GM-free canola a winner says Gene Ethics

On 22 August 2016, Australia submitted a report to the European Union (EU) presenting the results of calculations of greenhouse gas emissions from the cultivation of canola oilseed in Australia and in December 2017 the EU approved Australian canola for import as low greenhouse gas emission produce for bio-fuel, animal feed and food.

Gene Ethics, 3 January 2018:

GM-free canola a winner
A CSIRO researcher confirms that Australian farmers achieved a $100 million per year premium, with the extra $20-$40/tonne paid for their GM-free canola. Australia has favoured EU access for its GM-free canola, by meeting Europe's tough Renewable Energy Greenhouse Gas Savings Target. Our canola offers more options for the European supply chain, as residues from biofuel production can be used for animal feed and oil for human consumption. The vast majority of Australian canola is GM-free.

 GM-free Shopping List is here.

Working for a GM-free future

The Gene Scene 6 GM-free News & Views View this email in your browser

http://mailchi.mp/geneethics/l7euy0cffw-1299153?e=0050597362

Monsanto, Roundup and probability of cancer

East Bay Express 15 April 2015:

On March 20, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) reclassified glyphosate as a chemical that probably causes cancer. The IARC is a branch of the World Health Organization that focuses on cancer, and it combines the knowledge and expertise of epidemiologists, laboratory scientists, and biostatisticians. The IARC has been engaged in cancer research for more than five decades, and its vast experience in cancer research has led the agency to conclude that "most cancers are, directly or indirectly, linked to environmental factors and thus are preventable."

The IARC had previously designated glyphosate as possibly carcinogenic. Monsanto, a leading producer of glyphosate under the trade name Roundup, immediately issued a press release challenging the new IARC designation and contending that Roundup is safe. But Monsanto has a tremendous amount at stake. Half of the corporation's revenues come from sales of Roundup and Roundup Ready seeds, which can tolerate the herbicide. Monsanto advocates that farmers spray their fields heavily and repeatedly with Roundup in order to kill unwanted weeds, and Monsanto's corporate strategy is based on the assumption that Roundup is safe. If Roundup is found to be toxic, the entire house of cards comes tumbling down, and with it, Monsanto and biotech agriculture. The banning of glyphosate could mean bankruptcy for Monsanto.

IARC Monographs Volume 112: evaluation of five organophosphate insecticides and herbicidesonograph

Attention Ethical Consumers: Meadow Lea Alert

In August 2009  Goldman Fielder’s claimed of its Meadow Lea margarine:

Farmers grow our canola & sunflower seeds
MeadowLea spreads are made from over 70,000 natural seeds. The canola seeds that go into our MeadowLea spreads are Non-Genetically Modified. Our canola seeds are sourced locally from Australian Seed growers, whilst the sunflower seeds are sourced from the warm climate of South America.

In August 2013 Goldman Fielder's claimed:

The canola oil in MeadowLea comes from canola seeds grown in Australia. MeadowLea is proud to be supporting Australian Farmers, as we select only Australian grown canola seeds to make MeadowLea. In Australia canola is grown in the winter months, harvested in November / December and is the largest oil seed crop grown in Australia.

Sunflowers are native to South America and MeadowLea's sunflower seeds come from Argentina. Sunflowers are a summer crop and can grow as high as 2 metres.

Its margarine packaging now omits any reference to non-GM canola seed:

Goldman Fielder’s non-genetically modified claims were always somewhat misleading as only 52 per cent of the vegetable oil listed is/was produced from canola and sunflower seeds, with 48 per cent of the remaining oil unidentified.

This reluctance to identify all oils leads one to suspect the presence of environmentally destructive palm oil form SE Asia.

However to see this company abandon any commitment – however small - to consumers who prefer GMO free foods is disappointing.

A product to avoid at the supermarket.

Monsanto shows its desperation

Caught out in yet another instance of crop contamination and an attempt to limit the power of U.S. courts – this time an unapproved and commercially unreleased genetically modified wheat variety and a piece of legislation quietly slipped into an appropriations bill - Monsanto & Co decides to blame the bogeymen.

Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 containing the section known as the  “Monsanto Protection Act” or “Farmers Assurance Provision” 26 March 2013:

SEC. 735. In the event that a determination of non-regulated status made pursuant to section 411 of the Plant Protection Act H. R. 933—35 is or has been invalidated or vacated, the Secretary of Agriculture shall, notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon request by a farmer, grower, farm operator, or producer, immediately grant temporary permit(s) or temporary deregulation in part, subject to necessary and appropriate conditions consistent with section 411(a) or 412(c) of the Plant Protection Act, which interim conditions

shall authorize the movement, introduction, continued cultivation, commercialization and other specifically enumerated activities and requirements, including measures designed to mitigate or minimize potential adverse environmental effects, if any, relevant to the Secretary’s evaluation of the petition for non-regulated status, while ensuring that growers or other users are able to move, plant, cultivate, introduce into commerce and carry out other authorized activities in a timely manner: Provided, That all such conditions shall be applicable only for the interim period necessary for the Secretary to complete any required analyses or consultations related to the petition for non-regulated status: Provided further, That

nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting the Secretary’s authority under section 411, 412 and 414 of the Plant Protection Act.

