GM maize given official go-ahead

 guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 9 March 2004 15.24 GMT 
Article history
The government today took the historic - and possibly irreversible - decision to allow commercial GM crops to be grown in Britain for the first time.

The environment secretary, Margaret Beckett, announced to MPs that one variety of GM maize has been given the go-ahead, despite the opposition of large sections of the public, former environment minister Michael Meacher, the environment select committee, the Soil Association, organic farmers and many concerned scientists.

Although Ms Beckett ruled out GM beet and oilseed rape, and said she did not expect any commercial planting of GM maize before spring 2005, she was immediately warned that her decision was "probably irreversible".

The government's announcement today comes a few weeks after a leaked cabinet minute in the Guardian approving GM maize, but delaying the announcement to "prepare the ground with key MPs, particularly those with an interest in science and food security".

The Conservatives embarrassed Ms Beckett by quoting this back at her in the Commons - and demanded to know what had been the point of public consultations, which came out strongly against GM.

Last week the Commons' own environmental audit committee argued that the tests which green-lighted the GM maize were invalid, as the comparison with conventional crops was tainted by the ordinary maize being sprayed with a now-banned insecticide.

Today Ms Beckett said the GM issue had been "bedevilled by confusion" and the right way of proceeding was to adopt a "precautionary, evidence-based" approach.

"But equally there is no scientific case for a blanket ban on the use of GM," she said.

Much will depend now depend on whether the government insists GM firms are liable for any compensation to other farmers for cross-pollination, the project could be commercially unviable.

But there was no immediate queue of supportive Labour MPs to back Ms Beckett in the Commons, as she faced uniform hostility from the Tories and Liberal Democrats.

The Liberal Democrats' food and rural affairs spokesman, Andrew George, accused the government of branding all opponents of GM food "Green luddites", and told her today's decision was "probably irreversible".

Mr Meacher, who ordered the original farm-sized trials of the three GM crops, said GM crops were neither driven by science, nor demand, nor public opinion, but the profits of multinational biotech companies at the behest of the White House.

He demanded to know who would insure GM firms against liability.

Ms Beckett said restrictions should be put on the existing EU marketing consent, which expires in October 2006, so crops "can only be grown and managed as in the trials or under such conditions as will not result in adverse effects on the environment".

Consent holders will also be required to carry out further scientific analysis and submit new evidence if they seek to renew the marketing consent in 2006, she said.

Earlier today Patrick Holden, director of organic food pressure group the Soil Association, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "Our prediction is that we will look back in 10 or 15 years' time and think 'What were we doing? Why didn't we learn the lessons of BSE?'

"Our fear is that this technology - which is living and irreversible - will be a threat of a similar scale and if something goes wrong it will be impossible to reverse it."

But a spokesman for industry body Scimac, Bob Fiddaman, rejected the idea that GM technology posed great risks.

He told the programme: "Never has a form of technology been so tested and checked by scientists before it is allowed to be fully developed."

The Commons environmental audit committee last week published a hard-hitting report warning the government must not give the go-ahead to commercial planting of GM maize after the recently completed three-year crop trials.

The MPs said more research is needed because atrazine, one of the pesticides used on conventional crops during the tests, is about to be banned.

Critics claim this means the trials were invalidated because the effect of GM crops on the environment and wildlife was not being compared with conventional crops grown using a less powerful pesticide.

A spokesman for the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said: "The field scale evaluations were not invalidated by the banning of atrazine.

"It is disingenuous to claim they were. The validity of the trials was full endorsed by the scientific steering committee and the publishing journal."

Peter Melchett, the Soil Association's policy director, said: "This is a black day for British agriculture. The government is jeopardising the future integrity, safety and economic viability of British farming and food."

But the government received a boost when the British Medical Association came out in favour of commercial GM planting.

Sir David Carter, chairman of the BMA's board of science, said it was necessary to "move away from the hysteria that has so often been associated with GM foods".

