GE Free Seeds

Polish GE seed ban big step towards sustainability

2006-05-22T21:31:00.000-07:00

Polish GE seed ban big step towards sustainability
Friday, 19 May 2006, 9:11 am
Press Release: Greenpeace

Polish GE seed ban big step towards sustainable agriculture
Poland 18th May 2006 - Greenpeace welcomed the ban on the sale of genetically engineered (GE) seeds, which was approved yesterday by the President of Poland Lech Kaczynski. The signing by the President was the final step for the GE ban to come into force, the legislation was approved by both chambers of the Polish Parliament in previous weeks.One of the amendments of the new act states that, "genetically engineered varieties will no longer be registered in the National Seeds Catalogue", another adds that trading of GE seeds is forbidden within Polish territory. These regulations constitute a big step forward in order to keep the country's agriculture completely free of GE crops."This decision by the Polish President shows that political decision makers are at last taking into account the serious perils connected with planting of GE crops, these crops are not needed and pose a grave danger to the environment, consumers and farmers' livelihoods," said Maciej Muskat, Greenpeace GE campaigner in Poland. "The Government has kept their word to Polish voters, farmers and environmentalists and implemented this ban - a promise that was given prior to the last election."The ban is a clear political signal that directly contravenes the recent WTO ruling, the verdict declared EU member states national bans on GE organisms are in breach of the rules of free trade. "Poland has implemented this GE seeds ban in defiance of bullying from both the European Commission and the WTO," said Mr Muskat.There are now 12 GE organism bans in seven EU countries, more than in 2003 when the US presented its case against the EU to the WTO. The Polish announcement is a blow to US agro-chemical giants, as Poland is the second biggest agricultural food producer in the EU."Greenpeace will continue to work with and encourage other countries to follow the Polish example, which has put environmental concerns and sustainable agriculture above the profits of agro-chemical conglomerates." Concluded Mr Muskat. ENDS http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0605/S00359.htm

Get your GE Free submissions in now!

2006-04-12T21:55:00.000-07:00

Get your GE Free submissions in now!
Councils throughout New Zealand are rushing to get their Long Term Council Community Plans finished and implemented by June.
GE Free NZ is anxious they shouldn't overlook the 'community value' reflected in the fact that 75% of Kiwis oppose release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). With the help of GE Free Waikato, an automatic submission form has been set up at
http://www.gefreeseeds.com/submission_to_council.htm . Catherine Iremonger said, "I worked on the site because I realised how daunting the official process can be. With this site submissions can be sent to your local council anywhere in the country just by filling in your contact details and selecting the name of your local council."
Northland peninsula councils (ie. Waitakere City, Rodney District and the Northland councils) have investigated the costs they might incur if a GE release in their area went wrong and they had to pay for the clean up. They have commissioned two independent reports and two legal opinions by Dr. Royden Somerville, QC. Those reports confirm the financial risks for ratepayers. GE Free NZ's Claire Bleakley said, "It's important that councils reflect their communities values. Every week
more news about the health and economic hazards of GE comes to light.
Recently we've had the medical catastrophe involving a young New Zealander in a GE drug trial in the UK, the international ban on 'terminator seeds' at the Convention on Biodiversity in Brazil last month and the contamination of Spanish crops with GMO. Councils which don't take action are soon going to find themselves out on a limb, but it needs those submissions to start the process."
The standard submission on the web site can be varied to suit individual circumstances. It urges councils to investigate ways of keeping their areas free of GMOs, except in laboratory containment, until issues such as liability, economic costs and benefits, environmental risks, and cultural effects are resolved.
For more information contact GEFREE Waikato at waikatogefreenetwork@gefreeseeds.com

