New Home

NO NEW POSTS WILL OCCUR HERE....see my new home at
http://student.ucc.ie/blogs/GMOIreland/

After a bit of a break to travel I'm finally back to posting. The above link is my new home. Lots to post, so stay tuned.

Irish Greens amazing u-turn on GM feed

In an amazing redefinition of 'GM free' and contrary to Green Party policy, Green Junior Minister Trevor Sargent has now stated GM free is 'not about banning imported GM feed' according to the Irish Independent (Oct 2, 2007)(see below) and confirmed by a Department of Agriculture official press release see HERE

However, Green Party Policy on GM feed is very clear in stating 'GM Free':
"would mean that GM seed or crops would not be grown in the island (either as crop 'trials' or commercially), there would be no GM feed for animals and no transgenic farm animals."
see http://www.greenparty.ie/en/policies/gm_food

In addition the Greens' policy is very definitive on GM feed including the following action points

1.1 immediately declare Ireland to be a GM-Free zone and prohibit the use of GM ingredients in animal feed and any testing or growing of GM crops and ban transgenic farm animals;

1.3 establish a GM-Free regulatory authority to ensure that rigorous testing is put in place to verify that animal feed is free of GM inputs;
see http://www.greenparty.ie/en/policies/gm_food/gm_crops_and_food_policy

Trevor Sargent's statement also contradicts GM Free Ireland's position who wish "to stop the contamination of Ireland's meat, poultry and dairy produce via animal feed that contains GM ingredients."
http://www.gmfreeireland.org/feed/index.php

SEE EARLIER POSTING ON "Irish Greens serve up fudge on GM food" http://gmoireland.blogspot.com/2007_06_14_archive.html

Minister abstains from GM feed vote
Irish Independent Farming
Maeve Dineen

October 2, 2007

Minister for Agriculture, Mary Coughlan, opted to abstain from last week's crucial vote on GM animal feeds at the EU Council of Ministers in Brussels. Despite the decision, the department said the importation of GM maize by-products and soya meal into Ireland will not be affected. Minister for State, Trevor Sargent, said the decision by Ireland to abstain on the recent

EU Council vote on GM animal feeds is in line with France and Italy, which also abstained. "France and Italy are major buyers of Irish produce. Had Ireland voted 'yes' it would not have affected the outcome of the vote. It is expected the EU Commission will now move quickly to approve the unauthorised GM feed imports. Ireland's abstention is not inconsistent with the commitment in the programme for government to seek to negotiate a GM-free island of Ireland," he said.

He said he accepts the reality that two thirds of raw materials used in Irish compound feed is imported from outside the EU and that 95pc of these products come from EU-authorised GM crops. However, he added that in his view, the Government objective must be to seek to negotiate an island-wide, GM-free zone and it is not about banning imported GM feed.

"It is about not growing GM crops and not proliferating GM pollen, GM seed dispersal and super-weeds in the Irish countryside," he said.

But the IFA reacted furiously to the decision, with president Padraig Walshe accusing the Government of hypocrisy and double standards in failing to support the EU proposal to accept scientifically-approved maize and com gluten for circulation in the EU. He said that the Government was playing politics for the optics, with no consideration for the damage they are doing to Ireland's livestock industy, especially pigmeat and poultry producers.

He said: "The Government is collectively responsible, and I do not accept Fianna Fail passing the buck and blaming the Greens. After all, it was the Taoiseach who brought the Greens into Government with their two seats at Cabinet compared to Fianna Fail's 12.

"I am disgusted with Agriculture Minister, Mary Coughlan's abstention in Wednesday's crucial vote at the EU Council of Ministers in Brussels. The Minister was actively in favour of the EU proposal last June and she had the full support of IFA. This u-turn has damaged Ireland's credibility in Brussels and assurances given by Minster Coughlan last June now count for nothing.

Irish Minister of Agriculture clarifies that no GM Free policy is in place or decided upon

Click here for earlier posting for background

Herculex to be approved by default shortly

Irish Farmers Journal

http://www.farmersjournal.ie/2007/0922/news/currentedition/newsfeature.shtml

By Justin McCarthy

The genetically modified maize variety, Herculex, is expected to be approved in the coming weeks - but not by Europe's politicians. The continued ban on the GM maize variety will come before EU Agriculture Ministers next Wednesday, 26 September.

Ireland's voting intention has yet to be confirmed, although Farmers Journal sources suggest we are likely to abstain.

Despite the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) giving the product the all-clear, it appears unlikely that the product will be approved by the Council of Ministers. However, the EU Commission is likely to approve the product in the coming weeks. This has been the pattern for previous approvals of GM material.

Speaking to the media at the Agricultural Science Association (ASA) conference in Trim last Friday, Minister for Agriculture, Mary Coughlan, said that Ireland had yet to decide a voting stance. "We haven't decided yet. We need to look at the overall picture on feed - we're big importers.'' The Minister added that "the price rise might concentrate minds''.

Interestingly, the Minister also clarified that the Programme for Government stated that "Ireland would look towards the establishment of a GM-free Island''. This did not mean a definite policy had been decided, she indicated.

The Minister also pointed out that 50,000 tonnes of maize by-products were successfully imported in the past 10 days.

Given European consumer resistance to GM food, there may be marketing advantages to Ireland developing a so called "GM-free zone''. However, due to the widespread adoption of GM crop varieties across the world, such a move could lead to unsustainable increases in feed costs in this country. Furthermore, as more and more GM varieties come on stream, we risk being left at a major competitive disadvantage.

Speaking at the ASA conference, Professor Cunningham, the Government Chief Scientific Adviser said: "Repeated surveys show that over 70 per cent of European citizens are against Genetically Modified (GM) food. This reality cannot be ignored. At the same time, the scientific evidence overwhelmingly shows that food derived from GM crops, or from animals fed on GM feeds, is safe.

Referring to the idea that Ireland be declared GM-free, he said: "This could possibly have advantages in marketing the €8bn of food products that we export.

