November 25, 2009

While Filipino farmers are working hard to persuade the Arroyo government to stop the importation of Bayer’s genetically modified (GM) rice, U.S. farmers have already sued Bayer for financial losses totaling US$150 million as a result of GM contamination of their rice crop.

The Bloomberg news service reported on November 4, 2009 that rice farmers from Missouri, a midwestern state of the U.S., are suing Bayer for the financial losses they sustained when their rice crop was contaminated by Bayer’s GM rice.

Bayer and the Louisiana State University had been testing the GM rice for resistance to the Liberty herbicide, which Bayer also developed, when the GM rice was “accidentally” released and found its way into the U.S. rice crop. Thirty percent of America’s ricelands were reportedly contaminated.

The Missouri lawsuit is the first of over 1,200 cases that have been filed by farmers from five U.S. states since 2006, when a report by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) sent U.S. rice futures plummetting by at least 14 percent in a matter of days. The USDA had found trace amounts of Bayer’s GM rice in U.S. long grain stocks.

News of the contamination resulted in a US$150M decline in rice futures as well as a fall in exports as the European Union (EU), Japan, Russia and other overseas markets either cut back or stopped their importation of the U.S. long grain rice.

The Bloomberg story quoted lawyer Don Downing, who is prosecuting the Missouri farmers’ case, as having accused Bayer of “sloppy” testing in its rush to beat Monsanto Co. to the punch. Monsanto, another giant agrochemicals company, is also developing herbicide-resistant crop varieties.

Covering the Missouri trial, Bloomberg quoted Downing's opening statement thus: “Bayer was supposed to be careful. Bayer was not careful and that rice did escape into our commercial rice supplies.”

Meanwhile, Bayer has repeatedly claimed that its herbicide-resistant rice poses no food safety issues. Yet, its GM rice has yet to be commercially marketed in the U.S.

In the Philippines, Bayer is lobbying hard for the importation of one of its GM rice strains into the country. In light of Bayer’s U.S. debacle, Filipino farmers’ groups are appealing to the BPI (Read Farmers' petition letter to the BPI: Page 1, Page 2, Page 3, Page 4) to protect the country's farmers from similar financial ruin that could result from the entry of GM rice into the country.--by Teresa L. Debuque

For further information, contact:

Golda Hilario/Paul Borja

SEARICE policy officers

Tel: (+632) 433-7182/433-2067

Telefax: (+632) 922-6710

Mobile: 091751245496; +639175119498

email: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ; This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

November 24, 2009

Farmer leaders representing 20 farmer organizations from various parts of the Philippines are urging the Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI) not to allow the importation by a private corporation of a genetically modified rice variety as food.

Bayer CropScience AG, a multinational agrochemicals company, has a pending application with the BPI to market Liberty Link 62 rice (LL62) in the country. Bayer’s application, which was made in 2006, was put on hold in 2007 when a lower court granted a petition filed by concerned individuals to disallow the importation. However, last November 9, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the lower court ruling, thus paving the way for the grant of Bayer’s application.

The potential risks to public health and to the environment were among the reasons cited by the farmer leaders in petitioning the BPI to keep LL62 out of the country. LL62 was developed by Bayer to be tolerant to a herbicide, whose effects when ingested or exposed to, have yet to be determined.

In a petition letter hand-delivered to BPI director Joel Rudinas on November 18, the farmers said, “Ang karamihan po sa amin ay ilang taon nang hindi gumagamit ng kemikal na abono at pestisidyo sapagkat nakita po namin na ang mga ito ay nakakasama sa lupa, tubig at sa katawan namin at ng publiko na sinusuplayan namin ng pagkain.” (“Most of us have not used chemical fertilizers and pesticides for many years because we have seen for ourselves the damage these chemicals can cause on the soil, water, and on our health and that of the public whose food needs we supply.”) The introduction of the herbicide-dependent LL62 would undermine years of painstaking work by organic farmers all over the country.

The farmer leaders also took issue with the fact that farmers were not consulted about Bayer’s application, or at least given enough information about the matter. “Hindi ito simpleng usapin ng teknolohiya kundi usapin ng bigas na siyang pangunahing pagkain ng Pilipino,” said Candido Baldapan, who represents the Bohol-based Farmers' Consultative Council (FCC). (“This goes beyond issues of technology. This concerns rice, the staple food of Filipinos.”)