Letter to PM on genetically engineered organisms

2006-04-05T20:36:00.000-07:00

Letter to PM on genetically engineered organisms Thursday, 6 April 2006, 2:56 pmPress Release: Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Genetics 6 April 2006
The Right Hon. Helen ClarkCc to all MPs
Prime MinisterERMA
Parliament BuildingsFSANZ
WELLINGTONMedia
A letter addressed to Prime Minister Helen Clark
Dear Helen Clark
PSRG calls your attention to 8 April 2006, designated the day to inform people and to demonstrate public concern about genetically engineered organisms (GEOs).
Of particular concern to us are decisions of FSANZ and other regulatory bodies; the decision not to adopt country of origin labelling; the inadequacy of current GEO labelling requirements; the use of genetic engineering technology to produce pharmaceutical and industrial materials; and potential applications to release GEOs into the New Zealand environment.
(For the purposes of this letter, genetic engineering and genetic modification are synonymous.)
1. The effects on human consumers ingesting genetically engineered organisms
We advise you of the following research that raises serious concerns about the risks of consuming GEOs.
1.1. Eating genetically engineered soybeans affected the liver and pancreas of study mice.
In 2005, Italian researchers1 found that genetically engineered (GE) soybeans affected the liver and pancreas in mice. Previously, the researchers had shown that absorption of GE soy by mice induced modifications in the nuclei of their liver cells. It was later shown that reverting the diet of the mice to conventional food caused the observed differences to disappear. It was also found that several of these changes could be "induced in adult organisms in a very short time."
1.2. Genetically engineered pea research abandoned because of adverse results
Also in 2005, CSIRO2 scientists abandoned a research project after ten years. They found that the genetically engineered peas they had developed caused lung damage in mice.
1.3. The cauliflower mosaic virus acting as a catalyst to provoke gene expression (2006)
Dr Terje Traavik, scientific director of the University of Tromso'sInstitute of Genetic Ecology in Norway, has demonstrated3 that an element of the genetic structures used to engineer a plant - the cauliflower mosaic virus (35S CaMV) promoter - can provoke gene expression in cultured human cells. Developers of genetically engineered plants have previously claimed that the promoter normally only performs that way with plants.
1.4. Monsanto's MON 863 genetically engineered corn
In April 2004, a toxicological study released to Le Monde4 reportedly showed that rats fed with MON 863 presented anomalies, including an increase in the white blood cell count, changes in blood sugar, and a reduction in the red blood cell count. The paper claimed that in considering a decision on its release, despite re-examining the file, regulators did not reportedly take another look at Monsanto's statistical analysis.
An independent study was commissioned from Gilles-Eric Sâ^sÂ©ralini, of the University of Caen, and Dominique Cellier, of the University of Rouen. Dominique Cellier, a biocomputer specialist, is reported to have said that: "Monsanto's statistical analysis of the differences observed in the rats was very superficial. They isolate the variables instead of using so-called multi-variable analysis methods, which consist of looking at the observed anomalies in a coherent way. If one uses those methods, one observes coherence between the weight, urinary tract, and haematological anomalies in the animals fed GMOs."
Commenting on evaluating procedures for GEOs, Jean-Michel Wal of the GEO group of the European Authority on Food Security, is cited as saying: "We don't know how to study a food overall, whether it's a GMO or not; there's no norm."
2. Regulation and safety testing of GEOs
We wish to raise serious concerns about New Zealand's reliance on the approval process of US government agencies. The companies that develop and promote genetically engineered food crops generally carry out toxicological studies on the effects of consuming them. These studies are meant to then be double checked by food safety authorities, but the criticism is that the experiments are simply not reproduced, even though industry studies often show adverse biological impacts.
2.1. Inadequate and unsatisfactory regulation
The FDA declared genetically engineered foods are substantially equivalent to conventional foods. It ignored the warnings of its own scientists and put in place food rules that assume no unforeseen effects will occur and, therefore, no safety testing is required, for genetically engineered foods. This premise has been well proven to be wrong.
2.1.a. Early in 2000, German scientists discovered that antibiotic resistant marker (ARM) genes from engineered canola were transferring their resistance to the bacteria found in the guts of bees that had consumed pollen from the plants.
