant to the President of the USA and director for intergovernmental affairs. Now Director of International Govt Affairs for Monsanto.

Ann Veneman, Secretary of Agriculture once said "we simply will not be able to feed the world without biotechnology." Not surprising, coming from someone who helped negotiate the agricultural portions of the GATT agreement and who was once on the board of Calgene (now a Monsanto subsidiary), the company that made the first (and first to fail) genetically-engineered product: Flavr Savr tomatoes (tomatoes with flounder genes).

For a full listing. See website resources. www.greenpeaceusa.org

Australia and New Zealand On December 7^th, 2001 mandatory labelling laws for GE food will come into effect. The standard, set by the Australia New Zealand Food Authority, calls for the mandatory labelling of all "food which has been derived or developed from an organism which has been modified by gene technology."

Brazil In June 2000, the Federal Court of Brasilia confirmed the need for labelling laws for GE food, though no rules have yet been implemented. Brazilian courts have also ruled against approval for planting of a GE soybean until labelling laws and a full environmental impact assessment is completed.

Czech Republic Beginning in 2002, mandatory labelling of GE food will be required. The Czech Republic has also enacted legislation to harmonize national law on GE food with EU rules.

Democratic and Popular Republic of Algeria In December 2000 the Agricultural Ministry introduced a draft order "to prohibit the import, the distribution, the commercialization and the utilization of genetically modified plant material."

Europe-15 EU nations, Switzerland and Norway Labelling of GE food has been mandatory for all 15 EU nations under EU Directive 90/220 since September 1998. In April 2000, legislation was passed to broaden the labelling requirements by including GE food additives as products that must be labelled. Regulations on labelling GE animal feed and products from animals fed GE material have been proposed. There is currently a de facto moratorium on approval of any new GE products while the EU is tightening its regulations.

Austria: Banned three GE corn varieties.

France: Banned two GE canola varieties.

Germany: Banned one GE corn variety.

Greece: Moratorium on field trials of GE crops, and a ban on one GE canola variety.

Luxembourg: Banned one GE corn variety.

Norway: Norway requires the mandatory labelling of GE foods, and has banned GE crops and products made with antibiotic resistant genes.

Portugal: Banned one GE corn variety.

Spain: The Basque region has instituted a five-year moratorium on GE crops. Three provinces have banned all GE food, and AndalucÌa has declared a five year moratorium on GE crop trials and GE food.

Switzerland: Mandatory labelling required for GE food additives and animal feed. Has also refused to allow field trials of certain GE crops.

Hong Kong In January 2000 Hong Kong's city council called for mandatory labelling of GE food.

China. The country just announced mandatory labeling for GMO food products, June, 2001 India Under the Indian Rules for the Manufacture, Use, Import, Export and Storage of Hazardous Micro Organisms, Genetically Engineered Organisms or Cells (1989), Rule 11 states: "Foodstuff, ingredients in food stuffs and additives including processing and containing or consisting of genetically engineered organisms or cells, shall not be produced, sold, imported or used except with the approval of the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee." No companies have currently applied to the GEAC.

Israel Israel is preparing regulations for the labelling of GE food, based on EU regulations.

Japan In April 2001, mandatory labelling of GE food came into force; some GE crops, including StarLink corn, have been banned.

Republic of Korea (South Korea) In March 2001 mandatory labelling of GE foods came into effect, with enforcement in September 2001.

Mexico In March 2001 the Senate unanimously approved a health bill that would require mandatory labelling of GE food. The law is awaiting approval by the Chamber of Deputies.

Paraguay Paraguay has banned the planting of GE seeds, specifically soybeans, for the 2000/2001 season.

Philippines The new President and Secretary of Agriculture have made GE labelling a government priority and are expected to publish details of GE labelling requirements soon.

Poland In April 2000, the Polish government announced mandatory labelling of all GE food products.

Russia In July 2000, Russia instituted a mandatory GE labelling law for GE food.

Saudi Arabia The government has implemented mandatory labelling requirements for GE foods to come into force in December 2001 and has also banned animal products that are made from GE organisms.

Sri Lanka In April 2000, the government banned the import of all GE foods.

Taiwan In November 2000 Taiwan outlined its mandatory labelling law for GE food.

Thailand On April 18^th, 2001, the Thai Public Health Minister announced that Thailand will be ready to impose a regulation on labelling of food containing genetically modified organisms (GMO) by July 2001. Thailand has also banned imports of 40 GE crops for commercial planting.

GE free movement influences US State legislation

Washington, DC The US federal administration does not currently require GE food labelling and has proposed non-binding guidelines for "voluntary" labeling. Two current bills calling for mandatory labelling are being put forth by Rep. Kusinich in the House of Representatives and Senator Boxer in the Senate.

Austin, Texas In May 2000 the Austin City Council passed a resolution urging the federal government to require labelling of genetically engineered (GE) foods and to enact a moratorium on GE foods.

Boston, Massachusetts In March 2000 the City of Boston passed a resolution urging the federal government to require labelling of genetically engineered foods and to enact a moratorium on the production of GE food.

Boulder, Colorado In August 2000 the City of Boulder banned GE crops on public lands. The city owns about 33,000 acres of open space, of which over half is leased for agriculture.

California In September 2000 California enacted a law to charge a fee to developers of new rice varieties for the costs of segregation. The law is widely interpreted as intended to ensure separation of GE from non-GE rice once GE seeds become available.

Cleveland, Ohio In August 2000, the Cleveland City Council passed a resolution urging the federal government to require labelling of GE food and calling for a moratorium on the production GE food.

Maryland In April 2001, the state enacted legislation for a five-year ban on the production of GE fish in any state waterway that flows into any other body of water.

Minneapolis, Minnesota In August 2000, the City of Minneapolis passed a resolution urging the federal government to label and test GE food and to establish a moratorium on these products.

San Francisco, California In December 2000 the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a resolution calling on the US Food and Drug Administration to label genetically engineered foods and institute a moratorium on GE foods. The resolution also called on food companies, such as Kellogg's and Campbell's, which have stopped using GE ingredients in their products in Europe, to do the same in the United States.

John Losey at University of Cornell found that Bt corn pollen was toxic to Monarchs. However because his studies were conducted in the lab and not in the field the Biotech industry said this may not be the case in nature. Subsequent research work carried out by Iowa State University would seem to indicate that there are real effects from natural levels of Bt pollen dusting arising in the field as well. See: http://www.ent.iastate.edu/entsoc/ncb99/prog/abs/D81.html In this study milkweed leaf samples taken from within and at the edge of the corn field were used to assess mortality of first instar monarch, D. plexippus exposed to Bt and non-Bt corn pollen. Within 48 hours, there was 19% mortality in the Bt corn pollen treatment compared to 0% on non-Bt corn pollen exposed plants and 3% in the no pollen controls. [Non-target effects of Bt corn pollen on the Monarch butterfly (Lepidoptera: Danaidae) *L. Hansen, Iowa State University, Ames , IA 50011 and J. Obrycki, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011 Contact e-mail: lrahnsen@iastate.edu ]

Family farmers, hunger and development experts, and environmentalists around the world were stunned to learn in 1998 that the genetic engineers, with the help of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), were developing a technology that would make it impossible for farmers to save their seeds for re-planting. Instantly dubbed "Terminator" technology, the GMO development was quickly denounced as an attempt to make farmers dependent on biotech companies by forcing them to buy new seed each year. Over 1.4 billion people rely on food from saved seed for their daily nutritional needs – yet companies that claim they want to "feed the world" continue to move to finalize their efforts to terminate farmers’ right to reuse seeds. And they continue to be supported by our tax dollars!

Already USDA has spent over $200 million to help genetic engineers develop this technology that can only benefit the biotech industry, at the expense of protection for family farmers, consumers or the environment.

As USDA’s William Phelps has acknowledged, the hope of terminator is that it will enable U.S. companies "…(T)o open up new markets in Second and Third World countries." USDA terminator scientist Melvin Oliver echoed this goal, stating, "My main interest is protection of American technology. Our mission is to protect U.S. agriculture, and to make us competitive in the face of foreign competition. Without this, there is no way of protecting the technology [patented seed]."

From THE OBSERVER: http://www.observer.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,319418,00.html 5-28-00 Modified Crop Genes 'Jump The Species Barrier' By Anthony Barnett - Public Affairs Editor A leading zoologist has found evidence that genes used to modify crops can jump the species barrier and cause bacteria to mutate, prompting fears that GM technology could pose serious health risks. A four-year study by Professor Hans-Hinrich Kaatz, a respected German zoologist, found that the alien gene used to modify oilseed rape had transferred to bacteria living inside the guts of honey bees. The research - which has yet to be published and has not been reviewed by fellow scientists - is highly significant because it suggests that all types of bacteria could become contaminated by genes used in genetically modified technology, including those that live inside the human digestive system. If this happened, it could have an impact on the bacteria's vital role in helping the human body fight disease, aid digestion and facilitate blood clotting. Agriculture Minister Nick Brown, who was yesterday advising farmers who have accidentally grown contaminated GM oilseed rape in Britain to rip up their crops, confirmed the potential significance of Kaatz's research. He said: 'If this is true, then it would be very serious.'

The 47-year-old Kaatz has been reluctant to talk about his research until it has been published in a scientific journal, because he fears a backlash from the scientific community similar to that faced by Dr Arpad Pustzai, who claimed that genetically modified potatoes damaged the stomach lining of rats. Pustzai was sacked and had his work discredited. But in his first newspaper interview, Kaatz told The Observer: 'It is true, I have found the herbicide-resistant genes in the rapeseed transferred across to the bacteria and yeast inside the intestines of young bees. This happened rarely, but it did happen.' Although Kaatz realised the potential 'significance' of his findings, he said he 'was not surprised' at the results. Asked if this had implications for the bacteria inside the human gut, he said: 'Maybe, but I am not an expert on this.'

Dr Mae-Wan Ho, geneticist at Open University and a critic of GM technology, has no doubts about the dangers. She said: 'These findings are very worrying and provide the first real evidence of what many have feared. Everybody is keen to exploit GM technology, but nobody is looking at the risk of horizontal gene transfer. 'We are playing about with genetic structures that existed for millions of years and the experiment is running out of control.' One of the biggest concerns is if the anti-biotic resistant gene used in some GM crops crossed over to bacteria. 'If this happened it would leave us unable to treat major illnesses like meningitis and E coli .'

Kaatz, who works at the respected Institute for Bee Research at the University of Jena in Germany, built nets in a field planted with genetically modified rapeseed produced by AgrEvo. He let the bees fly freely within the net. At the beehives, he installed pollen traps in order to sample the pollen from the bees' hindlegs when entering the hive. This pollen was fed to young honey bees in the laboratory. Pollen is the natural diet of young bees, which need a high protein diet. Kaatz then extracted the intestine of the young bees and discovered that the gene from the GM rape-seed had been transferred in the bee gut to the microbes. Professor Robert Pickard, director-general of the Institute of the British Nutrition Foundation, is a bee expert as well as being a biologist and has visited the institute where Kaatz works. He said: 'There is no doubt that, if Kaatz's research is substantiated, then it poses very interesting questions and will need to be looked at very closely. 'But it must be remembered that the human body has been coping perfectly well with strange DNA for millions of years. And we also know many people have been eating GM products for years without showing any signs of ill health.'

In 1998, a researcher at the Rowett Research Institute in Scotland, Arpad Pusztai, went public with his findings that rats got sick when fed potatoes genetically engineered with the snowdrop lectin gene. In his studies, these rats showed impaired development of the liver, thymus, spleen and gut, decreased brain size, and weakened immune systems, while rats fed potatoes that had lectin added naturally did not show the same effects. The design of the study implies that the cause of the health effects might have been the process of genetic engineering itself, rather than the lectin. The Pusztai study raised significant safety questions. However, rather than investigating these questions by conducting additional experiments, the scientific community at large and the biotechnology industry attacked the study’s methodology and Pusztai’s decision to make his findings public. The end result is that the questions raised by his work are still unanswered. Moreover, there have yet to be long-term feeding studies demonstrating the safety of consuming plants engineered with snowdrop lectin, and British consumers are sure to be doubtful of any crop containing such a protein.

A COMMON VIRAL PROMOTER IS NOW FOUND TO SILENCE THE GENE IN THE SECOND AND THIRD GENERATIONS OF PLANTS.

The cauliflower mosaic virus CaMV is ubiquitous. The CaMV promoter is present in a majority of plants. Gene silencing can ‘destabilize commercially important genetic traits." Scientists have now found that 2^nd and 3^rd generations of GMO plants can lose the ability to be herbicide resistant. This is due to pleiotrophic effects or secondary effects of gene manipulation.

Triple Herbicide Resistant Canola (rapeseed) in Canada SUPERWEEDS

Rapeseed in Canada have become resistant to three kinds of herbicide. The plants picked up genes from three different varieties of rapeseed (canola), two of them genetically engineered. In 1997, a farmer in Alberta planted separate fields, each 30 metres apart, with canola that resisted either Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, Cyanamid's Pursuit or Aventis's Liberty. In 2000, he found volunteer rapeseed that was resistant against All three herbicides, probably through a cross-pollination involving all Three varieties during the last three years, leading to a stacking of the Herbicide resistance genes in one plant.

