volume 10, issue 3 march 2010 non-gmo summit in...

H I G H L I G H T S F R O M T H I S I S S U E

Information to ensure a safe, healthy, and sustainable food supply

Volume 10, Issue 3 March 2010

USDA issues final rule on access to pasture for organic dairy India says No to GM eggplantSupreme Court to hear GM alfalfa caseMonsanto vs. Mo Parr

1

Page 14

Page 19

Page 16

Page 11

Page 14

Non-GMO Summit in Brussels

Page 19

Page 16

Page 4

Collect March 2010 Organic & Non-GMO Report: Non-GMO Source Nov04 2/22/10 3:59 PM Page 1

S E C T I O N H E A D

2

• T H E N O N - G M O S O U R C E2 • T H E O R G A N I C & N O N - G M O R E P O R T

Collect March 2010 Organic & Non-GMO Report: Non-GMO Source Nov04 2/22/10 3:59 PM

THE ORGANIC & NON-GMO REPORTpublished 10 times per yearby Evergreen Publishing, Inc.ISSN: 1940-1094

©2010 Evergreen Publishing, Inc.

Staff

EDITOR/PUBLISHER: Ken Roseboro

ASSOCIATE EDITORS: Arianne PfoutzSALES AND MARKETING: Simi SummerGRAPHIC DESIGN: Carolyn Boyce

PRINTING: Frontline Printing

Subscription Information$115/year—corporations$59/year—qualifying individuals

Advertising InformationCall Ken Roseboro at1-800-854-0586 or 1-641-209-3426

The Organic & Non-GMO ReportPO Box 436Fairfield, IA 52556 USA1-800-854-0586 • 1-641-209-3426Fax: 1-641-209-3428Email: [email protected]: www.non-gmoreport.com

Printed on recycled paper

T H E O R G A N I C & N O N - G M O R E P O R T • 3

Table of ContentsEuropean Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4EU regions call for non-GMO feed, food labelsGlobal Non-GMO Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7GMO-Free is fastest-growing corporate-brand claim Mastronardi Produce/SUNSET receive Non-GMO Project verificationGerman dairy retailers offer GMO-free, regional productsGerman poultry producer launches GMO-free poultry lineItaly proposes ethical, GMO-free labelNon-GMO Crops in India conferenceCompany Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Choice Organic Teas Supports Non-GMO ProjectOrganic News . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11USDA issues final rule on access to pasture for organic dairy US budget would increase NOP funding by 44% Organic farmers see strong market despite recessionNew logo selected for EU organic productsOrganic grains see moderate demand2010 Non-GMO and Organic Grain Production ContractsBt Brinjal Controversy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14India says No to GM eggplantFormer executive says Monsanto ‘faked’ data for approvals GMO Contamination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Massive GMO contamination of organic cotton reportedGM alfalfa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Supreme Court to hear GM alfalfa caseNCGA urges consumers to tell USDA “No” to GM alfalfaUSDA extends comment period on GM alfalfaRegulatory News . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Bayer to pay $1.5 million in 2nd lawsuit over GM riceGroups seek to halt planting of GM sugar beetsFormer Monsanto executive assumes new position at FDANew Mexico bill would protect farms from GMO contaminationSouth Australia stands firm on GM canola banFarmer Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Monsanto vs. Mo ParrGMO News . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20GM wheat rejected by 233 consumer, farm groups in 26 countriesGM eucalyptus trees to be planted in SoutheastGM cotton increasing pesticide use, decreasing yields in IndiaGroups file appeal to stop GM corn plantings in Mexico Monsanto chosen as world’s “least ethical company”Research News . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21New non-GMO soybean line resists key nematode Results of Australian GM animal feed study due by July 2010Monsanto-funded research echoes Organic Center’s report

on pesticide use Company News . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22SunOpta announces alliance with Specialized Protein Products

for non-GMO soy ingredientsTerraWare plastic made from non-GMO cornstarchEnviroLogic Introduces Second Quick Stix Kit for Cry2A

To the Point“We know very little, if anything, about the long-

term effects of growing GM crops. To take risks

with our natural environment is wholly indefensible

and irresponsible.”

“We are ready to stand shoulder to shoulder with

other nations who are opposed to GM and fight for

what our people want. It is clear that concerns

about GM exist in the developing, as well as the

developed world, and I am pleased to see that the

Indian Government has listened to public opinion.”

—Roseanna Cunningham, Scotland’s environment minister, speaking

about India’s moratorium on genetically modified Bt brinjal.

“They did not even have a test tube to validate the

data and, at times, the data itself was faked.”

—Tiruvadi Jagadisan, former managing director of Monsanto India,

speaking about Monsanto’s past tactics to get commercial approvals for its

products in India.

“The first war was in 1857 which we lost; the sec-

ond one we won and got independence. We would

have had to fight the third war of independence if

Bt brinjal cultivation was given the go-ahead. We

needn’t fight it now.”

—Dr. P.M. Bhargava, molecular biologist and founder of the Hyder-

abad-based pioneering Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, speak-

ing about India’s decision to not approve Bt brinjal.

“There are so many ways of getting a healthy diet,

you don’t actually need transgenics.”

—Maarten Chrispeels, an emeritus professor of biology and proponent of

genetically modified crops at the University of California San Diego.


ply (of non-GMO soy) world-wide to meet Europe’s needs,including Brazil and India,”said Bernt Antonsen, directorof AgroTrace, a supplier ofnon-GMO soy.

John Fagan of Cert ID, anon-GMO certification firm,was even more optimistic, say-ing “The tonnage of Cert ID-certified non-GMO soy avail-able from Brazil, India, andNorth America is more thansufficient to assure sustainable,long-term and growing pro-duction of non-GMO animalfeed.”

Fagan said that his companycertified nearly 2.7 MMT ofnon-GMO soy in 2009 andthat another 2.5 MMT wasavailable for certification. Thiscombined total of 5.2 MMTwas enough to meet 15% of theEU’s total soy meal needs.Other certifiers could supplyanother 20% to 35% of theEU’s non-GMO soy mealneeds, meaning that 35% to50% of Europe’s soy mealneeds could be met by certifiednon-GMO soy meal. “Non-GMO is not a niche,” Fagansaid.

Brazil’s non-GMO soy pro-duction is around 28.5 MMT,

which by itself is nearly enoughto meet EU needs, Fagan said.

Ukraine’s non-GMOpotentialUkraine is poised to helpmeet Europe’s non-GMOdemand, said AvinoamBarkol, a representative withEcoUkraine. Barkol said thatUkraine’s new GM foodlabeling laws, which requirelabels on non-GMO as wellas GM foods, are encourag-ing the country’s farmers toproduce non-GMO. “Thiswill expand the availability ofnon-GMO soy and corn,”Barkol said.

Ukraine is the third largestgrain exporter in the worldand currently produces oneMMT of soybeans and 8MMT of corn. “There isgreat potential for expansionbased on demand of EU buy-ers,” Barkol said.

Thierry Renault, a repre-sentative of France-basedAgrifeed Trading, said Franceimported about 473,000 met-ric tons of non-GMO soy in2009, which was about 17%of France’s total soy imports.Renault said the percentageof non-GMO soy imports

EU regions call for non-GMOfeed, food labelsThere are adequate supplies of non-GMO soy-beans to meet Europe’s feed needs, and GMO-free labels on food products should be encour-aged throughout Europe. These were two impor-tant conclusions at the third annual conference ofthe European GMO-Free Regions Network, held inBrussels, Belgium in early February.