While Bayer intends to import LL62 grains for consumption and for processing, the farmer leaders fear that it is a short step away from the entry of seeds of this variety. “Kung mangyari ito, hindi malayo na makontamina ang mga lokal na binhi na aming tinatangkilik at inaalagaan,” Baldapan explained. (“When this happens, it will not be long before the local varieties that we have developed and nurtured are contaminated.”)

The farmer leaders appealed to Rudinas to stop the rice importation, stressing that LL62 is not the answer to the country’s food supply problems.--by Teresa L. Debuque

Golda Hilario/Paul Borja

SEARICE policy officers

Tel: (+632) 433-7182/433-2067

Telefax: (+632) 922-6710

Mobile: 091751245496; +639175119498

email: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ; This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

January 26, 2009

by Teresa L. Debuque

Gene Campaign confirmed last January 20, 2009 the contamination of rice in Jharkhand  by genetically modified Bt rice belonging to the Mahyco company. Jharkhand, along with Orissa and Chattisgarh, is known to be the birthplace of rice, the region where the maximum genetic diversity of rice is found.

At harvest time, part of the GM rice under trial was harvested; part was left standing in the field. This is another clear violation of the law, which requires that after harvesting, all the crop residue of the trial GM crop should be burnt. This is an essential requirement, to ensure that there is no possibility of new GM plants coming up as wild ‘volunteer’ plants from left over clumps  and becoming uncontrolled sources of Bt genes which could contaminate natural rice crops in the region.

In the Mahyco trial plots, all the clumps had been left in the field after harvesting and nothing was burned. The company however lied to the government that everything had been burned after the harvest. The surrounding rice plants that were harvested by the company were also not destroyed but thrown on the side of the fields (see photo above), providing another huge source of contamination of natural rice with the genetically engineered Bt rice.

January 20, 2009

by Teresa L. Debuque

As the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), India's regulatory body for genetically engineered (GE) crops and foods, meets to look at the results of the two-year large scale trials of Bt Brinjal [transgenic eggplant] across the country, new analyses of the data have emerged that cast doubts on the safety of the genetically modified crop. Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini of the the France-based Committee for Independent Research and Information on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN) analyzed Mahyco’s Bt brinjal biosafety data (the full study is available at: http://www.criigen. org/images/ stories/Actualit es/ActusOGM/ btbrinjal- ges_%200109. pdf) and points out that Bt brinjal had not been properly tested from the safety and environmental point of view, observing that in feeding trials significant differences were noted in animals fed with Bt Brinjal compared to those fed non-Bt controls. He therefore concludes that, "Clear significant differences were seen that raise food safety concerns and warrant further investigation. The GM Bt Brinjal cannot be considered as safe as its non GM counterpart. Indeed, it should be considered as unsuitable for human and animal consumption. "

Meanwhile, another analysis from Dr. Judy Carman of the Institute of Health & Environmental Research, New Zealand, also concluded that the studies presented by Mahyco cannot be used to show that GM Brinjal is safe to eat, particularly when population health issues are taken into account. In particular it found that the studies presented by Mahyco are simply inadequate to determine important matters concerning toxicology, allergy, and reproductive health.

In light of the two analyses, a network of medical experts from across the country called "Doctors for Food & Bio-Safety" has called for a moratorium on all open air trials of GM crops in India. The doctors were concerned that the incorporation of antibiotic resistant markers in Bt Brinjal is likely to have disastrous implications for developing countries like India which are struggling with communicable disease burdens. They further observed that the decreased caloric content (15 percent less) in Bt Brinjal and altered consumption in different studies will mean impact on nutrition which an already malnourished public could avoid. Others, such as scientists, researchers, health professionals and environmentalists have also raised their voice against the introduction of the Bt Brinjal crop in view of its potentially negative effects on human beings and animals.

Source: Third World Network Biosafety Information Service, "Analyses Cast Doubts on Safety of Bt Brinjal."

For a primer on Bt Brinjal, go to: http://www.csa-india.org/downloads/GE/bt_brinjal_briefing_paper.pdf