Rg Libertylink: A TRUE STORY OF GE RICE CONTAMINATION

7/31/2019 Rg Libertylink: A TRUE STORY OF GE RICE CONTAMINATION

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/rg-libertylink-a-true-story-of-ge-rice-contamination 1/10

LIBERTY LINK RICE:

A TRUE STORY OF

GE RICE

CONTAMINATION



R I C E G R A I N S

Title : LI BERTY L IN K 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 regionalcentres of PAN, a global network which aims to eliminate the harm caused bypesticides and promote biodiversity-based ecological agriculture. It is committedto the empowerment of people especially women, agricultural workers, peasantsand indigenous farmers.

The SAVE OUR RICE CAMPAIGN was launched in 2003 by PAN AP with itsnetwork partners in Asia in recognition of the critical role of rice, the world’s mostimportant and political crop, being the staple food of half its population. Thefoundation 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 traditionallocal rice, small rice farmers, rice lands and the rice heritage of Asiathrough defending and advancing the cultural and food sovereignty of thegrassroots and opposing the powerful threats to rice. PAN AP’s rice booklets -- "Rice Grains" -- will give readers a clear understanding and appreciation of theimportant issues and threats surrounding rice today.

THE SAVE OUR RICE CAMPAIGN of PAN AP and its network partnerorganizations in China, Japan, Korea, Cambodia, Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia,Indonesia, Philippines, Sri Lanka, India, Pakistan, Nepal and Bangladesh havedeclared THE PEOPLE’S YEAR OF RICE ACTION 2009-2010. From 4 April2009 to 4 April 2010, these partner organizations, together with other localpeople’s movements, will campaign through celebrations, forums, exhibitions and

rallies to assert the theme of YORA: RICE FOR LIFE AND LIVELIHOOD. YORAwill culminate on 4 April 2010, the 50th anniversary of the International RiceResearch Institute (IRRI), with the call: 50 Years of IRRI is Enough!

PESTICIDE ACTION NETWORKASIA AND THE PACIFIC (PAN AP)P.O. Box 1170, Penang, 10850 Malaysia

Tel: (604) 6570271 & 6560381Fax: (604) 6583960

E-mail: [email protected]: www.panap.net



LIB ERTY L INK RICE:

A T RUE STORY OF GE RICE

CONTAMINATION

1.0 HOW IT BEGAN

Liberty Link, a genetically modified(GM) variety of rice developed by BayerCropScience, a German agri-businessgiant, is at the centre of a worldwide scarecaused by its contamination of rice crops.

The crisis became publicly known inAugust 2006 when the US AgricultureSecretary Mike Johanns announced that

the Department of Agriculture (USDA) andthe Food and Drug Administration (FDA)had been informed by Bayer CropSciencethat the Liberty Link rice variety calledLLRICE601 had been found in “traceamounts” in samples of long grain rice thatwas meant for sale. Both the FDA and thecompany had reviewed the “availablescientific data” and concluded that thereare “no human health, food safety orenvironmental concerns” associated withthis GM rice.

1

Events that followed showed this to be

a blatant cover-up and severely damagedthe reputation of the FDA, the USDAAnimal and Plant Health Inspection Service(APHIS) and subsequently, the EuropeanFood Safety Authority (EFSA) asinstitutions that are tasked with theprotection of public health and safety. Thecompany, on its part, came under attack fordelaying to notify the authorities about thecontamination as well as withholding keyinformation. The agricultural biotechnologyindustry too comes under question forrisking the biological safety of global food

supplies in its pursuit of profits.

1.1 A Little Background

Liberty is the brand name for theherbicide glufosinate-ammoniummanufactured by Bayer (see box: “What isglufosinate-ammonium?”). LLRICE601 isgenetically modified to be tolerant to thisweedkiller so that the rice crop will survivespraying with this chemical whilesurrounding plants will die. This rice varietywas “not intended for commercialisation”

and was “not submitted to the FDA forevaluation”, the agency said when

announcing the news of the contamination.

2

Friends of the Earth (USA) wasconcerned 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 environmentalconcerns could not be independentlyverified.

3

• No one has any idea of the extent towhich contamination of surroundingcrops or the food supply has occurred.This is because no testing occurs toassess this, although about 1000 fieldpermits are approved by the USDAevery year, often with several test sitesper approval.

4

• Although Bayer had decided earlier notto market LLRICE601 and so had not

sought approval from the FDA andUSDA, the company decided to applyfor approval after the contaminationwas discovered.

