GE canola should be banned
The licensing last week of GE herbicide tolerant canola for unrestricted release echoes the scourges of prickly pear, cane toads and rabbits approved last century. Australia spends $3.5 billion a year on weeds and this will increase when GE canola goes feral. "The federal government's Office of Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) ignores the fragile Australian environment and the urgent need to make Australian farming sustainable, to protect the environment and food security", GeneEthics Director, Bob Phelps said. "GE crops intensify the farming practices that are destroying our capacity to feed ourselves. "CSIRO warns that in 30 years Australia will be a net importer of food unless we make farm practices sustainable, but GE crops undermine that process. "Licensing Bayer is also a mistake as we gave the OGTR overwhelming evidence that the company is not suitable to hold such a licence", Mr Phelps said. "Bayer has been convicted and fined around the world for breaking laws, guidelines and regulations which affect public health and the environment. "Under sections 57 (2) and 58 of the Act, the OGTR must refuse a licence if an applicant is unfit. "Six state and territory governments have banned the unrestricted release of GE canola for at least 12 months over its threat to our reputation for clean, green foods, which will close local and overseas markets to Australian grain." GeneEthics has asked the Gene Technology Ministerial Council which is meeting this week in Perth, to create a national consensus on GE canola by joining Tasmania's ban on commercial GE crop releases for five years. "Once GE canola is released our GE-free status will be lost forever", Mr Phelps warned. Unsuitable to hold a licence Sections 57 (2) and 58 of the (Commonwealth) Gene Technology Act 2000 require the OGTR to fully assess the suitability of applicants to hold licences. GeneEthics provided the IGTR with evidence in support of its case that within the terms of the Act Bayer CropScience Pty Ltd is unsuitable to hold licences from the OGTR. Licence holders are required to meet contemporary community standards of probity, good standing and ethical behaviour. The GeneEthics submission shows that because of Bayer's past history of: * persistent non-compliance with the law, regulations and guidelines, and - - being convicted, fined and censured on many occasions world-wide, over the past decade; * the applicant company fails the test of suitability set out in the Act and should be denied the licence. GeneEthics urged the OGTR to independently and exhaustively exercise its responsibility to investigate and assess applicant suitability. "We question whether the OGTR has yet fully complied with both the letter and spirit of Sections 57 (2) and 58 of the Act when assessing Bayer's fitness", the group said. The most precautionary step the OGTR could take is to reject the company's application. Bayer has shown itself incapable of protecting the environment and public health, and has not got the will to do so. In the event of the licence being granted, which is now the situation, despite the body of evidence that the applicants are unsuitable and that the environmental and public health risks are unacceptable, GeneEthics urged that strong conditions be imposed on the licences. As a minimum, the licences GeneEthics said, should require the corporations to give guarantees and evidence that they: * fully insure their dealings and accept full liability; or lodge fidelity bonds in trust, to compensate anyone damaged by their dealings; * fully inform the buyers of the technology of the nature, scope and hazards of the dealings; * require that neighbouring farmers are informed where GE canola is to be grown so they can take timely evasive action (for example, by growing an unrelated crop). All of these measures are within the discretion of the OGTR, conferred by the Act. The following are a few examples that GeneEthics submitted to the OGTR of relevant convictions and penalties against Bayer CropScience: Fraud USA: 2003 In a fraud settlement, Bayer agreed to pay US state and federal governments $257 million and plead guilty to a criminal charge of fraud after engaging in a scheme to overcharge for the antibiotic Cipro. The fraud involved secretly selling Cipro to Kaiser Permanente, one of the nation's largest health care organisations, at prices lower than the company was charging Medicaid. This violated a federal law that requires drug makers to sell drugs to Medicaid at the lowest price charged to any customer. The health of people unable to benefit from Cipro because of its cost is relevant. Norway: 2002-3 In September 2002, three companies including Bayer AG were ordered by the Environment Department of Oslo, Norway's