Snopes 29 May 2013:

..the agribusiness industry…… maintains the Farmers Assurance Provision prevents activists from manipulating the court system.

Salon News 6 June 2013:

In bad news for Monsanto, but good news for food safety advocates, chairwoman of the Senate Agriculture Committee Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., has vowed to oppose a provision that protects genetically modified seeds from litigation in the face of health risks. The provision, dubbed “the Monsanto Protection Act” by activists for the benefit it would provide biotech giants like Monsanto, was sneaked into a broad spending bill and passed through Congress without appropriate review by the Agricultural or Judiciary Committees…..

Stabenow made her pledge in a conversation with Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), who has been pushing the Senate to vote on an amendment to the farm bill that would repeal the provision. That vote was blocked by [Republican Sen. Cochran] and on Thursday morning the Senate voted to end debate and move to final passage.

When two senators have a pre-arranged public conversation on the Senate floor, it’s known as a colloquy and is typically the bow that ties up a deal struck beforehand. While Merkley was unable to get a repeal vote, the colloquy is a significant win for him, with Stabenow promising she will oppose any attempt to extend the Monsanto Protection Act in backroom negotiations.

Wisconsin Rapids Tribune 6 June 2013:

This week, more than 2 million people protested around the world against the corporate conglomerate Monsanto...

Drovers Cattle Network 6 June 2013:

Monsanto executives described the discovery of genetically-modified wheat growing in an Oregon farmer’s field this spring an “isolated occurrence.”

During a conference call with reporters on Wednesday, Monsanto officials said the company has tested 31,200 seed samples in Oregon and Washington since the May 29 announcement of the GM wheat sprouts. They found no evidence of contamination in the tests, and said the GM wheat found last month was likely the result of an accident or deliberate mixing of seeds. They are not ruling out sabotage….

The Christian Science Monitor 7 June 2013:

American wheat farmers and a food safety advocacy group filed a lawsuit Thursday against biotech seed developer Monsanto Co, accusing the company of failing to protect the U.S. wheat market from contamination by its unauthorized wheat.

The petition, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, seeks class-action status to represent other farmers it says were harmed by lower wheat prices as some foreign buyers have shied away from U.S. wheat.

It names Clarmar Farms Inc., farmer Tom Stahl, and the Center for Food Safety as plaintiffs…….

The suit follows a similar action filed Monday by a Kansas wheat farmer, alleging that he and other growers have been hurt financially by the discovery of an unapproved biotech wheat that Monsanto said it stopped testing and shelved nine years ago….

Background

Centre For Food Safety 20 May 2011:

Earthjustice attorney Paul Achitoff: “Dismissal of the appeal confirms that the district court rightly concluded that in this case, as in every other case that has challenged USDA’s oversight of genetically engineered crops, the agency has flouted the law, favoring the interests of Monsanto over those of American people.  With every court decision the need for fundamental reform in this area becomes ever more obvious.”

Remarkably, the EIS is only the second USDA has undertaken for any GE crop in over 15 years of approving such crops for human consumption.  Both analyses were court-ordered.  USDA said it expects to finish the GE sugar beets EIS and have a new decision on commercialization in 2012.

Despite the absence of lawful review or a new agency decision, in summer 2010, USDA and the biotech industry demanded the court allow planting to continue unabated.  The district court refused to do so and instead set aside USDA’s approval of the crop based on the agency’s failure to comply with environmental laws.  That precedential ruling was also preserved by today’s order.

March against Monsanto - May 25 in Bellingen NSW

Media Release

Carol Vernon

Greens candidate for Cowper

May 21, 2013

Carol Vernon will be supporting the rally against Monsanto in Maam Gaduying Park , outside the Bellingen Council Chambers on Saturday, May 25, starting at 9.00 am.

Mrs Vernon said, "As a member of Bellingen Seedsavers I am totally committed to preserving heritage seeds. Many people in our local area demonstrate a huge commitment to sustainable food production.

" Genetically manipulated organisms (GMOs), their products, and the chemicals used to manage them pose significant risks to natural and agricultural ecosystems and human health.

" The precautionary principle must be applied to the use of GMOs and the techniques for producing them.

" Scientific evidence must be the basis for assessing and licensing GMOs. GMO assessments must be broad, independent and scientifically robust.

" Living organisms such as plants, animals and micro-organisms are not inventions. Patents on life are unethical and against the public interest.

"Farmers and consumers have a right to grow and consume non-GMO foods.

" Everyone has a right to know if foods contain any ingredients made using GM techniques, through the comprehensive labelling of those products." 

