This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
RICE GRAINS Title : LIBERTY LINK RICE: A TRUE STORY OF GE RICE CONTAMINATION
Copyright © Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific, 2009. All rights reserved.
Pesticide Action Network (PAN AP) holds the right to this publication. The publication may be cited in part as long as PAN AP is properly acknowledged as the source and PAN AP is furnished with copies of the final work where the quotation or citation appears.
Author: Rash Behari Bhattacharjee
Design: Public Media Agency • www.publicmediaagency.net Publisher: Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific (PAN AP), Penang, Malaysia
Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific (PAN AP) is one of five regional centres of PAN, a global network which aims to eliminate the harm caused by pesticides and promote biodiversity-based ecological agriculture. It is committed to the empowerment of people especially women, agricultural workers, peasants and indigenous farmers.
The SAVE OUR RICE CAMPAIGN was launched in 2003 by PAN AP with its network partners in Asia in recognition of the critical role of rice, the world’s most important and political crop, being the staple food of half its population. The foundation of the Campaign is the "Five Pillars of Rice Wisdom": (1) Rice Culture, (2) Community Wisdom, (3) Biodiversity-based Ecological Agriculture, (4) Safe Food and (5) Food Sovereignty. The Campaign is dedicated to saving traditional local rice, small rice farmers, rice lands and the rice heritage of Asia through defending and advancing the cultural and food sovereignty of the grassroots and opposing the powerful threats to rice. PAN AP’s rice booklets -"Rice Grains" -- will give readers a clear understanding and appreciation of the important issues and threats surrounding rice today.
THE SAVE OUR RICE CAMPAIGN of PAN AP and its network partner organizations in China, Japan, Korea, Cambodia, Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, Sri Lanka, India, Pakistan, Nepal and Bangladesh have declared THE PEOPLE’S YEAR OF RICE ACTION 2009-2010. From 4 April 2009 to 4 April 2010, these partner organizations, together with other local people’s movements, will campaign through celebrations, forums, exhibitions and rallies to assert the theme of YORA: RICE FOR LIFE AND LIVELIHOOD. YORA will culminate on 4 April 2010, the 50th anniversary of the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), with the call: 50 Years of IRRI is Enough!
P E S T IC IDE A C TI ON N ETWOR K A S IA AND TH E PAC IF IC (PAN A P) P.O. Box 1170, Penang, 10850 Malaysia Tel: (604) 6570271 & 6560381 Fax: (604) 6583960 E-mail: email@example.com Website: www.panap.net
LIBERTY LINK RICE: A TRUE STORY OF GE RICE CONTAMINATION
1.0 HOW IT BEGAN Liberty Link, a genetically modified (GM) variety of rice developed by Bayer CropScience, a German agri-business giant, is at the centre of a worldwide scare caused by its contamination of rice crops. The crisis became publicly known in August 2006 when the US Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns announced that the Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had been informed by Bayer CropScience that the Liberty Link rice variety called LLRICE601 had been found in “trace amounts” in samples of long grain rice that was meant for sale. Both the FDA and the company had reviewed the “available scientific data” and concluded that there are “no human health, food safety or environmental concerns” associated with this GM rice.1 Events that followed showed this to be a blatant cover-up and severely damaged the reputation of the FDA, the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and subsequently, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) as institutions that are tasked with the protection of public health and safety. The company, on its part, came under attack for delaying to notify the authorities about the contamination as well as withholding key information. The agricultural biotechnology industry too comes under question for risking the biological safety of global food supplies in its pursuit of profits. 1.1 A Little Background Liberty is the brand name for the herbicide glufosinate-ammonium manufactured by Bayer (see box: “What is glufosinate-ammonium?”). LLRICE601 is genetically modified to be tolerant to this weedkiller so that the rice crop will survive spraying with this chemical while surrounding plants will die. This rice variety was “not intended for commercialisation” and was “not submitted to the FDA for evaluation”, the agency said when announcing the news of the contamination.