Asked if he would be 100% behind a decision to allow GM maize for animal feed, he said: "I would say so."

As recently as 1999 the BMA called for an open-ended moratorium on all commercial planting of GM crops until more was known about their effects on human health.

In an updated report today it said that rather than a blanket ban it now wanted individual crops to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

UK farms 'want to grow GM crops'

"Golden rice" was developed for malnourished people 

Genetically modified crops could be grown in the UK within 10 years, US biotechnology giant Monsanto has said.

Company president Hugh Grant told the BBC's Farming Today programme his firm's research showed that most UK farmers wanted the chance to grow GM.

Following a five-year national debate, the government said last year GM crops could be grown under strict conditions. But Friends Of The Earth says farmers are sceptical and consumers do not want the crops because of safety fears.

Monsanto, which pioneered GM crops, announced it would close its European seed cereal business in the UK in 2003.

'Health benefits'

Mr Grant told the programme he found the pace of change in Europe frustratingly slow and he rejected the view that UK consumers were worried about the safety of GM products.

He said more than 400 million hectares (one billion acres) of GM crops had been planted around the world and farmers from China to Brazil were literally reaping the benefits.

He also insisted GM technology could be used to produce a range of crops with distinct health benefits.
Monsanto's predictions for GM in the UK are more about marketing hype than reality
Friends Of The Earth


However, Friends Of The Earth said biotechnology firms had been promising such "super crops" for years and had failed to deliver. It insisted more research was needed into the effects of GM food.

Spokeswoman Clare Oxborrow told BBC News: "Monsanto's predictions for GM in the UK are more about marketing hype than reality.

"People have genuine concerns about GM crops - about their impacts on our health, the environment and the fact that they are being promoted by multinational companies more interested in controlling the global food supply and making a profit than providing us with healthy food."

'Business decision'

National Farmers' Union food science advisor Dr Helen Ferrier said most farmers would not be thinking about whether they were going to grow GM crops.

Monsanto says UK farmers want the chance to grow GM crops

"Most farmers probably don't think that far ahead," she said. But they might well want to grow them in the future, if it proved to be a "good business decision", she added.

Although consumers were not generally in favour of GM crops, for "moral reasons", she said, the extra choices that could be offered might change that in the future.

"If, for example, a GM food is significantly cheaper, there could be a market for it," she added.

Environment Secretary Margaret Beckett approved the growing of a single variety of GM maize - herbicide-tolerant maize - in March 2004.

However, German company Bayer CropScience, the only firm eligible to grow herbicide-tolerant maize in the UK decided not to proceed with plans to cultivate the plant.

Mrs Beckett's statement followed five years of consultation, farm-scale trials and a major survey which showed 90% of the public were against GM crops.

The next window for the GM crop companies is 2008, when Bayer CropScience will propose commercialisation of oilseed rape and Monsanto and Syngenta will be vying to get GM sugar beet approved.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4352871.stm

Climate 'fix' could poison sea life - BBC News

Climate 'fix' could poison sea life

By Richard Black Environment correspondent, BBC News

The scientific team deployed their instruments in open water

Fertilising the oceans with iron to absorb carbon dioxide could increase concentrations of a chemical that can kill marine mammals, a study has found.

Iron stimulates growth of marine algae that absorb CO2 from the air, and has been touted as a "climate fix".

Now researchers have shown that the algae increase production of a nerve poison that can kill mammals and birds.

Writing in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, they say this raises "serious concern" over the idea.

The toxin - domoic acid - first came to notice in the late 1980s as the cause of amnesiac shellfish poisoning.

If the end goal is to use it to fight climate warming, then we have to understand the consequences for marine life Dr William Cochlan San Francisco State University

It is produced by algae of the genus Pseudonitzschia, with concentrations rising rapidly when the algae "bloom".

Now, its presence in seawater often requires the suspension of shellfishing operations, and is regularly implicated in deaths of animals such as sealions.

