GM sprouts, flatulence, and hot air

Saturday, 22 December 2012 11:53

1. GM sprouts "could blow away flatulence"
2. Letter from Dr Brian John, GM Free Cymru to Sir Paul Nurse, President of the Royal Society

NOTE: In an interview with BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Prof John Pickett, who's in charge of the GM wheat trial at Rothamsted, claimed that genetic engineering can produce flatulence-free sprouts (item 1). He stated that some of the flavour of the sprouts would be lost, but the sprouts would be smell-free.
http://www.dbtechno.com/curiosity/2012/12/21/brussel-sprouts-flatulence-free-finally/

Pickett was talking about reducing the sulphur-containing compounds in Brussels sprouts.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9760180/Could-Brussels-sprouts-become-flatulence-free-vegetable.html

However, the sulphur compounds in cruciferous veg like sprouts have anti-cancer properties.
http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=george&dbid=45

Did Pickett stop to think that tinkering with the levels of sulphur compounds in sprouts might change their anti-cancer properties? Apparently not.

Everyone who owns a television in the UK has to pay a yearly licence fee to the BBC for the privilege of inhaling this pro-GMO hot air.

We weren't the only ones to feel shocked at what the BBC considers "science". Dr Brian John was prompted to write to Sir Paul Nurse, president of the Royal Society, who will likely be pumping out more foul-smelling GMO propaganda in his role as guest editor of the Today programme just after Christmas (item 2).
---
---
1. GM sprouts "could blow away flatulence"
BBC Radio 4
21 December 2012
Radio broadcast available here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9780000/9780430.stm

Brussels sprouts are often associated with digestive problems and flatulence.

The Nobel Prize winning biologist and President of the Royal Society Sir Paul Nurse will be guest editing the Today programme on 27 December and is keen to look into how the world is going to have to overcome public hostility to genetically modified (GM) crops if a growing global population is to be fed.

The Today programme's science correspondent Tom Feilden examines whether it could be that by solving the flatulence associated with the sprout - researchers could blow away the clouds of mistrust hovering over other GM food.

"We could have a more, what shall we say, inert Brussels sprout," said Professor John Pickett, the leader of a GM wheat trial at the Rothamsted research institute.
---
---
2. Letter from Dr Brian John, GM Free Cymru
to Sir Paul Nurse, President of the Royal Society
21 December 2012

Dear Sir Paul

I have just heard the piece from the Today programme in which John Pickett waxes lyrical about GM brussels sprouts without the side effects. I thought for a moment that it was April 1st… but then I thought that if this is the sort of thing that GM scientists are thinking about, God help us all.

I understand that you will be "promoting the science agenda" as guest editor of the Today programme on 27th December.  Well, I wish you luck in that, since the public needs to be assured that scientists are both competent and honest.

However, it appears that one of your objectives is to examine how public hostility towards GMOs might be overcome, so that GM scientists can help in the noble task of feeding the world.

Why do you see it as part of your job to promote the interests of the GM industry? That industry, whose sole interest in feeding the world is linked to its own desire for total control of both the seed supply and the agrichemical supply, needs no help from anybody - and anybody who has eyes to see must realise that corporations like Monsanto, Bayer and Syngenta fully deserve their black reputations. Do you really think that these corporations are good at science? They are indubitably good at technology, but they have absolutely no understanding of scientific ethics and they have long histories of involvement in scientific fraud, bribery, the vilification of independent scientists, and other deeply unpleasant activities. They have not the slightest idea what the Precautionary Principle is, and they are actively seeking to dismantle the regulatory system that (whatever its shortcomings may be) does try to protect public safety. You may not count these corporations among your friends, but if you are promoting GMOs you are also promoting their interests - and it would be disingenuous of you to pretend otherwise.

And why should you consider it as part of your brief as President of the Royal Society to seek to overcome public hostility to GMOs? Is it because you think that such hostility arises from scientific ignorance and from a resistance to change?  Please think again. Public resistance to GMOs is a great deal more sophisticated than you pretend. People are not stupid. They actually do remember that the Government's own farm-scale trials showed that GM crops are bad for the environment.  They know that GM foods bring NO consumer advantages in terms of product taste, nutritional value, shelf life, cost or anything else.

They know about super-weeds and super-bugs, and they are aware that GM monocultures are associated with massive socio-economic disruption. They know that there is accumulating evidence of harm to mammals which have consumed GMOs and residues of herbicides - and they are more than a little upset when the independent scientists who seek to draw this research to the attention of the public and the media are systematically vilified by the very scientific establishment which you are a part of. Nor do they forget the despicable role played by the Royal Society in the vilification and dismissal of Arpad Pusztai back in 1999.