Facebook: Carol Vernon Greens for Cowper

Carol Vernon (Greens4Cowper) on Twitter

Blog: http://mncgreens.blogspot.com.au

Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association et al. v Monsanto: the fight continues

OSGATA July 18 2012:

WASHINGTON, D.C. – July 17, 2012 – Eleven prominent law professors and fourteen renowned organic, Biodynamic®, food safety and consumer non-profit organizations have filed separate briefs with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit arguing farmers have the right to protect themselves from being accused of patent infringement by agricultural giant Monsanto. The brief by the law professors and the brief by the non-profit organizations were filed in support of the seventy-five family farmers, seed businesses, and agricultural organizations representing over 300,000 individuals and 4,500 farms that last year brought a protective legal action seeking a ruling that Monsanto could never sue them for patent infringement if they became contaminated by Monsanto’s genetically modified seed. The case was dismissed by the district court in February and that dismissal is now pending review by the Court of Appeals. The plaintiffs recently filed their opening appeal brief with the appeals court……..

* This post is part of North Coast Voices' effort to keep Monsanto's blog monitor (affectionately known as Mr. Monsanto) in long-term employment.

Queensland genetically modified bananas anyone?

Is Genetically modified becoming something of a dirty term with the Australian general public?

Putting two and two together it is obvious that the Queensland University of Technology tried very hard to avoid both the GMO acronym and again naming its funding source as the Grand Challenges in Global Health (GCGH) Initiative - which was launched as a health initiative by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which is in turn is associated with Monsanto & Co through its shareholdings in that notorious biotech giant.

ABC NEWS 22 December 2011:

Microsoft founder Bill Gates has met Queensland scientists who are trying to develop better bananas for Africa's sub-Saharan region.

The philanthropist has invested $10 million in banana research in recent years through his foundation's global health program.

Successful field trials have been carried out at Innisfail, south of Cairns, in the state's far north.

Professor James Dale, from the Queensland University of Technology, says he was pleased to update Mr Gates and his wife during their visit to Cairns last week…….

Unfortunately for UTS the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator reveals what is was hoping to cover with a little bit of verbal smoke:

* This post is part of North Coast Voices' effort to keep Monsanto's blog monitor (affectionately known as Mr. Monsanto) in long-term employment.

It's World Food Day Today, 16 October 2011

It is World Food Day today and it’s no surprise to find that this event is supported by the multinational biotech industry and agricultural sectors which promote GMO crops.

To counteract this I suggest……………………...

Send an email of support to Millions Against Monsanto here.

Sign up for Mothers Against Monsanto weekly newsletter here and join the network here.

Contact your Federal MP and tell him or her that you demand a review of the Australian Government’s position on GMO labelling. Contact details here and here.

Write a letter to the editor of a local newspaper stating how you feel about genetically modified crops and foods.

* This post is part of North Coast Voices' effort to keep Monsanto's blog monitor (affectionately known as Mr. Monsanto) in long-term employment.

U.S. organic seed growers find friends in their fight against self-replicating GM technology

In the matter of ORGANIC SEED GROWERS AND TRADE ASSOCIATION, et al v MONSANTO COMPANY AND MONSANTO TECHNOLOGY LLC; the summary from the amicus brief lodged by Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance, Biodynamic Farming and Gardening Association, Carolina Farm Stewardship Association, Ecological Famers of Ontario, Fair Food Matters, International Organic Inspectors Association, Michigan Land Trustees, Natural Environment Ecological Management, Nebraska Sustainable Agriculture Association, Organic Council of Ontario, Slow Food USA, and Virginia Independent Consumers and Farmers Association.

Case 1:11-cv-02163-NRB Document 39 Filed 08/10/11 Page 9 of 23

SUMMARY

Monsanto has a track record of aggressive enforcement of its patent rights. Monsanto has sued or settled with hundreds of farmers, and investigated unknown numbers more. Because of the nature of Monsanto’s patented seeds, the individual Plaintiffs and the farmer members of Plaintiff organizations (hereinafter collectively “Plaintiff farmers”) cannot avoid infringing on Monsanto’s patents unless they entirely abandon growing corn, soybeans, canola, cotton, sugar beets, and, as of this year, alfalfa. While Monsanto tries to downplay the threat of enforcement by pointing to its “commitment” not to sue farmers for “trace” infringement, this provides no enforceable protections for Plaintiffs. Because of the nature of the patented seeds and the realities of farming, it is certain that at least some of the Plaintiff farmers already have more than trace contamination, and the number of such affected farmers will only grow over time. While many of the Plaintiff farmers are certified organic, not all are, so the simple fact that Monsanto has yet to sue a certified organic farmer has no impact on their standing.

Not only does Monsanto’s patented technology inevitably lead to infringement through no fault of the Plaintiffs, but, by their design, the majority of Monsanto’s patented crops only

provide the alleged benefits if a farmer applies herbicides, specifically Roundup®, directly to the crop. Monsanto could easily protect its patent rights by agreeing not to sue for unintentional contamination absent an affirmative action by the farmer to make use of the patented traits. By failing to do so, and instead offering an ambiguous and ultimately meaningless commitment, Monsanto has made it clear that it intends to maintain the threat of patent infringement lawsuits against Plaintiff farmers and those similarly situated.