5This was clearly an

attempt to circumvent the regulatoryprocess.

1.2 Markets, Importers React

Prices of US rice tumbled as Japanand South Korea quickly halted imports ofits long-grain rice, while the EU, a majormarket, imposed compulsory testing ofimports for the genetically modified (GM)rice.

6The EU was also unhappy that the

US authorities had waited for three weeksto inform consumers although they hadbeen notified by Bayer on July 31, 2006.Environmental groups slammed the EUmove as a “minimal response to a seriouscontamination problem”. This was clearly“inadequate as rice is the world’s mostimportant staple food.” There was noindependent assessment of thecontamination problem, nor penalties orcosts against Bayer.

7



Putting the official and industryinformation into perspective, the GM FreeCymru group said LLRICE601 was mostlikely discontinued as a failed varietybecause it was non-uniform and unstable.

8

The citizens group GMWatch.org noted

that the sole LLRICE601 crop that wasgrown with commercialisation in mind, inTexas in 2000, must have been defective insome way because it was suddenlydumped into a landfill site in 2001. After itsdiscontinuation, this variety had never beenbrought forward for commercialisation orauthorisation 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 tradingcompany Riceland Foods, the biggest inthe US, revealed that the LLRICE601 hadshown up in five states – Arkansas,Missouri, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas,i.e. “throughout the southern rice-growingregion”.

10Riceland said the GE rice

contamination was discovered in January2006 by one of its export customers. InMay, the company collected rice samplesfrom several grain storage sites and foundpositive results for the Bayer trait.

11

As more information on the

contamination scare emerged, it becameevident that neither the regulators andcertainly not the GE industry were showingresponsibility towards the safety of theglobal food supply.• Watchdog groups said Mexico, Central

America, Saudi Arabia, Canada andSouth Africa were among majorimporters of US rice and should beconcerned about the threat.

• The USDA’s strong defence ofLLRICE601 despite its failure toadequately regulate and monitor field

testing of GE crops shows“complacency” and “clearly puts theenvironment and public health at risk”,the Centre for Food Safety, US said.

12

• The global food chain could becontaminated partly because GE rice ischeap compared to GE-free varieties.Yet, regulators are handling GEcontamination episodes on a case-by-case basis, relying on self-reporting bythe agro-business giants, imposingtesting rules instead of a ban andinstead of rejecting applications for thecommercial cultivation of GE rice. 13

What is glufosinate-ammonium?Glufosinate-ammonium is a broad-spectrum herbicide,in use in relatively small quantities since the 1980s. Itsuse is being increased by the recent development of amore than 100 varieties of transgenic plants,genetically modified to be tolerant of it. It carries

unacceptable risks to humans, especially theneurological development of the foetus, to agriculturalbiodiversity, and to the environment. Formulations aremore toxic to humans and the aquatic environmentthan the active ingredient alone, but there is very littleinformation 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, HOE00661, 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 bythe onset of neurological symptoms (convulsionsand coma), then respiratory failure; death resultsfrom circulatory failure. No antidote.

Long-term toxicity- chronic effects are primarily neurological andreproductive because glufosinate-ammonium isstructurally 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 tothose actually born, including cleft lips.- transgenerational effects on brain function arereported.

Environmental effects- is moderately persistent in some soils, and hasthe potential to leach to groundwater, especially insandy soils.- has insecticidal properties which is highly toxic tobeneficial organisms (spiders, predatory mites,butterflies etc.).- is toxic to a number of soil micro-organisms, and

my increase susceptibility to plants diseases, withconsequent increased used of and dependence onpesticides.- long-term use is likely to give rise to herbicide-resistant weeds. Glufosinate tolerance transgeneshave already escaped from genetically modifiedplants and been found in weedy relatives in Japanand the UK.- there are indications of synergistic interactionswith other herbicides, such as with metolachlor tocause damage to testes, and with metsulfuron-methyl to increase phytotoxicity.

Source: Extracted from “Glufosinate-ammonium

monograph”, prepared by Dr. Meriel Watts, 2007.PAN AP.



• USDA records show that most of thedevelopment work on LLRICE601 wasdone in California. Since Bayer did notprovide reference materials or geneticcharacterisations for LLRICE601 andother redundant varieties, nobody

knows what to look for or how to do thetests. This means that Californiamedium grain rice is now contaminatedwith LLRICE601 and various otherabandoned GM lines.

14

• As the Arkansas government haspointed out, the crisis probably beganwhen pollen from the rice tested on USfarms spread to contaminateconventional crops. This would meanthat it has been present – andpresumably been exported – at leastsince the trials stopped in 2001.