Friends of the Earth (USA) was concerned that: • The FDA does not conduct independent tests, so “available data” would have come entirely from Bayer. The agencies’ claim that there are no health, safety or environmental concerns could not be independently verified. 3 • No one has any idea of the extent to which contamination of surrounding crops or the food supply has occurred. This is because no testing occurs to assess this, although about 1000 field permits are approved by the USDA every year, often with several test sites per approval. 4 • Although Bayer had decided earlier not to market LLRICE601 and so had not sought approval from the FDA and USDA, the company decided to apply for approval after the contamination was discovered. 5 This was clearly an attempt to circumvent the regulatory process. 1.2 Markets, Importers React Prices of US rice tumbled as Japan and South Korea quickly halted imports of its long-grain rice, while the EU, a major market, imposed compulsory testing of imports for the genetically modified (GM) rice. 6 The EU was also unhappy that the US authorities had waited for three weeks to inform consumers although they had been notified by Bayer on July 31, 2006. Environmental groups slammed the EU move as a “minimal response to a serious contamination problem”. This was clearly “inadequate as rice is the world’s most important staple food.” There was no independent assessment of the contamination problem, nor penalties or costs against Bayer. 7
What is glufosinate-ammonium?
Glufosinate-ammonium is a broad-spectrum herbicide, in use in relatively small quantities since the 1980s. Its use is being increased by the recent development of a more than 100 varieties of transgenic plants, genetically modified to be tolerant of it. It carries unacceptable risks to humans, especially the neurological development of the foetus, to agricultural biodiversity, and to the environment. Formulations are more toxic to humans and the aquatic environment than the active ingredient alone, but there is very little information publicly available on the inert, or adjuvant, ingredients in the formulated products. • Common trade names : Basta, Liberty • Other trade names : Aeh, Buster, Challenge, Conquest, Dash, Derringer, Finale, Harvest, HOE 00661, HOE 039866, Ignite, Rely, Remove, Tepat • Major producers : Bayer CropScience (Germany), Zhejiang Yongnong Chem. Ind. Co., LTD (China) Acute toxicity - the effects are firstly gastrointestinal (nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, diarrhea etc.) followed by the onset of neurological symptoms (convulsions and coma), then respiratory failure; death results from circulatory failure. No antidote. Long-term toxicity - chronic effects are primarily neurological and reproductive because glufosinate-ammonium is structurally similar to a neurotransmitter, glutamate, and interferes with its proper functioning. - serious effects on early embryonic development, including damage to the brain and neural tube. - causes the loss of many foetuses and damage to those actually born, including cleft lips. - transgenerational effects on brain function are reported. Environmental effects - is moderately persistent in some soils, and has the potential to leach to groundwater, especially in sandy soils. - has insecticidal properties which is highly toxic to beneficial organisms (spiders, predatory mites, butterflies etc.). - is toxic to a number of soil micro-organisms, and my increase susceptibility to plants diseases, with consequent increased used of and dependence on pesticides. - long-term use is likely to give rise to herbicideresistant weeds. Glufosinate tolerance transgenes have already escaped from genetically modified plants and been found in weedy relatives in Japan and the UK. - there are indications of synergistic interactions with other herbicides, such as with metolachlor to cause damage to testes, and with metsulfuronmethyl to increase phytotoxicity. Source: Extracted from “Glufosinate-ammonium monograph”, prepared by Dr. Meriel Watts, 2007. PAN AP.