Anyone who doubts the viability of non-GMO food production should attend theannual conference of the European GMO-

Free Regions Network. Three hundred forty-one representatives from Europe’s 51 (andgrowing) GMO-free regions recently gatheredin Belgium to discuss their regional, diverse,productive, and sustainable food productionsystems. And no GMOs thank you very much.

4 • T H E O R G A N I C & N O N - G M O R E P O R T

EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVE

GMO-Free RegionsNetworkFounded in 2003 by Tuscanyin Italy and Upper Austria,the GMO-Free Regions Net-work has grown to include 51regions in eight EU coun-tries: Austria, Belgium, Croa-tia, France, Italy, Greece,United Kingdom, and Spain.

The Network continues togrow; regions from Norwaywill soon join and Ireland hasannounced it would be GM-free.

The regions are united intheir commitment to keepingtheir agriculture and foodproduction free of geneticallymodified organisms and toencouraging sustainable agri-cultural methods throughoutEurope.

The 341 attendees at themost recent conferenceincluded 28 European Parlia-ment members, regional gov-ernment ministers, non-GMO ingredient suppliers,grain traders, and food pro-

ducers, farmers, and repre-sentatives from agriculturalcooperatives and non-gov-ernmental organizations(NGOs).

Non-GMO supplies“more than sufficient”Supplies of non-GMO soy-beans for animal feed were amajor topic of discussion atthe conference. Europe reliesheavily on imports of soy-beans and soybean meal forfeed, importing about 14 mil-lion metric tons (MMT) ofsoybeans and 31 MMT ofsoybean meal each year, most-ly from Brazil, Argentina, andNorth America. The majorityof those imports are genetical-ly modified.

Press reports and EU feedmanufacturers have claimedthat there isn’t enough non-GMO soy to meet Europeanconsumer demands.

Several conference speak-ers showed that claim to befalse. “There is plenty of sup-

CONTINUED ON PAGE 6 �

Organic & Non-GMO Report editor Ken Roseborospeaking at the Non-GMO conference in Brussels


EU-wide GMO-freelabelsMany speakers called for har-monized, EU-wide GMO-freelabels. “We need an EU-wideapproach to labeling, positiveGMO-free labeling for all ofEurope,” said Rudi Anschober,minister for the environment,energy, water and consumerprotection from Upper Austria.

“We should harmonize asmuch as possible and create anEU-wide GMO-free labelingregulation. It would accomplishwhat consumers want,” saidJochen Koester, managingdirector of TraceConsult.

Koester said GMO-freelabeling requires consumerdemand, industry commitment,and political will. “All threemust be positive, otherwise itwon’t happen.”

Austrian Markus Schorpfdescribed his country’s “Gen-technik-frei” (Genetic Engi-neering Free) label, and saidthat an EU-wide approach to

GMO-free labels was necessarybecause products are shippedto other European marketswhere problems can arise withdifferent GMO-free labels. “Itis important that we have har-monized conditions (for label-ing),” he said.

NGOs also expressed sup-port for GMO-free labeling.“Producers not using GMOsshould be able to communicatethat to consumers,” saidArnaud Apoteker, GMO cam-paigner for Greenpeace.

Heike Moldehauer, GMOcampaigner for Friends of theEarth, said EU GMO labelinglaws need to be changed toinclude animal products, butuntil that happens food pro-ducers should be able to labeltheir products GMO-free.

GMOs threaten qualityfood productionConference speakers wereunanimous in opposing GMfoods, viewing GMO monocul-tures as a threat to their region-al, diverse agriculture. “Whyshould we accept GMOs whenthe benefits haven’t beenproven and risks are present?”asked Elisa Bianco, spokesper-son for Slow Food.

“GMOs don’t represent anopportunity, they are a healthrisk, environmental risk, andsocietal risk,” said BeatriceGendreau, vice president incharge of Agriculture from theAquitaine region of France.“The shadow of GMOs threat-ens quality food production.”

“This is a technology forfour or five companies to con-trol the food system,” Cert ID’sFagan said. “If you let multi-national seed companies in,they will take over your seedsystem within five years.”

Fagan encouraged Euro-peans to continue theirresistance to GMOs as amodel to the rest of theworld. “Maintain strengthwith what you are doing.” �


may increase to 20% in 2010.Renault said his company

could meet GM thresholds of0.5% or 0.9% but said that0.1% is “utopic.” Fagan dis-agreed, saying “Non-GMOat 0.1% is not only possible,it can be done, and willbecome easier as demandincreases.”

GMO-free labelingtrendAdequate supplies of non-GMO feed tied into anothermajor conference topic: GMO-free labels on meat, dairy, poul-try, and egg products. Europe’sGM food labeling laws don’tapply to products derived fromanimals raised on GM feed. Tofill this void, several Europeancountries—Austria, Germany,France, and soon Ireland—areestablishing GMO-free label-

ing laws that allow compa-nies to promote the fact thatthey are feeding animalsnon-GMO feed.

Martin Häusling, member ofthe European Parliament andan organic dairy farmer fromGermany, said his country’s“Ohne Genetechnik” (NoGenetic Engineering) label hasbeen successful. “People carehow we feed animals,” he said.Germany’s organic farmers areeven putting Ohne Genetech-nik signs in their fields

Häusling said such labelingis vital. “Positive (GMO-free)labeling is the only way we cango now.”

Pilar Unzalu, president ofthe GMO-free Regions Net-work, said GMO-free labelingis a key aim of the network.“European consumers wantnon-GMO foods.”

EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVE F R O M P A G E 5

“GMOs don’t repre-

sent an opportunity;

they are a health risk,

environmental risk,

and societal risk.”


Store brands or private labelproducts account for almost40% of items making healthand wellness claims related topreservatives; one in fourorganic products; and nearlyone in five items making “nat-ural” and reduced fat claims infood, drug, and mass channels.

Other popular, fast-grow-ing claims among storebrands in 2009 includedgluten-free (62%), absenceof specific fat (53%), andlower cholesterol (45%). (SOURCE: Supermarket News) �

MastronardiProduce/SUN-SET receiveNon-GMOProject verifi-cation

With consumer concernsmounting about genet-ic modification offruits and vegetables,

Mastronardi Produce/SUN-SET recently received theirCertificate of Compliance

for the Non-GMO ProjectVerification Program.

The Non-GMO Project isa standardized program thatis based on third-party verifi-cation for products followingbest practices for GMOavoidance. “We strictly relyupon natural plant breedingand Mother Nature to devel-op our many product vari-eties. We are proud to onlyoffer vegetable and fruitproducts that come fromnon-genetically modifiedsources,” stated Joseph R.Darden, Ph.D., vice-presi-dent, food safety.

MastronardiProduce/SUNSET will bereleasing new packaging andlabels later this year that willdisplay the Non-GMO Proj-ect seal. �

German dairyretailers offerGMO-free,regional prod-ucts

Discount retailer Lidl andFreising-based milkmarketer Milchvermark-tungs-GmbH (MVS)

have just launched milkproducts with a regionallabel, and produced “OhneGentechnik” (“without genet-ic engineering”) to satisfyconsumer preference and togain a market advantage.

Lidl products including


GLOBAL NON-GMO INITIATIVES


GMO-Free is fastest-growing corporate-brand claim

GMO-free claims are the fastest growingclaims on US store brands, according to theNielsen Company. Sales of GMO-free

labeled products increased 67% in 2009 andwere worth $60.2 million.



milk, yogurt, and butter nowcarry the label “Ein gutesStück Heimat” (A Good Pieceof Home), made from “guar-anteed Bavarian milk.” Lidl,the first discounter to takethe step, will feed only non-GMO materials to their dairycows and are demandingcomplete documentation to

ensure the GMO-free status.Lidl is not openly adver-

tising the GMO-free statusbut instead is promoting theregional certification.According to Heike Molden-hauer, genetic engineeringexpert with Friends of theEarth Germany, the compa-ny wants to avoid enlivening

consumer expectation for allproducts to be non-GMO—aprocess that needs to developstep by step. “Consumerswould start to ask immedi-ately what the matter is withthe other milk – and stopbuying it.”