Vancouver Sun Tuesday, February 6, 2001 EDITION Final News Panel warns of superweeds created by technology Tom Spears OTTAWA -- Genetically modified ``superweeds'' have invaded Canadian farms -- canola plants engineered to help farmers that instead escaped and crossbred with each other to form plants stronger than their parents. Most pesticides can't kill these canola superweeds, which are sprouting up in wheat fields and other areas where farmers don't want them, Canada's expert panel on biotechnology says.

Three types of canola, each engineered with genes to resist one type of weedkiller, have merged into new varieties resistant to many pesticides. Instead of helping farmers kill weeds, the canola itself has become the weed. The superweed-canola is especially Bad in the Prairies, where canola is a multibillion-dollar crop, says a report released Monday from the Royal Society of Canada's biotech experts. The panel warns that as the next generation of genetically-engineered crops becomes more complex, it will be tougher to head off the superweeds of the future. Canola ``is the classic example'' of a superweed, said Brian Ellis, a co-chairman of the panel and molecular biologist at the University of B.C. Canola varieties were engineered to use with a pesticide. The idea was that a farmer would plant canola resistant to the pesticide and then spray the field. Everything except the canola would die. Where canola is nearly pesticide-proof, it can crowd out other plants -- crops and weeds -- in farm fields. But its resistance to pesticides doesn't help its survival in the wild, where there are no pesticides. ``The next generation is crops that come along carrying genes that make them more frost-tolerant or drought-tolerant. They have an advantage over their wild cousins,'' Ellis said. That means they will have a bioengineered advantage in taking over farm fields and in moving through wild areas. Canola plants will breed with any other canola they meet, accumulating all the genes originally built into different strains by different laboratories. This forces farmers to retreat to ``broad-spectrum'' pesticides -- chemicals that kill just about anything, such as 2,4-D. These are chemicals that farmers were trying to get away from in the first place.

By Mike Holmberg Farm Chemicals Editor Successful Farming

The three fields have similar herbicide histories, according to Mark VanGessel, a weed scientist at the University of Delaware. Roundup had been used in combination with other herbicides as a burndown over a number of years. Over the last three years, each field has had a burndown and an over-the-top application of Roundup or Touchdown with no other herbicides in the rotation.

The three fields are at least 60 miles apart, VanGessel says. In one field sprayed with the recommended rate of glyphosate last season, VanGessel saw dead marestail right next to marestail that looked like nothing had happened to it.

"It certainly looked like resistance," VanGessel says. "Marestail control was random throughout the field, which ruled out sprayer problems or applicator error. With almost ideal weather conditions early in 2000, we also ruled out environmental or stress factors."

Scientists from Syngenta, the manufacturer of Touchdown, are collaborating with VanGessel on additional tests. Seeds from these surviving plants have been grown out in a greenhouse and treated with 10X rates of glyphosate. The second generation appears to have the tolerance as well.

For more info: see www.cropchoice.com

New study finds Monsanto soya means more pesticides in the environment

Amsterdam/London, 4th May, 2001 – One of the fundamental claims of the Genetic Engineering (GE) industry that their soya crops need less herbicides than conventional varieties has been rubbished by a new independent report, according to Greenpeace today. Previously unreleased data form the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) proves that the so-called Roundup Ready (RR) soya, produced by Monsanto, uses 11.4% more herbicides on average than conventional soya, and in many cases up to 30% more than conventional varieties. (1)

In addition, the report by Dr Charles Benbrook, from the US Northwest Science and Environmental Policy Center, accuses Monsanto of manipulating comparative data on herbicide use on its Roundup Ready soya and conventional soybeans "in ways that fall between misleading and dishonest". Monsanto has based its claims of herbicide-reduction on a comparison between "traditional soybean varieties" and RR crops without explaining that these traditional varieties were a selected number of "old generation" types, which require high-dose rate herbicides.

"Yet again Monsanto has been exposed for telling convenient half-truths about its products. But the evidence is clear: far from improving the state of the environment by using less herbicides as the GE industry claims, the GE crops are causing even greater pollution," said Geert Ritsema, Genetic Engineering Campaigner for Greenpeace.

The report also warns that a natural immunity has already build up to the active ingredient (glyphosate) that supposedly makes GE soya weed resistant. As a consequence, the farmers have to use additional herbicides to boost the insufficient effect. Not only has the product failed but there are additional environmental costs involved. Dr Benbrook estimates that the widespread cultivation of the GE soybeans can lead farmers to spray an additional 20 million pounds of herbicides this coming season.

The report also states that evidence from university research trials suggests that Monsanto’s GE soya yields 5-10% less than similar conventional soya varieties.

"This study confirms that genetic engineering of farm crops means more chemicals in our environment. The likes of GE Roundup Ready soya have caused a stagnation in the development of environmentally sound agricultural practices and forced farmers to still rely on herbicide dependent systems. The GE crops also contaminate conventional varieties diminishing the freedom of choice for farmers and consumers to select non-GE products," Ritsema added.

More information on http://www.greenpeace.org

The USDA data is published in the report by Dr Charles Benbrook, the Northwest Science and Environmental Policy Center entitled "Troubled Times Amid Commercial Success for Roundup Ready Soybeans", available on http://www.biotech-info.net/troubledtimes.html.

In 1998 in 16 soybean growing states in the US, an average total amount of 1.22 pounds of herbicides per acre was applied on GE Roundup Ready soybeans, whereas on an average 1.08 pounds of herbicide was applied on conventional soya varieties, which is 11.4 percent less than on RR soya. In six states, including Iowa where about one-sixth of the nation's soybeans are grown, total herbicide use on Roundup Ready soybeans was at least 30 percent greater on average compared to conventional varieties. Use on RR soybeans was modestly lower in five states.

Herbicide resistant RR soya induces Yield Drag.

RR Soy gives 6-11 percent less yield. . (RR soy gives 2 b ushels per acre versus 55 and 57 bu per acre) However farmers find this easier to control weeds. Eg "It’s like the effect an airconditioner has on a pickup: less performance but the trade off is good."

AD CAMPAIGN URGES FARMERS TO AVOID GENETICALLY ENGINEERED CROPS AND GO WITH CONVENTIONAL SEED March 21, 2001 Land Stewardship Project Press Release http://www.landstewardshipproject.org. Lewiston, MN –

The Farmer to Farmer Campaign on Genetic Engineering in Agriculture of which the Land Stewardship Project is a founding member launched a campaign addressing farmers' concerns about planting genetically engineered (GE) crops. In a print and radio ad blitz targeting Minnesota and other key Midwestern states, the campaign is urging farmers to look at the declining export markets for GE crops before making final planting decisions this spring. The campaign is encouraging farmers to consider the impact GE crops will have on export markets and to call 1-800-639-FARM to get more information on GE crops. The ad campaign targets corn and soybean farmers in Minnesota as well as Illinois, Iowa, Missouri and South Dakota. The campaign is a grassroots effort that is intended to provide balanced information on genetic engineering from a farmer perspective.

Land Stewardship Project member Jim Riddle who participated in founding the Farmer to Farmer Campaign said that providing farmers with a non-industry perspective on genetic engineering is critical at this time. "Family farmers are seeing overseas markets shrink partly because of genetically engineered seed. Prices are already low and these market declines can only do more harm. The Farmer to Farmer Campaign is encouraging farmers to consider this problem when they buy their seed this spring."

The ads highlight recent negative market developments brought on by GE crops, including: The Agriculture Department recently lowered its forecast of corn exports for the marketing year by 90 million bushels, a cut private analysts say is largely due to the impact of the contamination of the corn crop by the genetically modified corn Starlink (Des Moines Register: February 25, 2001) Projected U.S. corn exports are reduced because some importers, especially Japan, are expected to minimize purchases of varieties of corn not approved for some, or all, uses. (USDA WASDE: March 8, 2001) Brazil has won its first contract to supply Spain with 150,000 tons of non-GMO corn. They sold it at a 15-cent premium. In 1999, we lost $200 million in sales of corn to Spain and Portugal alone. A leader of a Brazilian cooperative said Brazil may export GMO-free corn to Japan. (Reuters) Europe is buying non-GMO soybeans. From 1995-2000, the US has lost 14.3% of its export market share in soybeans, while Brazil's market share has climbed 10.7% (USDA PS&D Database) As of the third week in February, the combined total of accumulated U.S. corn exports and outstanding U.S. corn export sales to Japan is 65 million bushels less then at this time last year. (USDA- FASonline, U.S. Export Sales as of 2/22/2001)

The Farmer-to-Farmer Campaign on Genetic Engineering in Agriculture is a collaborative effort among family farm organizations to promote the farmer perspective on genetic engineering in agriculture. The campaign works to bring the family farmer voice to development of policies related to genetic engineering in agriculture. In November 1999, over thirty farm groups endorsed the Farmer's Declaration on Genetic Engineering in Agriculture, an initial effort of the campaign. Besides the Land Stewardship Project groups involved in the media effort are Dakota Rural Action, Illinois Stewardship Alliance, Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, and Missouri Rural Crisis Center.

Geno-Types - 2 April 2001

No Corporate Liability for Unsafe Sex and Bioserfdom

Under Canadian patent law, as in the US and many other industrialized countries, it is illegal for farmers to re-use patented seed, or to grow Monsanto's GM seed without signing a licensing agreement. If the Gene Giants and US Trade Reps get their way, every nation in the world will be forced to adopt patent laws that make seed saving illegal. The ruling against Schmeiser establishes an even more dangerous precedent because it means that farmers can be forced to pay royalties on GM seeds found on their land, even if they didn't buy the seeds, or benefit from them.

Percy Schmeiser did not buy Monsanto's patented seed, nor did he obtain the seed illegally. Pollen from genetically engineered canola seeds blew onto his land from neighboring farms. (Percy Schmeiser's neighbors and an estimated 40% of farmers in Western Canada grow GM canola). Monsanto's GM canola genes invaded Schmeiser's farm without his consent. Shortly thereafter, Monsanto's "gene police" invaded his farm and took seed samples without his permission. Percy Schmeiser was a victim of genetic pollution from GM crops - but the court says he must now pay Monsanto $10,000 for licensing fees and up to $75,000 in profits from his 1998 crop. It's like saying that Monsanto's technology is spreading a sexually transmitted disease but everyone else has to wear a condom.

The GM canola that drifted onto Schmeiser's farm was engineered to withstand spraying of Monsanto's proprietary weedkiller, Roundup. But Schmeiser did not use Roundup on his canola crop. After all, if Schmeiser had sprayed his crop, the chemical would have killed the majority of his canola plants that were not genetically modified to tolerate the weedkiller! Schmeiser didn't take advantage of Monsanto's GM technology, but the court ruling says he's guilty of using the seed without a licensing agreement.

Monsanto (acquired by Pharmacia last year) is the world's premiere Biotech Behemoth. Last week's court ruling has far-reaching implications for farming communities around the world. Last year, Monsanto's GM seed technology was planted on 41.6 million hectares (103 million acres) worldwide. That means Monsanto accounted for 94% of the global area sown to genetically modified seeds in 2000. (Total worldwide area = 44.2 million hectares or 109.2 million acres.)

Thanks in large part to Terminator technology, the Monsanto moniker has became synonymous with GM seeds and corporate greed. Although Monsanto disavowed "suicide seeds" in the wake of international public protest, the company has routinely employed Draconian measures to prevent farmers from re-using patented seed, including the use of private police to root out seed-saving farmers, and toll-fee hotlines to encourage rural residents to snitch on their farm neighbors. Monsanto has threatened to "vigorously prosecute" hundreds of cases against seed saving farmers, but Schmeiser's was the first major case to reach the courts. Schmeiser courageously decided to fight back and speak out against bioserfdom.

Last week's anti-farmer verdict is being hailed as a landmark victory for Monsanto, but it's too soon for the Gene Giants to celebrate. Will the ruling against Schmeiser unleash a new biotech backlash in the heartland?

North American farmers grew three-quarters of the world's commercial GM crops last year, and now they're showing signs of biotech battle fatigue. Illegal traces of Aventis' StarLink maize (unapproved for human consumption) have disrupted grain markets and jeopardized exports. Unsold stockpiles of US maize are at their highest level since GM crops were commercialized. The US government announced last month that it would spend $20 million in taxpayer money to bail out the biotech industry, by purchasing maize seed that was contaminated with Aventis' StarLink genes. (StarLink maize was planted on less than 0.02 percent of all US maize cropland in 2000, but cross-pollination with other maize varieties resulted in seed contaminated with StarLink genes.) To add insult to injury, the federal bailout is using money that would normally go to disaster relief for farmers.

With the advent of genetic engineering and exclusive monopoly patents, the Gene Giants have abolished the farmers' fundamental rights to save and exchange seed. Now farmers are being forced to accept liability for genetically modified crops. How many bullets will they take for biotech?

In North America, where many farmers have embraced GM technology, there are signs of resistance worth noting:

* The National Farmers Union of Canada has called for a national moratorium on producing, importing and distributing GM food.

* A bill introduced in North Dakota (US), backed by the state's wheat farmers, would impose a moratorium on growing genetically modified wheat - a crop that Monsanto hopes to commercialize by 2003.