Please get real here. The public is deeply suspicious about GMOs, with good reason. The only way in which that suspicion can be overcome by the science community is for that community to become more competent, to be less susceptible to vested interests, to show greater respect to scientists who discover "uncomfortable" things about GMOs, and to accept that matters like global food security, food sovereignty and long-term sustainability require social and political solutions, and not techno-fixes.

I will appreciate the courtesy of a reply.

With best wishes for a very happy Christmas.

Sincerely,
Dr Brian John

Crackdown aims to silence dissent from NGOs

Monday, 20 May 2013 19:09

EXTRACTS: “The government’s action is aimed at curbing our democratic right to dissent and disagree,” Anil Chaudhary, who heads an NGO that trains activists and is part of the INSAF network, said Tuesday. “We dared to challenge the government’s new foreign donation rules in the court. We opposed nuclear energy, we campaigned against genetically modified food. We have spoiled the sleep of our prime minister.”

But the government’s action appears to have had its desired effect. “NGOs are too scared to visit Koodankulam or associate with us now,” said anti-nuclear activist S. P. Udayakumar.

Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia director of Human Rights Watch, said many NGOs are afraid to speak up about the suspension of their foreign funding approval, which is “being used to intimidate organizations and activists”.

Analysts say the government’s way of dealing with dissent is a throwback to an earlier era. But Indian authorities have been particularly squeamish about criticism of late. As citizens have protested corruption and sexual assaults on women and demanded greater accountability from public officials, authorities have often reacted clumsily — including beating up peaceful protesters and cracking down on satirical cartoons, Facebook posts and Twitter accounts.

“It is not a question about money, it is a fight for our right to dissent,” said Chaudhary.
---
---
Activists bristle as India cracks down on foreign funding of NGOs
Rama Lakshmi,
Washington Post, May 20 2013
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/activists-bristle-as-india-cracks-down-on-foreign-funding-of-ngos/2013/05/19/a647ff80-bcaf-11e2-b537-ab47f0325f7c_story.html

NEW DELHI — Amid an intensifying crackdown on nongovernmental groups that receive foreign funding, Indian activists are accusing the government of stifling their right to dissent in the world’s largest democracy.

India has tightened the rules on non-governmental organizations over the past two years, following protests that delayed several important industrial projects. About a dozen NGOs that the government said engaged in activities that harm the public interest have seen their permission to receive foreign donations revoked, as have nearly 4,000 small NGOs for what officials said was inadequate compliance with reporting requirements.

The government stepped up its campaign this month, suspending the permission that Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF), a network of more than 700 NGOs across India, had to receive foreign funds. Groups in the network campaign for indigenous peoples’ rights over their mineral-rich land and against nuclear energy, human rights violations and religious fundamentalism; nearly 90 percent of the network’s funding comes from overseas.

“The government’s action is aimed at curbing our democratic right to dissent and disagree,” Anil Chaudhary, who heads an NGO that trains activists and is part of the INSAF network, said Tuesday. “We dared to challenge the government’s new foreign donation rules in the court. We opposed nuclear energy, we campaigned against genetically modified food. We have spoiled the sleep of our prime minister.”

In its letter to INSAF, the Home Ministry said the group’s bank accounts were frozen and foreign funding approval suspended because it was likely to “prejudicially affect the public interest.”

A government official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject, said the government is not against criticism. But when an NGO uses foreign donations to criticize Indian policies, “things get complicated, and you never know what the plot is,” the official said, adding that NGOs should use foreign donations to do development work instead.

The United States is the top donor nation to Indian NGOs, followed by Britain and Germany, according to figures compiled by the Indian government, with Indian NGOs receiving funds from both the U.S. government and private U.S. institutions. In the year ending in March 2011, the most recent period for which data are available, about 22,000 NGOs received a total of more than $2 billion from abroad, of which $650 million came from the United States.

Asked last week about the Indian government’s moves against foreign-funded NGOs, a U.S. State Department spokesman said the department was not aware of any U.S. government involvement in the cases. The spokesman said such civil society groups around the world “are among the essential building blocks of any healthy democracy”.

The situation in India is not unlike the problems that similar groups face in Russia, where a law passed last year requires foreign-funded NGOs that engage in loosely defined political activities to register as “foreign agents”.

Action after nuclear protests

Trouble for many nonprofit activist groups here began more than a year ago when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh blamed groups from the United States for fomenting ­anti-nuclear protests that have stalled the commissioning of India’s biggest reactor, a Russian-backed project in Koodankulam in power-starved Tamil Nadu state.

U.S. officials, including Peter Burleigh, the American ambassador at the time, quickly moved to assure Indian officials that the U.S. government supports India’s civil nuclear power program. And Victoria Nuland, then the State Department spokeswoman, said the United States does not provide support for nonprofit groups to protest nuclear power plants. “Our NGO support goes for development, and it goes for democracy programs,” Nuland said.