capital, to pay total fines of seven million euros. The agency told the three companies they were responsible for contaminating the Oslo fjord with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), chemicals which impact the environment and public health. USA: 1996 Bayer was fined $500,000 and ordered by the US Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) to do $2.5 million worth of remediation works for breaches of regulations relating to hazard reduction in the use toxic plastic chemicals. Peru: 2002 After a nine-month investigation, a Peruvian Congressional Subcommittee found significant evidence of criminal responsibility by both the agrochemical company Bayer and the Peruvian Ministry of Agriculture in the poisoning of 42 children in the remote Andean village of Tauccamarca in October 1999. The children were stricken after eating a school breakfast contaminated with the organophosphate pesticide methyl parathion. Bayer had continued to sell its most toxic pesticides (classified by the World Health Organisation as extremely or highly hazardous) despite publicly promising to withdraw them in 1995. Twenty-four children died and 18 others survived, with long-term health and developmental problems. The pesticide was promoted under the name Folidol to small farmers throughout Peru, the great majority of whom speak Quechua only and are illiterate. Bayer packaged the pesticide in small plastic bags, labelled in Spanish, displaying a picture of vegetables. The poison is a white powder that resembles powdered milk and has no strong chemical odour. The labels provided little indication of the danger of the product, and no usable safety information such as pictograms accessible to the majority of users in remote villages. The Report found that Bayer should compensate the families and surviving children who are still waiting for a hearing date to be set. Lipobay deaths In August 2001, Bayer was forced to withdraw from the market an anti- cholesterol drug, Lipobay (known as Baycol in the US). Fifty people had died and this total is now about 100. Bayer faces 7800 lawsuits over Lipobay and has settled 450 out of court. A decision in the first Lipobay-related court case, in Corpus Christi Texas, is expected soon. A US pensioner is seeking $100m in damages in the case and the outcome is considered a yardstick of Bayer's liability. Experiments on students Germany-USA-UK: 1998-2000 The US EPA is seeking an inquiry by the National Academy of Sciences into Bayer CropScience's use of students to test an organophosphate classified as highly hazardous by the World Health Organisation. Students of Heriott-Watt University in Edinburgh were paid $1100 to consume fruit juice laced with organophosphate. The research had no medical benefit and its potential hazards were not disclosed. The survey was to gather data to argue that restrictions on the pesticide's use ought to be eased. Bayer has not subsequently checked on the students' health. The Nuremberg Code, formulated after the Nazi's wartime experiments bans the use of humans for testing poisonous substances without a medical purpose. USA: 1997 In an out of court settlement, Bayer was expecting to pay $267.4 million to 6200 haemophiliacs infected by AIDS-tainted blood products between 1978 and 1985. USA: 1998 Bayer faced a $54,000 penalty from the EPA for clean air violations after they exceeded sulphur dioxide limits by burning high sulphur coal at their polymers manufacturing plant in Anniston Ohio. Exposure to sulphur dioxide is linked to impaired breathing and other respiratory diseases. USA: 2002 Bayer was successfully sued by two x-ray technicians who suffered illness because Bayer employees had incorrectly installed a Bayer manufactured x- ray machine: Alder v Bayer Corp No. 20000937 (Utah Nov. 26, 2002). Dumping toxic waste Argentina: 1996 Bayer is cleaning up 10-12 tonnes of pesticides it buried in 1970 after the government began preliminary legal proceedings against it. Bayer says it has no record of the dumping and is unaware of any other such sites. "The company has consistently betrayed the public's trust and confidence globally so its licence applications should be rejected. We submit that Bayer cannot be trusted to act in good faith in the public interest, with the precaution, care and diligence necessary to deal safely with GE canola or other Goes. "Utmost good faith is required when dealings involve the release of Goes, especially as the plans for segregation and coexistence of GE and non-GE canola will be largely self-managed by the licensees or their agents."* * * For more information and details of GeneEthics information and how you can support them, visit: http://www.geneethics.org Acknowledgements: GeneEthics Network Level 1, 60 Leicester St, Carlton 3053.