"However, in order to realise this objective, a number of challenges would have to be overcome. The first is that, as Austria and Italy have found, declaring a region GM-free may conflict with EU rules permitting authorised GM varieties to be grown. The second is that, with effectively open borders between North and South, it would require a declaration in two jurisdictions. And the third is that with GM corn and soybean constituting a growing proportion of global supplies of these two crops, and with Ireland needing to import some two million tonnes per annum of such feed grains for its pig, poultry and dairy sectors, it will be increasingly difficult to source a GM-free feed supply.''

In early July, the EU Standing Committee on Food Chain and Animal Health voted to reject imports of GM maize. Despite a commitment that Ireland would be voting in favour of allowing imports of 'Herculex' maize, a last minute intervention by Minister of Food and Green Party TD, Trevor Sargent, led to a reversal of this commitment and Ireland abstained in the vote.

Heading back to School

Just a quick post to inform everyone that as of Oct 1st I am heading back to university to finish my Ph.d. The insights gained here will be very useful. From Oct 1st I will cease blogging here......we are examining options for providing a similar info service from a National University of Ireland perspective

Michael O'Callaghan (GM FREE Ireland) rapped for lying - again

After defamatory claims that left Michael O'Callaghan from GM FREE IRELAND offering a correction on the facts and an apology, it has now come to light that O'Callaghan's economy with the truth seems to be ongoing.

Below is a recent piece in the respected Irish Farmers Journal rapping O'Callaghan for his disinformation and "anti-fact campaign".

This coupled with some iffy finance claims it seems GM FREE IRELAND and Michael O'Callaghan need some remedial help with the facts.

GMO and the anti-fact campaign
July 7, 2007
Irish Farmers Journal

Needless to say, last week’s Irish Farmers Journal story on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) has led to a flurry of press releases from Michael O’Callaghan (Co-ordinator of the GM-free Ireland Network). He attempted to claim all sorts of agendas on our part. We are happy to state that our report was based on the facts of the situation, with no anti- or pro-GMO bias on our part. The majority of our story actually came from an official EU Commission report on the topic.

One of GM-free Ireland’s press releases claimed that on the Friday before Ireland’s controversial abstention from an EU vote on the issue of Hercules maize, “Trevor Sargent summoned Michael O’Callaghan of GM-free Ireland to negotiations with representatives of Mary Harny and Mary Coughlan”. O’Callaghan claimed that he provided the representatives with hard scientific evidence about the health risks of GMOs. His statement then made the claim that, on Sunday morning, Jackie Cahill of the Irish Creamery and Milk Suppliers Association, and Malcolm Thompson of the Irish Cattle and Sheepfarmers Association, telephoned Mary Coughlan to request her to vote NO.

However, Jackie Cahill told the Dealer that this is factually untrue. He also said that, of late, attempts have been made to misrepresent the position of the ICMSA on the question of GM food. “ICMSA – and only the ICMSA – was entitled to state its own position” he said. And what is that position?

An official at ICMSA set out the position as follows:

“The reality is that Ireland cannot opt-out of the use, or the growth, of GM crops. If approval is given at he EU level, the Irish Government has no say whatsoever in that area. All parties should note that, to-date, there is no evidence whatsoever that GM crops are harmful, and the current drive within Irish political circles for GM-free food is not sustainable on either a commercial or legal basis. A moratorium on further use of GM crops can only be identified if there are specific issues requiring further study and analysis, and it is for scientists to decide what falls within that category.”

Jackie Cahill said that the Irish Government position “must be fully clarified so that Ireland can play a full and constructive role at EU level in this important debate that goes to the heart of Irish farming’s competitiveness and profitability.”

Them’s the facts. Now let’s hope everyone in the GM debate will stick to them

GM Watch goes off line

After written requests to GM Watch to remove defamtory material were ignored their own service providers have now disabled GM Watch's site to ensure compliance with their Acceptable Use Policy

Below is an email (service provider name withheld) indicating their actions taken.

I'm all for free speech but false allegations of fraud is not on...just ask Greenpeace what it feels like to be libeled. I wonder what the big funders (Zac Goldsmith's family) of GM Watch and Jonathan Matthews think now.


-----Original Message-----
From: Abuse Team [mailto:abuse@uk.X.net]
Sent: August 16, 2007 1:24 PM
To: Shane H. Morris
Cc: XX Abuse Team
Subject: Re: request to remove libelous statements from hosted website

Hi Shane

I contacted our customer's IT consultant earlier this afternoon,
who informed me that he would disable the site and this appears to
have now been done:

abuse@abuse:~$ GET http://www.gmwatch.org
Directory Listing Denied
This Virtual Directory does not
allow contents to be listed.


Our customer's IT consultant also informed me that he will contact you
directly.

In the circumstances we consider the action taken by our customer to
have resolved the incident from an Acceptable Use Policy perspective,
and trust that you will agree.

Kind regards
XXXXXXX

GM FREE IRELAND issues a correction with an apology.

GM FREE IRELAND issues a correction with an apology.

http://www.gmfreeireland.org/ Accessed 4 August 2007

Gmfreeireland.org would like to correct a claim previously made that Shane Morris made "fraudulent scientific claims". Gmfreeireland.org acknowledges such a claim has no legal basis and would like to point out that:

- No findings of fraud were ever made by the British Food Journal in regards to the claims in the publication in question.

- The paper in question remains published as a valid piece of scholarly research.

- The academic award for the paper remains valid.

- A letter of explanation on the matter was published in the British Food Journal 2006 Vol 108, Issue

It should be noted that GM WATCH in the UK also made changes to the claims on their website at my written request.

PS and the apology....some wording from a GM FREE Ireland email to their web hosts.....
.....However, following his solicitors request to you yesterday, I owe you an apology as it seems I failed to successfully upload the amended page at the time. This was also corrected.....

Irish biopolitics at full steam!

Wow, what a couple of weeks...very busy on the GM front in Ireland but most importantly wee Lyanne has started to smile (she is now 9 weeks old)....