Although Singh was widely criticized for his fears, the government froze the accounts of several NGOs in southern India within weeks.

“All our work has come to a stop,” said Henri Tiphagne, head of a human rights group called People’s Watch. “I had visited [the] Koodankulam protest site once. Is that a banned territory?”

But the government’s action appears to have had its desired effect. “NGOs are too scared to visit Koodankulam or associate with us now,” said anti-nuclear activist S. P. Udayakumar.

Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia director of Human Rights Watch, said many NGOs are afraid to speak up about the suspension of their foreign funding approval, which is “being used to intimidate organizations and activists”.

Analysts say the government’s way of dealing with dissent is a throwback to an earlier era. But Indian authorities have been particularly squeamish about criticism of late. As citizens have protested corruption and sexual assaults on women and demanded greater accountability from public officials, authorities have often reacted clumsily — including beating up peaceful protesters and cracking down on satirical cartoons, Facebook posts and Twitter accounts.

Donors look elsewhere

Officials say NGOs are free to use Indian money for their protests. But activists say Indian money is hard to find, with many Indians preferring to donate to charities.

A recent report by Bain & Co. said that about two-thirds of Indian donors surveyed said that NGOs have room to improve the impact they are making in the lives of beneficiaries. It said that a quarter of donors are holding back on increased donations until they perceive evidence that their donations are having an effect.

“They give blankets to the homeless, sponsor poor children, or support cow shelters,” said Wilfred Dcosta, coordinator of INSAF. “They do not want to support causes where you question the state, demand environmental justice or fight for the land rights of tribal people pitted against mighty mining companies.”

INSAF, whose acronym means “justice” in Urdu, has seen its portion of foreign funding increase significantly during the past 15 years. Now it receives funds from many international groups, including the American Jewish World Service and Global Greengrants Fund in the United States, and groups in Germany, Switzerland, and the Netherlands.

The top American donors to Indian NGOs include Colorado-based Compassion International, District-based Population Services International and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

“It is not a question about money, it is a fight for our right to dissent,” said Chaudhary. “I don’t need dollars to block a road."

Illegal imports of GM maize into the EU?

Thursday, 20 December 2012 21:55

1.Illegal imports of genetically engineered maize into the EU?
2.Germany's Agriculture Minister must not allow undermining of zero tolerance through the back door!
---
---
1.Illegal imports of genetically engineered maize into the EU?
Testbiotech, 20 December 2012
http://testbiotech.org/en/node/753

*SmartStax produces six different insecticides

Munich/Brussels - Testbiotech has informed the new Commissioner Tonio Borg about its suspicions that the genetically engineered maize, SmartStax, has been imported into the EU for years without legal authorisation. It is a joint Monsanto and Dow AgroSciences product, which produces six insecticidal proteins and is tolerant to two herbicides. SmartStax was assessed by the European Food Safety Authority EFSA in 2010, but the results of the assessment were controversial and the maize was not authorised.

"SmartStax is grown in the US on millions of hectares of farmland. In the last few years, around one million tonnes of maize have been imported from the US into the EU. It is highly likely that large amounts of SmartStax were among these imports,” says Christoph Then for Testbiotech. “If US maize importers cannot show that their shipments are free of SmartStax, the shipments must be stopped.”

SmartStax was introduced into the US market in 2009. Since then imports of maize into the EU have been increasing. These imports are mainly used for animal feed. 800.000 tonnes of maize were imported into the EU in 2011. In 2012, the US has so far exported large quantities of its maize harvest despite a reduced yield in many regions due to a severe drought. The harvest from fields with SmartStax should be separated in the US to prevent it being exported to EU markets. However, there are no efficient controls in place since it is difficult to identify. SmartStax consists of several genetically engineered maize events, which are already authorised as single plants and can therefore be easily mistaken.

Seemingly, industry is relying upon the fact that illegal imports will escape the notice of the authorities. It is highly likely that large quantities of SmartStax have already entered the EU. This is because although the EU Commission did not authorise the plants, it equally took no measures to prevent it from being imported. There are thus sufficient grounds for suspecting that large amounts of the US maize imports violate current EU legislation.

SmartStax combines various insecticidal toxins that were originally produced only in soil bacteria. It is grown in the US because pest insects there have increasingly adapted to genetically engineered plants that produce just one single toxin. One of the six toxins in SmartStax (Cry1A105) is artificially synthesized from several bacterial proteins and does not have a true homology in nature. The EU requires that so-called stacked events produced by crossing genetically engineered plants can only be marketed if they have been authorised. They must be checked for risks arising from the interactivity of the various inserted DNA constructs in the plant cells.