15

• Summing up the regulatory lapses, GMFree Cymru’s Dr Brian John said: “It isabsolutely certain that rice containingLLRICE601 is already in the foodsupply chain, and it is outrageous thatnobody is doing anything about it. Inour book that amounts to criminalnegligence…”

16In addition, as the rice

variety is designed to tolerate theherbicide glufosinate ammonium, theharvested crop may have traces of thisneurotoxin, which has been observedto cause defects in unborn mammals.

17

• Questions surrounding the industry-developed test for LLRICE601underscore the importance ofindependent verification methods. Oneconcern is that a test method can becarefully designed to provide falsenegatives. The precedent of the globalcontamination scare involving thegene-modified maize Bt10 in 2005stands as an example where it has notbeen proven that the test method thatwas developed is not fraudulent. “Weneed to remember that the testing ofrice samples for GM contamination isnot designed to get after the truth, butto provide official reassurance. Even ifthe test method is sound, you canconveniently ‘miss’ widespread GMcontamination simply by adjusting yoursampling methods,” said GM FreeCymru’s Dr John.

18

2.0 WORST FEARS

The worst fears of GM watchdoggroups were confirmed in an audit report of

December 2005 by the US Office of theInspector-General (OIG) of the USDA’sbiotechnology regulatory services unit. Itsaid APHIS, the agency concerned, lacks“basic information about the field test sitesit approves and is responsible for

monitoring, including where and how thecrops are being grown and what becomesof them at the end of the field test.”

The OIG said that even though APHISwas supposed to inspect experimentalfields, it was not even requiring companiesto provide site location information. Thegovernment did not require companies todocument efforts to make sure GMO cropswere segregated, and it didn’t testneighbouring fields to look forcontamination during or after field trials.

Overall, the OIG audit found the APHIS

regulatory system so weak that it increasedthe risk that experimental GMO cropswould persist in the environment.

Said Centre for Food Safety policyanalyst Bill Freese: “There is all this stuff inwriting to give you a sense of security butwhen you look at what they’re actuallydoing, it’s nothing.”

19

2.1 Farmers Sue Bayer

Badly hit by falling rice prices becauseimporters of US rice had prevented the

entry of its long-grain rice, farmers in theUS’ rice-growing southern states filed aseries of class action suits against BayerCropScience for failing to prevent its GErice from entering the food chain.

20, 21

2.2 Double Trouble

Next, the Arkansas Rice GrowersAssociation reported that two rice varieties,Cocodrie and Cheniere, were harbouringBayer’s LibertyLink trait.

22Universities in

the US’ six rice-producing states were

asked to submit samples of their seedstock for testing of this problem.

23

2.3 Regulatory Breakdown

In a cynical twist of events, the USDAinitiated fast-track market approval forLLRICE601 although the rice strain had notundergone meaningful reviews for potentialhealth or environmental impacts and Bayeritself had for unknown reasons neverapplied for approval until the contaminationwas discovered.

As Joseph Mendelson, legal director ofthe Centre for Food Safety pointed out:



“USDA’s bid to approve – rather than recall – an illegal, genetically engineeredcontaminant in the food supply is theclearest sign yet that US authorities areintent upon dismantling federal regulationof GE crops in the interests of the

biotechnology industry.”24

The centre fileda legal petition with the USDA to preventthe post hoc approval of LLRICE601 on thegrounds that it will contaminate commercialrice, damage trade due to consumerrejection of GE foods, create herbicideresistant weeds and increase pesticideresidue on rice.

25

2.4 Europe Tests Positive

By early September 2006, theEuropean Commission (EC) reported that

the contaminated rice had been detected in33 out of 162 samples from importconsignments by members of theEuropean Federation of Rice Millers.

26Aldi

Nord, a major German supermarket chain,removed stocks of a brand of rice thatGreenpeace tests revealed to becontaminated with LLRICE601.

27In

Switzerland, Migros, the country’s largestretailer confirmed finding traces of thebanned rice after laboratory tests. Migrosand its rival Coop then suspended sales oflong-grain rice from the US, and the

storage silos were sealed.28

France andSweden also found contamination insamples that were tested using their ownmethods.