Anyway back to GMO Ireland ...lots of media coverage, lots of confusion on policy, and lots of biopolitics in action.

From contact within the Irish civil service it seems that the "GM Free Zone" will simply amount to 'no' votes regarding GM applications at the European Council level. However, the Irish Government will be allowing approved GM feed and other approved GM products to enter Ireland and be used by whoever wants them.

One has to wonder how Irish biotech policy is developed and calls by Fine Gael's Denis Naughten to have an organized approach to such policy development seems at least reasonable (see HERE).

It is worth noting that Fianna Fail (currently the main Government political party) did indeed previously organized a public consultation on GMOs (at great expense to the Irish tax payer) and an RTE news story (HERE) on its findings stated the following:

Minister accepts report on GM foods
Saturday, 9 October 1999 17:38

The Minister for the Environment (Noel Dempsey) has said that, if Ireland operates a policy of transparency and scientific assessment with regard to genetically modified organisms, there should be no risk to health or the environment. Noel Dempsey has accepted as government policy a report published today, which rules out a ban on crop trials in this country, but stresses the need for full labelling of GM foods.

A report said that it would not be legally possible to ban trials of such crops here. The report also warns that, if Ireland rejects or ignores biotechnology, it will not remain attractive to investors in high-tech industries or competitive in food production.

This report has been compiled by the chairing panel for the government's first ever national debate on GMOs held earlier this year. The debate dealt with the deliberate release of GMOs into the environment, mainly through crops. Its conclusion is that it is not open to an individual EU member state to ban either field trials or the importation of genetically modified products approved at EU level.

The full report can be found here : National Consultation Debate on GMOs and the Environment - Report of the Chairing Panel

As the Irish Government again struggle to deal with this issue I feel sorry for one individual the most, Prof. Patrick Cunningham, Chief Scientific Advisor to the Irish Government.....I certainly wouldn't envy this position when trying to explain the scientific rational behind a so-called "GM Free Zone" to the Irish science community...

Irish Greens serve up fudge on GM food

After ten years of gnawing and spitting regarding GM food/crops the Irish Green Party gave up on their main GMO policies to enter Government in Ireland (the Greens won six seats in the 166 seat Irish Parliament in the recent general election).

The Green’s pre-election policy had nine clear points (see below) that led with a promise to “immediately declare Ireland to be a GM-Free zone and prohibit the use of GM ingredients in animal feed and any testing or growing of GM crops and ban transgenic farm animals”. This promise, along with others, including a GM-Free regulatory authority to ensure that rigorous testing is put in place to verify that animal feed is free of GM inputs, have now been set aside. Now left is only a watered down vague one line sentence within a 52 page agreement for a Government program. The Greens now just commit to “Seek to negotiate the establishment of an All-Ireland GM-Free Zone”. This wording was agreed upon as part of a deal to enter into coalition with Fianna Fail, who while in Government have previously allowed GM fields trials and who a Green party elected official has described as “the devil”.

The commitment to simply “seek to negotiate” is the epitome of biopolitics. It is very clear the likelihood of a truly GM free zone for Ireland is zero considering that in Ireland BASF already has an EPA license to carry out field trials of blight resistant GM potatoes until 2010 if they decided to and the fact that the EU this week voted to allow more GM material into food products, including organic products. However, the Greens in government now open a real debate on GM crops in Ireland as the Greens have encountered what Urlich Beck in “Ecological Politics in an Age of Risk" (1995) described as “politically explosive hazards which render questionable the principles of calculation and precaution”. This will no doubt make for interesting discussions around the Government cabinet table.

Its obvious that the Green Party in Ireland has sacrificed clear actionable commitments on GM food for inclusion in Government (not a first as the Greens in Government in Germany allowed GM crop field trials). The fudge on GMO’s is topped off with a weak verbal comment by the Green’s Trevor Sargent that "The establishment of Ireland as a GMO-free zone is a project that I will throw myself into in a very enthusiastic fashion…” However, he is now part of a Government, of which the main political party, Fianna Fail, ten years ago made the pre-election promise to put in place:

“A moratorium on the release of genetically modified organisms into the environment and on the marketing of any foods which contain any genetically modified ingredient, or which was produced using any genetically modified organism”

only to state less than two years later that:

"Stability and predictability in policy are also important in terms of underpinning the competitiveness of the biotechnology sector... The area of Irish economic interest where biotechnology, particularly modern biotechnology / genetic modification, has greatest potential is in agriculture...".

It is evident that biopolitics is alive and well on the isle of “Forty shades of Green”, a title now politically more fitting than Johnny Cash could have ever imagined.

Pre-Election policy:

The Green Party/Comhaontas Glas in Government would-

1.1 immediately declare Ireland to be a GM-Free zone and prohibit the use of GM ingredients in animal feed and any testing or growing of GM crops and ban transgenic farm animals;

1.2 immediately begin negotiations with the UK government in an attempt to achieve an all island GM-Free Zone;

1.3 establish a GM-Free regulatory authority to ensure that rigorous testing is put in place to verify that animal feed is free of GM inputs;

1.4 veto any EU proposed legislation that would allow a certain threshold for GM contamination in conventional seeds before the seeds had to be labelled as containing GM traces;

1.5 oppose the patenting of seeds;

1.6 ensure that the Irish Seed Savers Association receives adequate funding. (This voluntary organisation is dedicated to the location and preservation of traditional varieties of fruit and vegetables. The ISSA maintains a seed bank and plays a vital role in saving our genetic diversity for the future.) We will also ensure that naturally occurring or conventionally bred rare and native varieties of seed can be freely sold.

1.7 introduce strict liability laws, holding GM companies and users of GM crops responsible for any GM contamination in Ireland in violation of Ireland's GM-free status;

1.8 At a local level, Green Party members of Local Authorities will campaign to make their Local Authorities GM-Free and assist local farmers to organise into GM-Free regions;

1.9 At EU level, Green Party MEPs will campaign to make the EU GM-Free and, at a minimum, to insist there is no lifting of the EU moratorium on GM crops and food until the new EU regulations on labelling and traceability are in place; there is an enforceable system of liability agreed; and the problems of coexistence of GM and non-GM crops have been resolved.

