Australia Challenges Global Ban on GE Terminator Technology
at Biodiversity Convention Meeting in Spain

Australia has been doing the dirty work for the USA and its genetic engineering industry at the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) meeting in Granada, Spain. Advised by the US, Australia is trying to end the de facto global ban on GE terminator technology which will be used to make seeds infertile, to prevent seed saving and enforce corporate seed patents.

"Though Monsanto, Delta and Pine Land, and other GE seed companies publicly promised to halt the development of Gene Use Restriction Technologies (GURTS) after a global outcry in 1999, our government now seeks to lift the ban," says Bob Phelps, Director of the GeneEthics Network.

"Terminator seeds are the most immoral and controversial use of agricultural genetic engineering, yet an axis of evil governments - Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the USA - are brow-beating the rest of the world to end the terminator ban. The Howard government is clearly assisting GE companies to get a stranglehold on the world's food supply," he says.

"Industry promises to 'feed the world' are shown to be a total lie, created for the purpose of getting monopoly control of the food we all eat. Our government has not consulted the traditional farmers and seedsavers who would be directly affected, nor the Australian public whose food security will be at risk," he says.

"Developing country governments oppose terminator seed as it threatens the tried and true methods developed by their farmers and indigenous peoples over aeons. Our own farmers would lose their choice of crop varieties and production methods too," he says.

"Terminator technology would make it impossible for farmers to re-plant saved seed, tightening GE company control over patented seed varieties which must be purchased each season at whatever price the companies decide to charge. Farmers world-wide would be shackled to buying new seed each season and unable to replant saved seed as they've been doing for thousands of years," he says.

"The spread of terminator genes to other crops and wild plants through pollen transfer could make their seeds sterile too, threatening the natural environment as well as farm sutainability. The farmers' selection of seed that is adapted to changing environmental conditions and local practices would end, so that global food production and security may fail," he says.

"We call on the Australian government to immediately terminate its advocacy for terminator technology, and inform the Australian public of its outrageous behaviour," Mr Phelps concludes.

For meeting reports see: www.iisd.ca/biodiv/wg8j-4/ and background www.banterminator.org/

More comment: Bob Phelps 03 9347 4500


Bob Phelps
Executive Director
GeneEthics Network
Level 1, 60 Leicester St, Carlton 3053 Australia
Tel: 03 9347 4500 {Int Code +613} or 1300 133 868
Fax: 03 9345 1166
Email: info@geneethics.org
www.geneethics.org

For more information on Genetic Engineering, see here

Food Irradiation Puts at Risk the Health and Safety of Unsuspecting Consumers
Irradiation destroys vitamins – up to 90% of vitamin A in chicken, 86% of vitamin B in oats, and 70% of vitamin C in fruit juice. As shelf life increases,more nutrients are lost. Irradiation also produces new compounds in food that have been linked to tumor development and genetic damage.

And, 50 years of research has shown serious health problems in lab animals that ate irradiated foods – including premature death, mutations, nutritional deficiencies, reproductive problems, fatal internal bleeding, suppressed immune systems and stunted growth.

Food Irradiation is Linked to Serious Environmental Problems
First, irradiation facilities that function with radioactive cobalt-60 or cesium-137 threaten workers and communities with radioactive leaks and accidents.

Second, radioactive materials used in these facilities are transported long distances, increasing the risk of radioactive accidents that would damage local ecosystems and threaten public health.

The material in nuclear food irradiators is also widely considered as a potential source for “dirty bombs” that can be used by terrorists.

And, food irradiation sacrifices ecological sustainability by encouraging delocalisation of food production, wasteful and costly transportation of food, and mass production.

STOP FOOD IRRADIATION

The Australian & NZ Food Authority (ANZFA) has APPROVED Australia's first ever food irradiation application.
The Approval was for Steritech's licence A413 to irradiate Herbs, Spice, and Herbal Infusions (teas).