2.1.b. Earlier European Union studies had revealed that ARM genes found in genetically engineered foods could transfer into bacteria in the human gut as well as soil bacteria
( http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/genemarker.cfm).
2.2. British Medial Association
Concerns were raised as long ago as 1999 when the British MedicalAssociation called for a global moratorium on genetically engineered crops. The BMA were concerned that ARM genes would cause antibiotic resistance to develop in bacteria by horizontal gene transfer. Such resistance would serve to erode the effectiveness of antibiotics for humankind. Crops are still produced using ARM genes.
2.3. Recommended new safety test method
In 2006, agricultural economist, Dr Charles Benbrook - a former advisor to the Carter, Reagan and Clinton administrations - warned of serious concerns over safety in respect of generically engineered foods.5 He claims that these food crops should be re-tested using Australian food safety technology developed by the Australian National University. The failed pea trials were tested using it.
2.4. Instigating safety assessments
As a direct result of the failed pea trails (1.2), Western Australia has instigated an independent, long-term animal feeding trial to collect and assess data on the safety of GE food crops. New Zealand should also take the initiative.
3. Current applications for genetically engineered crops
Recent applications to Food Safety ANZ for the approval of foods derived from genetically engineered alfalfa and corn raise concerns.
a.. Food derived from glyphosate-tolerant Lucerne (Application A575) J101 and J163 for human consumption.b.. Food derived from Monsanto's high-lysine corn LY038 (Application A549) genetically engineered to have higher than usual levels of the amino acid, lysine, intended for animal feed.
It is stated that these will be used for animal feed, although some may find its way into human food products. PSRG maintains that the risks that it is intrinsically unwise to allow GE animal feed into the human food chain.
3.1. Transgenes in cows' milk
In June 2004, a study was released by the Research Centre for Milk and Foodstuffs in Weihenstephan, Bavaria that showed that parts of the gene construct from RoundupReady soybean and from Bt176 maize was found in milk from cows fed these genetically engineered plants. The report says the gene segments may have got into the milk via feed or dust from the feed in the air. No further studies have been made to clarify the exact means by which the DNA fragments got into the milk. (See http://news.bbc.co.uk/.)
3.2. Transgenes in the gut bacteria of human volunteers
A study commissioned by the UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) and carried out at the University of Newcastle, demonstrated that DNA from a genetically engineered food - in this case soybean in the form of a burger and a milkshake - found its way into the gut bacteria of human volunteers. (See the FSA Report on http://www.foodstandards.gov.uk/.)
3.3. The long-term effects of ingesting material from transgenic sources on a daily basis have not been assessed.
4. Adverse effects of genetically engineered crops - MON 8106, 7, 8Monsanto's MON 810 corn produces an artificial, truncated version of a Cry toxin derived from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis. This family of toxins has a pathogenic effect on Lepidopteron insects.
4.1. Genetically engineered plants are not equivalent to bio pesticides
A study spanning several years has monitored the quantity of Cry1Ab toxins in DK-440 BTY (MON 810) corn. Cry toxins are compounds that have gained acceptance in pest control (i.e., in bio pesticides such as DIPEL). However, genetically engineered plants are not equivalent to these bio-pesticides from the aspect of environmental analysis and ecotoxicology.
The principal difference with regard to toxin release is related to the extent and duration of exposure: while bio-pesticide applications release a small quantity of the toxin on a single or several occasions, the GE plant produces the toxin protein on a continuous basis, unnecessarily, during its entire vegetation cycle, as long as the gene section(s) added artificially to the plant and responsible for encoding the protein are active.6
4.2. Cry toxin produced in the entire plant during the whole growth period Székács et al6 have confirmed that the Cry toxin is produced in the plant during the whole period of growth. That is, in a dry plant, under moderate temperature, the toxin remains biologically active for several years. Post-harvest the maize stubble contains a significant quantity of Cry toxin. Cry toxin, over-wintering in the stubble, can be detected in plant residues after a period of one year.
4.3. Comparisons between bio pesticides and Bt plants
Székács et al compared the quantity of Cry-toxin proteins produced by the Bt-plant with the doses registered and permitted for their use in bio pesticides, and determined the toxin quantity in DIPEL. They found that MON 810 Bt-corn produces 1500-3000 times more Cry1Ab toxin than the Cry1Ab toxin dose corresponding to a single treatment with DIPEL.