Genes and a General Election

Wow, what a few weeks....my first born, Lyanne, came into our life (who says gene flow can't be good), a general election in Ireland, and finished up at work for 9 months of parental leave (full pay, Yeah Canada!)...it sure has been a busy diaper/nappy filled existence.

Between feeds, egestion changes and pacing with Lyanne to help her sleep I have kept an eye on the general election in Ireland....from a biopolitical perspective it has been fascinating.....the Green Party (very anti-GM) were lucky to hold their 6 seats (out of 166) have now entered into discussions with Fianna Fail, who allowed approvals of GM crop in the last two Governments they have led.

As the Green Party chew over a possible deal with “the Devil” (as described by the Green Party's elected Environment spokesperson Ciarán Cuffe) it’s interesting to see that the Green's gnawing and spitting over the last decade regarding GM crops and their pre-election desire for a so-called “GM-Free Ireland” have been moved to the side of the plate. Currently in Ireland there is a GM potato field trial option approved until 2010 and GM products are used in all elements of the Irish feed and food chain. Can the taste of power make anything palatable or have the Greens finally digested the scientific facts that approved GM crops are safe and here to stay? Somewhat like the Green Party?

Lyanne Erin Morris - the new arrival

Lyanne Erin Morris was born at 1.08pm EST on Monday, May, 7th 2007 weighing in at 6.18lbs. She's perfect and adorable.

Mom and baby are doing great, Dad is hangin' in there for the moment!!

Thanks for all your well wishes.

Does Dr. Elizabeth Cullen expose GMFree Ireland or vice versa??

It seems that my recent letter to the Irish Medical News has created a bit of a stir. This week Dr. Elizabeth Cullen (pictured opposite speaking at GMFree Ireland press conference) responded in a letter that her recent
IMO motion to ban GM Foods "was not motivated by the “anti-genetically engineered food lobby”. It was simply a motion proposed by concerned doctors at
the ready availablility of genetically engineered foods in the shops...."

Well documentation obtained by this blogger proves either Dr. Cullen is lying or GMFree Ireland is lying??

In early February the email below was sent by Michael O’Callaghan (head of GMFree Ireland) claiming that he had recently drafted a Motion for adoption by the Irish Medical Association (sic) concerning the health risks of GM animal feed and food. (see in bold below)

This email clearly contradicts Dr. Cullen's claims that her IMO motion was not "motivated" by the the anti-GM food lobby.....maybe the IMO needs to know they are been used.


From: GM-free Ireland Network [mailto:mail@gmfreeireland.org]
Sent: 01 February 2007 21:48
Subject: Health risks of GM animal feed and food

Dear XXXXXX (name withheld)

I was delighted to receive your email as the Irish medical community has been extraordinarily silent on the health threat of GM food and farming, apart from a tiny group called the Irish Doctors Environmental Association (IDEA). I recently drafted a Motion for adoption by the Irish Medical Association concerning the health risks of GM animal feed and food, which I am sending you by separate email.

You can find various papers, articles and links about the subject on the
GM-free Ireland web site at http://www.gmfreeireland.org/health
See also the film The Future of Food, which was broadcast last Sunday by RTE2 – much to the fury of Monsanto. You can obtain a DVD of this film from http://www.thefutureofood.com
See also the book: “Seeds of Deception: Exposing Corporate and Government Lies about the Safety of Genetically Engineered Food”. By Jeffrey M. Smith, with a foreword by Michael Meacher, MP. Published by Green Books, UK, 2004`: tel + 44 (0)1 803 863 260 • www.greenbooks.co.uk See also the Seeds of Deception web site at www.seedsofdeception.org
See also the speech by Dr. Stanley Ewen at the Green Ireland conference which I organised at Kilkenny Castle last June:http://www.gmfreeireland.org/conference/trans/S.Ewen1.pf .

I would like to organise a high-level briefing on the subject for Irish health professionals and policy makers as soon as possible. I have contacted the leading medical experts in the relevant fields, who would all be delighted to come.Please keep in touch and let me know if I can be of any further assistance.

Kind regards
Michael O’Callaghan

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Michael O’CallaghanCo-ordinator
GM-FREE IRELAND NETWORK
Little Alders
Knockrath,
Rathdrum,
Co. Wicklow Ireland
tel: + 353 404 43 885
fax: + 353 404 43 887
mobile: + 353 87 799 4761
email: mail@gmfreeireland.org
website: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/

Irish Medical Organisation refuses to call for GM food ban

Silence can often tell you a lot. A deafening silence has beset the anti-genetically modified (GM) food lobby in Ireland. A silence that stems from the defeat of a motion at the Irish Medical Organisation (IMO) AGM calling for a moratorium on the sale and growing of genetically engineered crops in Ireland. No where do we find journalists reporting that the professional body representing doctors in Ireland don't feel there is an issue with the safety of GM food. Also, those who have been trying to tell us that GM foods are unsafe are now mute on the IMO's position.

What deepens the silence is that this is the second time such a motion has been defeated in recent years as in 2001 a similar motion was defeated by the IMO medics. What makes this year’s defeat yet more damning is that it was the only motion of the 70 IMO general motions that was flatly defended and no amended motion agreed upon.

Blanket statements on food safety, such that all GM food is bad or that all organic food is good, have no merit. Such approaches are fundamentally flawed as there is no perfect food production system; all have risks and benefits depending on the product grown. The fact that three deaths and over 200 illnesses have been linked to organic production of spinach in the US last autumn is testament to the flaws in such an approach ….can one imagine what the Greens would say if it had been GM food!

Maybe what is required now in Ireland on the debate regarding the safety of GM food can be summed up by the theme of this year’s IMO AGM…..Realism, Not Rhetoric.