In another GMO-free ini-tiative, The Federal Associa-tion of Dairy Cow Keepers(BDM) announced in Januarythat their “Fair Milk,” one ofthe first brands to carry theofficial “Ohne Gentechnik”seal and marketed by MVS,will be available in hundredsof large chain stores. Dairyfarmers will receive 40 cents(EU) per liter for the milk.

An industry association forGMO-free food is alsoreported to be launched soon. (SOURCES: SPIEGELONLINE; Agrar Heute, Ger-many;TraceConsult, Switzer-land) �

German poul-try producerlaunchesGMO-freepoultry line

German poultry producerGebruder Stolle is put-ting a new label on itschicken meat products:

“Ohne Gentechnik,” meaning“without genetic engineer-ing.”

“This is not only a first forGMO-free poultry meat inGermany but is a world pre-mier as far as we know,” stat-ed Albert Focke, communica-tions manager with Stolle.

Stolle chicken productsaccount for 20% of the mar-ket share in Germany. Cur-rently 100,000 chicken prod-ucts are labeled “Ohne Gen-technik” and more areexpected this year. (SOURCE: Poultry Interna-tional) �

Italy proposesethical, GMO-free label

Italy’s minister of agriculture,food, and forestry recentlyproposed an ethical label onfood products that also pro-

vides GMO-free assurance.Luca Zaia said such a label is

needed to preserve the qualityand value of Italian foods fromthe GMO threat and to meetconsumer demands. “I remindeverybody that 72% of the Ital-ian consumers—and I believethe percentage remains thesame if we ask consumers of thewhole western world—hasdeclared its will to spend morein order to eat food whosequality is guaranteed. And thecitizens have many times oversaid no to seeds’ manipulation.”(SOURCE: Agricoltura italiana online) �

Non-GMOCrops in Indiaconference

The Non-GMO Crops inIndia conference, to be heldMarch 16 and 17 in NewDelhi, India, will provide a

major platform for interactionbetween the European retailindustry and the Indian soyproducers as well as variousleaders in the Indian govern-ment and world renowned aca-demics. The event will debatethe necessary steps to make animpact on biosafety and foodsecurity policies in India andconsequently in much of theemerging countries.

The conference will featuremany speakers who are expertsin non-GMO food productionand trade, biosafety assess-ment, GM technology andfood security.

For more information andto register, visitwww.nongmocropsindia.com. �

GLOBAL NON-GMO INITIATIVESF R O M P A G E 7


The Seattle-based company,a brand of Granum, Inc., hasenrolled its Original productline including Premium Japan-ese Green Tea, Black Tea andEarl Grey in the verificationprocess, with other products tofollow. Within six to ninemonths, the company hopes tosee these products clearlylabeled as non-GMO items,assuring customers that theirteas are produced withoutgenetic modification.

“We’ve been at the forefrontof organic awareness evenbefore the National OrganicProgram arose,” said EricRing, head of production andpurchasing who’s been with

Choice since 1998. “Webecame aware of the Non-GMO Project last June, andrealized it is absolutely withinour mission to take this nextstep. We’re throwing our hat inthe ring, because we want cus-tomers to know we’re certifiedorganic and non-GMO, andthat we’re fully supportive ofthis critical issue facing thefood industry.”

Turning to TeaChoice Organic was born to filla void. Macrobiotic food dis-tributor Granum noticed a lackof organic tea in the market-place, and began offering fourvarieties in 1989: Green, Ban-


Choice Organic Teas SupportsNon-GMO Project

Already a pioneer in the organic market-place, and the first tea crafter to offer FairTrade Certified™ tea, Choice Organic

Teas has launched another initiative as the firsttea company to enroll as an Official Participantin the Non-GMO Project.

COMPANY PROFILE

Workers in India harvest teas for Choice OrganicTeas under fair labor standards



S E C T I O N H E A D

1 0 • T H E O R G A N I C & N O N - G M O R E P O R T

cha, Twig, and Oolong.Twenty years later, the com-pany offers more than 75varieties, including white teasand herbal infusions in teabags, tea pyramids, and looseleaf. Choice Organic was notonly the first exclusively cer-tified organic tea company inthe US; it has maintained its

status as the top-selling one,and offers more varieties oforganic and Fair Trade Cer-tified tea than any companyin North America.

“There’s lots of competi-tion in the tea market, butwe’re doing fine,” Ring said.“Tea is growing in popularitydue to the health benefits of

COMPANY NEWSF R O M P A G E 9

green tea as well as the blos-soming of the Americanpalate.”

Choice Organic Teascome from India, Japan,China, Vietnam, and SriLanka. Thanks to joiningforces with TransFair USAto launch the first Fair TradeCertified™ line in 2000, thecompany can ensure that allof its products are responsi-bly grown and that planta-tion and estate workers whogrow, harvest and process thetea do so under fair laborstandards.

Leader in SustainabilityFrom the beginning, OrganicChoice Teas has emphasizedsocial and environmentalresponsibility nearly as muchas the quality of its teas.From eliminating staplesfrom packaging to offsettingall of its electricity use withRenewable Energy Certificates(wind power credits); the com-pany puts environmental com-mitment at the heart of eachcorporate decision.

It operates out of a facilitycertified organic by NOP(National Organics Program)regulations. No PVdC or Sty-rofoam materials are used inpackaging; teabags areunbleached; all paper, card-board, plastic and aluminumare recycled. The company’sVolkswagen Jetta runs on100% bio-diesel fuel. Only lowor “no-VOC” (volatile organiccompounds) paints and finishesare used. Cork flooring, hemptable skirts for trade shows,company “tea shirts” printedwithout plastisol inks, sun-flower husk tables, and a trans-portation incentive programare tangible evidence of thecommitment.

Result? Choice Teasreceived the Washington State“Governor’s Award” for Pollu-tion Prevention and Sustain-

able Business Practices in2004, and “Seattle’s BESTAward” for sustainable prac-tices in 2005.

Non-GMO: A Mission-Driven ChoiceThe tea plant is not currentlyinvolved in GMO research,and Choice Organic Teashopes they’ll never see thatday. They’re taking stepsnow, such as finding non-GMO suppliers for theirinfusions, flavoring and herbsand participating in the Non-GMO Project, to head offthat possibility.

In fact, joining the projectfell right in line with the com-pany’s desire to offer the high-est quality products in a sus-tainable way. Ring feels thatnon-GMO status will eventu-ally become as significant asthe organic label.

“Even twelve years ago,people disparaged ‘organic’,”he said. “Now you can findorganic food anywhere. Then‘Fair Trade’ went from anunknown concept to being ahuge movement. I predict thesame curve with non-GMOcertification. It’s a natural fitfor us, it’s what our company isabout…and it’s become animportant issue in the foodchain. Hopefully our partici-pation will influence othercompanies to take part.” �


T H E O R G A N I C & N O N - G M O R E P O R T • 1 1


ORGANIC NEWS

USDA issues final rule on accessto pasture for organic dairy

The US Department of Agricultureannounced details of the final regulationregarding access to pasture for organic live-

stock operations.