* In March 2001 the National Farmers Union (US) adopted a policy supporting a moratorium on the introduction, certification and commercialization of genetically engineered wheat until issues of cross-pollination, liability, commodity and seed stock segregation, and market acceptance are adequately addressed.

* The Indiana (USA) House of Representatives passed a bill last month defending the farmers' right to save seed.

* Oklahoma's Secretary of Agriculture, Dennis Howard, recently commented: "After reviewing Monsanto's 2001 Technology Agreement, I would discourage any farmer from signing this document. Not only does this contract severely limit the options of the producer, it also limits Monsanto's liability The protection of the Monsanto contract is strictly one-sided and I would encourage producers to carefully consider this before entering into this agreement."

* A North Dakota State University economist warns that growers of GM crops are exposing themselves to potentially huge financial risks by signing gene technology agreements. Dwight Aakre warns that "responsibility for providing assurance of non-contamination with GMO materials is being pushed back to the individual producer."

Percy Schmeiser has filed a counter-suit against Monsanto, but his family faces enormous legal costs that cannot be sustained without outside assistance. Contributions to Schmeiser's legal defense may be sent to:

For more information about Percy Schmeiser's case, go to: www.percyschmeiser.com

To see the 62-page decision by Canada's federal court judge Andrew MacKay go to: http://www.fct-cf.gc.ca

**********

RAFI (the Rural Advancement Foundation International) is an international civil society organization based in Canada. RAFI is dedicated to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, and to the socially responsible development of technologies useful to rural societies. RAFI is concerned about the loss of agricultural biodiversity, and the impact of intellectual property on farmers and food security.

(April 6, 2001 --Cropchoice news) -- The Scruggs family has been farming in North America for eight generations. "And we've been saving seed that long," says Mitchell Scruggs, a Mississippi soybean, cotton and wheat farmer. "It's a God given right that was passed on to us by our ancestors. It's never been disputed until now, when big corporations are misusing patents to take those rights away from American farmers. The reason they're doing this is to control all the food and fiber in the world. They do this by controlling seed."

He is one of hundreds of farmers Monsanto is suing. The St. Louis-based biotechnology giant alleges that they've saved and replanted its transgenic seeds, an infringement of its patents.

Scruggs admits that he saves the seed from Roundup Ready and Bt soybeans and cotton. As far as he's concerned, once he's paid for seed, it's his to do with as he pleases.

Although he acknowledges that genetic contamination of conventional crops is a growing and serious problem, Scruggs is focusing his fight on protecting the right of farmers to save seeds. To that end, he helped to found Farmers Save Our Seed, better known as Farmers S-O-S. So far, he says, hundreds of farmers have phoned the organization's toll-free phone number (1-877-727-6207).

Biotechnology began its rapid growth in the mid-1970s, with the incorporation of Genentech. Four years later, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that General Electric Company's oil-eating bacterium -- developed for use in cleaning up oil spills -- could be patented. In 1987, the U.S. Patent and Trademark office announced that non-human animals could be patented; a year later it awarded the first patent to a transgenic mouse prone to cancer.

FROM PATENTS TO MONOPOLY Scruggs says that patents are helping Monsanto's monopolization of the agricultural industry.

To illustrate his point, Scruggs points to the increasing difficulty of avoiding transgenic seeds. It doesn't help that the industry is now patenting even non-transgenic seeds, such as the Pioneer Hi-Bred's 9594 soybean.

Monsanto inserted its Roundup resistant and Bt traits into the best cotton varieties that the largest seed companies -- Stoneville, Delta and Pine Land, and Ellis Brothers Sure Grow -- offer. The DPL 50, in Scruggs opinion among the best conventional cotton, was dropped in favor of transgenic varieties. Of course, Monsanto receives royalties on every bag of transgenic seed these companies sell. The same goes for soybeans. Monsanto owns DeKalb, Hartz and Asgrow, and has agreements with other seed companies, as well.

Bob Young, the owner and operator of Memphis-based Seeds, agrees with Scruggs's assessment.

By Robert SchubertCropChoice.com editor

(May 21, 2001 ­ CropChoice news) -- Monsanto continues its lawsuit against a North Dakota family farm, despite an independent body's ruling that it found no evidence of wrongdoing. Roger, Rodney and Greg Nelson grow soybeans, wheat and sugar beets on 8,000 acres outside of Amenia, ND, in the Red River Valley. (See February story about Nelson case -- http://www.cropchoice.com/leadstry.asp?recid=244)

"They (Monsanto) haven't got any evidence," says Mark Fraase, the attorney representing the Nelsons. "They can't gather any, yet they persist."

Monsanto would not comment on any aspect of this story.

The Nelsons are among the hundreds of farmers Monsanto is suing, usually on the grounds of patent infringement. However, growers have begun to fight back in the courts. The St. Louis-based biotechnology-agriculture-chemical giant alleges that the Nelsons saved Roundup Ready soybean seed from their 1998 and 1999 crop, a violation of its patent. Monsanto engineered the transgenic soybeans to resist its Roundup herbicide.

The North Dakota State Seed Arbitration Board found no support for Monsanto's claims in its March 27 hearing on the matter.

"The evidence does not show, by the greater weight of the evidence, that Nelson Farm is infringing on any Monsanto patents for RR soybeans by planting, growing, and harvesting unlicensed saved RR soybean seed without authorization from Monsanto, or that Nelson Farm will continue to so infringe. Nelson Farm did not plant any saved RR soybean seed in 1998, 1999, or 2000," according to the non-binding Board ruling.

Representatives for Monsanto were absent.

"They said it was a patent infringement case and had nothing to do with the controversy involving seed," Fraase says. "But obviously it does involve seed. It involves the accusation that they (the Nelsons) used saved seed."

He is trying to change the venue for the trial, likely to begin in 10 months, from the federal district court in St. Louis to Fargo, ND. "It doesn't belong in St. Louis," he says. "The law is clear that any patent infringement cases must be tried in the state or district where they occurred. Even Monsanto doesn't argue with that. But, the technology agreement says that must agree to a trial in St. Louis." One problem with this is that Monsanto has accused the Nelsons of saving seed from the 1998 season, yet they didn't sign a technology agreement until March 31, 1999.

The Seed Arbitration Board frowned on Monsanto's actions in the case. According to its decision: "Nelson Farm has been cooperative with Monsanto in its investigations and testing. Monsanto, however, has not been very cooperative with Nelson Farm, withholding information on tests, not telling nelson Farm where it sampled for testing in 1999, and failing to attend an arbitration hearing requested by Nelson Farm to define and resolve seed dispute issues."

The Nelsons first purchased Roundup Ready seed in 1998 to plant on 68 acres infested with weeds. They proved to the Board's satisfaction that they had hauled every bushel from that field to the elevator. Witnesses and scale tickets showed this, Fraase says.

For the 1999 season, he says, the Nelsons purchased enough seed for 1,800 acres, but planted 1,500 acres. This leaves one to question, as the Seed Arbitration Board did, why the family saved seed if they had that much extra. Seed and chemical purchases for the 2000 crop prove that the Nelsons purchased a sufficient amount to plant only for that season.

Perhaps more troubling, he says, is the fact that 40 percent of the fields that Monsanto claims it tested weren't on the Nelsons' farm.

Monsanto has taken its battle with the Nelsons outside the courtroom.

Thompson Coburn, the St. Louis law firm representing the company, sent a letter to at least 23 seed distributors in North Dakota and Minnesota in which it instructs them to avoid selling Monsanto's products to the Nelsons. "If the Nelsons , or any entity in which the Nelsons have any interest or participate in any way have paid for any product containing Monsanto's patented biotechnology that has not been delivered or picked up, please issue a return/refund pursuant to your own policies. As you know, products containing Monsanto's patented biotechnology are protected by various patents issued to Monsanto under the laws of the United States."

This is a "PR stunt" designed to make his family appear guilty, says Rodney Nelson.

What with the lawsuit and the fact that the Roundup Ready soybeans yielded less and required more use of herbicides than their conventional counterparts, the Nelsons plan to stick with conventional varieties. But, they admit, avoiding transgenic contamination ­ it can happen during planting, harvesting, processing and distribution -- is becoming more and more difficult.

Roger Nelson told AgWeek: "A farmer can go out and buy brand new, conventional seed and you can't get any written guarantees that they're GMO-free. If we liked the conventional variety we're using, we might save some of it for seed in 2002. Under a current ruling out of Canada, if that seed contained some Roundup Ready genes, we'd be infringing on Monsanto's patent. It's insanity."

He was referring to Monsanto's case against Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser. The Federal Court of Canada ruled that Schmeiser was liable for having Roundup Ready canola in his fields of conventional canola ­ due to cross-pollination with neighbors' plants -- and failing to inform Monsanto about it.

The Nelsons aren't the only farmers Monsanto is suing. Attorney Ronald E. Osman is defending Illinois farmer Eugene Stratemeyer against the company.

Before the 1998 planting season, Stratemeyer purchased Roundup Ready soybeans to plant on his farm. He paid the $6.50 per bag technology fee on top of the cost of the seed -- $16 to $17 per bag. However, Osman says, no one asked him to sign the technology agreement that disallows farmers from saving seed.

On July 4 and 14, 1998, a man showed up at Stratemeyer's farm and asked to buy some soybean seeds. Given that it was too late in the season to start a crop, the man said he wanted to grow the soybeans for erosion control. Reluctantly, Stratemeyer agreed to help him. He charged the man only enough to cover the cost of cleaning and bagging the seed -- $7 a bag for enough seeds to plant 140 bushels.

After testing and verifying that those seeds were Roundup Ready, Monsanto officials went to the U.S. District Court, eastern district of Missouri, a judicial forum that has been favorable to the company in the past, Osman says. The judge, with only himself and company lawyers present, issued a temporary restraining order on Stratemeyer.

Monsanto officials proceeded to Stratemeyer's farm where they seized the soybeans he had harvested and notified him of its lawsuit on the grounds of patent infringement and breach of contract. As the technology agreement stipulates, the trial was to take place in St. Louis. In late 1998, Osman succeeded in getting the venue for the trial changed to the U.S. District Court for the southern district of Illinois. The class-action counterclaim against Monsanto, for which Stratemeyer is the only representative to date, is filed under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.

Monsanto didn't have what it needed to take its case to court-- a document stating that he knew better than to save the seeds. So, company agents forged his signature -- even misspelling his name in the process -- on a technology agreement. The agents later admitted to forging (long prior to the lawsuit) his and many other farmers' signatures, Osman says.

In response to this document, which remains in the court record, Monsanto attorneys argue that there was an implied contract, he says. In other words, they say that it's common knowledge that Monsanto doesn't allow growers to save its seeds. To prove this claim, they produced a grower redemption form stating that Stratemeyer had received free pesticide spraying on 50 acres. Problem was, it too was forged.

Stratemeyer believes he has the right to save seed for his own use. He purchased more Roundup Ready soybean seed in 1999 and 2002, paid the technology fees, and never saw a technology agreement.

"You can go almost anyplace in Illinois and buy Roundup Ready soybeans without anyone saying anything about technology agreements," says Osman, who is also a farmer.

Stratemeyer's counterclaim against Monsanto has turned into a class-action lawsuit on behalf of farmers throughout Illinois who purchased Roundup Ready soybeans and whose names Monsanto forged on its technology agreements, he says. The suit is filed under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.

The 2001 technology agreements are stricter in that Monsanto can go to the Farm Service Agency to check records on soybean and corn acreage. Then it can check with seed and chemical dealers to know how much Roundup herbicide the farmer purchased. Plus, in 2001 they want growers to agree to seed arbitration rather than filing a lawsuit. Monsanto prefers this because it imposes shorter time limits on the farmers.

Farmers band together to take on MonsantoIn another case, thousands of corn and soybean farmers are involved in a class-action lawsuit against Monsanto in the eastern district of Missouri. This case is based on anti-trust and environmental claims brought under the nuisance and consumer fraud act.

They are seeking anti-trust damages for price fixing and other anti-competitive conduct, says lead attorney Richard Lewis, who expects to receive a trial date in late spring. When it comes to environmental claims they're seeking economic damages for farmers who've been hurt due to regulatory and consumer rejection of genetically modified crops. They are also seeking adequate environmental and human health testing of transgenic crops.

Please see the following stories for past CropChoice stories involving Monsanto, farmers, and legal matters:

1. The implications of the Percy Schmeiser decision, http://www.cropchoice.com/leadstry.asp?recid=319

2. Mississippi farmer fights for the right to save seed http://www.cropchoice.com/leadstry.asp?recid=285

3. Colorado wheat grower sees transgenic threats to family farmers http://www.cropchoice.com/leadstry.asp?recid=255

PRESS RELEASE (Embargo: Friday March 9^th 2001, 3pm)

Despite the organic movement's stringent efforts to keep GMOs (genetically engineered /modified organisms) out of organic production, some US organic farmers have found their corn (maize) crops, including seeds, to contain detectable levels of genetically engineered DNA.

"Those who claim ownership rights to these genes should be held liable for their uncontrolled spread in the environment and into our food," says Gunnar Rundgren, President of the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), which unites 730 member organisations in 103 countries.