Ireland to Host International Ag-Biotech Conference in 2008

The Agricultural Biotechnology International Conference will take place in Ireland for the very first time in August 2008. The conference provides a forum for internationally renowned speakers to address the challenges facing the global biotechnology industry.

A contract securing this event for Ireland has just been signed by Professor Jimmy Burke, Head of Teagasc Crops Research Centre. The conference will run from 24 – 27th August 2008.
Chairman of the 2008 Ag-Biotech conference, Jimmy Burke said: “This conference offers a great platform to showcase our growing life sciences industries. Various technology Foresight reports for Ireland have identified biotechnology as one of the core technologies which our country and Irish industry must now embrace. These reports have also identified the agri-food sector as one that can benefit significantly from the tremendous potential offered by modern developments in biotechnology.”

The conference is the largest agricultural biotech conference in the world (approx. 1000 delegates are expected to attend) and provides a unique opportunity for Irish academia and business sectors to discuss the issues, options and challenges being met by the biotechnology industry.
Jimmy Burke continued saying: “The four-day event will offer participants the opportunity to exchange ideas and hear from a distinguished line-up of internationally-acclaimed speakers. The conference combines the business of science with the latest discoveries and trends in research and technology development, and gives the research and business community opportunities to meet and exchange ideas. Sessions on the challenges and opportunities experienced in Australia, Europe, the US, China and Canada will bring a global perspective to the discussions.”

By its nature, biotechnology has many applications for almost all sectors of the economy, particularly the agri-food, pharmaceuticals, chemicals and beverages sectors. It has also the potential to radically improve the entire food production chain and to transform the synthetic chemical manufacturing processes used by Irish-based pharmaceutical plants. The food industry in Ireland is already using biotechnological processes in a wide range of areas and this will increase over the next ten years.
“Environmental and biofuel applications of biotechnology are also very important. As a world class conference, ABIC 2008 is a must-attend event for the industry and those interested in it,” concluded Prof Burke.
The venue for next year’s Agricultural Biotechnology International Conference (ABIC) will be the University College Cork Campus in Cork City.

from press release: http://www.teagasc.ie/news/2007/200703-28.htm

about ABIC: http://www.abic.ca/index.html

"Are GM and conventionally bred cereals really different?"

Jeffrey M. Smith, author of Seeds of Deception, who the anti-GM groups often quote, has said that GM crops are inherently "unsafe" due to the insertion of genes (for example see HERE by GMFREE Ireland). By the way, this book is a non-peer reviewed text with tens, if not hundreds of scientific errors and misleading statements.

Smith suggests, often by using dodgy references, one even a TV show?!? that GM crops are "inherently unsafe" due to the impact of the transgene on the target plant genome.

He states:
"The process of inserting foreign genes can damage the structure and function of the host’s DNA, switch genes on or off, create never-before-seen genetic sequences, and render the genome unstable."

and even

"Insertion of foreign genes and their new proteins may create complex, unpredictable interactions, not well understood. Similarly, inserting two or more foreign genes into the same plant may also cause interactions that have not been studied. "

These claime were shredded in a recent wheat study published in Trends in Food Science and Technology in the following paper:

Are GM and conventionally bred cereals really different? (click HERE)
Peter R. Shewry , , Marcela Baudoa, Alison Lovegrovea, Stephen Powersa, Johnathan A. Napiera, Jane L. Warda, John M. Bakera and Michael H. Beale

Available online 14 January 2007.

Abstract:
Concerns over the safety of GM crops have led to detailed comparisons of their composition and performance with those of conventionally bred crops, under both field and glasshouse conditions. Such studies of wheat have shown that it is possible to develop GM lines which are substantially equivalent to conventional varieties. This information is important to inform the debate on the future development of GM food crops.

The two most important lines I feel are:
"Comparison of the pairs of transgenic and ‘‘parental’’ lines (B102-1-1 v L88-31, B13554 v Cadenza, B1118 v Cadenza) showed only a small number of differentially expressed genes, with none differing by more than 2-fold. In contrast, comparison of the two non-transgenic sister lines (L88-31 and L88-18), which were produced from a single cross between the cultivars Olympic and Gabo, showed that a larger number of genes were differentially expressed in developing endosperms, 92 at 14 days (13 by greater than 3-fold) and 527 at 28 days (85 by greater than 2-fold). "

And

"A striking result from our studies was the small numbers of differentially expressed genes between the transgenic and control lines when compared with sister lines (L88-31, L88-18) produced by a conventional crossing programme. This is consistent with the hypothesis that transgenesis is a highly precise and controlled method of crop improvement compared to conventional breeding in which many thousands of genes may differ between the lines."

Clearly, if one is to take a case by case approach (as opposed to all GM crops are good or all GM crops are bad) this study shows that in this particular case, the transgenic wheat plants produced are more similar (i.e. show less change) to the control plants than the wheat plants produced by conventional breeding.

So what does this all mean, in simple terms this study has shown traditional breeding causes hundreds and thousands of genes to be mixed having a much greater impact on the target plant genome than genetic engineering that caused less changes on the genome level in this case. It is known from past experience that this large scale 'natural' mixing can have all sorts of unpredicted impacts on the plant genome. This has been seen before with conventional plants, for example the conventionally bred Lenape potato that was found to have dangerous levels of solanine, a poisonous glycoalkaloid (see HERE) caused the introduction of mandatory testing requirement for all new potato varieties in the US and the 'naturally bred' celery that caused farm workers to have a severe skin rash (see HERE).

GM Potato Field Trials in Ireland for 2007

Its nearly spring time again......yes, the time of year when those considering planting GM field trials should be getting organised. BASF, of course has EPA permission (obtained last year) to carry out such trials in Ireland this year and for the next two years. However, I'd like to offer some advice to BASF....
PLEASE DO NOT CARRY OUT THE GM POTATO TRIALS IN IRELAND THIS YEAR......skip this year, don't even consider it!

why, you ask? One phrase.....the General Election.