Domoic acid poisoning may also lie behind a 1961 incident in which flocks of seabirds appeared to attack the Californian town of Capitola - an event believed to have shaped Alfred Hitchcock's interpretation of Daphne du Maurier's The Birds in his 1963 thriller.

Carbon focus

Over the last decade, about 10 research projects have investigated iron fertilisation, with mixed results.

But only two of them measured domoic acid production, and only then as an afterthought, explained William Cochlan from San Francisco State University, a scientist on the new project.

"We had a number of major aims in this work; but one of them was to ask 'do you normally find the species of algae that produce domoic acid, are they producing domoic acid, and will production be enhanced by iron?'," he said.

In studies conducted around Ocean Station Papa, a research platform moored in the north-eastern Pacific Ocean, the answers to all three questions turned out to be "yes".

Satellites can spot phytoplankton blooms in the process of formation

Pseudonitzschia algae were present naturally; they were producing domoic acid, and experiments showed that production increased during fertilisation with iron and copper.

Also, under iron-rich conditions, the Pseudonitzschia algae bloomed at a rate faster than other types.

The levels of domoic acid in iron-enriched water samples were of the same order as those known to cause poisoning in mammals in coastal waters.

Ailsa Hall, deputy director of the Sea Mammal Research Institute at St Andrews University in Scotland, said that domoic acid poisoning was already becoming a regular occurrence in some parts of the world.

"Ever since 1998 we've seen regular episodes of mass mortality and seizures in sea lions on the US west coast," she said.

The toxin accumulates in animals such as fish that are themselves immune.

"We've seen it in seals, pelicans and harbour porpoises; it does depend on how much they eat, but if a sea lion or a pelican eats its way through a school of contaminated anchovies, then that would be enough," Dr Hall told BBC News.

Domoic acid's effect on other species was unknown, she said, but it would be reasonable to think it would also affect marine mammals such as whales.

The poison producer - Pseudonitzschia turgidula

Whether iron fertilisation ever will be deployed as a "climate fix" is unclear.

The last major investigation - last year's Lohafex expedition - found that despite depositing six tonnes of iron in the Southern Ocean, little extra CO2 was drawn from the atmosphere.

Nevertheless, one company - Climos - aims eventually to deploy the technique on a commercial basis.

A Climos spokesman agreed that further research on domoic acid production was needed.

"Moving forward, we need to understand exactly how deep-ocean phytoplankton respond to iron, be it naturally or artificially supplied; whether and in what situations domoic acid is produced, and how the ecosystem is or is not already adapted to this," he said.

For William Cochlan's team, the potential impact on sea life is something that regulators and scientists must take into account when deciding whether to allow further studies or deployment.

"We saw some literature going around with claims like 'there is no indication of toxicity to sea life' - well, if you don't measure it, of course there's no indication, and we have to keep that kind of legalese out of science," he said.

"If the end goal is to use it to fight climate warming, then we have to understand the consequences for marine life."

Richard.Black-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk

China looks to master its control over the weather

Aileen McCabe, Asia Correspondent, Canwest News Service   Published: Thursday, March 04, 2010. 

SHANGHAI -- China plans to step up its use of the weather modification techniques that brought sunny skies for both the Beijing Olympics and last year's giant military parade on National Day.

The official China Daily newspaper reported Thursday that China is even going to try to regulate the weather during the five-month long Shanghai Expo that begins on May 1.

"The Shanghai event will be a challenge as it lasts 184 days and may be affected by monsoons and high temperatures," the paper said.

Zheng Guoguang, head of China's Meteorological Administration, told the paper that manipulating the weather is a developing science that needed more research and study. "It is still at a research-and-use stage and there are still a lot of problems to be resolved."

Still, Zheng said China is already actively involved in modifying the weather over a large part of the country in an effort to improve crop yields, particularly wheat. Some 840 flights were made to increase rainfall last year, he said, and 116,000 rockets and 8,900 artillery shells were fired into the atmosphere.