Plaintiff farmers have, by the simple act of farming corn, soybeans, canola, cotton, sugar beets, or alfalfa crops, undertaken meaningful steps towards infringement. Due to Monsanto’s

decision to release patented seeds and market them for widespread planting, it is now impossible for farmers to remain 100% free of genetically modified crops because of the multitude of ways that contamination can occur.

Given the difficulties in minimizing GM contamination, farmers must make numerous decisions about which steps are worthwhile for them and which steps are not. They are not able

to make these decisions based on their own and their customers’ interests, but must instead make these decisions with the threat of litigation against a giant corporation looming over their heads. The constant threat of a patent infringement suit by Monsanto creates significant, unquantifiable costs for the Plaintiff farmers and similarly situated farmers. Unless this Court allows this case to proceed, the Plaintiff farmers will face the choice of abandoning growing such crops or risking prosecution whenever Monsanto chooses.

More on OSGATA here.

Robert Briseno and Kelly McFadden take on ConAgra Foods Inc over deceptive GMO food labelling

According to the Food Court blog:

two separate class-action suits (McFadden et al v. ConAgra Foods Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, no. 11-3186; Briseno et al v. ConAgra Foods Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, no. 11-5379) seek millions of dollars in refunds on behalf of recent purchasers the Wesson oil line — including canola oil, vegetable oil, corn oil and a blend — as well as a court order prohibiting Con-Agra from making its all-natural claim on Wesson oils.

An application to merge Briseno et al with McFadden et al appears to have been lodged on 16 August 2011.

Robert Briseno et al versus ConAgra Foods Inc [2011]

GMO News: Monsanto's unusual payments and CSIRO denial of link to biotech giant

According to an American Public Media Marketplace Morning Report radio segment on 30 June 2011:

NANCY MARSHALL GENZER: Monsanto's Roundup herbicide was a blockbuster for years. Then China made a generic knockoff. To counter that, Monsanto started a program to give distributors cash incentives to buy Roundup. The SEC wouldn't comment.
But the federal government has investigated Monsanto for alleged anti-competitive practices before. Monsanto declined my interview request. But in a conference call yesterday CEO Hugh Grant said the company is co-operating. The company also says it's phasing out the incentives. And its seed business appears to be blossoming.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has had cause to address the matter of unusual payments with Monsanto & Co. before as seen here:

Monsanto Company: Lit. Rel. No. 19023 / January 6, 2005
First, the Commission filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia charging Monsanto with violating the FCPA and seeking a civil penalty. The Commission further charged that the senior Monsanto manager devised a scheme whereby false invoices were submitted to Monsanto and the senior Monsanto manager approved the invoices for payment. The approximate $700,000 was derived from a bogus product registration scheme undertaken by two Indonesian entities owned or controlled by Monsanto. As a result of the conduct described above, the Commission charged that Monsanto violated the anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA (Section 30A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934). In a related proceeding, the United States Department of Justice has entered into an agreement with Monsanto Company to defer prosecution on charges of violating the anti-bribery and books and records provisions of the FCPA.

Monsanto Company: Admin. Proc. Rel. No. 34-50978 / January 6, 2005
File No. 3-11789 In the Matter of MONSANTO COMPANY, Respondent. PTMK reports to Monsanto through Monsanto's Asia Pacific regional management, which is headquartered in Singapore. PTBS reports to Monsanto through Monsanto's Asia Pacific regional management, which is headquartered in Singapore. During the period, the Indonesian affiliates violated the accounting policies, controls, and procedures of Monsanto. Monsanto wanted to increase acceptance of GMO crops in Indonesia. The senior Monsanto manager is a citizen of, and was based in, the United States. On behalf of Monsanto, the senior Monsanto manager, management of the Indonesian affiliates, and the consulting firm employee lobbied for legislation and ministerial decrees favorable to GMO crops. In order to fund the $50,000 payment, the senior Monsanto manager devised a scheme involving false invoices. The invoices were submitted to Monsanto in the United States on December 20, 2001, several weeks before the second trip occurred.

Charles Michael Martin: Lit. Rel. No. 20029 /March 6, 2007
The complaint further alleged that to generate the funds to make the illegal $50,000 payment and to conceal the unlawful activity, Martin directed the Consulting Firm to create a set of invoices to falsely bill Monsanto in an amount sufficient to cover the illegal payment. Martin subsequently approved the false invoices for payment by Monsanto, and took steps to ensure that Monsanto paid the false invoices, thereby causing Monsanto's books and records to be falsified and circumventing Monsanto's system of internal accounting controls. Based, in part, on these allegations, the Commission previously filed a settled enforcement action and instituted settled administrative proceedings against Monsanto. SEC v. Monsanto Co., Case No. 1:05CV00014 (D.D.C. January 6, 2005); Monsanto Company, No. 3-11789, Exchange Act Rel.

Closer to home the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation denies it has links to Monsanto. The denial comes despite its collaborative efforts with that giant biotech corporation with regard to developing novel plant material based on Monsanto patented genes, especially Ingard Cotton in the 1990s and, the fact that this cooperation appears to exist to date if Monsanto itself is to be believed in 2011.

Indeed, these commercial R & D links being so well-known that they are often recognised in academic papers.