Ireland will hold a General Election this year, no later than July but by all accounts it will likely occur in May just as planting of the GM potatoes would be taking place . One sure way of playing into the hands of those wanting a 'biopolitical' confrontation weeks or even days before election day would be to have the Green party prancing around a field in County Meath destroying the GM potato field trials in front of the media. Pre-election hype is bad enough in Ireland to ensure candidates say the craziest things but to add this opportunity would be shear madness.

Unfortunately, the Irish EPA conditions set a deadline of May 31st for the GM blight resistant potatoes to be planted. This deadline clashes with election time so in the humble opinion of this Irish man the advice I offer to BASF is to simply skip the 2007 Irish trials.

BASF has DEFRA permission to field trial the same blight resistant GM potatoes in the UK this year (likely at the headquarters of the National Institute of Agricultural Botany (NIAB) in Cambridge). As a result skipping a year in Ireland considering the political climate would be smart, yet not devastating as the UK trials would still go ahead.

On a personal note May wouldn't suit either as my first child is due May 7th!!!!!!!!!......my ever witty wife has suggested calling the little one 'Gene'.....(yes, we know it's a girl).....

Nature Biotechnology publication

As published in Nature Biotechnology this month..................

Nature Biotechnology - 25, 33 - 34 (2007)
doi:10.1038/nbt0107-33

Parallel biopolitical universes

Shane H Morris

As a European citizen, I cannot agree with the editorial in the October issue (Nat. Biotechnol. 24, 1178, 2006) that EU Commissioner Dimas merely "has not understood that a non-GM [genetically modified]crop produced via MAS [marker-assisted selection] could be just as risky as a GM product." Commissioner Dimas's exaltation of so-called 'upgraded' crops is not a "'simple-minded' approach" as suggested but is actually just a case of 'biopolitics'1 in action. This can be concluded from the wealth of evidence that exists to ensure Commissioner Dimas (and his scientific staff) must be aware of the fact that upgraded crops with traits (e.g., herbicide resistance) like those of GM varieties could carry the same risks as a GM variety 2.

One need look no further than the farms of Europe where BASF's (Ludwigshafen, Germany) herbicide-resistant 'CLEARFIELD' crops can be found. In Europe, these herbicide-resistant crops include rice, maize, oilseed rape and sunflowers, with wheat likely soon to follow. The CLEARFIELD trait enables these upgraded crops to endure a broad-spectrum herbicide normally deadly to the plant. This characteristici s heritable plus likely transmissible to other crops of the same species and to weedy relations. CLEARFIELD herbicide-resistant crop varieties have been created using mutagenesis and/or traditional breeding methods and are free of 'introduced' genetic material. Thus, they are not considered to be a genetically modified organism (GMO)by the EU (Brussels) and are not covered by Directive 2001/18/EC 3. Nevertheless, BASF itself has seen fit to develop a Grower Stewardship Plan to reduce the environmental risks that they claim could exist. Indeed, Tan et al.4—four of the five authors of this publication are BASF scientists—state: "Management of herbicide-resistant weeds and gene flow from crops to weeds are issues that must be considered with the development of any herbicide-resistant crop. Thus, extensive stewardship programs have been developed to address these issues for CLEARFIELD crops"4.

BASF has the world's largest portfolio of non-GMO herbicide-resistant traits and believes the potential sales value of the CLEARFIELDconcept is in excess of 300 million2. In 2002, it was estimated that CLEARFIELD maize was planted on 4.9 million hectares (15% of total maize planting hectares) in the United States. In Canada, it was estimated that 20% of canola planted in 2000 and 2001 was non-GM herbicide-resistant CLEARFIELD canola4.

If the farm fields of Europe did not offer enough evidence toCommissioner Dimas, he could have noted comments from official EUmember state government bodies. Less than a month before the Commissioner's comments, the UK's GM regulatory body, AdvisoryCommittee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) sub-group, on March17, 2006, released a draft consultation report entitled "Managing the Footprint of Agriculture: Towards a Comparative Assessment of Risksand Benefits for Novel Agricultural Systems"(CLICK HERE). This report states that "in recent years, it has become apparent that there are inconsistenciesin the [EU] regulatory assessment of the environmental impact of GMcrops in comparison with other agricultural crops and practices." In addition, the report criticizes EU regulation by stressing "this inconsistency is further illustrated by GM herbicide-tolerant cropsthat require an extensive environmental risk assessment beforeapproval for cultivation and marketing whilst herbicide tolerantcrops produced by non-GM breeding methods can be grown without anequivalent assessment." The scientific basis of this conclusion is that the farm-scale evaluations of herbicide-resistant crops in the UK proved that theimpact of GM crops on the environment can be comparable to that of non-GM crops expressing the same herbicide resistance trait if thecrop management regime is the same5.

Be they 'biopolitical' or truly "simple minded", Commissioner Dimas's comments promoting upgraded (e.g., non-GM) herbicide-resistant crops created via a different production process than GM crops run contrary to the EU Commission's own guidelines on applying the precautionary principle in a consistent and non-discriminatory manner. Directive 2001/18/EC, which uses the 'precautionary principle' as its basis to protect Europe's environment from the possible risks of GM crops (e.g., gene flow)6, 7, 8, states: "In accordance with the precautionary principle, the objective of this Directive is to approximate the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States and to protect human health and theenvironment..."3.

In the light of Commissioner Dimas's recent comments, there now exists an argument for applying this same precautionary principle to non-GM 'upgraded' crops, especially if they express the same phenotypes as their GM counterparts. Such an argument is enhanced when considering the policy communiqué published by the EU Commissionin 2000 setting out "the Commission's approach to using theprecautionary principle" and establishing "Commission guidelines forapplying it"9. These guidelines assert that the precautionary principle should be used in a proportional, nondiscriminatory and consistent manner with an examination of the benefits and costs ofaction (or lack of action) and with an examination of scientific developments. The principle of nondiscrimination denotes that similar risks should not be treated differently. This is clearly outlined: "Measures taken under the precautionary principle should be designed to achieve an equivalent level of protection without invoking the geographical origin or the nature of the productionprocess [author's emphasis] to apply different treatments in anarbitrary manner"9. The communiqué also declares that "measures should be consistent with measures already adopted in similar circumstances or using similar approaches." These preexisting EU Commission guidelines clearly show that EU Commissioner Dimas's unbridled support of 'upgraded' crops justified simply on 'the nature of the production process' is out of step with official EU policy.