They also found that only part of the toxin from the Bt-plant is decomposed during the growth period. Further, a significant part of the remaining quantity in the stubble enters the soil, where it may affect soil life (animals and micro-organisms).
4.4. Cry pollen and contamination
A study (Darvas et al)7 carried out over several years looked at the possible effects of the pollen of DK-440 BTY corn grown in Nagykovácsi, Júlia-major, a valley where no maize was grown during the years concerned.
The distance of the intra-specific hybrid formation was examined on white, tassel-free maize and the results showed that pollen transfer could occur at 800 metres.
This poses risks for organically grown maize where zero tolerance is accepted for GE-hybrids. Seeds developing from a traditional female blossom pollinated with cry gene- containing pollen (i.e., from MON 810), have a high probability (1/3) of acquiring the capability of producing the Cry1Ab toxin.
4.5. The effects on essential insect species
Around fields planted with Bt-corn hybrids, the Bt-pollen settled on weeds, presenting a danger to the hatching caterpillars of protected varieties of butterflies. This means that in the case of extensive Bt-corn cultivation, butterfly species could recede.
A study by Béla Darvas and Éva Lauber8 found that insects developed resistance to the toxin content in Bt-corn leaves. The conclusion is that this will generate a growth in the number of insect populations on which Bacillus thuringiensis products - used almost exclusively in organic farming - will no longer have a suitable effect.
5. Food crops engineered to produce non-food products - the potential contamination of other engineered, conventional and organically grown crops.
In 2004, the US Department of Agriculture oversaw 67,000 acres of biotech field trials, some of which involved producing non-food products in a food crop. Corn is the most utilised food crop for engineered traits because it is easy to work with and produces a lot of grain. The concern is that food plants genetically engineered for non-food products could contaminate plants engineered as food crops and/or conventional crops, and enter the food supply as did StarLink's Cry9C protein in 2000.
5.1. Report on the US Department of Agriculture as a regulator9
A recent report found that the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has failed to properly oversee field trials of genetically engineered crops, including plants engineered to produce chemicals for medical and industrial uses. The report says that the USDA "lacks basic information" on field trial locations and what happens to the crops after harvest. For example, auditors located two harvested pharmaceutical crops in storage, about which the USDA knew nothing nor had it approved.
The two-year safety audit by the United States Office of Inspector General also found that: "Current (USDA) regulations, policies and procedures do not go far enough to ensure the safe introduction of agricultural biotechnology."
6. Pharmaceutical drugs produced using genetic engineering technology
Some people react differently to proteins that are genetically engineered as against equivalent proteins that are produced naturally. Genetic engineering technology is not as precise or as predictable as chemical drugs because it relies on the intricate workings of complex living cells in the process of manufacture, and even the subtlest of changes in the process can have unpredictable results. Some drugs - e.g. human insulin - are created by engineering the required human gene into bacterial or animal cells.
…
PSRG urges you, Prime Minister, to put safety before industry profit and instigate changes to the NZ system of regulation that will protect New Zealanders.
Signed by the Trustees of Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Genetics
Paul G Butler, BSc, MB, ChB, Dip. Obst. (Auckland), FRNZCGPGeneral Practitioner, Trustee PSRG, AUCKLAND
John R Clearwater, BSc, MSc, PhDPrincipal Scientist, Clearwater Research and Consulting, Trustee PSRG, AUCKLAND
Bernard J Conlon, MB, BCh, BAO, DCH, DRCOG, DGM, MRCGP (UK), FRNZCGPGeneral Practitioner, Trustee PSRG, MURUPARA
Elvira Dommisse, BSc(Hons), PhDFormer Research Scientist, Trustee PSRG, CHRISTCHURCH
Michael E Godfrey, MBBS, FACAM, FACNEMDirector, Bay of Plenty Environmental Health Clinic, Trustee PSRG, TAURANGA
Neil Macgregor, BSc, MSc, PhDSoil Microbiologist, Institute of Natural Resources, Massey University, Trustee PSRG, PALMERSTON NORTH
Peter R Wills, BSc, PhDAssociate Professor, University of Auckland, Trustee PSRG, AUCKLAND
Robert G Anderson, BSc, PhDLecturer retired, Trustee PSRG, TAURANGA
Jean AndersonBusinesswoman retired, Trustee PSRG, TAURANGA.
Signed on behalf of PSRG
Jean AndersonSecretarywww.psrg.org.nz.for the Trustees of Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Genetics