['Consolidating Control: Plant Variety Rights, Genes and Seeds']

One has to wonder why the CSIRO was so foolish as to make such a blanket denial.

Monsanto's GM canola? Can't give the stuff away in WA

The following may be read while softly humming that old song Who’s sorry now?

The West Australian on December 16, 2010:

Harvesting a WA record 13,000-hectare genetically modified canola crop is a time-critical challenge for man and machine.

Monsanto plays hard in the West Australian on April 21, 2011:

GM canola seed company Monsanto estimated GM canola crops would surge from about 70,000 hectares to 100,000ha in WA this year.

On GM Canola seed costs for farmers in the West Australian on May 18, 2011:

“The seed is about $70 a hectare, but home-grown seed is about $12-$18 a hectare….. GM canola growers need to pay seed developer Monsanto a $3 technology fee on top of the seed and an end point royalty of $13.20 when they deliver the product. GM canola is also discounted on the world market, with growers receiving about $20 a tonne less than regular varieties.

The West Australian on May 26, 2011:

Two of Australia’s biggest grain traders say they have no plans to take genetically modified canola this season.

Elders-Toepfer Grain acting WA accumulations manager Ben Noll said the company was not currently taking GM canola and that was unlikely to change as the season progressed.

“From where we sit at the moment, we’re all non-GM, ” he said.

“We’re in the process of being involved in certification for the sustainability of canola products.”

Under the European Union Renewable Energy Directive, canola for the European premium-paying biofuel market requires International Sustainability and Carbon Certification (ISCC), which means sustainably produced canola is in and GM canola is out.

Glencore Grain, both Australia and WA’s second-biggest grain exporter, is not taking GM canola either — at least for the moment.

The company is also in the midst of ISCC……

Mr Haddrill said 95 per cent of WA’s canola went to Europe last year and given the dry conditions across much of northern Europe, demand would likely be high again this season……..

Gavilon currently has a $40 discount for GM canola and AWB has a $30 discount.

Viterra has GM canola bidding at $45 below non-GM and Emerald at $30 below.

The Hon. Peter Collier representing the West Australia Minister for Agriculture in the WA Parliament on June 23, 2011 in response to questions from Lynn McLaren MLC:

Question: How much GM canola was produced last year?
Answer: 49, 000 tonnes.

Question: How much of this GM canola has been sold and to whom?
Answer: I am advised that none of this canola has been sold at this point….

Gene Ethics list of known West Australian commercial GM canola growers in 2010:
A. Tom Powell, Binnu The Countryman 10-6-10
B. Andrew Messina, Mullewa The West Australian 13-4-10
C. R & M Appleyard, Northern Gully The Countryman 24-6-10
D. J&B Bagley, Mingenew The Countryman 25-5-10
E. Bill Crabtree, Morowa Farm Weekly 4-2-10
F. Brian Ellis, Bindi Bindi Farm Weekly
G. John Shadbolt, ,Nungarin The Countryman 15-4-10
H. Jason Haywood, Goomalling The Counyry Man 17-6-10
I. Mervyn Burges, Meckering The West Australian 22-5-10
J. John Snooke, Meckering The West Australian 9-4-10
K. David Fullwood, Cunderdin The Countryman 18-3-10
L. Les Thompson, Wagin thecountryman.com.au/article/2912.html
M. Chris Hockey, Gibson thecountryman.com.au/article/2805.html
N. Michael Shields, Wongan Hills
1. Bodallin
2. Wongan Hills
3. Kojonup
http://fw.farmonline.com.au/news/state/agribusiness-and-general/general/huge-gm-canola-planting-at-bodallin/1874316.aspx?storypage=0
O. Craig Simpkin, Binnu 2ha 5ac The Countryman 1-7-10

* This post is part of North Coast Voices' effort to keep Monsanto's blog monitor (affectionately known as Mr. Monsanto) in long-term employment.

Gene Ethics: Grain traders snub GM canola

Excerpt from a Gene Ethics media releases of 3 March and 26 May 2011:

Major grain purchaser Co-operative Bulk Handlers (CBH) has confirmed that strong demand for non-GM canola has resulted in premiums of $50/tonne over the price for GM canola (See MR attached). The co-operative's March 3 Grain Weekly says: "By far and away the biggest development this marketing season has been the increased demand for Australian non-GM sustainable canola.

European and Australian demand for GM-free grain is so strong that leading grain traders Elders-Toepfer and Glencore Grain refuse to buy any genetically manipulated (GM) canola this year. And traders that buy GM will pay up to $45/tonne less than for non-GM grain.

“This market is a bonanza for the majority of Australian grain growers who wisely stayed with non-GM canola varieties,” says Gene Ethics Director, Bob Phelps.

“Ninety five per cent of Western Australia's canola sold to Europe last year and strong demand is expected to continue, but only for non-GM. European shoppers have zero tolerance for GM canola.

* This post is part of North Coast Voices' effort to keep Monsanto's blog monitor (affectionately known as Mr. Monsanto) in long-term employment.

Is Monsanto telling untruths?