29In the UK, the Friends of the

Earth (FOE) group discovered the GMO-contaminated rice in samples taken fromthe Morrison’s supermarket chain, Britain’sfourth largest. FOE found the response ofBritain’s Food Standards Agency (FSA) tothe contamination situation so inadequatethat it mounted a legal challenge against it.Said FOE Europe’s Helen Holder: “Nationalfood safety authorities and food companies

should be rigorously testing samples ateach stage of the supply chain.”Furthermore, the Polluter Pays principleshould apply. “It is not up to consumersand taxpayers to foot the bill for illegalcontamination,” Holder said.

30

Criticising the FSA for its failure torecommend to retailers that the GM-contaminated products be withdrawn, DougGurian-Sherman of the Centre for FoodSafety, US, who is a former GM adviser tothe FDA, said: “Risks should not be takenwith public health for the convenience of

companies or of government. It sets a very

bad precedent to make safety assessmentsbased on data that is incomplete.”

31

The UK’s shadow EnvironmentSecretary, Peter Ainsworth, described theagency's conduct as "a massive scandal"and said it "smelt of a cover-up". He said

he would be asking for an officialinvestigation into whether the agency hadbroken the law, since legally, no GMmaterial was allowed to go on sale in anyEU country, including Britain.

32Finally, in

early October 2006, the FSA responded tothese concerns by telling stores to removeany rice known to contain GM strains.

3.0 WORLDWIDE CONCERN

As rice is the staple diet of half the

world’s population, primarily the people ofAsia, the contamination of rice fields hasserious implications for the safety of theirfood supply. “The Philippines is among thecountries most at risk because we importrice and rice products from both the USand China,” said Greenpeace campaignerDaniel Ocampo, in a statement urgingManila to introduce testing of rice and riceproducts, immediate recall of GEcontaminated rice and GE-free certificationby exporting countries. (Rice from Chinawas involved in a separate contamination

incident in 2005 during field trials of a GErice that reportedly induced allergic-likereactions in mice.)

33

3.1 Scientifically Irresponsible

The power of the agrobusinesscorporations and their ability to bend theauthorities to their will was demonstrated inthis episode. In contrast to the USDA andFDA’s unconvincing assurances that theLLRICE601 posed no health, safety orenvironmental concerns, the European

Food Safety Authority (EFSA), whichreviewed the available data in mid-September 2006, appeared to take a muchmore cautious position. It said there was“insufficient data to provide a full riskassessment” on the rice and only said theconsumption of the long-grain ricecontaining trace levels of LLRICE601would not likely pose an imminent safetyconcern to humans or animals.

34

However, the GM Free Cymru grouprevealed within a week of the EFSA’sassurance that it was based only upon

highly selective data provided to it byBayer, with crucial data on the molecular



characterisation and other crucialcharacteristics of the LLRICE601 in about30 pages of its dossier blanked out on thegrounds that it was confidential businessinformation.

To compound the deceit, the EFSA

statement cited two “positive scientificassessments” of LLRICE601 in support ofits conclusion that it was not harmful ifconsumed in small quantities. Oninvestigation, it was clear that theseassessments were worthless. One was aninformal assessment by unnamedmembers of a panel reporting to the UKFood Standards Agency and neverpublished. That off-the-record advice isentirely unacceptable from a scientific pointof view. The authors of the other “positiveassessment”, which was submitted by

RIKILT (Institute of Food Safety, Universityof Wegeningen, Netherlands) admitted thatthey had not seen the “censored material inthe Bayer dossier either. GM Free Cymru’sDr Brian John summed up the situationthus: “We are staggered by theserevelations. They show that EFSA had noscientific basis for issuing its statement onthe safety of LLRICE601… EFSA shouldnot have issued any statement at all in thecircumstances”.

35

In New Zealand, the GE Free NZ groupexpressed concern that the contaminated

rice was possibly on sale despite thecontaminating variant being untested andunapproved by any authority in anycountry. “The international community isfacing a serious breakdown in regulation ofthe food system. It is vital action is taken touphold the law and remove illegal foodsfrom the system,” it said.

36

In late September 2006, Russia joinedthe growing list of nations that suspendedUS rice imports of GMOs.

37

3.2 Economic Nightmare

The economic fallout from corporate-led GE crop experimentation has hit homehard. When the US authorities revealed theLLRICE601 contamination situation,Britain’s largest food supplier AssociatedBritish Foods (ABF) was among theimporters that began looking for a newsupplier to replace its US sources. Within amonth, European environmental groupsreported another violation of the EU ban onGE foods – this time, they found an illegallyengineered rice strain in rice-based

products sold in Asian supermarkets in theUK, France and Germany. ABF then began

immediately isolating and testing goods itsuspected of containing the illegal ricestrain.