In terms of risk and the precautionary principle, it is disingenuous for Commissioner Dimas topresent 'upgraded' crops somewhere in between a 'classic' and a GM crop and different from, or posing less risk to the environment than,GM crops—the evidence suggests otherwise2. Commissioner Dimas may share a parallel biopolitical universe and similar erroneous opinions with Jeremy Rifkin, such as "GMO products raise a whole new series ofpossible risks to the environment, notably potential long termeffects that could impact on biodiversity"10. However, unlike Jeremy Rifkin, Commissioner Dimas is answerable toEurope's citizens.

We now deserve clear answers from the EU Commission on the following two questions. First, does the EU Commission concede there are potential risks to the environment from so-called 'upgraded' crop lines and that a gap exists in the EU regulatory framework? Or alternatively, is there a 'biopolitical' attempt to ignore the potential risks and not subject these 'upgraded' products to a risk assessment contrary to theprecautionary principle while arguably unfairly applying environmental regulation to phenotypically identical GM crops?2

Without definitive answers to these questions Commissioner Dimas has no 'biopolitical' choice but to reassess the EU Commission's framingand application of its risk assessment currently used to protect Europe's environment from possible risks relating to modern crop biotechnology, both GM and non-GM.


Disclaimer: The opinions expressed herein are strictly those of the author, whois a citizen of the EU. Shane H. Morris contributed to this articlein his personal capacity. The views expressed are his own and do notrepresent the views of Agriculture and Agri-food Canada or theGovernment of Canada.

REFERENCES
1. Morris, S.H., Adley, C.C. Trends Biotechnol. 18, 325–326 (2000).
2. Morris, S.H. Trends Biotechnol. 1, 2–6 (2007).
3. European Commission Communication. Directive 2001/18/EC of theEuropean Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on theDeliberate Release into the Environment of Genetically ModifiedOrganisms and Repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC—CommissionDeclaration (European Commission, Brussels, 2001). CLICK HERE
4. Tan, S., Evans, R.R., Dahmer, H.L., Singh, B.K. & Shaner, D.L.Pest Manag. Sci. 61, 246–257 (2005).
5. Firbank, L.G. et al. Nat. Biotechnol. 23, 1475–1476 (2005).
6. Conner A.J., Glare, T.R. & Nap, J.P. Plant J. 33, 19–46 (2003).
7. Velkov, V.V., Medvinsky, A.B., Sokolov, M.S. & Marchenko, A.I. J.Biosci. 30, 515–548 (2005). 8. Marvier, M. & Van Acker, R.C. Front Ecol. Environ. 3, 99–106(2005).
9. European Union Commission Communication. Communication from theCommission on the Precautionary Principle, COM 1 (European Union,Brussels, 2000). CLICK HERE

10. Dimas, S. Co-existence of genetically modified conventional andorganic crops: freedom of choice. Speech presented at Conference onGMO Co-existence, Vienna, April 2006 CLICK HERE

To be a charity or not to be??

Merry Chrismas, Happy Hanukkah, Joyful Kwanzaa to all…..

‘Tis the season of giving and charity. However, it’s always worth knowing exacting what cause you are supporting.

With this in mind, it is very interesting to examine the Irish anti-GM food group GMFree Ireland, who were recently offering PRINCIPAL SPONSORS the chance to sponsor an anti-GM food conference for the sum of €25,000 each.

An important tenet of the study of biology is the relationship between structure and function. Exploring GMFree Ireland from this perspective leads to many worrisome questions left unanswered by Michael O'Callaghan (the spokesperson and main organizer of GM Free Ireland).

For example is GMFree Ireland a charity???
Michael O'Callaghan claims GM Free Ireland is to “soon” have charitable status (even reported in the Eurotoques newsletter HERE)
But there has been no update since February 16, 2005 when the following was claimed

"The GM-free Ireland Network will soon be registered as a non-profit company limited by guarantee and not having a share capital.
The company, or a subsidiary thereof, will then apply for charitable status for those of its activities designed to serve the public interest by promoting awareness of GM issues.
see http://www.gmfreeireland.org/network/status.php.

When the Irish tax authorities were contacted earlier this month it seems GMFree Ireland is NOT a charity in Ireland nor does it have “charitable status”.

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: "O'Flynn, Gerry"
To: shane.morris@rogers.com
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 4:44:18 AM
Subject: RE: charitable status and question

Shane
As a Revenue Authority we grant charitable tax exemption to those bodies established for a charitable purpose. All charities granted tax exemption are listed on our website at www.revenue.ie under publications/lists/charities. The body named below (GMFree Ireland –added by SM) is not on our published list of tax exempt charities or indeed on the eligible charity list. Thank you for bringing the donation matter to our notice.
regards
Gerry

See http://www.revenue.ie/pdf/charit_a.pdf or http://www.revenue.ie/pdf/sn45.pdf

Currently GM Free Ireland has entered an arrangement where An Taisce will accept donations on its behalf. However, this is very questionable considering GMFree Ireland could simply register as a charity themselves. However there is no mention of GMFree Ireland on the An Tasice website and their section on genetically modified organisms gives no information on anti-GM food organizations, see HERE. Do An Taisce’s members know that it’s funneling money to an organization that is accountable to no one!! I’m looking forward to soon seeing An Taisce’s annual report and accounts……

Noteworthy is that the “soon to become a charity” claim is a very frequent concept over the past 7 years for Michael O'Callaghan.