On 3 March 2011 the bio-tech multinational Monsanto Corporation stated on its own corporate blog Beyond The Rows in the post Monsanto's Commitment: Farmers and Patents:

It has never been, nor will it be Monsanto policy to exercise its patent rights where trace amounts of our patented seed or traits are present in farmer's fields as a result of inadvertent means.

ABC Rural reported on 16 March 2011in Farmer claims flooding caused GM contamination :

In a written statement to ABC Rural, plant breeder Monsanto says It has never been, nor will it be, its policy to exercise its patent rights where trace amounts of patented traits are present in a farmer's paddock or grain as a result of inadvertent means.

In a 29 March 2011 statement on the same company blog in PUBPAT Allegations Are False, Misleading and Deceptive Monsanto again stated:

It has never been, nor will it be Monsanto policy to exercise its patent rights where trace amounts of our patented seed or traits are present in farmer’s fields as a result of inadvertent means.

Monsanto confirms this policy in a letter from its legal representatives Wilmer Hale on 28 April 2011:

However, I can find no formal Monsanto policy document online which sets out this exemption for accidental contamination of non-GMO farmland or crops.

Nor can I find any current publicly available company documents which define the terms trace amounts and inadvertent means.

As accidental contamination by GMO seeds in Australia has been recorded at seventy per cent of the area of one West Australian organic farm, one has to wonder why trace amounts is so vague a phrase and what implications this may have as contamination instances spread.

It also remains a concern that while Monsanto continues to insist on patent enforcement it also insists that it is not liable for loss suffered from accidental contamination according to this legal opinion of 19 February 2011:

The language: "In no event shall Monsanto or any seller be liable for any incidental, consequential, special or punitive damages" limits and restricts the ability to sue for any damages. There is no "hold harmless" clause contained in the agreement to benefit the growers.

Monsanto's agreement shifts all liability to the growers, including contamination issues or any potential future liability.

* This post is part of North Coast Voices' effort to keep Monsanto's blog monitor (affectionately known as Mr. Monsanto) in long-term employment.

Another genetically modified showdown in U.S. District Court

The matter of Organic Seed Growers & Trade Association, et al. v. Monsanto, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Manhattan) on 29 March 2011, should get interesting as a jury has been demanded to hear arguments in part predicated on the assertion that Monsanto & Co do not hold valid patents on genetically modified seed.

Opening remarks in the application:

1. Society stands on the precipice of forever being bound to transgenic agriculture and transgenic food.1 Coexistence between transgenic seed and organic seed is impossible because transgenic seed contaminates and eventually overcomes organic seed. History has already shown this, as soon after transgenic seed for canola was introduced, organic canola became virtually extinct as a result of transgenic seed contamination. Organic corn, soybean, cotton, sugar beet and alfalfa now face the same fate, as transgenic seed has been released for each of those crops, too. And transgenic seed is being developed for many other crops, thus putting the future of all food, and indeed all agriculture, at stake.

2. Plaintiffs in this matter represent farmers and seed businesses who do not want to use or sell transgenic seed. Plaintiffs are largely organic farmers and organic seed businesses, but also include nonorganic farmers who nonetheless wish to farm without transgenic seed. Plaintiffs are increasingly being threatened by transgenic seed contamination despite using their best efforts to avoid it. This causes Plaintiffs to fear that, if they do indeed become contaminated by transgenic seed, which may very well be inevitable given the proliferation of transgenic seed today, they could quite perversely also be accused of patent infringement by the company responsible for the transgenic seed that contaminates them. Thus, Plaintiffs bring this action to protect themselves from ever being accused of infringing patents on transgenic seed.

3. Monsanto is a chemical company that was previously responsible for introducing to the world Agent Orange, DDT, PCB's and other toxins. Monsanto is now the world's leading proponent of transgenic seed and holds many patents relating thereto that it has aggressively asserted against literally hundreds of farmers, including those farmers who became contaminated by Monsanto's transgenic seed through no fault of their own. Public awareness of Monsanto's patent assertion activities is high and it contributes mightily to Plaintiffs' fears that they, too, could most assuredly be accused of patent infringement in the near future if and when they become contaminated by Monsanto's transgenic seed.

4. Through this action, Plaintiffs ask the Court to declare that, should they ever be contaminated by Monsanto's transgenic seed, they need not fear being sued for patent infringement. As set forth below, there are several legal bases for this declaration, the principal one of which is that patents on transgenic seed fail to satisfy the requirement of both the Constitution and the Patent Act that only technology with a beneficial societal use may be patented. U. S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 8 (“To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts”) (emphasis added); 35 U.S.C. § 101 (“Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor”) (emphasis added). As Justice Story wrote in 1817, to be patentable, an invention must not be “injurious to the wellbeing, good policy, or sound morals of society,” and “a new invention to poison people ... is not a patentable invention.” Lowell v. Lewis,15 F. Cas. 1018 (C.C.D. Mass. 1817). Because transgenic seed, and in particular Monsanto's transgenic seed, is “injurious to the wellbeing, good policy, or sound morals of society” and threatens to “poison people,” Monsanto's transgenic seed patents are all invalid.