Putting the official and industry information into perspective, the GM Free Cymru group said LLRICE601 was most likely discontinued as a failed variety because it was non-uniform and unstable. 8 The citizens group GMWatch.org noted that the sole LLRICE601 crop that was grown with commercialisation in mind, in Texas in 2000, must have been defective in some way because it was suddenly dumped into a landfill site in 2001. After its discontinuation, this variety had never been brought forward for commercialisation or authorisation either in the US or Europe, until the discovery of the contamination. 9 1.3 More Shocks While the US authorities downplayed the contamination incident, the rice trading company Riceland Foods, the biggest in the US, revealed that the LLRICE601 had shown up in five states – Arkansas, Missouri, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, i.e. “throughout the southern rice-growing region”. 10 Riceland said the GE rice contamination was discovered in January 2006 by one of its export customers. In May, the company collected rice samples from several grain storage sites and found positive results for the Bayer trait. 11 As more information on the contamination scare emerged, it became evident that neither the regulators and certainly not the GE industry were showing responsibility towards the safety of the global food supply. • Watchdog groups said Mexico, Central America, Saudi Arabia, Canada and South Africa were among major importers of US rice and should be concerned about the threat. • The USDA’s strong defence of LLRICE601 despite its failure to adequately regulate and monitor field testing of GE crops shows “complacency” and “clearly puts the environment and public health at risk”, the Centre for Food Safety, US said. 12 • The global food chain could be contaminated partly because GE rice is cheap compared to GE-free varieties. Yet, regulators are handling GE contamination episodes on a case-bycase basis, relying on self-reporting by the agro-business giants, imposing testing rules instead of a ban and instead of rejecting applications for the commercial cultivation of GE rice. 13
USDA records show that most of the development work on LLRICE601 was done in California. Since Bayer did not provide reference materials or genetic characterisations for LLRICE601 and other redundant varieties, nobody knows what to look for or how to do the tests. This means that California medium grain rice is now contaminated with LLRICE601 and various other abandoned GM lines.14 As the Arkansas government has pointed out, the crisis probably began when pollen from the rice tested on US farms spread to contaminate conventional crops. This would mean that it has been present – and presumably been exported – at least since the trials stopped in 2001. 15 Summing up the regulatory lapses, GM Free Cymru’s Dr Brian John said: “It is absolutely certain that rice containing LLRICE601 is already in the food supply chain, and it is outrageous that nobody is doing anything about it. In our book that amounts to criminal negligence…”16 In addition, as the rice variety is designed to tolerate the herbicide glufosinate ammonium, the harvested crop may have traces of this neurotoxin, which has been observed to cause defects in unborn mammals.17 Questions surrounding the industrydeveloped test for LLRICE601 underscore the importance of independent verification methods. One concern is that a test method can be carefully designed to provide false negatives. The precedent of the global contamination scare involving the gene-modified maize Bt10 in 2005 stands as an example where it has not been proven that the test method that was developed is not fraudulent. “We need to remember that the testing of rice samples for GM contamination is not designed to get after the truth, but to provide official reassurance. Even if the test method is sound, you can conveniently ‘miss’ widespread GM contamination simply by adjusting your sampling methods,” said GM Free Cymru’s Dr John. 18
December 2005 by the US Office of the Inspector-General (OIG) of the USDA’s biotechnology regulatory services unit. It said APHIS, the agency concerned, lacks “basic information about the field test sites it approves and is responsible for monitoring, including where and how the crops are being grown and what becomes of them at the end of the field test.” The OIG said that even though APHIS was supposed to inspect experimental fields, it was not even requiring companies to provide site location information. The government did not require companies to document efforts to make sure GMO crops were segregated, and it didn’t test neighbouring fields to look for contamination during or after field trials. Overall, the OIG audit found the APHIS regulatory system so weak that it increased the risk that experimental GMO crops would persist in the environment. Said Centre for Food Safety policy analyst Bill Freese: “There is all this stuff in writing to give you a sense of security but when you look at what they’re actually doing, it’s nothing.” 