“The final rule will giveconsumers confidence thatorganic milk or cheese comesfrom cows raised on pasture,and organic family farmersthe assurance that there isone consistent pasture stan-dard that applies to dairyproducts,” said AgricultureSecretary Tom Vilsack

The final rule provides cer-tainty to consumers thatorganic livestock production isa pasture based system inwhich animals are activelygrazing pasture during thegrazing season. The maincomponents of the ruleinclude: • Animals must graze pasture

during the grazing season,which must be at least 120days per year;

• Animals must obtain a mini-mum of 30 percent dry matterintake from grazing pastureduring the grazing season;

• Producers must have a pas-ture management plan andmanage pasture as a crop tomeet the feed requirementsfor the grazing animals andto protect soil and waterquality; and,

• Livestock are exempt fromthe 30 percent dry matterintake requirements duringthe finish feeding period,not to exceed 120 days.Livestock must have accessto pasture during the fin-ishing phase. The final rule becomes

effective on June 17, 2010.Operations which are alreadycertified organic will haveone year to implement theprovisions. Operations whichobtain organic certificationafter the effective date will beexpected to demonstrate fullcompliance.

Speaking on behalf of theNational Organic Coalition,



ORGANIC NEWSF R O M P A G E 1 1

Michael Sligh of the RuralAdvancement FoundationInternational-USA said, “NOCmembers voice their approvalof the final rule and the willing-ness of USDA to move aheadwith training certifiers andinspectors to enforce the rulewith all due haste.”

Organic watchdog group

Cornucopia Institute alsopraised the rule. “The organ-ic community has been call-ing for strong regulationsand its enforcement for muchof the past decade,” saidMark Kastel, senior farmpolicy analyst at the Wis-consin-based CornucopiaInstitute. �

US budgetwouldincrease NOPfunding by44%

President Obama’s $3.8 tril-lion budget proposalincludes $10.1 million forthe National Organic Pro-

gram (NOP), a fundingincrease of 44%.

The increase includes $2.1million for regulatory reviewand enforcement and to forgeagreements with other coun-tries to help expand exports.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.,said some agriculture groupswant to “get in on the cheap”and charge more for productswith misleading labels. Leahyemphasized the need for strongenforcement of the organiclabel.

Kathleen Merrigan, USdeputy agriculture secretary,said the increased fundingwould go toward stepped-upenforcement not only at farmsbut also at retail establishments.

The funding boost wouldalso include a one-time increaseof $1 million to help withorganic certification.(SOURCE: Burlington Free Press) �

Organic farm-ers see strongmarketdespite reces-sion

Despite the difficult eco-nomic times, two mid-Michigan farmers say theyexpect the market for

organic products to remainstrong.

“Organic farming is vital toa healthier lifestyle,” said 59-year-old Matthew Kampf,owner of Kampf Farm nearRosebush, “and it is better forthe soil and animals to avoidantibiotics and pesticides.”

A study, conducted in 2008for Whole Foods Market,showed that regardless of risingfood prices, roughly 70%remain consistent in buying thesame amount of natural, organ-ic products.

James D. Graham, owner ofGraham’s Organics, says hisorganic farm will remain strongduring this recession.

“We are weathering theeconomy quite well,” Grahamsaid. “There is an increasingdemand for organic and localproducts as more consumersare becoming interested in thesource of their food.”(SOURCE: Morning Sun[Michigan]) �

New logoselected forEU organicproducts

The European Commissionhas officially announced thewinner of the EU organiclogo competition. Over the

past two months, some 130,000people have voted online tochoose the new organic symbolfrom three finalists. The win-ning design is by DusanMilenkovic, a student fromGermany, who gained 63% ofthe overall vote for his “Euro-leaf” logo. From July 1, 2010,the organic logo of the EU willbe obligatory on all pre-pack-aged organic products thathave been produced in any ofthe EU Member States andmeet the necessary standards. Itwill be optional for importedproducts. Other private,regional or national logos will



be allowed to appear alongsidethe EU label. �

Organic grainssee moderatedemand

Organic grain prices in theUpper Midwest weremostly steady with moder-ate demand in early Feb-

ruary. Prices for organic food-grade soybeans were $20.00 to$21.00 per bushel, while feed-grade was $16.00 to $17.25 perbushel. Prices for feed-gradeyellow corn were $5.00 to$6.50 per bushel. Alfalfa haysaw very good demand with aprice range of $1.08-$1.17 perRFQ point.

In the Eastern Cornbelt,organic grain and feedstuffstrading was mixed with light to

moderate demand for heavyofferings. Organic feed-gradecorn sold for $5.85 to $6.10 perbushel, while organic feed-grade soybeans sold for $17.00to $18.00 per bushel. �

2010 Non-GMO andOrganic GrainProductionContractsPremium Gold Flax Products & ProcessingDenhoff, ND• Phone: 701-884-2553• Email: info@premiumgold-

flax.com • Contact: Randy or Deborah

Miller • Contracts offered: flax (call

for more information) �

(SOURCE: US Department of Agriculture)

Upper Midwest Monthly and Quarterly Organic Prices Jan 10 Dec 09 Jan 09 4th Qtr 2009

Food Grade Corn 8.26 8.14Feed Grade Corn 5.45 5.34 8.52 5.44Food Grade Soybeans 20.28 20.29 21.62 20.18Feed Grade Soybeans 15.82 16.97 18.96 17.19Roasted Soybeans (TON) 759.62Soybean Meal (TON) 781.87 787.78 803.44Feed Grade Oats 3.16 3.39 3.35Feed Grade Barley 4.71 7.98 4.20Food Grade Brown Flax 24.77 25.16 25.17Food Grade Golden Flax 28.12 29.11 29.15Food Grade Wheat (HRS) 8.82Feed Grade Wheat (SRW) 5.32Food Grade Wheat (HRW) 7.48 7.28Feed Grade Wheat (HRW) 4.70 9.08 5.02Food Grade Durum Wheat 8.92Feed Grade Peas 9.85 9.63

Eastern Cornbelt Monthly and Quarterly Organic PricesDec 09 Nov O9 Oct 09 4th Qtr 2009

Food Grade Wheat (SRW) 6.07 6.84Feed Grade Wheat (SRW) 6.25 5.10 5.71 5.73Food Grade Yellow Corn 7.92 8.20 7.90 Feed Grade Corn 6.11 6.17 6.31 6.23Food Grade Soybeans 23.62 20.50 29.31 Feed Grade Soybeans 16.78 16.67 18.28 17.60Feed Grade Barley 4.41 4.05 4.52 4.29 Soybean Meal ($/TON) 790.19 801.67 807.00 802.90Roasted beans ($/TON) 763.70 791.17 780.59 Feed Grade Oats 3.43 3.81 3.53 3.58


India says No to GM eggplantEnvironment minister says independent testsare needed to establish safety

Agenetically modified brinjal (eggplant)recently got the thumbs down in India.After a contentious national debate, India’s

environmental minister Jairam Rameshannounced on February 10 that a six-monthmoratorium will be placed on commercialplantings of Bt brinjal in order to conductindependent tests assessing its safety tohuman health, the environment, and brinjal’sgenetic diversity.


BT BRINJAL CONTROVERSY

13 states opposedBt brinjal was developed byMahyco, an Indian seed com-pany partly owned by USbiotech giant Monsanto, andis genetically manipulated tocontain a built-in pesticide,the bacillus thuringiensis (Bt)bacterium.

India’s Genetic Engineer-ing Approval Committee(GEAC) had approved Btbrinjal for commercial pro-duction in October 2009. Thefinal decision was left toRamesh, who organized aseries of public meetings togauge public opinion.

There was strong opposi-tion to Bt brinjal from scien-tists, politicians, consumergroups, farmer organizations,organic farmer groups, andspiritual leaders. Thirteen Indi-an states, including statesaccounting for 60% of India’sbrinal production: West Ben-gal, Orissa, and Bihar opposedintroduction of Bt brinjal.