The organic movement is firm in its opposition to any use of GMOs in agriculture, and organic standards explicitly prohibit their use. The farmers, whose seed is contaminated, have been under rigid organic certification, which assures that they did not use any kind of genetically modified materials on their farms. Any trace of GMOs must have come from outside their production areas. While the exact origin is unclear at this time, it is most likely that the pollution has been caused by pollen drift from GMO-fields in surrounding areas. However, the contamination may have also come from the seed supply. Seed producers, who intended to supply GMO-free seed, have also been confronted with genetic pollution and cannot guarantee that their seed is 100% GMO-free.

"This is more evidence that GMOs are polluting the environment in a way that is outside the control of society or the companies that have released these GMOs, and we are outraged. It means that consumers could soon be deprived of their right to choose GMO-free food, if this unwanted spread of genetically altered genes is not stopped," Gunnar Rundgren continues.

Organic products remain the best option for consumers who wish to avoid GMO-food and resist their use in agriculture. Organic farmers and independent certification agencies will take all reasonable measures to prevent contamination. However, IFOAM, organic farmers and certifiers can not do this job alone. Unless action is taken immediately, it may soon be impossible to produce uncontaminated organic corn crops in the US. This is equally true for conventional farmers who want to produce corn without GMOs.

The problem of pollution not only has direct consequences for organic farmers; it also means a dramatic loss of the cultural heritage of agricultural varieties, which has huge implications for populations around the world. For thousands of years, humans have selected and bred natural varieties adapted to unique climatic zones and regional properties, in order to provide us with quality food. It is the aim of organic agriculture to preserve this natural way, based on sound scientific and ecological principles.

IFOAM calls on governments and regulatory agencies throughout the world to immediately ban the use of genetic engineering in agriculture and food production, while there is still a chance to stop this unwanted pollution. IFOAM further holds genetic engineering industries responsible for the damage they have inflicted on organic farmers. Governments are therefore urged to pass legislation that makes GMO companies liable for all genetic pollution caused by the products they own.

Anaheim/USA and Tholey-Theley/Germany

March 9^th 2001

Contact for further information:

Northamerica: Suzanne Vaupel (email: svaupel@organicfoodlaw.com phone/fax:+1-916-444-1877)

Annie Kirschenmann (email: annie@daktel.com phone: +1-701-486-3578/fax–3580)

Latinamerica: Alberto (Pipo) Lernoud (email: pipol@sion.com phone +5411-48621424/fax –47775082)

Europe: Luise Lutikholt (email: info@platformbiologica.nl phone +31-30-2339970/fax –4213063)

Asia: Prabha Mahale (email: ysindia@giasdl01.vsnl.net.in phone +91-124-6388900/fax –6388769) Australia: Liz Clay (email: liz-clay@sympac.com.au phone+221-634-1837/fax +221-956-4202)

POLLINATION FROM TAINTED CORN (DES MOINES REGISTER) http://www.progressivefarmer.com/today/archive.asp

(Genetic Pollution. Legal Battles. Insurance. Industry. EU. Who Pays?)

The Des Moines Register - April 17, 2001.

Pollution costs organic farmers revenueSusan and Mark Fitzgerald are victims of "genetic drift," a relatively new and disturbing phenomenon for corn producers. The Minnesota couple took all of the precautions they thought necessary to make sure their 100 acres of corn was organic, a feature that can double the earnings on their yield. They set up barriers of bushes, shrubs, and trees, planted the right crops in the right places, and bought corn seed guaranteed to be free of genetic engineering. - When the harvest came, though, they tested their corn. To their surprise and dismay, genetically engineered kernels showed up in the hopper: a pesticide-producing seed known as Bt whose pollen apparently made its way from a neighbor's field, swept by wind or carried by birds or insects. They had to pull 800 bushels from the organic market, a loss they put at nearly $2,000. "Everyone's wondering what you do," Susan Fitzgerald said. "One can't speak alone; you're barking in the wind. It's you against Goliath." –

The Fitzgeralds' story highlights a problem most recently brought to light by the lingering trouble caused by contamination from StarLink corn. Across the nation, the planting of genetically engineered seeds has surged since their introduction in 1996. It accounts for as much as a quarter of all corn grown in the United States. - One effect is that insects, birds, and the wind are spreading biotech pollen to fields planted with conventional or organic crops miles away. –

As losses mount, the question is being asked: Who pays? - Some farmers say it's the problem of their neighbors, while others accuse the seed companies. The seed companies look for help from the government in setting more flexible standards. The government points back at the farmers as well as state courts hearing a growing number of lawsuits. - "We never really thought all this through," said Charles Hurburgh, director of the Iowa Grain Quality Initiative and an Iowa State University professor. "Who would have known 10 years ago that this would have been an issue? " - The most common recourse for such losses -insurance -is one that's not yet available to the nation's nearly 2 million farms. - Insurance companies say their policies won't cover genetic drift, the term used to describe cross-pollination between biotech and nonbiotech fields. That reflects not only the novelty of the problem but also a sense that studies are still lacking on the scope of drift -how far pollen can travel, for instance, and how large farmers' losses might be. -

BY Jerry W. Kram

'This contract was for 20 cents of the Chicago Board of Trade price,' Wiley said. 'The Japanese were really pleased with my sample saying they had excellent color and protein.'

Three weeks before he was to have delivered his beans, Wiley was informed that his sample had tested positive for genetically modified varieties. The level of contamination was 1.37 percent, which was too much for the Japanese.

'I was stunned and sick to my stomach,' Wiley said. 'I finally went into the house to tell my wife we had just lost $ 6,000 because of a neighbor's planting decision.'

Other producers who sell into markets that prohibit or severely restrict the use of genetically modified crops are having a hard time finding seed. Donald Vig, an organic farmer from Valley City, said he has talked to seed suppliers as far away as California and cannot find seed guaranteed to be free of foreign genes. 'The organic industry has a zero tolerance for genetically modified crops,' Vig said.

Rodney Nelson, a farmer from Amenia, is also looking for soybean seed free of genetically modified varieties. Nelson is being sued by Monsanto, producer of Roundup Ready soybeans, for growing their variety of soybeans without buying seed from the company. 'I want soybean seed that's guaranteed not to contain genetically engineered material,' Nelson said. 'When I asked my seed dealer for a guarantee, he laughed at me.'

A: Yes. They are fundamentally different from wild, or natural species. Genetically engineered salmon include unnaturally high levels of a growth hormone that would not occur in natural fish. These fish, are capable of growing 2 to 3 times faster than even farmed salmon grown under the same conditions.

A: No, but some companies -- in particular one called A/F Protein -- are planning to bring GE salmon to dinner tables by next year. Other types of GE fish are also being experimented upon for commercial development including tilapia, trout, and carp.

A: Genetic engineering of fish is an experiment so right now no one knows for certain whether or not these fish are safe too eat. The salmon has been genetically engineered so that it's producing growth hormone from another fish, and so much of it over the year that it grows two to three times as fast. What this means in terms of the safety of the meat has not been investigated.

What we do know is that the fish's health could be compromised. Studies have shown that the excessive growth rates make growth deformities common, including in the head which can impede the fish's ability to eat. Poor health of the fish might have downstream impacts on those who eat the fish. This needs further investigation.

Right now The US FDA is currently examining the first commercial application for GE fish. They are looking at it as a "New Animal Drug" rather than as a food product.

A: Yes. Scientists at Purdue University (in the US) have conducted a study demonstrating how GE fish could lead to the extinction of wild populations if released into open waters. The scientists found that certain GE fish had a mating advantage over wild species due to their unnaturally large size. In addition, their study showed that some GE fish did not produce as many viable offspring as their natural counterparts. This combination forces the population into decline. Using computer modeling, the Purdue scientists showed that it would take only 60 GE fish in a population of 60,000 wild fish to cause species extinction within 40 generations.

A: Escapes from fish farms are routine. The majority of farmed Atlantic salmon are raised in shallow waters, or ocean net pens. Escapes from net pens are frequent and virtually impossible to prevent. Approximately 300,000 fish escaped from a single Washington State fish farm in the summer of 1999. Between 1991 and 1999 over 280,000 fish escaped from fish farms in British Columbia. Even indoor ponds typically recirculate water into the environment, an escape route for fish or eggs.

A – There is no such thing as a 100% guarantee of sterility. Sterility of genetically engineered fish is inherently uncertain given the possibility for human error and natural variation. A/F Protein is talking about already having orders for 15 million eggs, yet all it needs is a handful of those to be fertile to potentially destroy natural populations of wild fish.

A: They don’t. Currently neither any national nor international regulations adequately protect the environment from the risks associated with GE fish. The first application for approval of GE fish anywhere in the world is being considered by the FDA (Food & Drug Administration) in America. This is completely inappropriate since the FDA has no relevant environmental experience and is not an appropriate body to deal with an international issue that affects the worlds oceans.

A. Once released into ocean ponds fish will escape. As fish do not obey national boundaries so any release of GE fish will be international. The company involved also plans to sell the GE fish eggs around the world. The release of GE fish is an international concern in which we all have a stake and on which every government should have an opportunity to say no.

A. It takes 3-5 pounds of fish meal and fish oil to produce one pound of farmed salmon. So GE salmon farming will actually reduce the amount of fish protein available in the world not increase it.

What Can I do? Check out www.greenpeaceusa.org for a full and comprehensive information source on GMO FISH.

1 Join the Greenpeace consumer network in your country ! Visit www.greenpeace.org/~geneng/ 2 Spread the word! Help educate others by talking to your favorite seafood restaurant, grocery store, or fish market. Ask them if they will sell GE fish, and let them know that you don’t want to buy it! 3 Take action! Sign the Greenpeace petition to stop the commercialization of transgenic salmon. Check our website frequently for more action items and news updates: www.greenpeace.org/GEfish 4 Tell the FDA not to approve GE Salmon! Contact: Dr. Stephen F. Sundlof, Director FDA, Email: ssundlof@cvm.fda.gov

MARYSVILLE, Ohio, July 7 -- Standing in long rows in Greenhouse No. 3 at the Scotts Company's research laboratory here are pots of grass that could be a suburbanite's dream come true. The grass, which Scotts hopes will eventually carpet every lawn and golf course around the world, is genetically altered to withstand applications of the most potent weed killers and remain healthy and green. Scotts, the world's largest maker of lawn and turf products, has other varieties in the works as well. One, nicknamed "low mow" by company scientists, has been designed to grow at a slower pace, thereby reducing the need for a lawn mower. Other strains could be drought-resistant, or bred to flourish in the winter. The company is also working on genetically modified roses and other flowers that will bloom longer than the ones found in nature.

And some scientists at Scotts are even talking about someday developing grasses in different colors. "There's no end to what you might do," says Peter Day, director of the biotechnology center at Rutgers University, which is working with Scotts and Monsanto to develop the grasses. "You might put a luminescent gene in so that your grass might glow. Or, if your foot stepped on it, it would glow. You could also make novelty grasses." The products, which are still in various stages of development, are not expected to reach the market for at least three years. But Scotts executives hope the company will then reap enormous profits in a market they Believe could reach $10 billion. The word is already generating negative feedback in consumer surveys. "It seems unlikely we'd ever call them biotech," Mr. Berger of Scotts said. "We'd call them superior plants."

A total of 3,600 of the moths will be set free under a cage within a one-hectare (three-acre) cotton field in Arizona.

Our ultimate plans are to insert conditional lethal genes UCL entomologist Thomas Miller The experiment is likely to raise concern among environmental groups.

But the researchers behind it say there is "minimal" risk of the genetically modified insects escaping. As an added precaution, the insects have been sterilised.

Thomas Miller of the Department of Entomology, University of California, told BBC News Online: "It is very important for us that the public understands what we're doing and why. We are not trying to create something that causes more trouble than we already have.

"We have plenty of trouble with pink bollworm. It's an absolute nightmare and it's caused a lot of people to go bankrupt.

"There's two things about this release. Number one, we're only going to use sterilised insects in the first go around. Even if they get out, there's no chance of them breeding.

"Second of all, they are going to be in field cages. The people who are going to do this work have years of experience working with these field cages.

"They know what is involved in maintaining them and the only way an enclosed population is going to get loose is if a hurricane comes through and rips the field cages to shreds. There hasn't been a hurricane in Arizona in these areas in living memory.

"One thing we do know: the native population is a champion at survival. It has so far resisted any attempts to eradicate it except in central California.

"Our ultimate plans are to insert conditional lethal genes that will fight against this enormously successful tendency to survive and infest cotton."

US regulators have yet to give the green light to the release but Professor Miller says he is optimistic the field trials, planned for the summer, will be given the go-ahead in the next few weeks.

The pink bollworm, a major pest of commercial cotton in the southwest, is not native to the US but hitched a ride there in the 1920s, probably in cotton shipments from India. The larvae are tiny white caterpillars with dark brown heads that burrow into cotton bolls causing devastation to the crop. They grow into greyish-brown moths. Engineered mosquitos could play a key role in pest control The engineered moths contain a genetic marker, a green fluorescent protein (GFP) derived from the jellyfish, which makes caterpillars inheriting the gene glow green under fluorescent light. In the first stage of the experiment, the scientists plan to release the moths under a seven-metre (24-foot) long cage in a small test site remote from commercial cotton fields.