19 2.1 Farmers Sue Bayer Badly hit by falling rice prices because importers of US rice had prevented the entry of its long-grain rice, farmers in the US’ rice-growing southern states filed a series of class action suits against Bayer CropScience for failing to prevent its GE rice from entering the food chain. 20, 21 2.2 Double Trouble Next, the Arkansas Rice Growers Association reported that two rice varieties, Cocodrie and Cheniere, were harbouring Bayer’s LibertyLink trait. 22 Universities in the US’ six rice-producing states were asked to submit samples of their seed stock for testing of this problem. 23 2.3 Regulatory Breakdown In a cynical twist of events, the USDA initiated fast-track market approval for LLRICE601 although the rice strain had not undergone meaningful reviews for potential health or environmental impacts and Bayer itself had for unknown reasons never applied for approval until the contamination was discovered. As Joseph Mendelson, legal director of the Centre for Food Safety pointed out:
2.0 WORST FEARS The worst fears of GM watchdog groups were confirmed in an audit report of
“USDA’s bid to approve – rather than recall – an illegal, genetically engineered contaminant in the food supply is the clearest sign yet that US authorities are intent upon dismantling federal regulation of GE crops in the interests of the biotechnology industry.” 24 The centre filed a legal petition with the USDA to prevent the post hoc approval of LLRICE601 on the grounds that it will contaminate commercial rice, damage trade due to consumer rejection of GE foods, create herbicide resistant weeds and increase pesticide residue on rice. 25 2.4 Europe Tests Positive
bad precedent to make safety assessments based on data that is incomplete.” 31 The UK’s shadow Environment Secretary, Peter Ainsworth, described the agency's conduct as "a massive scandal" and said it "smelt of a cover-up". He said he would be asking for an official investigation into whether the agency had broken the law, since legally, no GM material was allowed to go on sale in any EU country, including Britain.32 Finally, in early October 2006, the FSA responded to these concerns by telling stores to remove any rice known to contain GM strains.
3.0 WORLDWIDE CONCERN By early September 2006, the European Commission (EC) reported that the contaminated rice had been detected in 33 out of 162 samples from import consignments by members of the European Federation of Rice Millers. 26 Aldi Nord, a major German supermarket chain, removed stocks of a brand of rice that Greenpeace tests revealed to be contaminated with LLRICE601. 27 In Switzerland, Migros, the country’s largest retailer confirmed finding traces of the banned rice after laboratory tests. Migros and its rival Coop then suspended sales of long-grain rice from the US, and the storage silos were sealed. 28 France and Sweden also found contamination in samples that were tested using their own methods. 29 In the UK, the Friends of the Earth (FOE) group discovered the GMOcontaminated rice in samples taken from the Morrison’s supermarket chain, Britain’s fourth largest. FOE found the response of Britain’s Food Standards Agency (FSA) to the contamination situation so inadequate that it mounted a legal challenge against it. Said FOE Europe’s Helen Holder: “National food safety authorities and food companies should be rigorously testing samples at each stage of the supply chain.” Furthermore, the Polluter Pays principle should apply. “It is not up to consumers and taxpayers to foot the bill for illegal contamination,” Holder said. 30 Criticising the FSA for its failure to recommend to retailers that the GMcontaminated products be withdrawn, Doug Gurian-Sherman of the Centre for Food Safety, US, who is a former GM adviser to the FDA, said: “Risks should not be taken with public health for the convenience of companies or of government. It sets a very As rice is the staple diet of half the world’s population, primarily the people of Asia, the contamination of rice fields has serious implications for the safety of their food supply. “The Philippines is among the countries most at risk because we import rice and rice products from both the US and China,” said Greenpeace campaigner Daniel Ocampo, in a statement urging Manila to introduce testing of rice and rice products, immediate recall of GE contaminated rice and GE-free certification by exporting