Despite admitting that the nutritional content of irradiated food will be affected by irradiation, ANFZA has determined that it sees no significant grounds to prohibit the nuclear irradiation of herbs, spices, nuts and teas. ANZFA justifies this response by saying that as herbs, spices, nuts and teas are not a major source of nutrition for most Australians, the destruction of vitamins and molecular structure in these foodstuffs is negligible. Environment and consumer watchdogs are concerned by ANFZA’s easy dismissal of the significance of this nuclear action and have no doubt that the irradiation of herbs and spices will lead to the irradiation of fruit and other produce, which do make up a large percentage of the Australian diet.

Please send an urgent message to the ANZFA Ministerial Council Members and your Health Minister and say NO to food irradiation.

Since 1998, Steritech has been promoting its proposed nuclear facility in Narangba, to business, as a place to irradiate food, while denying that intention to the public. Steritech and its General Manager, George West, have been active in appealing to the government to lift the moratorium on Food Irradiation (repealed in 1999) and promoting the food irradiation industry. In 1998, George West stated: "Unfortunately for Steritech, the medical manufacturing industry went into severe decline in the early nineties, with most of the medical manufacturers relocating off shore. Consequently, we had to find other things to irradiate and in this test we have been very successful. Currently only 45% of all throughput is medical related. (ATSE- Academy Symposium, November 1998 "Food Irradiation - Its benefits and limitations, George West, General Manager, Steritech Pty Ltd)

Steritech’s promotional material recommends nuclear irradiation for "Cereals and Grains", "Agriculture…Beehives…and Food" and suggests that a new irradiation facility in Queensland will be a "Boost to the Queensland Economy " because "Increased export sales will be generated as a result of being able to irradiate fruit and other produce for the export market." There is no question that Steritech’s request for the irradiation of herbs, spices, nuts and teas is motivated by their intention to expand the food irradiation industry.

Consumers need to be aware that once a country exports irradiated food, WTO regulations say its importation can not be denied. Furthermore, irradiation is sterilization. It has been known to be used to extend the shelf-life or "tidy-up" old or contaminated food. We do not need the nuclear industry to dictate what goes on to our tables and into our bellies. The material used in the Steritech Gamma irradiation process, Cobalt-60, is a man-made radioactive material, produced in nuclear reactors in Canada. The transport, use and storage of these highly radioactive nuclear materials puts at risk the environment and future generations.

Treating food with ionizing radiation has revealed in recent years that the process forms a new class of chemicals, cyclobutanones. These chemicals do not occur naturally anywhere on Earth. Scientific studies found that they caused genetic damage in human and rat cells. Public Citizen and the Centre for Food Safety in the United States have produced a report, Hidden Harm, which details how the Food and Drug Administration has ignored this unique class of chemicals, which are created in many irradiated foods that they have legalised for sale; various meat products, eggs, mangoes and papayas.

Dr. William Au, an environmental toxicology professor at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston, US is internationally recognised for his work on the toxicological mechanisms that induce human disease has released a sworn affidavit on food irradiation… "An emphasis should be placed on the products that are unique to the irradiation process and that are potentially mutagenic, eg. 2-DCB (2-dodecylcyclobutanone)"…. "Without conclusive evidence regarding the safety of these products, the safety of irradiated food cannot be assured". Au urged the FDA to "seriously and explicitly" consider "repeated observations’ of genetic damage and reproductive toxicity in feeding experiments.

Since the 1950’s, scientific tests have shown premature death, fatal internal bleeding and reproductive problems to be some of the impacts on laboratory animals fed irradiated food; malnourished children fed irradiated food were found to have chromosomal aberrations.

Federal Environment Minister, Robert Hill, gave his approval for the Steritech Nuclear Irradiation Facility to go ahead at Narangba. Under the Environmental Protection Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC) Hill was required to assess the project as it is a Nuclear Facility. He chose to do so on the lowest level of assessment possible- Assessment on Preliminary Documentation- which is basically documentation submitted by the proponent, Steritech. No independent Environmental Impact Assessment has been done, nor was it required by any level of local, state or Federal government. Furthermore, no consideration has been done for the environmental/social impact of the transportation of radioactive materials from Canada to the site in in Australia. Following the approval, Qld Premier Beattie stated "If the Federal Government ticked it off, then we'll tick it off too."