5. Monsanto's patents are additionally invalid for other failures to meet the requirements of patent law, including that each violates the prohibition against double patenting, each is anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art, and each fails to satisfy the requirements of written description, enablement and best mode. Monsanto's patents would also not be infringed by Plaintiffs because, amongst other things, Plaintiffs do not intend to use Monsanto's transgenic seed, any seed possessed by Plaintiffs that may be contaminated by Monsanto's transgenic seed is not covered by any valid and properly construed claim of any patent in suit, and Monsanto's patents rights in transgenic seed exhaust upon the authorized distribution by Monsanto to its customers. Monsanto's patents are also unenforceable because, among other things, Monsanto has committed misuse, Monsanto is equitably estopped from enforcing them, and Monsanto commits trespass when its transgenic seed contaminates another. Lastly, Monsanto would not be entitled to any remedy under law or equity even if its patents were held to be valid, infringed and enforceable against Plaintiffs, as no economic injury happens to Monsanto and the public interest would not support granting Monsanto an injunction when its patented seed contaminates another…..

The plaintiffs in the suit represented by the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) are: Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association; Organic Crop Improvement Association International, Inc.; OCIA Research and Education Inc.; The Cornucopia Institute; Demeter Association, Inc.; Navdanya International; Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association; Northeast Organic Farming Association/Massachusetts Chapter, Inc.; Northeast Organic Farming Association of Vermont; Rural Vermont; Ohio Ecological Food & Farm Association; Southeast Iowa Organic Association; Northern Plains Sustainable Agriculture Society; Mendocino Organic Network; Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance; Canadian Organic Growers; Family Farmer Seed Cooperative; Sustainable Living Systems; Global Organic Alliance; Food Democracy Now!; Family Farm Defenders Inc.; Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund; FEDCO Seeds Inc.; Adaptive Seeds, LLC; Sow True Seed; Southern Exposure Seed Exchange; Mumm's Sprouting Seeds; Baker Creek Heirloom Seed Co., LLC; Comstock, Ferre & Co., LLC; Seedkeepers, LLC; Siskiyou Seeds; Countryside Organics; Cuatro Puertas; Interlake Forage Seeds Ltd.; Alba Ranch; Wild Plum Farm; Gratitude Gardens; Richard Everett Farm, LLC; Philadelphia Community Farm, Inc; Genesis Farm; Chispas Farms LLC; Kirschenmann Family Farms Inc.; Midheaven Farms; Koskan Farms; California Cloverleaf Farms; North Outback Farm; Taylor Farms, Inc.; Jardin del Alma; Ron Gargasz Organic Farms; Abundant Acres; T & D Willey Farms; Quinella Ranch; Nature's Way Farm Ltd.; Levke and Peter Eggers Farm; Frey Vineyards, Ltd.; Bryce Stephens; Chuck Noble; LaRhea Pepper; Paul Romero; and, Donald Wright Patterson, Jr.

On the day of filing Monsanto hit out in its official online blog, Beyond the Rows. Describing PUBPAT’s application as containing many allegations which are false, misleading and deceptive and stating that the plaintiffs’ approach is a publicity stunt designed to confuse the facts about American agriculture.

And this is a biotech company FSANZ takes at its word......

On of the most disturbing facts about methodology employed by Food Standards Australia New Zealand when it 'investigates' new food products or genetically modified food/food additives, is that it takes the so-called research offered in support of produce/product safety at face value when it is presented by biotech multinationals such as Monsanto & Company.

It is almost as though FSANZ is completely blind to a corporate history of environmental damage, deceit and avoidance of responsibility that is the trademark of this multinational.

Apparently choosing to believe that biotech industries miraculously operate differently once they establish themselves in Australia.

This is posted on the Environment Agency U.K. concerning what The Guardian U.K. called in 2007 one of the most contaminated places in Britain:

Between 1965-70 Brofiscin quarry was used as a disposal site for industrial and chemical waste.
The wastes included toxic substances such as solvents, heavy metals, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs.......

We have completed our extensive enquiries to identify those we consider should be held responsible under the contaminated land laws and be held liable for the cost of remediating Brofiscin Quarry. We are at an advanced stage in our consultations with BP, Veolia and Monsanto to provide them with the opportunity to help remediate the land on a voluntary basis. We expect to make further progress on this matter in the next few months. If this approach is unsuccessful, we have the power to carry out the work needed ourselves and recover our costs. The three companies have been identified under the legislation as inheriting the liabilities of companies who were associated with depositing wastes at the quarry.

This is not the only site used by Monsanto which has problems with PCB or other toxic contamination - the company doesn't mind polluting its home country, wrecking the health of its own workers, generally running roughshod over the interest of countries in which it operates and, if the Ecologist is to be believed is not above bullying witnesses to its bad corporate behaviour.

* This post is part of North Coast Voices' effort to keep Monsanto's blog monitor (affectionately known as Mr. Monsanto) in long-term employment.