India produces brinjal onabout 600,000 hectares, mak-ing it the world’s second lead-ing producer after China.

Opposition to Bt brinjal wasbased on threats to humanhealth, the environment, and

threats to the genetic diversityof brinjal. Canadian scientistShiv Chopra, who was instru-mental in banning Monsanto'sGM bovine growth hormonerBGH in Canada, said “Bt istoxic and there are seriousquestions being raised on thelong term implications ofgenetically modified foodproducts.”

Distrust of MonsantoAnother deciding factor wasan unwanted incursion intoIndia by Monsanto. “Veryserious fears have been raisedin many quarters on the pos-sibility of Monsanto control-ling our food chain if (Btbrinjal) is approved,” Rameshsaid. Indian activists hailedthe decision as a “victory overAmerican imperialism.”

Concerns were also raisedabout GEAC’s initialapproval of Bt brinjal, whichwas based on test data sup-plied by Mayhco and Mon-santo. A leading molecularbiologist P.M. Bhargava saidthere was “absolutely no sci-entific basis” for GEAC’sapproval. Bhargava also saidthat professor R. ArjulaReddy, chairman of theGEAC’s second expert com-mittee, confided to him thathe was under “tremendouspressure” to approve thecrop.

Bhargava has called for a5- to 8-year moratorium onall GM crops in India untilscientific research candemonstrate their safety. Hehas also called for a re-evalu-ation of Bt cotton, the onlyGM crop approved for pro-duction in India.

Praise for decisionThe moratorium receivedwidespread praise. Influentialagricultural scientist M.S.Swaminathan described it as “awise and appropriate decision.”

Vandana Shiva of Navdanyaand the Research Foundationfor Science, Ecology and Tech-nology, called the decision a“victory for scientists, farmers,ecologists and all those whocalled for caution.” IndianCatholic bishop MathewArackal welcomed the decisionand called for the adoption oforganic and sustainable farm-ing practices in India. (SOURCES: India Blooms NewsService, Reuters, DNA India,Financial Express India, Associat-ed Press, The Hindu, BusinessWeek, Union of Catholic AsianNews) �

Former execu-tive says Mon-santo ‘faked’data forapprovals

Aformer managing directorof Monsanto India saysthe company “used to fakescientific data” submitted

to government regulatoryagencies to get commercialapprovals for its products inIndia.

Tiruvadi Jagadisan said gov-ernment regulatory agencieswith which the company usedto deal in the 1980s simplydepended on data supplied bythe company while givingapprovals to herbicides.

“The Central InsecticideBoard was supposed to givethese approvals based on thelocation and crop-specific datafrom India. But it simplyaccepted foreign data suppliedby Monsanto. They did noteven have a test tube to validatethe data and, at times, the dataitself was faked,” Jagadisan said.

“I retired from the compa-ny as I felt the managementof Monsanto, USA, wasexploiting our country,”Jagadisan, 84, said.(SOURCE: India Today) �

Protests against the Bt brinjal were held allover India


T H E N O N - G M O S O U R C E •

1 5


Massive GMO contamination oforganic cotton reported

In what is described in press reports as fraudon “a gigantic scale,” genetically modified Btcotton grown in India has been sold as

organic and made its way into ecofriendlyclothing lines of leading European retailerssuch as H&M, C&A and Tchibo.

GMO CONTAMINATION

According to the Germanedition of the Financial Times,the independent testing labo-ratory Impetus found that30% of tested samples con-tained traces of GM cotton.The director of India’s agricul-tural authority (APEDA), San-jay Dave, says there are hun-dreds of cases of fraudulentcertification. Indian regulatorsuncovered fraud in April 2009and imposed fines on the cer-tification agencies ControlUnion and EcoCert.

India supplies more thanhalf of the organic cotton pro-duced worldwide—61% in2008-09, amounting to107,000 tons of fiber.

Martin Hofstetter ofGreenpeace called the con-tamination “major malprac-tice, which must be punished.”

The non-profit organiza-tion Organic Exchange (OE),

says the GMO contaminationclaims are unfounded. Accord-ing to LaRhea Pepper, OEsenior director, organic cottonproduction standards specifi-cally prohibit the use of GMOmaterial. In some cases, a verysmall amount of contamina-tion may occur due to factorsoutside of the farmer’s controlsuch as cross-pollination fromGMO crops.

OE also says that a numberof retailers and NGOs inter-viewed for the Financial Timesarticle say that they were mis-quoted, and therefore assertthat many allegations made inthe article are unfounded orunsubstantiated. WhileOrganic Exchange was inter-viewed for the article, itsresponses were ignored. (SOURCES: Ecotextile News, UK;Deutsche Welle, Bumbaumel,Germany; The Times of India) �



The Center for Food Safety(CFS) had filed a lawsuit sup-porting farmers who wished toretain the choice to plant non-GM alfalfa. CFS was victorious,and has since won two appealsmade by Monsanto.

“This is truly a ‘David versus

Goliath’ struggle, between pub-lic interest non-profits and acorporation bent on nothingless than domination of ourfood system,” said AndrewKimbrell, executive director ofthe Center for Food Safety.“That Monsanto has pushed

this case all the way to theSupreme Court, even thoughUSDA’s court-ordered analysisis now complete, underscoresthe great lengths that Monsantowill go to further its mission.”(SOURCES: Reuters, UK; St. LouisPost-Dispatch; The BillingsGazette; GMO-Compass) �

NCGA urgesconsumers totell USDA“No” to GMalfalfa

National Cooperative Gro-cers Association (NCGA),a business services cooper-ative for 112 natural food

co-ops nationwide, opposes thederegulation of geneticallymodified alfalfa and encouragesconsumers nationwide to tellthe USDA they oppose the

allowance of GM alfalfa intothe nation’s food supply.

“GM alfalfa stands to com-promise the integrity of theUSDA Organic Seal throughuncontrollable contaminationof organic foods, particularlyin cross pollination from con-ventional farms using GMalfalfa onto carefully nurturedorganic farmland,” addedRobynn Shrader, chief execu-tive officer for NCGA. “Thiswould cause irreparable harmto the organic seal and reduceconsumers’ ability to makeinformed purchase decisions.Fortunately, consumers havean opportunity to voice theiropinions and tell the USDAthat GE alfalfa is unaccept-able in organic products.”

NCGA urges consumers tospeak out during the publiccomment period open untilMarch 3. �

Supreme Court to hear GMalfalfa case

For the first time, the US Supreme Court willenter into the ongoing battle over genetical-ly modified crops. The hearing of Monsanto

v. Geertson Seed Farms, No. 09-475, resultsfrom a petition by Monsanto for the Court toreview a 2007 federal district court ruling thatthe Department of Agriculture’s approval ofgenetically modified alfalfa was illegal.

GM ALFALFA




USDA extendscomment peri-od on GMalfalfa

The US Department ofAgriculture's Animal andPlant Health InspectionService (APHIS)

announced a 15-day exten-sion of the comment periodfor the draft environmentalimpact statement (EIS) evalu-ating the potential environ-mental effects of deregulating

alfalfa genetically engineered(GE) to be resistant to theherbicide glyphosate, knowncommercially as Roundup.This GE alfalfa is commonlyreferred to as RoundupReady (RR) alfalfa.

The comment period willnow end on March 3, 2010.

Comments can be submit-ted by going tohttp://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#

documentDetail?R=0900006480a6b7a1 �

Bayer to pay $1.5 million in 2ndlawsuit over GM rice

The court losses continue to mount forBayer CropScience over its geneticallymodified rice contamination debacle. A

court in St. Louis, Missouri recentlyordered Bayer to pay $1.5 million in dam-ages to three farmers for losses theyincurred because of GM rice contamination.