The field trials could pave the way for the first attempt to eradicate insects from the wild by releasing genetically modified laboratory strains. By inserting an inherited lethal trait into the moth the scientists believe they might be able to "get rid of the pink bollworm" from the US altogether.

Similar research is focusing on the disease-carrying mosquito. Researchers from the US and Taiwan have modified the yellow fever mosquito to make it produce a powerful antibacterial protein, limiting its ability to transmit disease.

If such insects were ever released in the wild, they might supplant infected natural populations, helping in the fight against human disease.

Plant Genetic Systems (PGS) applies for EPA registration of StarLink corn. EPA is charged with oversight of new pesticide registrations, and StarLink is a genetically engineered insect resistant "plant pesticide" that falls under this EPA review.

EPA grants a temporary tolerance exemption to PGS (, later transferred to Agrevo and currently held by Aventis) for StarLink. The exemption is limited to StarLink used for animal feed or industrial purposes (eg, corn for ethanol production).

Aventis re-submits a request to EPA for approval of StarLink in human food. Concerned that the corn could trigger allergies, EPA holds off on approval.

EPA announces it will undertake review of the potential for StarLink to trigger food allergies. The agency’s preliminary assessment finds that the insecticidal protein in StarLink is heat stable and resistant to degradation in gastric juice. Scientists say that these are the best available criteria known to determine if a protein is a potential food allergen. Evaluating Aventis’ submission, EPA finds that "It is not possible for the Agency to determine that there is a lack of allergenic potential from [the protein in StarLink] based upon the available information."

EPA’s Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) on StarLink meets.

EPA’s Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) tells the agency there is insufficient data to determine whether StarLink is or is not a food allergen and suggests monitoring of the exposed (animal) population.

A coalition of health, consumer and environmental groups called Genetically Engineered Food Alert announce that Kraft taco shells marketed under the Taco Bell name test positive for StarLink.

Aventis says it will suspend sales of StarLink seed. Two days later, USDA says it will buy-back StarLink from farmers, and be reimbursed by Aventis.

One week after Kraft voluntarily recalls the product, FDA says it will order a "class II" recall of the Taco Bell tacos.

GE Food Alert announces that a Safeway store brand taco shell tests positive for StarLink.

Aventis agrees to voluntarily withdraw its registration for StarLink, meaning the corn will no longer be legal to grow for any purpose. However, Aventis remains responsible for the StarLink already planted and in the food chain.

ConAgra, one of the nation’s largest food companies, stops production at its only U.S. corn flour plant, due to concerns of StarLink contamination.

Greenpeace and GE Food Alert send a survey to Kellogg’s and other major food companies, requesting information on the steps companies are taking to insure that they are not using StarLink corn. Kellogg’s does not respond.

Tyson Foods, the largest U.S. chicken processor, announces it willl not buy StarLink for chicken feed.

Kellogg acknowledges press reports that it was forced to stop production at its Memphis plant, due to concerns about StarLink contamination.

Greenpeace, GE Food Alert, the Union of Concerned Scientists, Consumers Union and other groups write to President Clinton urging that approval of StarLink is not retroactively granted. The next day, Western Foods taco shells are found to contain the unapproved corn.

Aventis submits a request asking EPA to grant a four-year retroactive approval of StarLink for human consumption. Aventis says the new data it supplied EPA provided "overwhelming support" for giving temporary human food-use approval to the corn.

Iowa farm experts estimate that as much as 1 billion bushels of corn in Iowa, half of the state’s 2000 crop, could be mixed with StarLink. Aventis and USDA had estimated that just 25 billion bushels would be involved in the buy-back program.

EPA announces that fourteen people have complained to federal officials of adverse reactions after eating food products containing StarLink.

Aventis admits that it had conducted "experimental" planting of StarLink in other countries, but refuses to specify where. November 14, 2000

In a preliminary review of "new evidence" submitted by Aventis urging the government to retroactively approve StarLik, EPA finds that the company studies show "no scientific basis to conclude whether Cry9C [the protein found in Starlink® corn] behaves in the same manner" as other allergens.

Aventis announces it will divest its agrichemicals division, the division responsible for StarLink, into a separate company.

Aventis announces that it had found StarLink contamination of non-StarLink seed sold by Garst Seed company in 1998.

A class-action suit is filed against Aventis on behalf of farmers who say the company’s negligence is harming U.S. corn exports. Also, Senator Dick Durbin announces that his review of EPA documents shows that the agency was aware of StarLink contamination of the food supply as early as 1998, but took no action.

EPA’s Scientific Advisory Panel confirms that StarLink is a potential food allergen. The scientists tell EPA that there is no sure method to determine how little StarLink in food could trigger allergies.

A shipment of U.S. corn is turned back after Japanese testing reveals StarLink contamination.

FDA sends a letter to US food processors asking them to insure that they test for StarLink. The agency said it sent the letter because it may have missed some StarLink corn in the government buy-back program established in late September.

A second class-action lawsuit is filed against Aventis, on behalf of farmers whose corn may have been contaminated by StarLink during planting or after harvesting.

Japan says more StarLink is found in samples of US corn sent for export.

Nebraska farmers file suit against Aventis for contamination of their crop by StarLink. Illinois, North Dakota, Maryland and Iowa farmers file similar suits in the next few weeks

USDA says that StarLink contamination has been detected in non-StarLink seed intended for sale in 2001.

StarLink was first grown commercially in the U.S. in 1998-9. In 2000, an estimated 2,000 farmers in 29 states planted StarLink on 341,000 acres

In October 2000, Aventis claimed it had located 88% of the 2000 StarLink harvest, but 9 million bushels remain unaccounted for. Iowa farm experts estimate that more than half of the 2 billion bushels of corn planted in Iowa in 2000 could be contaminated.

*Where Starlink corn was planted (State followed by # of acres planted):

Alabama 546 Colorado 1,038 Delaware 18 Georgia 192 Iowa 134,910 Illinois 17,466 Indiana 3,564 Kansas 21,390 Kentucky 9,690 Maryland 690 Michigan 234 Minnesota 35,691 Missouri 18,702 Mississippi 183 North Carolina 384 North Dakota 1,170 Nebraska 41,529 New Jersey 87 New Mexico 60 Nevada 3 New York 120 Ohio 1,632 Oklahoma 1,308 Pennsylvania 1,782 South Dakota 34,290 Tennessee 5,856 Texas 2,310 Virginia 792 Wisconsin 5,271 Total 340,908

*Source: James Cox, "StarLink fiasco wreaks havoc in the heartland," USA Today, October 27, 2000

More Than 50 Americans Claim Reactions To Recalled Starlink Corn Claims Prompted The First Full-Scale Investigation Of Biotech Food Results Of Investigation Due Out Next Month

In the wake of the recalls more than 50 Americans, including Booth, claimed they had reactions to Starlink corn. That forced the government to launch the first full-scale allergy investigation in the history of biotech food. It has taken months, but the Centers for Disease Control and the Food and Drug Administration have collected food samples and blood from two dozen people whose cases were believed most serious.

"Varied from just abdominal pain and diarrhea, skin rashes to some patients, a very small group having very severe life-threatening reactions," said Dr. Marc Rothenberg, the allergy chief at Cincinnati Children's Hospital. He is an adviser to the government in the Starlink investigation. Its slow going he says because investigators first had to find the Starlink protein and then invent a blood test.

More than 100 consumer, agriculture and environmental groups from around the world called on U.S. President George Bush today to suspend further exports of U.S. corn and corn products unless the U.S. government can guarantee that they are free of genetically engineered StarLink corn and safe for human consumption. In their joint letter to President Bush, the groups also called on the U.S. to recall all food products, commercial grain imports and food aid contaminated by StarLink.

"The U.S. should not be exporting genetically contaminated food to other countries," said Ricardo Navarro, Chair of Friends of the Earth International and a resident of El Salvador. "If it is not approved for people to eat in the U.S. then it should not be sent elsewhere."

Concern has risen with the announcement on March 18th by Aventis, the giant biotechnology company that created StarLink, that contamination is wider spread than thought. While 70 million bushels (1.8 million metric tonnes) of corn from the 2000 harvest were contaminated, Aventis reported an additional 430 million bushels (11 million metric tonnes) in storage from 1999 are also contaminated. The bacterial protein engineered into StarLink to make it toxic to pests has also been found in seeds of other varieties of corn prior to the 2001 planting season prompting a $20 million U.S. government program to find and destroy them. The contamination is likely due to a failure to prevent cross-pollination.

The possible health impacts of StarLink are still unresolved. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control are still investigating 48 reports of unexplained allergic reactions that occurred after people ate corn products. The health complaints about StarLink are the first lodged by consumers against an engineered food.

The U.S. continues to export corn that is contaminated with StarLink to Asia and possibly to other regions. Although StarLink was found in the U.S. food supply on September 18th, 2000, Japan reports repeated findings of StarLink as recently as February and a contaminated Kellogg Company food product was found in the U.S. in March.

"The discovery of StarLink in Japan and South Korea, two of the largest purchasers of U.S. corn, means this genetically modified corn could be elsewhere. Since the U.S. government and the Aventis biotech company have not controlled the contamination, other countries should not permit the import of any U.S. corn or corn-based products until they are guaranteed to be clean" said Meena Raman, a resident of Malaysia and Asia coordinator for the Friends of the Earth International GMO Programme.

Groups in developing countries are also expressing concerns that StarLink may be shipped as food aid in a desperate movement to get rid of StarLink. Over two million tons of GMOs are sent directly by U.S. foreign assistance to developing countries, while the World Food Program distributes another one and a half million tons of transgenic crops donated by the U.S. government (1). "We are strongly opposed to any shipment of StarLink as food aid. It is outrageous to think that the U.S. may be using food aid as a back door market for products like StarLink," said Karin Nansen a resident of Uruguay and Latin American coordinator for the Friends of the Earth International GMO Programme.

StarLink is not approved for human consumption in the U.S. because the bacterial protein engineered into the corn by the giant biotechnology company Aventis has "characteristics of known allergens" according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The discovery of StarLink in food products has driven many U.S. food companies to recall raw grain and more than 300 products made with U.S. yellow corn, both in the U.S. and in countries that import from the U.S. But, contaminated products are still appearing.

"The StarLink case clearly shows that biotech companies do not control their genetically modified inventions. Once they are released into the environment they are nearly impossible to call back," said Larry Bohlen of Friends of the Earth U.S.

Impacts of StarLink on U.S. corn exports are beginning to show. The U.S. Department of Agriculture said Brazil recently became a net exporter of corn for the first time since 1982 as foreign buyers turn their backs on the U.S. looking for sources of non-engineered corn.

MORE INFORMATION: For a copy of the StarLink letter to President Bush with 135 signers listed, see:

www.foe.org/safefood or www.foei.org

For an extensive story on the testing of people that may have been made sick by StarLink, see The Washington Post at:

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23092-2001Mar18.html

For the list of commercial food products that have been recalled, see:

www.fda.gov/opacom/Enforce.html, search term StarLink

For background information on the initial StarLink discovery in food, see:

www.gefoodalert.org/recall

For a list corn imports by country, see (USDA: Grain: World Markets and Trade, February 2001, page 19):

Worldwide top ten U.S. corn customers:

(1) Food First. 2000. Food aid in the new millennium (http://www.foodfirst.org)

[…] the public relations' uses of Golden Rice have gone too far. The industry's advertisements and the media in general seem to forget that it is a research product that needs considerable further development before it will be available to farmers and consumers," Gordon Conway, President of the Rockefeller Foundation (the major funder of the "Golden Rice" project).

"It should be stressed that the time scale for commercialisation of transgenic crops is as lengthy as any other variety; the tomato puree first sold in the UK in 1996 was developed from an academic project dating back to the early 1980s," Jim M. Dunwell, School of Plant Sciences, The University of Reading, UK

No detailed compositional analysis of the 'Golden Rice' has been published. In a similar genetic engineering experiment Monsanto increased the level of pro-vitamin A in oilseed rape and it found that the engineered oilseed rape had higher levels of pro-vitamin A but had also a significantly decreased level of vitamin E, and an altered fatty acid composition.

"GM food scientists have already developed a yellow rice, or "golden" rice, that is rich in vitamin A and iron and helps prevent anemia and blindness, especially in children," article published on CNN.com.

"This rice could save a million kids a year", headline on the cover of Time magazine

" [ ] 'golden rice', which has been modified to include certain vitamins and is already saving the sight of thousands of children in the poorest parts of Asia." Invitation from The United States Congress to a Special Congressional Forum, "Can Biotechnology Solve World Hunger."

"If we could get more of this golden rice, which is a genetically modified strain of rice, especially rich in vitamin A, out to the developing world, it could save 40,000 lives a day, people that are malnourished and dying," Former U.S. President Bill Clinton.

"The levels of expression of pro-vitamin A that the inventors were aiming at, and have achieved, are sufficient to provide the minimum level of pro-vitamin A to prevent the development of irreversible blindness affecting 500.000 children annually, and to significantly alleviate Vitamin A deficiency affecting 124.000.000 children in 26 countries." "One month delay = 50,000 blind children month." Dr. Adrian Dubock, executive from Zeneca (now Syngenta), the company which would market the rice -- and plans to commercialise it in rich countries.