SmartStax, however, was never fully investigated. For example, poultry was fed with the kernels for just 42 days to observe weight gain, and no results from feeding trials with kernels or plants to investigate health effects were forwarded to the authorities for the market application in EU. Testbiotech is demanding a new and comprehensive risk assessment of SmartStax and efficient measures to stop its import into the EU.

Contact:
Christoph Then, Testbiotech, Tel +4915154638040, This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Further information:
Backgrounder on the maize imports
http://www.testbiotech.de/node/751
More background on risk assessment of SmartStax
http://www.testbiotech.de/en/node/517
---
---
2.Aigner [Germany's Agriculture Minister] must not allow the undermining of zero tolerance through the back door!
Press release: Harald Ebner MP (Alliance 90/The Greens), 20 December 2012
GMWatch rough translation

According to a report from Testbiotech, GM maize is being imported into the EU, although it is not approved in the EU, says Harald Ebner, the spokesman on agro-biotechnology:

The import of the non-EU approved GM corn SmartStax is completely unacceptable.

The report from Testbiotech proves once more how biotech corporations with proactive support from the European Commission and the European Food Safety Authority - EFSA - ignore the critical attitude of European consumers towards genetically modified food and feed. This preference for the biotech industry means attacking the interests of consumers, the GMO-free food industry, and the environment.

The import of GM crops for which there is no detection method in place violates applicable European law. Federal Minister Aigner must demand from the European Commission that an immediate ban on imports of GMO maize from the United States be imposed. The ban must remain in force until the SmartStax corn can be identified clearly and at a reasonable cost for government and industry. If the Commission does not act immediately, Aigner [Germany's Agriculture Minister] must impose an import ban at the national level.

Pro-GM minister's daughter on BRAI panel

Monday, 20 May 2013 18:48

NOTE: Sharad Pawar is India's notoriously pro-GM agriculture minister - see item 2 - and no stranger to political controversies, including ones involving his own family.

Pawar's avidly pro-GM stance is despite his powerbase being in Maharashtra where Bt cotton has proven a disaster and has contributed to many farmer suicides, particularly among endebted farmers on unirrigated lands.
http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/49-2010/11920

Sharad Pawar's nephew, Ajit Pawar, had to resign as Maharashtra's Deputy Chief Minister "following allegations of an irrigation scam when he was state's water resource minister." It has even been alleged that one of the brands of Bt cotton seeds on sale in Maharashtra - "Ajit Bt" - is actually owned by Ajit Pawar.
http://gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14402
---
---
Pawar's daughter on panel that will examine biotechnology Bill
Jyotika Sood
Down To Earth, May 20 2013
http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/pawars-daughter-panel-will-examine-biotechnology-bill

*Supriya Sule joins Parliament panel on science and technology; panel to submit report on Bill that gives easy access to GM crops in three months

By a strange coincidence, daughter of agriculture minister Sharad Pawar, Supriya Sule, has been appointed member of the very panel to which the controversial Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) Bill has been referred. The agriculture ministry, under the present minister, is known for its pro-GM stand, which gives rise to speculation about the timing of his daughter's appointment to the Parliament Committee on science and technology and environment and forests from May 1.

The Bill was referred to the standing committee last week by Rajya Sabha chairperson in consultation with Lok Sabha speaker. BRAI Bill proposes easy access to GM crops in India  through a single-window clearance. The parliament committee headed by Congress member of Rajya Sabha, T Subbarami Reddy, has been asked to submit its report within three months.

Pro-GM minister

Pawar and his ministry has been promoting GM crops in their reports and communiqués for a long time. Sule’s appointment came just over a week after science and technology minister Jaipal Reddy introduced the Bill in Lok Sabha after budget recess.

Even in March 2012, in its State of Indian Agriculture report submitted to Parliament, the agriculture ministry had stated that “a number of transgenics, particularly in cotton and vegetable crops, are sought to be introduced in the country.” While the moratorium on Bt Brinjal, the first transgenic food crop, still prevails in India, the agriculture ministry report says “The national policy on GM food crops needs to develop GM crop-based agriculture in cost-effective and high-yielding crop varieties.”

Another panel had criticised Bill

In contrast to agriculture ministry’s stand, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Agriculture last year had recommended to the government  that the Bill was not the way forward to regulate GM crops.

Interestingly, there were reports that science and technology minister  Reddy had requested Lok Sabha speaker Meira Kumar to constitute a joint committee of both houses on BRAI Bill. However, this wasn’t confirmed till the filing of this report.

The parliament standing committee on science and technology, environment and forests comprises of 30 members, 10 from Rajya Sabha and 20 from Lok Sabha. At present, two seats are vacant in the committee.