REGULATORY NEWS

The case was the second inabout 500 similar cases pending.Last December a court orderedBayer to pay $2 million to twoother farmers whose crops werecontaminated by GM rice.

In 2006, Bayer’s Liberty Linkgenetically modified rice trialscontaminated more than 30%of US long-grain rice crops.The contamination caused anestimated $150 million in lossesfor US rice farmers.

Food and Water Europepraised the decision. “We hopethis proves once and for all thatgenetically modified crops can-not ‘coexist’ with conventionalcrops,” said the group in astatement.(Source: Reuters) �

Groups seekto halt plant-ing of GMsugar beets

Earthjustice and Center forFood Safety attorneys filedcourt papers in January onbehalf of a coalition of

organic seed growers, and con-servation and food safetygroups seeking a ban on geneti-cally modified sugar beets andsugar beet seeds. The motioncalls for a moratorium to be setin place on all planting, pro-duction and use of the seedsand beets until a federal dis-trict court can consider fur-ther how to remedy the gov-ernment’s unlawful deregula-



REGULATORY NEWSF R O M P A G E 1 7

tion of the crop. The coalition filed the

lawsuit charging that the USDepartment of Agriculture’sAnimal and Plant HealthInspection Service (APHIS)approved the RoundupReady sugar beets withoutproperly assessing potentialenvironmental and socioeco-nomic impacts of GM beets.

Earthjustice attorney PaulAchitoff said, “We’re askingthe court to halt all use of thegenetically engineered sugarbeets and seeds, now and intothe future, until the federalgovernment does its job toprotect consumers and farm-ers alike.”

Sugar beet growers hadhoped to plant GM sugarbeets this spring, but thecourt filing in January asksfor a halt on planting until

the court-required Environ-mental Impact Statement hasbeen completed and finallyapproved. �

Former Mon-santo execu-tive assumesnew positionat FDA

The Obama Administra-tion has chosen for a keyFood and Drug Adminis-tration post a man who

organic and non-GMO sup-porters say is a poster childfor the revolving doorbetween industry and gov-ernment.

Michael R. Taylor wasappointed deputy commis-sioner for foods, a new posi-tion which will oversee all of

the agency’s 13 separate foodand nutrition programs.

“Unless we work in amore unified way, we won’tbe able to implement the laweffectively,” Mr. Taylor said.

But organic proponentsare troubled by his back-ground. In the 1970s Taylorworked as an attorney for afirm that represented Mon-santo. He joined the FDA asdeputy commissioner forpolicy from 1991 to 1994during the time the agencyapproved the use of Monsan-to’s genetically modifiedbovine growth hormone,rBGH. He then returned toMonsanto in 1998 as thecompany's vice president forpublic policy, a post he helduntil 2001. (SOURCE: New York Times) �

New Mexicobill would pro-tect farmsfrom GMOcontamination

Agroup of New Mexicofarmers and heirloomseed advocates are lob-bying to pass a bill in the

state’s legislature that wouldprotect them from liability iftheir fields are contaminated bypatented, genetically modifiedseeds.

The farmers have tried toget the Senate Bill 303, knownas the Farmer Protection Act,passed twice before, but thistime it has the backing of Gov-ernor Bill Richardson.

Under the bill, introducedby Sen. John Pinto, D-Tohatchi, farmers would nothave to create buffer zonesaround their fields to protectfrom cross-pollination by apatented crop. It also protectsfarmers from damages andattorney fees if they

“unknowingly come into pos-session” of a GM plant.Finally the bill establishesground rules for when thesupplier of GM seeds caninspect fields.

A similar bill passed inCalifornia in 2008.

The New Mexico Foodand Seed SovereigntyAlliance is spearheadingefforts to pass the bill. Thealliance consists of the NewMexico Acequia Association,and three native Americanfarm groups-- TraditionalNative American FarmersAssociation, Tewa WomenUnited and Honor OurPueblo Existence.(SOURCE: The New Mexican) �

South Aus-tralia standsfirm on GMcanola ban

The South Australia gov-ernment has rejected callsto follow Western Aus-tralia’s lead on lifting its

ban on genetically modifiedcanola.

The state is united in itssupport of the ban with eventhe State Opposition sup-porting it.

South Australia is the onlymainland Australian statekeeping its ban on GMcanola. Tasmania is alsokeeping its ban in place.

South Australia was underpressure from farm groupsand university experts out-side the state to remove theban, but a governmentspokeswoman said it wouldremain in place.

“The moratorium is animportant plank in the StateGovernment’s strategy tomarket South Australia as aproducer of clean, green andsafe food products,” she said.(SOURCE: Weekly Times) �


seeds,” Parr says. Monsanto’s private investi-

gators first targeted Parr’s cus-tomers, accusing them of sav-ing RR soybeans and threaten-ing them with legal action. Thefarmers were intimidated.“They were dropping like flies

off my customer list,” Parr says.Parr knew the investigators

were after him, because theyfollowed him every day. “Theymade it a practice to sit acrossfrom the subdivision where Ilive,” he says.

“If you don’t have$250,000, we have togive them what theywant”Then, one day in February2007, the sheriff came toParr’s house with papers say-ing he was being sued byMonsanto for “aiding andabetting” farmers to violatethe company’s patent on RRsoybeans. Parr denied thecharge saying he could nottell whether soybeans wereRR or not and that he didnot know which farmers hadsigned licensing agreementswith Monsanto.


FARMER PROFILE

Monsanto vs. Mo ParrThe Oscar-nominated documentary Food Inc.featured a segment on Monsanto Company’slegal action against 75-year-old seed cleanerMaurice “Mo” Parr of Lafayette, Indiana forallegedly encouraging farmers to save Monsan-to’s patented genetically modified seed. This ishis story in more depth.

Mo Parr vividly remembers trying to avoidthe private investigators that followed himeach day. “I found it necessary to get up at

3 or 4 in the morning before they are on theroad following me,” he says.

The investigators werehired by Monsanto Companyto investigate farmers suspectedof cleaning the company’spatented genetically modifiedRoundup Ready (RR) soybeanseeds. Monsanto suspected thatParr, who cleans farmers’ seedsfor re-planting, was encourag-ing his customers to save Mon-santo’s seeds.

Seed-saving is a time-hon-ored tradition practiced by mil-lions of farmers worldwide. Butin the brave new world ofgenetically modified seeds,seed-saving is a crime, “patentinfringement.”

According to the Center forFood Safety, Monsanto Com-pany has filed more than 100lawsuits against Americanfarmers it suspects of patentinfringement, and the companyhas an annual budget of $10million and a staff of 75 devot-ed solely to investigating andprosecuting farmers. On thecompany’s website, Monsantosays 700 “matters” have beensettled out of court.

Career in seed businessMo Parr has operated a seedcleaning business for 27 years,starting it “on a shoestring” in1983. He purchased a portableseed cleaning unit and begantraveling to his customers’farms to clean their seed.

Parr, who earned a degree inagricultural economics fromPurdue University, has workedin the seed business for manyyears. Before starting his seedcleaning business, he workedfor Ag Alumni Seed in Romney,Indiana selling foundation seed.“I loved the work, and traveledabout 80,000 miles each year.”

Parr’s seed cleaning businesswas very successful at the timeMonsanto introduced their RRsoybeans in 1996. He had threeseed cleaning units and wascleaning 177,000 bushels ofseed per year; 85% of seeds hecleaned were soybeans.