It's not just the food you eat that contains genetically modified organisms

Record of GMO and GM Product Dealings under Section 138 of the Gene Technology Act 2000

Dealings Involving GM products - therapeutics

NB - All of these products have been approved for supply in Australia by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA)

Some of these approvals go back as far as 1987.

Disappointing GMO recommendations in report delivered by review into Australian food labelling

The Labelling Logic - the Final Report of the Review of Food Labelling Law and Policy was released this week.

Unfortunately its recommendations concerning new technologies will allow many foods containing ingredients derived from either genetically modified agricultural produce or genetically modified product used in the food making process to remain on supermarket shelves as naked of appropriate labelling as they are today.

Knowing how dishonest some current label declarations are already when it comes to genetically modified ingredients, I can see no incentive for full declarations in the future.

New Technologies

Recommendation 28: That as a general principle all foods or ingredients that have been processed by new technologies (i.e., all technologies that trigger pre-market food safety assessments) be required to be labelled for 30 years from the time of their introduction into the human food chain; the application of this principle to be based on scientific evidence of direct impact on, or modification of, the food/ingredient to be consumed. At the expiry of that period the mandatory labelling should be reviewed.

Recommendation 29: That only foods or ingredients that have altered characteristics or contain detectable novel DNA or protein be required to declare the presence of genetically modified material on the label.

Recommendation 30: That any detection of an adventitious genetically modified event be followed by a period of monitoring and testing of that food or ingredient.

Recommendation 31: That foods or ingredients with flavours containing detectable novel DNA or protein not be exempt from the requirements to declare the presence of genetically modified material on the label.

Recommendation 32: That foods or ingredients that have been genetically modified and would require declaration if labelled be declared on menu/menu boards or in close proximity to the food display or menu in chain food service outlets and on vending machines.

Recommendation 33: That governments ensure effective monitoring of labelling requirements in the Food Standards Code relating to genetically modified foods or ingredients through support for sufficient Australian and New Zealand laboratories, observing world best practice protocols, and with the necessary resources and analytical skills.

Recommendation 34: That the requirement for mandatory labelling of irradiated food be reviewed.

Recommendation 35: That Food Standards Australia New Zealand and other relevant bodies develop as a matter of urgency a standard for regulating the presence of nanotechnology in the food production chain, consistent with the recommendations in this Report relating to new technologies.

Monsanto-Mahyco GM eggplant toxicity study receives a fail from researcher - wonder what the opinion will be on Monsanto's latest SDA soybean effort?

Slowly, study by study, faith in the safety of food on supermarket shelves is being eroded.

From those such as A comparison of the effects of three GM corn varieties on mammalian health (which in 2009 threw doubt on the reliability of Monsanto findings and whose authors apparently successfully defended against defamatory claims by the biotech lobby) to the BT BRINJAL Event EE1 The Scope and Adequacy of the GEAC Toxicological Risk Assessment: Review of Oral Toxicity Studies in Rats (November 14, 2010 by Dr Lou M Gallagher, PhD, Wellington, New Zealand) which found:

SUMMARY

This evaluation of Bt brinjal studies is based on requirements for a rigorous evaluation of food safety for the people of India and their health. Departures from Indian and international published standards for the 14‐day and 90‐day studies are a cause for concern 1.

The current food safety studies for Bt brinjal were not conducted in accordance with published standards, did not accurately summarize results, and ignored toxic endpoints for rats fed Bt brinjal: in particular, rats fed Bt brinjal for 78 out of 90 days (only one dose level) experienced:

• organ and system damage: ovaries at half their normal weight, enlarged spleens with white blood cell counts at 35 to 40 percent higher than normal with elevated eosinophils, indicating immune function changes.

• toxic effects to the liver as demonstrated by elevated bilirubin and elevated plasma acetylcholinesterase.

Major health problems among test animals were ignored in these reports. The single test dose used was lower than recommended by the Indian protocols. Release of Bt brinjal for human consumption cannot be recommended given the current evidence of toxicity to rats in just 90 days and the studies' serious departures from normal scientific standards.

So, if this is the true state of affairs concerning the humble eggplant once it was unconventionally altered, what hope is there that Monsanto's virtual minion in all things genetically modified Food Standards Australia New Zealand will actually have conducted the following stated process?

FSANZ has not previously assessed a GM food crop with a consumer focused nutritional modification.
FSANZ will need to undertake a safety assessment of high scientific complexity and include a nutritional assessment, which is not normally required for GM crops expressing agronomic traits.
This Application is anticipated to involve an assessment of the risk to public health and safety of above average complexity.

Well might you ask because this is what FSANZ found and signed off on:

On the basis of the data provided in the present Application, and other available information, food derived from soybean MON87769 is as safe for human consumption as other commercially available soybean varieties.

Basically telling Australian consumers that a genetically modified enriched soybean food will be safe to eat because the patent-owner Monsanto says that this is so and, this say so probably doesn't involve any in-depth animal studies because FSANZ does not normally require this level of safety assessment.

Will you be feeding any form of soybean product to your children after May 2011?

Given the lax GM food labelling laws in Australia - would you even know if you were?