After the USDA and FDA announcedthe LLRICE601 contamination, Septemberrice futures sank 14% on the Chicago

Board of Trade. In addition to the lostmarkets in countries that had stoppedimports of US long-grain rice, Americanfarmers said the EU’s strict screening ruleson all such imports from the US hadpinched their profits. Testing is expensiveand difficult. Swiss food giant Nestle says itspends a “significant part” of its US$1.2billion research and development budgeton in-house safety testing. In 2005, theSwiss agrochemicals company Syngentaset aside US$50 million for tests after it hadaccidentally 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 ricetrade is the main output, generating about20,000 jobs, including a good number atRiceland Rice, the world’s largest millerand marketer of the cereal.

39A lawyer

acting for more than 200 affected farmers,Don Downing said: “To the extent thatMissouri and Arkansas rice farmers lostmoney, we intend to hold Bayeraccountable”. The lawsuit seeks to recover

both the lost income from rice sales due tolower prices and any expenses farmersincurred to test and certify their rice to befree from the LLRICE601 strain.

40

This “catastrophe’ for rice farmers isonly the latest instance of major economicdamage being inflicted by the GM industry.Thanks to GM, American farmers havealready suffered the loss of their cornexport market to the EU, worth hundreds ofmillions of dollars a year. US soybeanexports to the EU, historically America’smost lucrative overseas market, have also

now “dropped to almost economicallyinsignificant levels”.

41

Greenpeace reported that, asNovember 2007, LL-contaminated rice andrice products have been found in 32countries:- 23 European countries, Ghana,Guatemala, Kuwait, Mexico, Nicaragua, thePhilippines, Sierra Leone, the United ArabEmirates and even China.

42

The US is currently the only countrythat has approved the commercial growingof GE rice. India is contemplatingapproving experimental growing of GE rice,

but Indian rice farmers are dead againstthis, with farmers in Haryana and Tamil



Nadu destroying the field trial plots of GErice set up by the Maharashtra HybridSeeds Company on behalf of Monsanto.

43

The discovery of LL-tainted rice hastriggered the largest financial andmarketing disaster in US rice history.

Greenpeace estimates the economic costof the contamination to the industry atapproximately USD 1.2 billion includinglosses of up to USD 253 million from food-product recalls in Europe, US export lossesof USD 254 million in the 2006/07 cropyear, and future export losses of USD 445million.

44he heavy losses are to be

expected as many of the 32 countriesaffected by the contamination have closedtheir doors to US rice including majorimporters such as the European Union andthe Philippines.

Driving home the message thatcorporate-led GM agriculture is badbusiness, Ebro Puleva, the world’s largestrice processing company, which controls30% of the EU rice market, decided to stopimports of US rice into the EU since August2006 over the contamination concerns.

45

Perhaps the title of a news report bythe Associate Press news agency sums upthe rice growers’ predicament best:“Biotech instils fear and loathing inCalifornia rice belt”.

46The false promise

that the GE industry held out for the world’s

food supply has turned out to be a bitterharvest indeed.

Glossary

ABF Associated British FoodsAPHIS Animal and Plant Health

Inspection ServiceEC European CommissionEFSA European Food Safety

AuthorityEU European UnionFDA US Food and Drug

AdministrationFOE Friends of the EarthFSA Britain’s Food Standards

AgencyGE genetic engineering (GE)GM genetically modified (GMOIG Office of the Inspector-GeneralRIKILT Institute of Food Safety,

University of Wegeningen,Netherlands

USDA United States Department ofAgriculture

END NOTES

The information for this report was obtainedprimarily through the GMWatch.org website(www.gmwatch.org)

1. GMWatch.org, 18 August 2006, “GM rice inUS food supply – FDA”,http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid6908

2. Ibid

3. GMWatch.org, 21 August 2006, “Extent andseriousness of contamination unknown, warnsformer EPA scientist”,http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6914

4. Ibid

5. United States Department of Agriculture, 18August 2006, “Statement by AgricultureSecretary Mike Johanns Regarding GeneticallyEngineered 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 August2006, “EU clamps down on GM Rice”,http://www.foeeurope.org/press/2006/AB_23_Aug_US_rice.html

7. Greenpeace International, Brussels, 23

August 2006, “EU restrictions on illegal US riceimports inadequate”,http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/eu-restrictions-on-illegal-us

8. GMWatch.org, 23 August 2006, “ECslammed for ‘complacency and connivance’ -GM Free Cymru”,http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6925