Shot from planes or artillery on the ground, the rockets and shells bombard clouds with silver oxide pellets. The chemical attracts particles of water stored inside the cloud, massing them into heavier drops that are more likely to fall as rain or snow.

China claims "seeding" clouds does not cause pollution and says the traces of silver oxide found in the water supply after clouds have been seeded are within national drinking water standards.

Zheng said demand is rising across China for cloud seeding to relieve the decade-long drought in the north of the country, including Beijing, and prevent damaging hail storms, both of which affect the food supply.

He said he expected modifying the weather would help China meet its goal of increasing grain yields by 50 million tonnes annually.

China spent $140 million manipulating the weather in 2009, but claimed it earned back 30 times that much in increased crop yields.

China's weathermen seem happy to take credit for the good affects of cloud seeding, but when the China Daily reported last November that the government's weather control establishment was responsible for the second major snow storm to hit the capital in less than two weeks, there was a deafening silence from the Weather Modification Centre that comes under Zheng's administration.

It appeared happy to let Mother Nature take the blame for the clogged highways and grounded flights.

About two dozen countries around the world practice weather manipulation, including the U.S., Russia, India and Canada.

Welcome To The World’s First Murdochracy

By John Pilger - 11 March, 2010 from Johnpilger.com

UN To Review IPCC Report On Himalayan Glaciers

By Suzanne Goldenberg, 10 March, 2010 - Guardian.co.uk

The UN called in the world's top scientists today to review a report by its climate body, four months after public confidence in the science of global warming was shaken by the discovery of a mistake about the melting rates of Himalayan glaciers.

In an announcement at the UN in New York Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary general, and Rajendra Pachauri, the much-criticised head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said the InterAcademy Council, which represents 15 national academies of science, would conduct the independent review.

The announcement follows months of controversy which, while not altering the scientific consensus on climate change, has given fresh ammunition to opponents of action on global warming.

Pachauri has faced calls for his resignation, a controversy he acknowledged obliquely today. "We have received some criticism. We are receptive and sensitive to that and we are doing something about it," he said.

The review, which is to complete its work by August, will not undertake a dissection of the 2007 report, which has been pored over by climate sceptics, or re-examine the scientific consensus that human activity is causing climate change, said Robert Dijksgraaf, the head of the InterAcademy Council.

"It will definitely not go over vast amounts of data," he told reporters. "Our goal will be to assure nations around the world that they will receive sound scientific advice on climate science."

Instead, he said it would focus on putting in place better quality control procedures for the next report, which is due in 2014.

These would include guidelines for dealing with material that has not undergone peer review such as the item on Himalayan glaciers.

One focus of the review would be the role played by Pachauri who has been criticised for his handling of the error when it first came to light.

Djiksgraaf also said the panel, likely to be made up of 10 experts, would also look at procedures for making corrections in a timely and transparent manner.

The report has been pored over by climate sceptics for errors since last November when it emerged that the IPCC had stated, wrongly, that Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035. As Pachauri and Ban noted today, the solid body of the 3,000 page report remained unchallenged.

The discovery of the error goes to the core of criticism of Pachauri whose first response to questions about the accuracy of the IPCC's prediction on the melting of the Himalayan glaciers was to dismiss it as "voodoo science".

Pachauri had also rankled critics by refusing to apologise for the mistakes.

But a spokesman for Pachauri today said the IPCC had initiated the independent review, and had pressed the UN to call in the scientists.

In his brief comments, Pachauri said the work of the IPCC, which shared a Nobel prize with Al Gore in 2007, remained the gold standard of climate science. "We believe the conclusions of that report are really beyond any reasonable doubt," Pachauri said.

Environmental and science organisations supported the UN's decision.

"This is the right move," said Peter Frumhoff, the science director for the Union of Concerned Scientist and a lead author on the IPCC report.

"If this independent review is carried out with rigour and transparency, it will help strengthen the IPCC's commitment to robust scientific assessments and restore public confidence that has been shaken by an aggressive campaign to sow confusion about climate science."