countries. (Rice from China was involved in a separate contamination incident in 2005 during field trials of a GE rice that reportedly induced allergic-like reactions in mice.) 33 3.1 Scientifically Irresponsible The power of the agrobusiness corporations and their ability to bend the authorities to their will was demonstrated in this episode. In contrast to the USDA and FDA’s unconvincing assurances that the LLRICE601 posed no health, safety or environmental concerns, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which reviewed the available data in midSeptember 2006, appeared to take a much more cautious position. It said there was “insufficient data to provide a full risk assessment” on the rice and only said the consumption of the long-grain rice containing trace levels of LLRICE601 would not likely pose an imminent safety concern to humans or animals. 34 However, the GM Free Cymru group revealed within a week of the EFSA’s assurance that it was based only upon highly selective data provided to it by Bayer, with crucial data on the molecular
characterisation and other crucial characteristics of the LLRICE601 in about 30 pages of its dossier blanked out on the grounds that it was confidential business information. To compound the deceit, the EFSA statement cited two “positive scientific assessments” of LLRICE601 in support of its conclusion that it was not harmful if consumed in small quantities. On investigation, it was clear that these assessments were worthless. One was an informal assessment by unnamed members of a panel reporting to the UK Food Standards Agency and never published. That off-the-record advice is entirely unacceptable from a scientific point of view. The authors of the other “positive assessment”, which was submitted by RIKILT (Institute of Food Safety, University of Wegeningen, Netherlands) admitted that they had not seen the “censored material in the Bayer dossier either. GM Free Cymru’s Dr Brian John summed up the situation thus: “We are staggered by these revelations. They show that EFSA had no scientific basis for issuing its statement on the safety of LLRICE601… EFSA should not have issued any statement at all in the circumstances”. 35 In New Zealand, the GE Free NZ group expressed concern that the contaminated rice was possibly on sale despite the contaminating variant being untested and unapproved by any authority in any country. “The international community is facing a serious breakdown in regulation of the food system. It is vital action is taken to uphold the law and remove illegal foods from the system,” it said. 36 In late September 2006, Russia joined the growing list of nations that suspended US rice imports of GMOs. 37 3.2 Economic Nightmare The economic fallout from corporateled GE crop experimentation has hit home hard. When the US authorities revealed the LLRICE601 contamination situation, Britain’s largest food supplier Associated British Foods (ABF) was among the importers that began looking for a new supplier to replace its US sources. Within a month, European environmental groups reported another violation of the EU ban on GE foods – this time, they found an illegally engineered rice strain in rice-based products sold in Asian supermarkets in the UK, France and Germany. ABF then began
immediately isolating and testing goods it suspected of containing the illegal rice strain. After the USDA and FDA announced the LLRICE601 contamination, September rice futures sank 14% on the Chicago Board of Trade. In addition to the lost markets in countries that had stopped imports of US long-grain rice, American farmers said the EU’s strict screening rules on all such imports from the US had pinched their profits. Testing is expensive and difficult. Swiss food giant Nestle says it spends a “significant part” of its US$1.2 billion research and development budget on in-house safety testing. In 2005, the Swiss agrochemicals company Syngenta set aside US$50 million for tests after it had accidentally sold an unauthorised corn strain to farmers exporting to Europe. 38 The LLRICE601 controversy has jeopardised the Arkansas farming sector, for which the US$1.55 billion annual rice trade is the main output, generating about 20,000 jobs, including a good number at Riceland Rice, the world’s largest miller and marketer of the cereal. 39 A lawyer acting for more than 200 affected farmers, Don Downing said: “To the extent that Missouri and Arkansas rice farmers lost money, we intend to hold Bayer accountable”. The lawsuit seeks to recover both the lost income from rice sales due to lower prices and any expenses farmers incurred to test and certify their rice to be free from the LLRICE601 strain. 