9. GMWatch.org, 16 September 2006, “Euroscientists refuse safety clearance for GM rice”,http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7038

10. GMWatch.org, 22 August 2006,“Unapproved Rice Strain Found in Wide Area”,http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6927

11. Ibid

12. Inter Press Service News Agency, 25August 2006, “Trade: GE Rice Scare ShowsVulnerability of Food Supply”,http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=34462

13. Ibid



14. GMWatch.org, ”LL601 is probably inCalifornian rice as well”,http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6930

15. Independent on Sunday, 27 August 2006,“Rice contaminated by GM has been on sale for

months”,http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article1222081.ece

16. GMWatch.org, 27 August 2006, “Request toSupermarket Chiefs: Please take all US long-grain rice off your shelves”,http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6936

17. Ibid

18. Ibid

19. GMWatch.org, 30 August 2006, “”USOversight of Biotech Crops Seen Lacking”,http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6958

20. Reuters, 28 August 2006, “US farmers sueBayer CropScience over GM rice”,http://today.reuters.com/News/CrisesArticle.aspx? storyId=N8S372113

21. GMWatch.org, 29 August 2006, “Bayerfaces more lawsuits over GMO rice”,http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6949

22. Arkanses Rice Growers Association, 28August 2006, “Many Questions, Few Answerson GMO Rice Problem”,http://www.arkansasricegrowers.com/archive_news.htm

23. Bennett, D. 31 August 2006, “GMO rice:Lawsuits, legislation, markets and frustrations.”Delta Farm Press”,http://deltafarmpress.com/news/060831-alter-rice/

24. Centre for Food Safety, 8 September, 2006,“USDA to rubber-stamp contamination of food

with illegal, genetically engineered rice bannedin Japan and Europe”,http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/GE_RicePR9 _08_06.cfm

25. GMWatch.org, 14 September 2006,“Consumer group urges USDA not to approveGMO rice”,http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7031

26. GMWatch.org, 11 September 2006, “EUconfirms 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 Europealarms 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/Genetically_modified_rice_hits_Switzerland.html?siteSect=105&sid=7058118&cKey=1158091686000

29. Deutsche Welle, 14 September 2006,“German Authorities Confirm GM RiceFindings”,http://www.dwworld.de/dw/article/0,2144,2171602,00.html

30. Friends of the Earth Europe, 17 September2006, “Friends of the Earth finds illegal GM ricein UK supermarket”,

http://www.foeeurope.org/press/2006/HH_17_Sept_Morrisons_rice.html

31. GMWatch.org, 17 September 2006, “Saleof illegal GM rice in Scotland sanctioned by foodsafety watchdog”,http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7041

32. Lean, G., The Independent on Sunday, 17September 2006, “GM: The cover-up”,http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article1604094.ece

33. Infoshop News, 12 September 2006,“Philippines at serious risk from illegal GMO ricecontamination”,http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20060912012231783

34. Food Navigator, 15 September 2006,“EFSA: ‘Insufficient data’ for full GM riskassessment”,http://www.foodnavigator.com/news/ng.asp?n=70605-efsa-bayer-gm

35. GM Free Cymru, 21 September 2006,“EFSA safety statement was issued withoutsight of crucial GM rice data”

http://www.gmfreecymru.org.uk/news/Press_Notice21Sept2006.htm

36. GMWatch.org, 20 September 2006, “Coverup of GM rice contamination a scandal”,http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7047

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, “Flapover modified rice weighs on food importers”,

http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7035



39. The Economist, 16 September 2006, “Ricefarming: Grains ofdoubt”,http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7914941

40. Keller, R., Southeast Missourian, 17September 2006, “More farmers sue over

release of altered rice”,http://www.semissourian.com/story/1168623.html

41. GMWatch.Org, 7 September 2006,“Updated Report Says Industry Still Not Readyfor Biotech Wheat Farm Futures”,http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6994

42. TWN Biosafety Info, 23 November 2007,“Unapproved GE Rice from US Found inChina.”, 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. GMORice caused $1.2 billion in damages”,

http://www.reuters.com/article/asiaTopNews/idUSIndia-30351820071106

45. GMWatch.Org, 29 September 2006,“World’s largest rice company halts all US riceimports”,http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7085

46. GMWatch.Org, 11 October 2006, “Biotechinstills fear and loathing in California rice belt”,http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7124

Rg Libertylink: A TRUE STORY OF GE RICE CONTAMINATION

Documents

Transcript of Rg Libertylink: A TRUE STORY OF GE RICE CONTAMINATION