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2010

China And India Endorse Copenhagen Climate Deal By Matthias Williams

China And India Endorse Copenhagen Climate Deal By Matthias Williams

Posted using ShareThis

What In The World Are They Spraying?

http://www.countercurrents.org/murphy030310.htm

What In The World Are They Spraying?
By Michael J. Murphy
03 March, 2010Countercurrents.org

What would you say if you were told that airplanes were regularly spraying toxic aerosols in the skies above every major region of the world? That is exactly what a group of protestors were claiming outside of the annual American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) meeting that was held in San Diego from February 18-22. However, inside the convention center was a different story. The scientists gathered to discuss the “plausibility” of implementing various Geo-engineering campaigns throughout the world, all under the guise that the Earth has a man-made global warming problem that can be solved in-part by spraying aerosol aluminum and other particles into the sky to block the sun. When these scientists were asked about the possibility of existing aerosol programs; they stated that no aerosol spraying programs have been implemented to date. A little confused? Why would protestors gather outside of a meeting making claims that world-wide aerosol programs were under way if scientist were only now discussing the possibility of implementing these programs? Could it be that one of these groups is being deceived?

Mauro Oliveira, the Webmaster of Geoengineeringwatch.org, was one of the protestors. He claimed that the program for Stratospheric Aerosol Geo-engineering (SAG), AKA chemtrails, has been well under way around the world. As a matter of fact, Oliveira stated that witnesses from around the globe claim that heavy aerosol spraying is occurring almost every day over just about every city. He went on to explain the difference between a contrail and a chemtrail. He stated that when a jet airplane flies at a certain altitude, a visible trail of streaks of condensed water vapor sometimes form in the wake of the aircraft. This is called a contrail. Contrails are normal and usually dissipate in a few seconds. They are very similar to when we breathe in cold weather. According to Oliveira, what occurs behind a SAG plane spraying aerosols is quite different. What can be seen is a thick white line also called a chemtrail that lingers in the sky for several hours. The SAG lines are sprayed into the upper atmosphere and then spread out forming what then appear to be clouds. The particles from these aerosols then fall to the ground where they enter our soil and water and can also be inhaled.

Another group of protestors had traveled over 10 hours from a small Shasta County community in Northern California. They became concerned about SAG when many from this community began to see dramatic changes not only in the sky, but also on the ground. Trees were dying, grass was not growing and many farmers were having difficulty getting any crops to grow on their farms. The crisis prompted biologists from the community to take action by testing the soil. The results were shocking. Aluminum, barium and other elements were found to be up to thousands of times higher than normal limits. Such high quantities lead to unhealthy PH levels in the soil which can be deadly to ecological life systems. These shocking results led to additional testing of Lake Shasta with samples from the Pit River arm tributary that tested over 4,610 times the maximum contamination level of aluminum allowed in drinking water in the state of California. Also, peer reviewed scientific studies conclude that bio-available aluminum, now found in huge quantities in rain world-wide, is very harmful to flora and thus the eco-system.

Ironically, these are the same substances the scientists are considering implementing in the various potential “future” aerosol spraying campaigns that were being discussed at the meeting.
A large number of other protesters became interested in SAG after experiencing burning eyes, migraine headaches, anxiety, irregular heartbeat, high blood pressure and other health problems on days that airplanes were allegedly witnessed spraying aerosols in the sky. Deborah Whitman, Founder and President of the non-profit environmental organization Environmental Voices and also Producer of the documentary “Sky Lines” is no stranger to these symptoms. She has been hospitalized over 51 times on what she calls “heavy spraying days”. Whitman has committed her life to helping people who claim to be experiencing similar problems resulting from aerosol spraying and gets calls from all over the U.S. in response to her website and documentary. Her recommended health tips can be found at www.environmentalvoices.org. Other indicators that possibly validate the claim that SAG is connected to health problems are the respiratory mortality rate, which has risen from eight on the list of mortality to third in the past five years, and the fact that Alzheimer’s and other illnesses linked to aluminum have continued to rise around the globe at astronomical rates since the inception of the alleged spraying.