A quick count comes to four the organizations set up by Michael O'Callaghan that were “to become charities” but according to their websites, never have to date? These four “soon to be charities” are:

1. International Institute of Astroarcheology
2. Sustainable Dublin Trust
3. Global Vision Trust
4. GMFreeIreland

1. International Institute of Astroarcheology
An interesting little organization that never made it to be a charity even though it was claimed that:
“Funds to set up the Institute are being raised by Global Vision Corporation (a company set up by Michael O'Callaghan), a non-profit, Non Governmental Organisation…………. The whole amount you give will go towards the Institute.”

“THE FUNDING WILL BE USED FOR THE FOLLOWING PURPOSES:
Incorporate the Institute as an Irish charity…..etc

However with £4,977 (Irish pounds/punts) spent on travel and £16,983 (Irish pounds/punts) in donations no further financial information was ever posted since May 25, 2001
See: http://www.astroarchaeology.org/help.html

also
http://www.astroarchaeology.org/astroform.html

NO UPDATE ON STATUS AVAILABLE ONLINE AS OF DECEMBER 9, 2006 AND IS NOT ON THE LIST OF REGISTERED CHARITIES IN IRELAND


2. Sustainable Dublin Trust
“It will be co-ordinated by the Sustainable Dublin Trust, currently being formed as an Irish registered charity, and implemented in collaboration with a network of partners and stakeholders.”
http://www.sustainabledublin.com/mission.html

NO UPDATE ON STATUS AND IS NOT ON THE LIST OF REGISTERED CHARITIES IN IRELAND

3. Global Vision Trust
“Its European twin Global Vision Trust was incorporated in the UK in March 1998 as a charitable private limited company no. 3521064. Pending confirmation of the latter's Registered Charity status (expected 1999), financial support and sponsorship from within the EU are also being accepted on our behalf via the J. L. Jopling Charitable Trust - UK Registered Charity no. 1024681.”

Yet another company that Michael O'Callaghan has been involved with never became a registered charity but remained a private company until dissolved 03/12/2002.
See HERE (don't forget to the expand this by clicking on the image)

4: GMFreeIreland
“Corporate status:
The GM-free Ireland Network will soon be registered as a non-profit company limited by guarantee and not having a share capital.

The company, or a subsidiary thereof, will then apply for charitable status for those of its activities designed to serve the public interest by promoting awareness of GM issues.

Company documents and details of its Board of Directors and Board of Advisers will be posted here as soon as they are available.”

None of the above has occurred and the information has not changed since 16 February 2005
http://www.gmfreeireland.org/network/status.php

Here is another group that Michael O'Callaghan is involved with Global Vision Consulting
http://www.global-vision-consulting.com/index2.php

This post simply suggests that before one donates hard earned money they should be wary of the claim "soon to become a charity"!

EU biotech crop regulations and environmental risk: a case of the emperor's new clothes?

After much delay I've found some spare time and published a piece in in the peer-reviewed journal Trends in Biotechnology. The paper is based on a blog posting I did last April - It's all Greek to me!!

The paper has already been published (see HERE)

EU Biotech Crop Regulations and Environmental Risk: A Case of the Emperor's New Clothes?

Shane H. Morris

Abstract:
European Union Commissioner for the Environment Stavros Dimas (seen above right) recently hailed ‘upgraded’ non-genetically modified (GM) crops as an alternative to GM crops. A comparative analysis of the environmental risks associated with such non-GM herbicide-resistant crops and GM herbicide-resistant crops is presented here. The analysis highlights serious weaknesses in the European Union (EU) regulatory framework, and the contradictory policy of the EU Commission on the precautionary principle is also shown. The continued political stance of ignoring these regulatory and policy inconsistencies is examined and found to be flawed. It is postulated that, even in the face of these flaws and coupled with recent statements from the UK drawing attention to inconsistencies in the EU regulatory framework, the EU will continue to ignore the real and present environmental risks associated with upgraded non-GM crops for biopolitical reasons.

As an interesting little aside: Of course there was a clear disclaimer (HERE - at end of page) that this paper was my own opinion and mine alone.....however this did not stop Joe Cummins (well known for inaccurately citing people's work - see HERE) from lying and calling it "a government opinion from Canada" .....see his sad attempt to mislead HERE......typical Joe Cummins!

New Percy Schmeiser scandal hits the US

Percy's Speech in California exposes more lies!!!!!!!!

Even after the lying scandal in Ireland , where it was claimed Percy Schmeiser was "former Member of Canadian Parliament" Percy has again been caught misleading an audience.

Last week, on the evening of November 14, 2006 at the North Gate Library, Hearst at Euclid Avenue, Berkeley, CA, USA, this incredible segment of Percy Schmeiser's speech was recorded. Ironically, he was speaking on the issue of GMOs and the law. In the segment below Percy lies to the audience, TWICE in 44 Seconds!!

click HERE => HIS WORDS or DOWNLOAD to listen by clicking HERE

Lie 1:
"Since 1996 there's been no GMOs introduced we have been able to stop it for 11 years". (time stamp: 10 seconds)

What a lie!, open the following link where one can see there has indeed been GMOs approved (and introduced) in Canada since 1996. See HERE
or take a quick look at the following database.

Lie 2:
"I was a Member of Parliament at one time" (time stamp: 16 seconds)

Again, like in Ireland, Percy is trying to sell himself as once being a Canadian MP......PERCY has never been a Member of Parliament in Canada.

Percy continues to attempt to pass off his 1967 to 1971 seat in his local, very rural provisional assembly of Saskatchewan as something bigger than it was. The correct legal and political term for a member of the Saskatchewan assembly is Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA). Within Canada this is a VERY clear distinction (as clear as the difference between MP and MEP in the UK). It is very unlikely that Percy Schmeiser, as a current local politician and a former MLA himself, is not aware of this important and clear distinction. Moreover, after exposing his false Canadian MP claims in Ireland he threatened me with legal action but even after this scandal he continues his lying ways. One has to ask why he continues to attempt to mislead the public?...