40 This “catastrophe’ for rice farmers is only the latest instance of major economic damage being inflicted by the GM industry. Thanks to GM, American farmers have already suffered the loss of their corn export market to the EU, worth hundreds of millions of dollars a year. US soybean exports to the EU, historically America’s most lucrative overseas market, have also now “dropped to almost economically insignificant levels”. 41 Greenpeace reported that, as November 2007, LL-contaminated rice and rice products have been found in 32 countries:- 23 European countries, Ghana, Guatemala, Kuwait, Mexico, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Sierra Leone, the United Arab Emirates and even China.42 The US is currently the only country that has approved the commercial growing of GE rice. India is contemplating approving experimental growing of GE rice, but Indian rice farmers are dead against this, with farmers in Haryana and Tamil
Nadu destroying the field trial plots of GE rice set up by the Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company on behalf of Monsanto.43 The discovery of LL-tainted rice has triggered the largest financial and marketing disaster in US rice history. Greenpeace estimates the economic cost of the contamination to the industry at approximately USD 1.2 billion including losses of up to USD 253 million from foodproduct recalls in Europe, US export losses of USD 254 million in the 2006/07 crop year, and future export losses of USD 445 million.44he heavy losses are to be expected as many of the 32 countries affected by the contamination have closed their doors to US rice including major importers such as the European Union and the Philippines. Driving home the message that corporate-led GM agriculture is bad business, Ebro Puleva, the world’s largest rice processing company, which controls 30% of the EU rice market, decided to stop imports of US rice into the EU since August 2006 over the contamination concerns. 45 Perhaps the title of a news report by the Associate Press news agency sums up the rice growers’ predicament best: “Biotech instils fear and loathing in California rice belt”. 46 The false promise that the GE industry held out for the world’s food supply has turned out to be a bitter harvest indeed. Glossary ABF APHIS EC EFSA EU FDA FOE FSA GE GM OIG RIKILT Associated British Foods Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service European Commission European Food Safety Authority European Union US Food and Drug Administration Friends of the Earth Britain’s Food Standards Agency genetic engineering (GE) genetically modified (GM Office of the Inspector-General Institute of Food Safety, University of Wegeningen, Netherlands United States Department of Agriculture
The information for this report was obtained primarily through the GMWatch.org website (www.gmwatch.org) 1. GMWatch.org, 18 August 2006, “GM rice in US food supply – FDA”, http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid 6908 2. Ibid
3. GMWatch.org, 21 August 2006, “Extent and seriousness of contamination unknown, warns former EPA scientist”, http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=69 14 4. Ibid
5. United States Department of Agriculture, 18 August 2006, “Statement by Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns Regarding Genetically Engineered Rice”, http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7 _0_1OB?contentidonly=true&contentid=2006/08 /0307.xml 6. Friends of the Earth Europe, 23 August 2006, “EU clamps down on GM Rice”, http://www.foeeurope.org/press/2006/AB_23_Au g_US_rice.html 7. Greenpeace International, Brussels, 23 August 2006, “EU restrictions on illegal US rice imports inadequate”, http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/r eleases/eu-restrictions-on-illegal-us 8. GMWatch.org, 23 August 2006, “EC slammed for ‘complacency and connivance’ GM Free Cymru”, http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=69 25 9. GMWatch.org, 16 September 2006, “Euro scientists refuse safety clearance for GM rice”, http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=70 38 10. GMWatch.org, 22 August 2006, “Unapproved Rice Strain Found in Wide Area”, http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=69 27 11. Ibid 12. Inter Press Service News Agency, 25 August 2006, “Trade: GE Rice Scare Shows Vulnerability of Food Supply”, http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=34462 13. Ibid