"Nutrition science, however, suggests that golden rice alone will not greatly diminish vitamin A deficiency and associated blindness. […] People whose diets lack [fats and proteins] or who have intestinal diarrheal diseases -- common in developing countries -- cannot obtain vitamin A from golden rice." Marion Nestle, PhD, MPH, Professor and Chair, Department of Nutrition & Food Studies, New York University

Natural foodstuffs can be very efficient in alleviating vitamin A deficiency. "About half a teaspoonful of [crude] red palm oil a day will meet a child's vitamin A requirements and is affordable for almost everyone," International Life Sciences Institute

"There is also no agreement on the conversion ratios, and we have no data yet on the bioavailability and the stability during storage," Ingo Potrykus, one of the inventors of the 'Golden Rice', confirming that there is no evidence showing to what extent the human body could utilize the pro-vitamin A of 'Golden Rice' and convert it into vitamin A.

For more information: "The False Promise of Genetically Engineered rice," available at http://www.greenpeace.org/~geneng/

"For populations that rely upon rice as their primary or sole food source, this ['Golden Rice'] nutritional enhancement can deliver an enormous improvement in public health," Dr. Stanley Wallach of the American College of Nutrition.

"Nestle executive vice-president Michael Garrett told […] that the new "golden" rice, genetically modified to be rich in vitamin A, would address a common deficiency in developing countries that caused blindness and death," article published in The Age (Australia).

"Should the opponents eventually succeed in preventing "Golden Rice" to reach the poor in developing countries, it will be them who will have to take responsibility for the foreseeable yet avoidable death or blindness of millions of poor, underprivileged people, year after year in the foreseeable future," Ingo Potrykus and Peter Beyer, inventors of the 'Golden Rice'

Export agriculture is a major segment of the California economy, and California’s fruits and vegetables are the pride of the state. The state is also the leader in the production of much of the country’s organic crops. A current campaign by the California Department of Food and Agriculture asks consumers to "taste the sunshine." But if current trends in the genetic engineering of California’s major export crops continue, the state’s producers could be facing gathering storm clouds in their export markets and the potential collapse of its organic food industry.

Already, all over the world, U.S. exports of corn and soybean are threatened due to growing consumer rejection of genetically engineered (GE) foods. In European markets in particular, though not exclusively, consumers are voicing their desires to eat GE-free. U.S. soy exports to Europe dropped from 11 million tons in 1998 to 6 million in 1999; corn exports to Europe dropped from 2 million tons to 137,000 tons. Altogether this loss of export markets from 1998-1999 was worth nearly $1 billion. Consumers in other export markets significant for California have voiced similar sentiments. In a recent survey by the Angus Reid Group, 82% of Japanese consumers said they were concerned about GE food. All is not well on the domestic front either. In the same survey, they also reported that "Americans are growing more disenchanted with the concept" of genetically engineered food, as they measured consumer negativity towards the new foods grew from 45% in 1998 to 51% in 2000.

In 1998, the top five export markets for California agriculture were: Japan, Canada, South Korea, Hong Kong, and the United Kingdom (UK). Over the past few years, companies involved in genetic engineering were altering California agricultural products that are major export commodities to those five markets. In this report we examine six of those: lettuce, tomatoes, strawberries, walnuts, grapes, and rice.

Our major findings: A large proportion of California’s export market is represented by just six commodities – rice, walnuts, grapes, lettuce, strawberries, and tomatoes – in five markets – Japan, Canada, South Korea, Hong Kong, and the United Kingdom. These crops sold in these markets account for $1.125 billion of California agricultural exports annually. Consumers, food companies, and governments in all those countries have expressed concern over genetically engineered crops. Their responses have ranged from the implementation of laws to label GE-food – as in the case of the UK, Japan, and South Korea – to consumer and environmentalists calls for a boycott of all GE food – as did the major environmental organization in South Korea. In the UK, virtually every major supermarket has declared its store brand products will be made without GE ingredients, and many are eliminating GE crops from animal feed used for their meat and dairy products. At the same time that consumers have held firm against genetically engineered food, the demand for organic has escalated. Sales for organic produce in the UK have multiplied five-fold since 1996, compared to only a two-fold increase in the US. Yet awareness is growing in the USA. Even American companies such as Kellogg’s have gone GE-free in Europe, although they continue to use GE ingredients in foods manufactured for consumption here.

Given the importance of organic and export agriculture to the California economy in general, and to California’s farm producers and processors in particular, the agriculture industry should abandon current genetic engineering research and development that could jeopardize access to and acceptance in those organic and export markets, as well as an increasingly critical domestic market.

Ccommodity boards advise their growers against the use of genetically engineered organisms, and the California Department of Agriculture (CDFA) conduct a comprehensive review comparing the potential impact of GE on California agriculture with the potential for a growing organic agriculture sector.

Californians should insist that, at a minimum, the following issues be dealt with in a review by CDFA:

Herbicide tolerant crops: Californians should demand a full environmental and human health review of the effects of the additional chemicals released into the environment with the use of the genetically engineered crops, including new and greater uses of herbicides. The social costs to small farmers of increased dependency on agrochemical companies should be part of such a review.

Pharmaceutical rice:

Californians should demand an investigation of the possible environmental and human health effects associated with escape of pollen from these ‘pharm’ crops, as well as other unintentional contamination during production and processing of rice destined for human consumption. Citizens should also demand an assessment of the harm to organic rice production. Insecticidal plants:

Californians should demand an investigation of the environmental and human health risks associated with these plants, in particular the speed at which insects will develop resistance and the direct threat to organic producers who use Bt as an organic pesticide.

Californians should demand that state and federally funded land grant institutions focus research on truly sustainable and organic technologies that do not threaten markets for California exports.

Californians should demand that the state enact legal protection for organic growers and food producers whose products are contaminated by GE, by holding biotech companies liable for any economic damage resulting from the use of GE seed.

All around the world, consumers are questioning the presence of genetically engineered (GE) food in their daily diets. The sentiment against such foods is strong in Europe, Japan and South Korea, and is growing in the United States.

Many of the destinations for California’s agricultural exports include countries where there exists significant concern about GE foods. The top five California destinations include the United Kingdom (UK), where the outcry against GE has recently been the strongest, and Japan and South Korea, where labeling of GE food is about to become mandatory. South Korea’s largest environmental group is calling for a boycott of all GMOs. There are active consumer campaigns for labeling in the other two top export destinations as well – Hong Kong and Canada – and Hong Kong’s legislature has called on the government to develop a labeling system.

Export agriculture is a significant component of the California economy as a whole, and is a significant source of revenue for the agricultural sector. Exports account for between 15% and 50% of sales of California’s leading fruit, nut and vegetable crops. Use of GE crops in California agriculture is likely to threaten important markets. U.S. exports of corn and soybeans have dropped dramatically since producers here have started growing genetically engineered varieties of those crops, with our markets lost to those exporting countries willing to certify that their products are GE-free. U.S. soy exports to Europe dropped from 11 million tons in 1998 to 6 million in 1999; corn exports to Europe dropped from 2 million tons to 137,000 tons. Altogether this loss of export markets from 1998-1999 was worth nearly $1 billion. On May 18^th, the Tokyo Grain Exchange began offering traders a choice of non-GE soybeans – on the first day of trading, buyers scooped up 914,000 tons, compared to 364,000 tons for GE soy. Enough competition for fruit and vegetable exports is currently coming from Southern hemisphere producers such as Chile, and further loss of markets due to GE is a real possibility.

All is not well on the domestic front either. According to a recent survey by the Angus Reid Group on consumer reaction to biotechnology in food: ‘"Americans are growing more disenchanted with the concept." Consumer negativity towards genetically modified foods in the United States has grown from 45% in 1998 to 51% in 2000. Even food industry polls trumpeted as showing U.S. support for biotech food show increasing concern among American consumers. An October 1999 Wirthlin Group poll of U.S. consumers showed declining confidence in biotech foods in every question, including an 11% drop in those who would say they would be likely to buy biotech food that tastes better or fresher, and a 12% drop in those who feel that biotechnology will provide benefits to them or their families in the next five years. A recent USA Today Weekend Poll asked: "Should it be legal to sell genetically modified fruits and vegetables without special labels?" 79% of readers said no. Much of California’s produce heads to supermarkets all over the United States, so consumer reaction to GE here should also be of concern to producers in California. At the same time consumer demand for organic has grown rapidly in recent years. The U.S. market for organics is currently $6.6 billion, up from $180 million in 1980. Therefore, it comes as a surprise that so many fruits and vegetables in California are currently being genetically engineered.

GE papaya – Two years ago growers began to plant a genetically engineered papaya in Hawaii. The trees are now bearing fruit, and foreign markets have been slow to accept the GE papaya. Japanese buyers used to purchase 40% of Hawaii’s papaya – they are now paying up to 700% premiums for non-GE fruit. Canadian and European buyers were similarly wary of the new papaya. Some Hawaiian growers have reacted to these market demands by designing their own labels declaring their conventional fruit "Not genetically modified." According to industry insiders, GE-sugar beet seeds are ready for the market, but the farmers and beet buyers aren’t ready for GE-sugar beets. Japan buys about 80% of the byproduct of beet sugar processing – beet pulp – and they’ve said they won’t buy any GE product. One farmer noted that planting of GE beets might be "years away" because of the lack of markets. Korea’s largest tofu makers recently said no to GE-soybeans. They had been manufacturing tofu with GE-soybeans until that fact was revealed in the press, and consumers ceased buying their products. The tofu makers have filed a lawsuit against the organization that made the revelation, claiming a market loss of millions of dollars because of the drop in tofu sales.]]

Organic agriculture is a rapidly growing industry. In 1996, organic production accounted for approximately 1% of total US crop production. As noted above, current retail sales top $6.6 billion per year, six times the amount sold in the early nineties. Since 1992, the US branch of the industry has grown by over 20% per year; in California, average annual growth in organic sales between 1992 and 1998 was 15%. There is no indication that this growth will slow any time soon. In the UK, the expansion of the industry has been even quicker; sales have multiplied five-fold since 1996. This demonstrates the intensity of consumer reaction in the UK to GE, and will be a significant boon to California agriculture, as organic farmers there can expect to see their exports to the UK jump.

California represents a significant share of the US organic production. In 1997, California had 51% of the country’s organic tomato acreage, 77% of the organic lettuce acreage, 72% of organic tree nut acreage, 96% of organic grape acreage, and 80% of the organic rice acreage. Genetic engineering represents a clear threat to organic agriculture in California. Cross-pollination is a serious threat in most crops, and particularly in wind-pollinated crops like grapes, walnuts, and strawberries. Contamination of an organic crop with pollen from a GE crop will make the organic crop unsellable as such. Current small-scale field trials are already a threat to nearby farms, and the risk to organics will grow as acreage planted to GE crops grows. In 1999, a U.S. firm, Terra Prima, had to destroy over 87,000 packs of organic tortilla chips that they had exported to Europe, because testing on arrival revealed they were contaminated with GE corn. The contamination is believed to have happened by cross-pollination from a nearby corn field.

Other developments in genetic engineering also threaten the sustainability of organic production in California. Crops genetically engineered to resist pest attacks with their own built-in insecticide can lead insects to develop resistance to Bt, a safe and extremely effective pesticide, and one of the only pesticides allowed in organic production. If this happens, as many experts predict it must, organic farmers will suffer greatly. The current focus on genetic engineering of much publicly and privately funded research also directly affects organic farming. Huge sums of money are currently diverted away from research into sustainable and organic agricultural production systems, toward expensive, trendy genetic engineering. If these monies instead went to research into sustainable agriculture, we would no doubt see a significant reduction in pesticide use in California, rather than "more-of-the-same" herbicide-tolerant crops.

In this report we review six crops of major economic significance to California export agriculture. Three of those – lettuce, strawberry, and tomato – are being engineered to tolerate increased doses of weed-killing chemicals – herbicides. We examine new GE strains of rice, and efforts not only to engineer tolerance to herbicides into the plant, but also to engineer human genes into rice for pharmaceutical production. Finally, we look at two perennial crops – grapes and walnuts – that are being engineered with various genes to confer resistance to insect and worm pests. Greenpeace is concerned about the environmental and human health effects of these genetically engineered organisms released into the environment and the food chain, the potential impacts on California agricultural exports, and the threat to the growing organic agriculture industry. California is clearly at a crossroads. It can choose genetic engineering or it can choose organic agriculture. Both cannot coexist in the state.

To determine which crops were being considered for release on the California market, we examined the USDA field-testing database for engineered crops being tested in California. We limited our search to those field tests taking place within the last two years – the 1999 and 2000 field seasons. We then relied on California export data available at the web site of the California Department of Food and Agriculture to determine the important export markets. We looked for overlap between top export crops and crops undergoing current field-testing to select the six fruit, nut, vegetable, and field crops for analysis in this report: grapes, tomatoes, lettuce, strawberries, rice, and walnuts. Finally, we focused our analysis on those traits that have been of primary concern to consumers and organic producers: herbicide-tolerance, pharmaceutical production, and pesticidal genes – snowdrop lectin and Bt toxin.