JIGMOD- Joint International GMOpposition Day 8th April

2006-04-03T20:38:00.000-07:00

A worldwide event (see the International Program) is to be held on the 8th of April 2006, with the twofold aim of informing people and demonstrating the front of concerned organizations against GMOs (both open-air plants and food). This action will be distributed over several Information Sites, possibly linked through Internet video connections. The medias will be issued with the international program by the end of March; until then, the project develops according to a given Agenda.

In New Zealand, GE Free New Zealand are organising stalls and petitions around the country.

Local Government ACTION: YOU SHOULD HAVE A SAY RE GENETIC ENGINEERING From March all councils will be consulting you regarding plans for the next 10 years. It is imperative that they hear from you that GE release into our environment is an issue that must be taken seriously.

Start your own Petition and give your GE Free requests more weight. Download a Petition Form and collect signatures of likeminded people in your community.

Valuable resources to this are also available at: http://www.giantexperiment.co.nz/ in the Take Action -> Resources section.
Basic Council Lobbying KitFind out how to effectively lobby your Local and Regional Council

LobbyingYourLocalGovt-LSNov2004.doc
SuggestedCnlPresentation.doc

Also at the GE Free Seeds website is a form that people can use to post their submissions via email to their local council on GMOs.

March of the GMO-free regions and EU-Conference "The Freedom of Choice", 4-6. April in Vienna

2006-04-03T20:30:00.000-07:00

March of the GMO-free regions and EU-Conference "The Freedom of Choice", 4-6. April in Vienna
During the Austrian EU-Presidency in the fist six month of 2006 crucial decision for setting the course in the field of genetic engineering will be taken. This conference organised by the EU Commission will be crucial in laying down the framework for "Coexistence" in Europe. Come to Vienna and make your voices heard!

http://www.gmofree-europe.org/

Council advised to rethink GE stance

2006-04-02T16:32:00.000-07:00

WAIKATO District Council is having a long, second think about its
earlier decision to avoid any reference to genetically modified
organisms (GMOs) in its revised District Plan.
After hearing detailed evidence from anti-GE campaigners of alleged
health and economic risks to Waikato ratepayers if GMOs are released,
the hearing committee reserved its decision.
Chairman Cr Rob McGuire says that after receiving "a considerable weight
of evidence" from GE Waikato's John Lawson and Catherine Iremonger and
anti-GE campaigners from Northland and Wairarapa, councillors had
decided to defer making a decision until June or July to allow further
research.
The council is the first in the current cycle to review its District
Plan and was targeted by anti-GE campaigners in the hope setting a ban
would set a precedent.
GE Free New Zealand's Claire Bleakley says "sceptical" councillors were
presented with overwhelming evidence of GE dangers. "We warned that if
GMOs were released the council and farmers might be unable to stop an
uncontrolled spread of organisms which would create liability and costs
to ratepayers.
"Contamination will end up the responsibility of the council to control
and the ratepayer to fund," Ms Iremonger said.
She claimed GMO releases had the potential to destroy the Waikato
organics industry with its annual income of around $12million
The submitters suggested councillors should investigate the
"precautionary approach" being considered by Northland councils
and consider options leading up to total prohibition.
'We're confident the weight of evidence will sway the council to abandon
its hitherto 'do nothing' option" says John Lawson of GE-Free
Whaingaroa.
Cr McGuire says he cannot say what councillors' response to the
submissions is because the matter is under confidential consideration."
(This Week, p9 , March 29th 2006)

Grim Reaper stalks NZ embassy in London to protest Govt stand on terminator

2006-04-02T16:23:00.000-07:00

By Graham Thompson Phone: ++44 7932 842

The Grim Reaper appeared in front of the New Zealand Embassy in London this morning, with a banner protesting the NZ Government's refusal to oppose Terminator technology.The protestors held a banner in front of the embassy reading "NZ: ban GE Terminator seeds now" and distributed hundreds of leaflets to passers-by in the London rush hour.The protestors are part of a world wide network of concerned citizens who care about the 1.4 billion people across the world who depend on farm-saved seed for survival. Terminator, sterile seed technology, would put an end to this practice and make farmers buy their seed every year from seed companies.

New Zealand, along with only Canada and Australia, is supporting the lifting of a defacto ban agreed by Governments in 2000 which stopped farm trials of terminator technology because of the threat this technology poses. It is facing the wrath of the developing world on this issue as the Convention on Biological Diversity talks continue in Brazil. 300 environmental and farmers groups from across the world have signed an international petition to ban Terminator.New Zealand is arguing that Terminator ought to be considered on a "case by case" basis but this approach is being slammed as the thing which could undermine - and eventually eliminate - the defacto ban."New Zealand advertises itself as 100% pure but that’s clearly a complete sham. It's a case of "I'm alright jack" where so-called clean, green New Zealand doesn't seem to care about what it unleashes on the rest of the world. This is a clear case of double standards and New Zealand completely ignoring its international development obligations," said one of the protestors, Graham Thompson."We call on New Zealand to do the right environmental thing and oppose Terminator technology in any form, including its so-called case-by-case basis."For information: Graham Thompson ++44 7932 842 266 http://indymedia.org.nz/feature/display/42876/index.php

Kia ora! Welcome to the GE Free Seeds Blog!

2006-04-02T15:51:00.000-07:00

Thank-you for viewing this blog site. Hopefully through time you and I will be able to exchange views and share news about genetically modified organisms. And then create community initiatives to stop them from spreading such as Seed Saving Networks, Community Gardens, and environmental management strategies.

Feel free to post your thoughts or news.

From the team at GE Free Waikato