Congress and SupremeCourt preserve right tosave seedParr became aware of RR soy-beans and the “licensing agree-ments” that Monsanto wasforcing farmers to sign.

He says two governmentactions protect farmers’right to save seed. The firstwas the Plant Variety Pro-tection Act in 1970, whichsaid farmers have the rightto save seed. Then in 1995,the Supreme Court ruled inits case, Asgrow Seed Com-pany vs. Denny Winterboerthat farmers have the rightto save and replant theirseed. “The Supreme Courtmade no exceptions for GM

Maurice ”Mo” Parr



Parr hired an attorney, StevePennell with the law firm ofStuart & Branigin in Lafayette.Monsanto had four attorneysworking on the case.

The judge preferred that thecase be settled out of court, sothe two sides began to negotiatea settlement. Pennell told Parrthat he could win the case. “Hetold me ‘you haven’t broken thelaw, you signed no agreements,it’s a no brainer.’”

The problem was Parr didn’thave the money to fight a longlegal battle. Pennell told Parrhe would end up paying about$2 million because Monsantowould appeal it all the way to

the Supreme Court. “He toldme that if I don’t have$250,000 (to pay for the ini-tial court trial) we will haveto give them everything theywant,” Parr says.

Monsanto convinced thepresiding judge to subpoena allParr’s tax records for the previ-ous seven years. “They prettymuch knew my blood type bythe time they were finished. Itwas very painful,” Parr says.

Parr was forced to give in toMonsanto’s demands. As part ofthe settlement, Monsanto per-suaded the court to issue aninjunction forcing Parr toinform his customers that he

can’t clean the patented RRsoybeans; he put a sign on hisequipment stating this. Cus-tomers wanting soybean seedscleaned must prove in writingthat the seeds are notRoundup Ready, and Parrmust take samples to PurdueUniversity for testing. “Theygot all they wanted. I’m anunpaid compliance officer forMonsanto,” Parr says.

Lost 85% of businessParr estimates that he lost85% of his business—about$1 million—because of Mon-santo’s legal action. “I wantedto sue them for my loss of

business,” he says. Parr still cleans non-GMO

crops such as wheat, oats, bar-ley, and rye.

Fortunately, Parr and hiswife have survived the ordeal.“I worked hard and made adecent living. We don’t have alot of bills and live with anattitude of modest self suffi-ciency.”

He sees problems withbiotechnology companies likeMonsanto genetically alteringfood. “No one has a clue whatthey are doing to our food. Idon’t know how we can fightexcept with documentaries likeFood, Inc.” �


GMO NEWS

GM wheat rejected by 233consumer, farm groups in 26countries

Two hundred thirty-three consumer andfarmer groups in 26 countries have joinedthe “Definitive Global Rejection of GM

Wheat” statement to stop the commercializa-tion of genetically modified (GM) wheat.

“Canadian farmers have justlost their export sales to Europeand other markets because ofGM flax contamination from aGM variety deregistered adecade ago and never evensold. Our current experiencewith GM flax contaminationclearly illustrates the cripplinglosses Canadian farmers willsuffer if GM wheat is intro-duced,” said Terry Boehm, aflax and wheat farmer and pres-ident of the National FarmersUnion in Canada.

In a recent statement, theFlour Millers Association ofJapan wrote to Japan’s No!

GMO Campaign indicating itsopposition. “GM wheat isincluded among the items thatare not acceptable for theJapanese market,” KadotaMasaaki, senior managingdirector of the Flour Miller’sAssociation wrote.

A recent report from theWestern Organization ofResource Councils, a networkof seven community farmer,rancher and consumer organi-zations, shows that US wheatprices could fall by 40% ormore if industry efforts todevelop GM wheat succeed.

“GM wheat would contam-

inate our crops and food supply,and put an end to organic grainproduction. Farmers in the UShave already rejected GMwheat and Monsanto is sorelymistaken if they think farmerswill ever accept GM wheat,”said Dena Hoff from theNational Family Farm Coali-tion in the US. �

GM eucalyp-tus trees to beplanted inSoutheast

If granted USDA approval,genetically modified, rapidlygrowing eucalyptus trees willbe introduced into 7 South-

ern states to provide biofuel.ArborGen LLC is hoping toplant 330 acres of the trees—260,000—on 28 sites as part ofa field trial.

ArborGen envisions GMeucalyptus generating a biofuelrefinery industry in the South.The move would be the firstrollout of GM trees on a largescale.

To counter the trees’ inva-sive nature, the biotech firm isrelying on a bacterial gene, bar-

nase, that restricts the trees’ability to reproduce. Scientistsadmit that there would be thechance that the GM trees couldspread. That threat to the natu-ral habitats has raised concernsamong environmental and con-servation groups.

“This is absolutely unprece-dented…” said Dr. Neil Car-men of the Sierra Club in Texas.“You cannot call over a quarterof a million trees over 330 acres‘field trials.’…The governmentmust produce an Environmen-tal Impact Statement.” (SOURCE: New York Times) �

GM cottonincreasingpesticide use,decreasingyields in India

The adoption of geneticallymodified cotton by farmersin India has coincided withthe rise of new insect pests,

increased pesticide applica-tions, and declining cotton pro-ductivity over the past threeyears, says a leading crop scien-tist in India.

Keshav Kranthi, acting

FARMER PROFILEF R O M P A G E 1 9




director of the Central Insti-tute of Cotton Research(CICR) in Nagpur, has warnedthat poor management of BtGM cotton has spawned anabundance of problems.

New insects, including“mealybug, have spread, caus-ing significant economic losses,Kranthi said. The new pestshave led to the use of “extreme-ly hazardous” pesticides on Btcotton. Insecticide use hasincreased significantly between2006 and 2008, according toKranthi’s report.

In addition, India’s cottonproductivity has declined overthe past three years—from560kg lint per hectare in 2007to 520kg lint in 2008 to 512 kglint in 2009, according toKranthi.

Bt cotton now accounts foran estimated 90% of India’scotton crop in some areas.

The problems with Bt cot-ton have led Kranthi to urgecaution with introductions ofother GM crops such as Btbrinjal.(SOURCE: The Telegraph) �

Groups fileappeal to stopGM cornplantings inMexico

Environmental and farmgroups have filed an appealwith the Inter-AmericanHuman Rights Commis-

sion, to stop field trials ofgenetically modified corn,which began recently in Mexi-co. The groups say that theMexican government has beenunwilling or unable to halt theillicit spread of GM crops inMexico, the birthplace of corn.

The groups say the govern-ment shouldn’t allow plantingsof the controversial corn until itinvestigates GMO contamina-tion from illegal plantings thatoccurred in the past few years

in Oxaca, a center of geneticdiversity for corn.

Mexico’s AgricultureDepartment told The Associat-ed Press that two dozen fieldtrials of GM corn have begunin Sinaloa and Sonora, north-ern states that governmentstudies say are likely outsidecorn’s “birthplace” region incentral Mexico.

“We have had to take thisto an international tribunal todemonstrate the lack of actionon the part of the Mexicangovernment in the face of theillegal introduction and plant-ing of genetically modifiedcorn,” said Pedro Torres, pres-ident of Democratic FarmWorkers Front.(SOURCE: Forbes) �

Monsanto cho-sen as world’s“least ethicalcompany”

While Forbes magazinetouted Monsanto Com-pany as its “Company ofthe Year,” an organiza-

tion that tracks the world’s mostethical multi-national compa-nies had a different perspective.

Monsanto was ranked deadlast--#581—as the world’s leastethical company on GenevaSwitzerland-based Covalence’slist of ethical companies. Thebiotech giant beat out formerUS vice president DickCheney’s company, Haliburton,which was ranked #580. Syn-genta, another agriculturalbiotech company, also rankednear the bottom at #572.