California Export Dependence

California’s top 50 export crops bring in almost $7 billion annually. These are significant earnings for the state, and as well, contribute nationally to partially offset a large negative balance-of-payments situation. The six crops studied in this report are of considerable economic significance to California, representing close to one-sixth of California’s agricultural export receipts (see Table 1).

Table 1: Value of selected exports to top five importing markets in 1997 (Japan, Canada, South Korea, Hong Kong, UK)

Sources: California Department of Food and Agriculture. 2000. A complete guide to California commodities. http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/kids/commodities/; California’s top 20 farm products. http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/agfacts/1998_top_20_farm_products.html; Major California agricultural exports to each of the top 10 destinations in 1997. http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/statistics/top_ten/index.html.

This information can be further broken down to illustrate the crops of significance in particular markets (see Table 2). Figures in the third column of the table also indicate when a country accounts for a large fraction of California’s exports of a particular commodity.

Table 2: Top five export markets broken down by crop (figures are from 1997 data)

Source: California Department of Food and Agriculture. 2000. Major California agricultural exports to each of the top 10 destinations in 1997. http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/statistics/top_ten/index.html.

Genetically Engineered Exports

Just what traits are being engineered into these six crops? Does the engineering "improve" the crop, or just allow for the application of more of a proprietary weed-killer? Are there potential health effects associated with the engineered crop? Most important, are there reasons why consumers in other countries might decide to reject our produce if they find that it has been genetically engineered?

Source: United States Department of Agriculture. 2000. Field test releases in the United States. http://www.nbiap.vt.edu/cfdocs/fieldtests1.cfm

The genetic engineering industry says that herbicide-tolerant crops are just "first generation" technologies, and claims that more consumer-friendly transgenics are on the horizon. But that does not appear to be the case with the new fruits and vegetables that may soon be coming onto the market. Many of the new crops currently being field tested in California are more herbicide-tolerant varieties that offer no consumer benefit. In addition to lettuce, tomatoes and strawberries highlighted here, herbicide-tolerant Brassicas (such as broccoli, brussels sprouts, cabbage and cauliflower), carrots, cucumbers, melons, peas, and potatoes are currently being tested in the fields of California.

Herbicide tolerant vegetable crops currently being field tested in California Brassicas (varieties not specified in the database) Carrots Cucumbers Lettuce Melons Peas Potatoes Tomatoes Source: United States Department of Agriculture. 2000. Field test releases in the United States. http://www.nbiap.vt.edu/cfdocs/fieldtests1.cfm

The target weed-killers to which resistance is being engineered are glyphosate and glufosinate. Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Monsanto’s best selling chemical product, a popular weed-killer called Roundup. Monsanto currently markets several "Roundup Ready" crops that have been designed to work with their chemical herbicide, including soybeans, canola, corn, cotton and sugarbeet. Glufosinate is the active ingredient in herbicides such as Liberty, Rely, and Finale. AgrEvo makes Liberty and currently sells "Liberty Link" corn and canola.

Neither weed-killer has a stellar record of safety, though both companies make much of their assertion that their weed-killers are less toxic than others on the market. Roundup is responsible for the third greatest number of pesticide-related illnesses among the state’s agricultural workers, out of all pesticides used in the state. Glufosinate is not currently widely used in California, as it is a relatively new chemical and has not yet been approved for use on most crops.

According to the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticide Use:

glyphosate-containing products are acutely toxic to animals, including humans. Symptoms include eye and skin irritation, headache, nausea, numbness, elevated blood pressure, and heart palpitation. … Laboratory studies have found adverse effects in all standard categories of laboratory toxicology testing. These include … salivary gland lesions, … inflamed stomach linings, … effects on reproduction …, and carcinogenicity. … In studies of people (mostly farmers) exposed to glyphosate herbicides, exposure is associated with an increased risk of miscarriages, premature birth, and the cancer non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

Glufosinate does not have a better track record from toxicity testing: glufosinate chemically resembles a molecule used to transmit nerve impulses in the brain. Neurotoxic symptoms observed in laboratory animals … include convulsions, diarrhea, aggressiveness, and disequilibrium. Dogs appear to be the laboratory animal most sensitive to glufosinate. Ingestion of glufosinate for two weeks caused heart and circulatory failure resulting in death. Exposure of pregnant laboratory animals to glufosinate caused an increase in premature delivery, miscarriages, the number of dead fetuses, and arrested development of fetal kidneys.

Increase in herbicide use Herbicide tolerant crops may lead to increased herbicide use. A recent analysis by Dr. Charles Benbrook, that looked at results from over 8,200 university field trials, found that "U.S. ‘Roundup Ready’ soybean farmers use more chemicals and see lower yields than farmers who grow conventional soy, and already, the first weed species have developed a degree of tolerance to Roundup. In 1998, over 4.5 million pounds of glyphosate were used in California agriculture. With a simple calculation, some estimate of the potential increase in herbicide use from glyphosate-tolerant lettuce and tomatoes can be made. Recent data from lettuce production in California showed application of approximately 0.84 pounds per acre per year of glyphosate. Similar data from tomatoes shows application of approximately 0.79 pounds acre per year. Both correspond to approximately one application per year. This use appears to be pre-emergent (before the crop seed germinates), as it is not presently possible to use glyphosate for weed control while the crops are in the ground. According to pesticide registration officials in California, the new crops will probably be treated with a similar application rate. This is no doubt a conservative assumption, as data from other Roundup Ready crops show the number of applications may be two or more per acre per year. If we assume a 25% adoption rate for the herbicide tolerant crops, then we can calculate a predicted increase in glyphosate use with the adoption of herbicide tolerant lettuce and tomatoes by multiplying the number of acres of lettuce and tomatoes in current cultivation by the adoption rate (25%) by the application rate (lettuce – 0.84 lbs./acre; tomatoes – 0.79 lbs./acre). We assume only one post-emergent application per acre per year. That simple calculation for lettuce gives about 30,000 extra pounds and for tomatoes approximately 6,300 pounds, or about 18 more tons per year of glyphosate entering the California environment – for two crops alone! This increased use poses additional risks for agricultural workers. Certainly, the overall increase in the use of pesticides will increase worker exposure to the chemicals. The industry does not, however, seem to consider worker exposure an important factor in their product development. According to Alison Morgan, representative of DNA Plant Technology Corporation, the developer of Roundup Ready strawberries, the reentry interval that protects workers from pesticide exposure would need to be as short as two days "to accommodate the two-times-per-week harvesting that is common in strawberries." The current reentry interval for Roundup is twelve hours, so DNAP and Monsanto don’t have to be concerned about having it shortened to accommodate this aspect of strawberry production, but this quote gives some indication that the motives of the industry aren’t geared toward reducing worker exposure to pesticides.

Effects on non-target species A recent European Commission report found harmful effects from glyphosate on non-target insect species. The report recommends postponing the decision to allow use of Roundup on Roundup Ready crops, such as glyphosate-tolerant fodder beet. The report states that "after application for the intended uses and in the correct manner, harmful effects on arthropods … cannot be excluded." The arthropods affected are predatory mites and parasitoids, important for the biological control of agricultural pests. In 1995, researchers found that glufosinate use may also have important (negative) microbiological consequences. Glufosinate may reduce beneficial species of fungi, while fungi that cause disease appear to be resistant to its effects.

Potential for groundwater contamination The US Environmental Protection Agency classifies glufosinate as persistent, mobile in soil, and highly soluble in water. This reinforces fears that glufosinate is likely to pose a risk of water contamination. Glyphosate and/or its main metabolite AMPA have already been found in groundwater in Denmark.

California rice – a not so golden future? In 1997, the California Rice Growers Association (RGA) announced a new business relationship with a firm called Applied Phytologics, Inc. The RGA was near financial collapse in the early 1990s, due to a disastrous plunge in rice sales – from $300 million to $30 million annually by the end of the 1980s. They hoped this new business agreement would signal a new day for the rice industry. But would it? Under the agreement, ultimately terminated for undisclosed reasons, API would have supplied genetically altered seed to growers. Rice from that seed would have been used for production of chemicals for the pharmaceutical industry, rather than for food. API continues to contract independently with growers to grow rice engineered to produce a number of different industrial and pharmaceutical chemicals, including three human proteins: anti-thrombin, anti-trypsin, and serum albumin. While production of such proteins in crops may eventually prove lucrative for a small number of farmers, most won’t see any benefit because of the large amount of protein that can be produced on a single field. There just isn’t that much demand for many of the proteins currently being engineered into plants. Moreover, there are significant human health concerns about the production of human pharmaceutical proteins and other industrial chemicals, like detergent enzymes, in rice. Clearly such rice should not be eaten by humans. Yet there are many ways that rice intended for human consumption could be contaminated by drug-containing rice – starting from seed contamination in the hull of the airplanes used to fly seed onto fields, to mixing of the rice harvest in trucks, dryers, and mills. Industry insiders say that avoiding contamination is virtually impossible; at least one large rice processor is refusing all GE-rice in order to assure purity. The genetic engineering industry maintains that segregation of pharmaceutical rice will be assured, that is, that it will never get into the general food supply, because the rice will be of such high value. But recently the biotech company Advanta Seeds ‘unknowingly’ sold canola seed contaminated with genetically engineered canola to farmers throughout Europe for two straight growing seasons. The GE variety was not approved for use in Europe, making it illegal to grow there. Farmers in the UK saw 12,000 acres of crop destroyed. Closer to home is the recent case of contamination of Kraft Taco Bell taco shells with a variety of GE corn unapproved for human consumption. This episode gives many consumers reason to doubt that seed companies and pharmaceutical firms can keep ‘pharm’ crops out of the food supply. Up until now the biotech industry has stated that it is other farmers’ responsibility to avoid genetic pollution from industry’s crops. The industry has also insisted that separating GE from non-GE commodities is impossible. Any assurances that pharm crops will now be easily be kept separate cannot be taken as credible. Other traits are also being engineered into rice, including tolerance to the herbicides glyphosate and glufosinate.

Living pollution: Crop Contamination from Pollen Most crop fertilization takes place through the transfer of pollen from one flower to another – generally assisted by wind or insects. When pollen from a genetically engineered plant fertilizes a non-GE flower, the seed that develops contains the transgene. So a tomato or a grape or a strawberry that develops from a non-GE flower fertilized by GE-pollen would have genetically engineered seeds. The fruit that develops around it, however, is derived from the original non-GE plant, and so would remain non-transgenic. As walnuts are actually the seeds of the walnut tree, and rice kernels are also the seeds, the entire walnut or rice kernel that results from a cross-fertilization event is transgenic. Plants have evolved a number of different pollination strategies. Some, like tomatoes and rice, are mostly self-pollinated, that is, their flowers are designed so that each flower is most likely to pollinate itself, rather than wait for pollen from outside to land on it. Outcrossing (cross-pollination) rates in these crops are quite low – 5% for rice, up to 25% for tomatoes – but it is still possible. Other crops, like walnuts, are almost exclusively wind-pollinated. Strawberries and grapes are thought to be both wind and insect pollinated, though growers in California generally rely on wind pollination, rather than bringing bee hives into fields to assist in pollination. Any wind-pollinated crop has the potential to become contaminated by pollen from transgenic crops in nearby fields. There is little scientific data on how far pollen from these crops travel, but experts generally assume that pollen from walnuts can travel a half mile or more. The same is true for bees that carry pollen from field to field – ranges of a mile or more are not uncommon for their foraging. While crops like rice and tomatoes may have much more limited pollen travel, there is still no definitive scientific data on average distances traveled for pollen in these crops either. The Association of Seed Certifying Agencies (AOSCA) sets isolation distances for seed production in each crop, based on how far pollen in that crop travels, and how far different varieties must be separated from each other in the field to maintain a seed purity of greater than 99% (for corn, 99.9%; for rice, 99.95%). One of the performance standards set by the United States Department of Agriculture for containment of pharmaceutical-producing crops is a doubling of the AOSCA isolation distance. For rice, this would be 20 feet if the seed were drilled into the ground, 200 feet if applied by airplane. Achieving 99.95% seed purity and achieving 0% contamination of the food supply by pharmaceutical crops are, of course, very different goals. According to Norman Ellstrand, an expert in plant pollination from the University of California at Riverside: "It’s just not clear that setting a double distance is going to solve everything."