Queensland Premier, Mr Peter Beattie boasted the State’s reputation as an ‘environmentally-aware State’ when the government hosted the United Nations International Environment Symposium for South Pacific Judges. However, environmental campaigners, residents and consumers concerned about the approved Narangba nuclear irradiation facility and food irradiation have a somewhat contrary perception of what the State Government’s view of ‘environmentally aware’ actually is.

While the environmental impacts of the nuclear facility remain unassessed by the owner, Steritech Pty Ltd, due to no requirements from local, state or federal governments, many questions from the Narangba residents also remain unanswered. They are concerned that they cannot get insurance cover against ionizing radiation. They are also concerned that the facility will be built too close to residential homes and schools.

According to the Caboolture Shire Council, who first approved the facility, they believe any disaster recovery plan is not necessary as "no significant risk has been identified". However, under the State Disaster Counter Disaster Act of 1975, the Council are required to have a Counter Disaster Plan.

For more information: STOP FOOD IRRADIATION ALLIANCE PO Box 514 New Farm Qld 4005 e-mail: stopfialliance@acenet.net.au website: www.foodirradiationinfo.org www.purefood.org www.citizen.org

top of page

FOOD IRRADIATION

What Is Food Irradiation? The process involves bombarding food with massive doses of gamma ray radiation, the equivalent of between 10 million up to 1 billion chest x-rays. Cobalt-60, a highly radioactive waste product from Canada's nuclear reactors will be used, and stored on site for 25 years. Australia has, in effect, agreed to become a storage site for nuclear waste that nobody wants. Advocates of this technology say it is just another way of preserving food and making it safe and wholesome - like pasteurisation, canning or freezing; however, nothing could be further from the truth. (They also say that it is required for disinfestation - however, there are other safe alternatives which should be pursued.)

Health Concerns
Irradiation does not necessarily kill all micro-organisms and it can leave alive the toxins they produce. Irradiation destroys up to 96% of vitamins A, B, C, E and K along with other essential nutrients. It changes the molecular structure of foodstuffs, producing free radicals and new and potentially dangerous compounds called Unique Radiolytic Products such as 2-DCB. Scientific studies show that 2-DCB (found nowhere else on earth other than in irradiated foods) has been found to cause cellular and genetic damage in human and rat cells. It is formed in a wide range of foodstuffs including peanuts. It produces increased carcinogens and other toxins in food, such as benzene and formaldehyde. Since the 1950's scientific studies have shown lab animals fed irradiated food have suffered from premature death, rare forms of cancer, fatal internal bleeding, stillbirths and other reproductive problems, chromosomal aberrations, liver damage, nutritional deficiencies and low weight gain.

There have been no studies conducted on the long term effects of eating irradiated food. Assertions that irradiated food is safe are bssed on only 5 studies which "appeared" to support safety, and a theoretical calculation of risk, rather than animal testing.

The World Health Organization's body which sets international food safety regulations has consistently ignored scientific evidence regarding the above health risks and is currently considering a proposal that: completely removes the maximum dose of irradiation to which food can be exposed; removes health and safety standards in regard to the food to be irradiated, and also in respect of the irradiation plants themselves.

Have your say:
* Write to all Federal Political Party Leaders and demand they make a clear and unequivocal public statement on their position on food irradiation.
* Write or speak to your local federal MP.
* Contact ANZFA or write a letter or submission. (Phone 02 6271 2222, fax 02 6271 2278.)
* Contact Environment Australia,
Peter Davies: Phone 02 6274 1447, fax 02 6274 1620
or e-mail peter.davies@ea.gov.au

top of page

Genetic Engineering

Genetically Engineered crops expert warns Australia:
Australia faces economic and environmental losses if it follows the United States and grows commercial genetically engineered (GE) crops, a leading expert in agricultural technology has warned. If Australia were to grow commercial GE canola it would enter the human food supply as vegetable oil and animal feed.