Covalence has tracked theethical reputation of multi-national companies by sourcinginformation from the media,civil society, and companiessince 2001. IBM and Intel Cor-poration ranked first and sec-ond as the most ethical compa-nies in the world, according toCovalence. �

New non-GMO soybean lineresists key nematode

Anew soybean line developed by AgriculturalResearch Service (ARS) scientists is goodnews for growers. The line, JTN-5109, is

effective against the most virulent soybean cystnematode, called LY1.

The soybean cyst nematodeis a pervasive soybean pestworldwide. In the UnitedStates, the nematode is themost damaging soybean pest,causing an estimated yield lossof nearly 94 million bushels in2007.

Nearly all nematode-resist-ant soybean varieties currentlyavailable contain resistancegenes from one of two

sources—soybean lines“Peking” or Plant Introduction(PI) 88788. JTN-5109, howev-er, has combined nematoderesistance from three sources—“Peking,” PI 437654 and PI567516C.

JTN-5109 is the latest soy-bean line developed by geneti-cist Prakash Arelli and his teamat the ARS Crop GeneticsResearch Unit’s satellite labora-

RESEARCH NEWS


2 2

• T H E N O N - G M O S O U R C E2 2 • O R G A N I C & N O N - G M O R E P O R T

tory in Jackson, Tenn. The soy-bean was developed using acombination of traditionalplant breeding and geneticmarker-assisted selection.

Arelli collaborated with sci-entists at the University of Ten-nessee, Michigan State Univer-sity, Iowa State University, andthe University of Missouri, aswell as the ARS Corn and Soy-bean Research Unit at Wooster,Ohio, on the project.(Source: US Department ofAgriculture-AgriculturalResearch Service) �

Results ofAustralian GManimal feedstudy due byJuly 2010

In Australia, the results of ananimal feeding study on theuse of genetically modifiedcanola will be made available

to the public by mid-2010.The Western Australia state

government commissioned thestudy in 2005 and provided$92,000 in funding.

The study’s lead scientist,Dr. Judy Carman of the Insti-tute of Health and Environ-mental Research (IHER) inAdelaide, recently sent a letterto the Western Australia Agri-culture and Food Departmentto provide an update.

“A long-term feeding studyhas been undertaken,” the lettersaid. “The entire grant ofmoney has been committed forexpenditure. Data from thefeeding study is being analysedfor publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Weexpect that results will be pub-lished in the first half of 2010.”

Dr. Carman said the maindelay to the research came fromthe difficulty with getting holdof GM material to test.

“GM companies usually for-bid independent research onGM seeds purchased from

them and prohibit farmers fromgiving GM seeds toresearchers, which delayed ourresearch for years,” she said.(SOURCE: Farm Weekly, Aus-tralia) �

Monsanto-fundedresearchechoes Organ-ic Center’sreport on pes-ticide use

Two studies confirm thatresistance to the herbicideglyphosate is hampering thesuccess of genetically modi-

fied (GM) glyphosate-resistantcrops and the “sustainability ofglyphosate as the world’s mostimportant herbicide.”

A research team includingMonsanto scientists DafuWang and Douglas Sammons,whose study was published inProceedings of National Acad-emy of Sciences (PNAS) inDecember 2009, reached thesame conclusion as The Organ-ic Center (TOC) in its report“Impacts of Genetically Engi-neered Crops on Pesticide Usein the United States: The FirstThirteen Years.” Of concern isthe evolution of resistance toglyphosate in weedy species.

Dr. Charles Benbrook,author of the TOC report,used data from the USDA toshow that glyphosate-based,HT corn, soybeans and cottonhave increased herbicide use by383 million pounds in the USfrom 1996 to 2008, with 46%of the total increase occurringin 2007 and 2008.

“This unequivocal admis-sion of serious problems withglyphosate-based HT crop-ping systems will hopefullyaccelerate major changes inwhere and how HT technol-ogy is deployed,” said Dr.Benbrook. �

SunOpta announces alliance withSpecialized Protein Products fornon-GMO soy ingredients

SunOpta, Inc. recently announced that theSunOpta Grains & Foods Group, throughits wholly-owned subsidiary, SunOpta

Africa, has entered into a strategic alliance withSpecialized Protein Products (SPP) of SouthAfrica, to manufacture and sell liquid and pow-dered soy ingredients and soymilk beverages inAfrica and other international markets. Thisexclusive manufacturing and supply agreementprovides the SunOpta Grains & Foods Groupwith an increased supply of high qualitysoymilk products and improved logistics thatare expected to enable it to compete effectivelyin world markets for natural and organic soy-based ingredients and packaged products.

COMPANY NEWS

TerraWareplastic madefrom non-GMOcornstarch

TerraWare™ is an earthfriendly plastic alternativetableware that is both foodand family safe. A portion

of the product is made fromGMO-free cornstarch resin,which is a sustainable resource.

Studies show that with theright amount of moisture, oxy-gen and heat, TerraWare’s oxo-biodegradable plastic breaksdown in about 4-6 months.This makes it perfect for at-home composting.

TerraWare’s formula deliv-ers a full line of tableware,including knives, spoons, forks,and plates, and is sold in WholeFoods Markets.

For more information,email [email protected]. �

EnviroLogixIntroducesSecond Quick-Stix Kit forCry2A

EnviroLogix released itsnewest rapid test kit for thedetection of the Cry2Agenetically modified trait in

corn leaf and single seed.The QuickStix Kit for

Cry2A Leaf & Seed (AS 005LS) provides yes/no resultswhen testing leaf tissue andsingle seed samples, and willbe used by trait developers,seed breeders, and certifiersworldwide.

Last fall, Envirologix intro-duced its QuickStix Kit forCry2A Bulk Grain.

For more informationabout EnviroLogix test kits,call 866-408-4597 or visitwww.envirologix.com. �


T H E N O N - G M O S O U R C E •

2 3

O R G A N I C & N O N - G M O R E P O R T • 2 3

Subscribe to The Organic & Non-GMO Report

Complete this form and mail toPO Box 436, Fairfield, IA 52556or fax to 1-641-209-3426.

NAME:

TITLE:

COMPANY/ORGANIZATION:

STREET ADDRESS:

CITY: STATE:

COUNTRY:

ZIP/POSTAL CODE:

PHONE:

FAX:

EMAIL:

Yearly Subscription Rates:

� $115 Corporate

� $59 Individuals (farmers, university faculty and students)

Method of Payment: � Check Enclosed� Send InvoiceCharge my credit card� MasterCard � Visa � AmEx

Please print:� NAME ON CARD:

� CARD NO:

� EXPIRATION DATE:

� SIGNATURE

Make checks payable to:The Organic & Non-GMO ReportPO Box 436 Fairfield, IA 52556

Outside the U.S.

� Canada and Mexico:Add $12 to cover mailing costs.

� Other countries:Add $24 to cover mailing costs.

For immediate serviceCall: 1-800-854-0586 Email: [email protected]

�Yes,I want toreceive

10 monthly issues of TheOrganic & Non-GMOReport for $115 ($59 forqualifying individuals). Iwill also receive a freereference: The 2010Non-GMO Sourcebook, the world’s only “farm tofork” directory of non-GMO products.

�

100%money-backguarantee

If at any time you are not completely satisfied with TheOrgan-ic & Non-GMO Report simply let usknow. We will cancel your sub-scription and refund your subscrip-tion payment in full.


THE ORGANIC & NON-GMO REPORTPO Box 436, Fairfield, IA 52556

Change Service Requested


volume 10, issue 3 march 2010 non-gmo summit in...

Documents