The AAAS meeting hosted some of the world’s leading geo-engineering scientists. With years of education and even more experience in their respected fields, the scientists looked at geo-engineering issues from many angles. Workshop subjects ranged from, the effectiveness of geo-engineering to potential problems and even touched upon the issue of ethics. According to independent reporter Stewart Howe of Los Angeles, all of the scientists seemed to be looking for solutions to what they believe is the problem of global warming. Howe stated that the scientists appeared to be carefully weighing both the pros and cons of SAG when presenting potential campaigns to address the man-made global warming theory. Many were actually advocating alternative methods to combat this issue due to the potential risks of SAG that include droughts, ozone depletion, less solar power, decimated weather patterns, military use of technology and other various environmental impacts. Howe said, “after witnessing the aerosol spraying for years, I was surprised by the discourse among scientists.” Stewart went on to say that he believes that most of the scientists attending seemed to be separated from the knowledge of any current SAG deployment. As a matter of fact when asked about current SAG operations, leading geo-engineering scientist Ken Caldiera replied that he was unaware of any current aerosol spraying operations and when prompted to explain the long lingering trails left behind planes, he stated that they are simply normal contrails from jets.

David Keith, another leading scientist and expert in the field of geo-engineering, discussed the well-funded studies that have been conducted to predict potential future risks as well as benefits associated with geo-engineering. Some of the potential benefits include a cooler planet, and the reduction of melting sea ice and rising sea levels. Keith discussed what aerosol particles would be most effective in achieving the stated goals of the SAG program. He went on to say that initially sulfur was considered, however, aluminum is more effective and can be used by adding ten to twenty mega-tons per year into the stratosphere. When asked about health related studies that have been conducted to predict the potential risks of adding the particles in our air, Keith stated that many studies have been completed and indicate few risks. However, when asked specifically about the use of aluminum as an aerosol, he said “we haven’t done anything serious on aluminum, so there could be something terrible that we will find tomorrow that we haven't looked at." After the meeting, Keith showed consideration to the protesters by initiating a discussion about the SAG program outside where the protestors were standing. When confronted with concerns about SAG deployment from the group, he went on to say that he shared similar views and is against any deployment until proper research is completed to determine potential risks of aerosol spraying. He also went on to say that he is unaware of any current SAG operations, but, would be willing to look at any scientific proof if presented to him.
As the skies around our world continue to change, there is strong evidence that points toward current deployment of massive aerosol operations. Could it be that scientific data and studies are being used to implement pre-mature full-scale SAG programs with-out the knowledge of the top scientists who are involved with the research? If so, what kind of ethical considerations can we expect from the geo-engineering community in the future? It is hard to believe that the strange white lines in the skies witnessed around the world and the toxic elements found in the soil, water and air are from an unrelated source. We the people, in partnership with the scientific community need to challenge not only the environmental and health risks associated with SAG but also the numerous world-wide allegations about current deployment. It is imperative that we become educated and involved in uncovering the truth of this alleged crime against both nature and humanity. The future of our planet depends on it. As concerns continue to grow around the world about this issue, additional information including meet-up groups can be found on various chemtrail and geo-engineering websites.

Michael J. Murphy is a journalist and political activist from the Los Angeles area whose work focuses on issues that go beyond the interest of the Corporate mainstream media. Michael's interviews include; Chelene Nightingale (California Governor candidate), Mark Reed (California congressional candidate), Bill Hunt (Orange County Sheriff candidate), Jenny Worman (California congressional candidate), Stewart Rhodes (Oath Keepers, Founder) and Ed Asner (Actor "Mary Tyler Moore", "Lou Grant" and "UP"). Michael has also made a series of short films that address controversial political issues. He can be reached at 310.431.8890 or whtagft@hotmail.com.

No virus found in this incoming message.

10 FEB 2010 Chemtrail spraying Midlothian Scotland