Dr Charles Benbrook, a former agricultural adviser to the Carter, Reagan and Clinton administrations, is touring Australia to warn government ministers and farmers about the problems with the first decade of GE crops in the US.

"Australian agriculture faces losing its international status as 'clean and green' if it ignores the food safety, environmental and economic costs associated with today's GE crop technologies," Dr Benbrook said.

"Lingering questions about the safety of GE crops and intense consumer pressure to assure the purity of the human food supply mean U.S. farmers have lost billions of dollars in export sales," he said.

His research into the reality of GE crops for American farmers has shown the promises made by GE companies to Australian farmers are false, particularly their claim that GE crops will mean less herbicide use to control weeds.

"Across the southeastern U.S., where soybean and cotton farmers have relied almost exclusively on GE technology for several years, the system is on the brink of collapse, the volume of herbicides used is setting new records and farmers' profit margins are shrinking," Benbrook points out.

"Agricultural biotechnology rests on important, powerful advances in science but its practical benefits have been grossly oversold," he said.

Based on his analysis of the U.S. experience, Benbrook predicts that widespread planting of today's GE crops "will erode the sovereignty of Australian agriculture and allow multinational companies to gain a larger piece of the profit pie at the expense of farmers."

Bob Phelps, Executive Director of the GeneEthics Network, which is hosting Dr Benbrook's tour, said Australia was ill prepared for the side effects of GE crops.

"Despite state moratoria on commercial GE crops, thresholds of contamination which can ruin farm incomes overnight are now tolerated. GE and non-GE crops cannot be segregated and GE-free farmers are liable for the extra risks and costs of trying to avoid contamination."

Dr Benbrook will tell Australian audiences throughout rural and regional Australia that:

… U.S farmers have lost export markets because customers reject products contaminated by GE varieties;
… Hundreds of millions of dollars in Australian commodity exports are at risk of being lost;
… The U.S. government embraced GE crop technology in the early 1990s but failed to adopt the regulations and policies needed to accurately measure the costs, benefits and risks of GE crops and their products;
… The U.S. Department of Agriculture pesticide use data which Dr Benbrook analysed should worry Australian farmers. While GE herbicide-tolerant crops marginally reduced herbicide use in 1996 and 1997, new strains of herbicide resistant weeds have now forced GE farmers to spray more herbicides more often and they now use more herbicide than conventional farmers.

Genetic Engineering is a radical new industrial technology that enables the transfer of DNA (genes) between unrelated organisms, even across species barriers. The cells of living things have strong defences against invasion by foreign agents, including DNA, so genetic engineers manufacture ways to breach these natural defences. These include some DNA from bacteria and viruses. DNA is the genetic code that (along with the environment, learning, etc.) plays a part in determining the make-up and behaviour of all living things.

Traditional plant varieties were traditionally saved, exchanged and replanted by farmers. But industrial gene technologies enable companies topirate these highly productive organisms from public ownership by scrambling their DNA and patenting them.

Gene technologists cannot create new genes, merely cobble together genes they find in nature. Yet genetically engineered organisms (GEOs) and their genes are patented as new inventions and are monopolised for 20 years. This is clearly unfair as most of the development was conducted by traditional breeders.

Global corporate control of food production is intensifying.A handful of agrochemical companies now own 35% of the world’s food supply. Growers are barred from saving and resowing seed from GE varieties. New terminator technology, which makes seed infertile, could even make it impossible to follow the traditional farming method of growing crops from saved seed.

The Green Revolution of the 1950’s and 60’s introduced new plant varieties grown in broad-acre monocultures and dependent upon the input of synthetic, oil-based pesticides, herbicides, fertilisers and fuels. Many traditional plant and animal varities were lost in the Green Revolution. A disinformation campaign, like that being used to promote GE, was funded to discredit more sustainable and diverse farming systems. Driven by profits, agricultural chemicals and chemical-dependent crops were introduced, accelerating pollution of the global environment and contributing to the greatest extinction of species since the dinosaurs.