Japan and GE There is a significant reason for California rice producers to worry about the financial risks such engineering implies for their income. California exports more than half of the rice produced in the state – $145 million dollars worth in 1998, out of $266 million total production. And a significant amount of exports go to Japan – $90 million worth. Japan has not been an easy market to open – the Japanese are very particular about their rice, considering the taste of California rice to be inferior to that produced in Japan, and they have been reluctant to put their own rice farmers in economic competition with cheaper foreign imports. There has been a long-term effort on the part of California and the U.S. to open up the Japanese market to rice imports. All that effort could be for naught if Japanese consumers reject genetically engineered rice; if current Japanese behavior toward other U.S. genetically engineered crops is any indication, California producers will lose that hard-fought-for market. According to the most recent survey on consumer opinions by the survey firm the Angus Reid Group, anti-genetic engineering sentiment around the world is greatest among Japanese consumers, with 82 percent of them having a negative opinion of GE foods. As a partial result of that consumer sentiment, Japan has recently passed a law requiring the labeling of GE food, to go into effect in 2001. Even prior to entry into force of that law, many Japanese companies have already announced that they will not use GE in their products. Kirin Brewery is sourcing non-GE corn for use in its beer. According to Reuters, the Japanese corn starch industry is replacing at least half of its corn with non-GE varieties, and Japanese soft drink makers were looking for non-corn based sweeteners to avoid GE corn. Tofu manufacturers consider it market suicide to use GE soy to produce their product. As the director of the Tokyo office of the American Soybean Association noted in a recent interview, labels are "like putting a skull and crossbones on your product." GE rice sold in Japan would need to be labeled, and there is every indication that herbicide-tolerant rice won’t sell. And if the recent decision by Kirin Brewery is any indication of the mindset of food processors, it may not even be imported for use in sake production. Both the California Rice Commission and the Farmers’ Rice Cooperative have recently adopted policies to segregate GE and non-GE rice. But policies are not practice, and, as noted above, industry insiders doubt that purity can be assured given the many potential points for contamination along the path from airplane seeding of fields to the final milling process. Segregation is meaningless if the rice is accidentally pollinated, or if seeds are accidentally mixed. The California rice industry will experience significant economic harm if growers assure the wholesaler, processor, or importer that the crop is GE-free, only to find out it has been contaminated. Given the significance of the Japanese market to California rice producers, it seems that the prudent course of action would be to reject the genetic engineering of rice, for any trait.

Other grower organizations respond to GE US Wheat is a farmer-funded organization that develops overseas markets for U.S. wheat. The group recently adopted a policy for identity preservation of wheat, years before GE-wheat is expected on the market. According to US Wheat, "even at this early point, there are some overseas customers who have already informed the wheat industry that they only want to purchase traditional wheat." Both the Flax Council of Canada and the Saskatchewan Flax Development Commission have taken even stronger stances than wheat growers in the United States. They’ve called for the first GE-flax variety to be taken off the market completely. The president of the Flax Council of Canada was quoted as saying "Just do away with it – get it out of people’s vision."

In 1997, the University of California at Davis started a field test of walnuts genetically engineered with the snowdrop lectin gene. That same year, researchers with the University of California at their Kearney field station tested grape plants with the same gene on behalf of researchers at UC Davis and Dry Creek Laboratories, a private company. Snowdrop lectin is being engineered into these plants because of its pesticidal activity.

Controversy in the UK – lectins, rats, and potatoes A controversy over the risks to humans of eating foods engineered to produce snowdrop lectin is credited with fueling the current anti-GE sentiment in the UK. In 1998, a researcher at the Rowett Research Institute in Scotland, Arpad Pusztai, went public with his findings that rats got sick when fed potatoes genetically engineered with the snowdrop lectin gene. In his studies, these rats showed impaired development of the liver, thymus, spleen and gut, decreased brain size, and weakened immune systems, while rats fed potatoes that had lectin added naturally did not show the same effects. The design of the study implies that the cause of the health effects might have been the process of genetic engineering itself, rather than the lectin. The Pusztai study raised significant safety questions. However, rather than investigating these questions by conducting additional experiments, the scientific community at large and the biotechnology industry attacked the study’s methodology and Pusztai’s decision to make his findings public. The end result is that the questions raised by his work are still unanswered. Moreover, there have yet to be long-term feeding studies demonstrating the safety of consuming plants engineered with snowdrop lectin, and British consumers are sure to be doubtful of any crop containing such a protein.

Wine, raisin, and walnut exports to the U.K. and Japan will certainly suffer if these engineered varieties are commercialized. Japanese and British consumers, among others, are questioning the safety of eating new proteins that have never been part of the human food supply, and that have not been tested for long-term effects on human health. According to the Angus Reid Group: "It seems that genetically modified food has become … much more of a matter of health and safety in the minds of consumers we spoke to."

Insecticides and GE: Less is more? The biotechnology industry claims that genetic engineering will reduce pesticide use, and is using this rationale in a $50 million ad campaign to convince consumers that GE food is environmentally friendly. But evidence suggests otherwise. For example, from 1995, when insect resistant corn was introduced, to 1998, use of insecticides for corn borer control in the U.S. increased, leading a former director of the National Academy of Sciences Board on Agriculture to note that "clearly Bt corn has not reduced insecticide use, and indeed probably has and will continue to increase it." Furthermore, a recent report from WWF Canada questions industry’s claims that GE will reduce pesticide use and warns that false hopes about GE will impede progress in truly sustainable pest solutions.

Alternatives to GE exist

Farmers in California are already finding ways to reduce pesticide use, while at the same time not threatening their export markets by using genetic engineering. California growers associated with the BIOS and BIFS programs (Biologically Integrated Orchard Systems and Biologically Integrated Farming Systems) have successfully reduced pest damage and pesticide use, while at the same time conserving soil and protecting wildlife, by maximizing their use of biological approaches to pest control and soil fertility. The "whole-farming-system" approach of BIOS, BIFS, and related programs includes growing cover crops to supply nitrogen, manage weeds, and provide habitat for the natural enemies of pests. Growers in the Lodi-Woodbridge Winegrape Commission have reduced their reliance on pesticides by 50% through participation in the BIFS program. BIOS almond growers were able to significantly reduce their nitrogen use by increasing reliance on cover crops, and currently treat a large amount of their orchard area with Bt sprays instead of more-toxic alternatives. Beneficial insects and non-chemical controls for weeds are components of the Biological Agriculture Systems in Strawberries (BASIS) project in Monterey and Santa Cruz counties, which started in 1999. These highly acclaimed programs are spreading through orchard and vineyard areas throughout the Central Valley, in almonds, walnuts, wine grapes, citrus, prunes, and pome fruit (e.g., apples and pears), as well as rice and strawberries. They provide real examples of successful management of agricultural problems without resort to genetic engineering.

Land grant misdirection

Genetic engineering is a popular fad with university researchers. The University of California at Davis tree crops program has been active in genetic engineering since the beginning of the technology. The first transgenic walnut trees were put in UC Davis orchards in 1990. So it comes as no surprise that they are continuing on the high-technology path, engineering walnut trees to make snowdrop lectin and Bt toxin. Engineering Bt toxin into walnuts appears to be the primary focus of the GE research program. This work raises two serious concerns. Organic walnut growers depend heavily on Bt to control their major pests: codling moth and naval orangeworm. By engineering walnut trees with Bt toxin, researchers threaten the sustainability of this important low-toxicity pest control. By putting Bt toxin into all the cells of a tree, the selection pressure on the insect to develop resistance to the toxin is constant. Use of these GE trees could soon make Bt unusable for all growers, organic and conventional, once resistance builds up in insect populations. A second concern is that organic orchards close to Bt- or lectin-walnut orchards are at risk for genetic contamination – walnut flowers pollinated by GE-walnut pollen would produce genetically engineered walnuts, and the organic growers would not be allowed to sell those walnuts as organic. Organic walnuts fetch a hefty premium in the marketplace, so the economic cost of this pollution would be severe. It is likely that the growers whose walnuts shed the engineered pollen could be held liable for the economic damage. The University of California research at the Kearney field station into the genetic engineering of grapes, on behalf of UC Davis and Dry Creek Laboratories, is their only foray so far into grape genetic engineering. Researchers there are more known for their pioneering work on biological control of a number of key grape pests and pathogens. Grapes have as of yet seen little genetic engineering work -- a survey of research projects funded by the Table Grape Commission and the American Vineyard Foundation shows little emphasis on genetic engineering in the projects they fund. Given the many successes of reduced pesticide use farming practices in grape production systems in California, this seems logical. Also, researchers in the wine grape industry note that there may never be an acceptance by wine grape growers of genetically engineered grapes, because of the potential effect the engineering may have on the quality of wine eventually produced.

Not all Biotechnology involves Genetic Engineering There are biotechnological approaches to solving agricultural problems that do not rely on genetic engineering, and thus do not involve the risks associated with releasing engineered organisms into the environment and the food supply. Some of these approaches show much promise in helping to address difficult pest and pathogen problems. One new pest-pathogen problem has reared its head in grapes over the last few years. A recently arrived insect pest, the glassy-winged sharpshooter, is a carrier of a deadly bacterial disease – Pierce’s disease. Biotechnological techniques are being used to find approaches to combat the disease. These approaches are noteworthy in that genetic engineering is not presently the focus of the work. Instead, researchers are using a technique that combines molecular biology with conventional breeding – marker-assisted selection – to hasten their work in breeding resistance genes identified in the related species Muscadinia rotundifolia into Vitis vinifera (wine, table and raisin grape) cultivars. In this research, the benefits of molecular biology are being gained without the long-term environmental and human health risks associated with genetic engineering, not to mention the threat to wine quality and valuable export markets.

Conclusion A large proportion of California’s export market is represented by just six commodities – rice, walnuts, grapes, lettuce, strawberries, and tomatoes – in five markets – Japan, Canada, South Korea, Hong Kong, and the United Kingdom. These crops sold in these markets account for $1.125 billion of California agricultural exports annually. Consumers, food companies, and governments in all those countries have expressed concern over genetically engineered crops. Their responses have ranged from the implementation of laws to label GE-food – as in the case of Japan and South Korea – to consumer and environmentalists calls for boycotting of all GE food – as did the major environmental organization in South Korea. In the UK, virtually every major supermarket has declared its store brand products will be made without GE ingredients, and many are eliminating GE crops from animal feed used for their meat and dairy products. Concern about genetically engineered food is also growing among consumers in the United States. Given the importance of export agriculture to the California economy in general, and to California’s farm producers and processors in particular, the agriculture industry should look long and hard at current genetic engineering research and development that could jeopardize access to and acceptance in export markets. Greenpeace recommends that: commodity boards advise their growers against the use of genetically engineered organisms, and the California Department of Agriculture conduct a comprehensive review comparing the potential impact of GE on California agriculture with the potential for a growing organic agriculture sector.

Herbicide tolerant crops: Californians should demand a full environmental and human health review of the effects of the additional chemicals released into the environment with the use of the genetically engineered crops, including new and potentially increased use of herbicides. The social costs to small farmers of increased dependency on agrochemical companies should be part of such a review.

Companies involved in genetic engineering argue that more consumer-friendly products of GE are on the way. But most of the next generation of genetically engineered foods are fruits and vegetables engineered with first generation traits – including the extremely controversial trait of herbicide tolerance. Numerous fruits and vegetables are being engineered for tolerance to glyphosate and/or glufosinate; four of those crops are in the state’s top twenty exports: lettuce, tomatoes, strawberries, and rice.

Neither glufosinate nor glyphosate have untarnished records when it comes to human health and safety. Growing crops engineered to tolerate these chemicals means more of the weed-killers will be dumped into the California environment. An additional 18 tons of glyphosate may enter the California environment annually if only 25% of lettuce and tomato producers decide to plant herbicide-tolerant versions of those crops. Workers will suffer more pesticide-related illnesses if use of these chemicals increases.

Producers and commodity boards should focus on technologies that reduce or eliminate dependence on pesticides, rather than those technologies that lock in a farmer’s dependence on chemical pest control.

Pharmaceutical rice:

Californians should demand an investigation of the possible environmental and human health effects associated with escape of pollen from any ‘pharm’ crops grown in open fields, as well as other unintentional contamination during production and processing of rice destined for human consumption. Citizens should also demand an assessment of the harm to organic rice production.

Japan imports more than half of the rice exported by California farmers. Japanese consumers lead the world in their doubts about the benefits of genetically engineered food. They are sure to raise concerns over rice genetically engineered to produce human proteins. Efforts to engineer rice, particularly with human proteins not intended for general human consumption, are likely to severely endanger a hard fought-for market for California rice producers.

Californians should demand an investigation of the environmental and human health risks associated with these plants, in particular the speed at which insects will develop resistance and the direct threat to organic producers who use Bt as an organic pesticide.

Table grape, raisin, wine and walnut exports all will be threatened if University of California researchers continue in their efforts to engineer grapes and walnuts to contain toxins that will kill insect and worm pests. Controversies surround both the Bt and snowdrop lectin toxins, particularly in the United Kingdom, where consumer sentiment against genetically engineered foods is great.

Non-toxic, non-GE options for pest control exist, and are being showcased throughout the state with the Biologically Integrated Orchard Systems and Biologically Integrated Farming Systems projects.

Californians should demand that state and federally funded land grant institutions focus research on truly sustainable and organic technologies that do not threaten markets for California exports.

Californians should demand that the state enact legal protection for organic growers and food producers whose products are contaminated by GE, by holding biotech companies liable for any economic damage resulting from the use of GE seed.

Apple Brassicas (broccoli, cauliflower, cabbage, brussels sprouts, etc.) Carrot Cucumber Grape Lettuce Melon Onion Pea Pepper Persimmon Potato Rubus ideaus (a type of berry) Yellow squash Strawberry Tomato Walnut Watermelon

Acknowledgements

Sincere thanks to the following persons who reviewed some or all of this report: Charles Benbrook, Ellen Hickey, Bryce Lundberg, Charles Margulis, Jeanne Merrill, Jane Rissler, and Beverley Thorpe.