14. GMWatch.org, ”LL601 is probably in Californian rice as well”, http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=69 30 15. Independent on Sunday, 27 August 2006, “Rice contaminated by GM has been on sale for months”, http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/articl e1222081.ece 16. GMWatch.org, 27 August 2006, “Request to Supermarket Chiefs: Please take all US longgrain rice off your shelves”, http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=69 36 17. Ibid 18. Ibid 19. GMWatch.org, 30 August 2006, “”US Oversight of Biotech Crops Seen Lacking”, http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=69 58 20. Reuters, 28 August 2006, “US farmers sue Bayer CropScience over GM rice”, http://today.reuters.com/News/CrisesArticle.asp x? storyId=N8S372113 21. GMWatch.org, 29 August 2006, “Bayer faces more lawsuits over GMO rice”, http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=69 49 22. Arkanses Rice Growers Association, 28 August 2006, “Many Questions, Few Answers on GMO Rice Problem”, http://www.arkansasricegrowers.com/archive_n ews.htm 23. Bennett, D. 31 August 2006, “GMO rice: Lawsuits, legislation, markets and frustrations.” Delta Farm Press”, http://deltafarmpress.com/news/060831-alterrice/ 24. Centre for Food Safety, 8 September, 2006, “USDA to rubber-stamp contamination of food with illegal, genetically engineered rice banned in Japan and Europe”, http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/GE_RicePR9 _08_06.cfm 25. GMWatch.org, 14 September 2006, “Consumer group urges USDA not to approve GMO rice”, http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=70 31 26. GMWatch.org, 11 September 2006, “EU confirms presence of tainted GMO rice”, http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=70 14
27. AFX News Limited, 12 September 2006, “Presence of unapproved GM rice in Europe alarms food industry – report”, http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds/afx/2006/ 09/12/afx3009154.html 28. Swiss Info, 12 September 2006, “Genetically modified rice hits Switzerland”, http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/front/detail/Genetic ally_modified_rice_hits_Switzerland.html?siteSe ct=105&sid=7058118&cKey=1158091686000 29. Deutsche Welle, 14 September 2006, “German Authorities Confirm GM Rice Findings”, http://www.dwworld.de/dw/article/0,2144,217160 2,00.html 30. Friends of the Earth Europe, 17 September 2006, “Friends of the Earth finds illegal GM rice in UK supermarket”, http://www.foeeurope.org/press/2006/HH_17_S ept_Morrisons_rice.html 31. GMWatch.org, 17 September 2006, “Sale of illegal GM rice in Scotland sanctioned by food safety watchdog”, http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=70 41 32. Lean, G., The Independent on Sunday, 17 September 2006, “GM: The cover-up”, http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/articl e1604094.ece 33. Infoshop News, 12 September 2006, “Philippines at serious risk from illegal GMO rice contamination”, http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story =20060912012231783 34. Food Navigator, 15 September 2006, “EFSA: ‘Insufficient data’ for full GM risk assessment”, http://www.foodnavigator.com/news/ng.asp?n=7 0605-efsa-bayer-gm 35. GM Free Cymru, 21 September 2006, “EFSA safety statement was issued without sight of crucial GM rice data” http://www.gmfreecymru.org.uk/news/Press_Not ice21Sept2006.htm 36. GMWatch.org, 20 September 2006, “Cover up of GM rice contamination a scandal”, http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=70 47 37. Just-Food.Com, 2 October 2006, “Russia: US rice imports suspended over GMOs”, http://www.justfood.com/article.aspx?id=96181 38. GMWatch.org, 17 September 2006, “Flap over modified rice weighs on food importers”, http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=70 35
39. The Economist, 16 September 2006, “Rice farming: Grains of doubt”,http://www.economist.com/world/na/displ aystory.cfm?story_id=7914941 40. Keller, R., Southeast Missourian, 17 September 2006, “More farmers sue over release of altered rice”, http://www.semissourian.com/story/1168623.ht ml 41. GMWatch.Org, 7 September 2006, “Updated Report Says Industry Still Not Ready for Biotech Wheat Farm Futures”, http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=69 94 42. TWN Biosafety Info, 23 November 2007, “Unapproved GE Rice from US Found in China.”, http://www.biosafety-info.net
43. War in rice fields: To GM or not to GM. Commodity Online, 5 October 2007, http://www.commodityonline.com/news/topstory/ newsdetails.php?id=585. 44. Reuters, 5 November 2007, “U.S. GMO Rice caused $1.2 billion in damages”, http://www.reuters.com/article/asiaTopNews/idU SIndia-30351820071106 45. GMWatch.Org, 29 September 2006, “World’s largest rice company halts all US rice imports”, http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=70 85 46. GMWatch.Org, 11 October 2006, “Biotech instills fear and loathing in California rice belt”, http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=71 24
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.