Now, the Gene Revolution, where the so-called “life science” firms want to introduce radical new GEO’s into farming, will further erode the diversity of food crops. In nature and in traditional farming systems most most new varieties are created within species boundaries. In contrast, gene technologists see nature’s limits as mere hurdles to be jumped or avoided. They cut and paste genetic codes between organisms that could never mate.

ASK YOUR COUNCIL FOR A GE-FREE ZONE: Councils can write GE-free conditions into food service contracts so suppliers exclude foods produced using GE technology.
GE crops being trialled at many secret locations throughout rural Australia pose many threats to the GE-free status of food and fibre production. Declaring your area GE-free is a wise response to secrecy and environmental threats.

CERTIFIED ORGANIC FARMING systems use no synthetic chemicals, have rejected GEO’s since the early 1990’s, and prohibit food irradiation. Organic foods are a sensible choice. By supporting organic agriculture, the foodbuyers pay for the true cost of growing clean green food, keeping more Australians on the land, and nurturing our environment. Chemical-based farm production is subsidised by low oil prices, by government subsidies and by deferring the costs of environmental degradation to future generations.

Source: Bob Phelps,
Coordinator GeneEthics Network
Australian Conservation Foundation

top of page

GE Food - If it was any good, they'd be proud to label it!!

Many GE crops at an experimental planting stage, such as pineapples and pawpaw, will have trouble with getting commercialised as a result of labelling, and this now sheds an interesting light on the future of these trials.

GE canola oil, which the government is very keen to commercialise, will probably be exempted from labelling through being highly refined, but identity-preservation of canola (segregation into GE and non-GE) will be forced by several factors;
- the use of unrefined canola grain in a wide range of food products, which will need to be labelled
- the fact that many food companies have switched to canola oil because it is currently GE-free.
- The new Dick Smith brand of canola oil has GE-free labelling
- one seed crusher called Seedex has stated that it will not be using GE canola seed if it is grown commercially here.
- the prospect of Australia losing massive exports of GE-free canola seed to Europe.
Figures show that earlier this year Biotechnology Australia's advice (propaganda) line received only around 50 calls a day following the distribution of 2 million brochures through supermarkets, as part of a $10 million 'education' program.

Consumer attitudes are proving to be very resilient, with 65% unwilling to eat GE food. For a GE-labelled product to survive on the market, resistance to GE would have to disappear. If the general public is more informed by its intuition than alleged 'scare-stories' being circulated in the media, then shifting attitudes in favour of GE food will be close to impossible.

GE-Free Food Guide

While Australia has not yet seen seen the same virulent opposition to genetically engineered (GE) food as the UK, there is a growing unease. A September '99 A C Nielsen opinion poll found that 47% of Australians didn't want to eat GE food, compared with 28% who did.
Many people have had enough of food multinationals monopolising the current lack of labelling to sell half the population something they don't want.
It's important to be aware that in terms of the use of GE-free labelling, 'Free from genetically modified soya beans' does not imply that it is free from GE ingredients, or even free from GE soya ingredients. Read labels carefully!

The True Food Guide - How to shop GE-Free:
An initiative of the GeneEthics Network and Greenpeace, this guide shows you how to shop GE-Free.
It contains a comprehensive list of food categories, and manufacturers of the foods within those categories, rated on the basis of their company policy relevant to their GE-Free status.

Available from
www.geneethics.org
www.greenpeace.org.au/truefood

What You Can Do

DO BUY:
CERTIFIED ORGANIC FOODS

FRESH, LOCAL, UNPROCESSED foods (except pork)

Food labelled GE FREE

Food labelled “PRODUCT OF AUSTRALIA”

DON'T BUY:
Food labelled “MADE IN AUSTRALIA”
(imported ingredients may be GE)

Processed foods from the USA
(except those certified organic)

Food containing IMPORTED SOYBEAN
Food containing IMPORTED CORN
Food containing IMPORTED CANOLA
Food containing IMPORTED SUGAR
Food containing IMPORTED POTATO
COTTONSEED OIL