Corporate agriculture industry plans “organic” genetically engineered crops to fight climate change

Organic GM alternative considered

Freshinfo.com | Nov 11, 2009

Concern was raised over the organic agriculture industry’s ability to cope with the onslaught of climate change while spurning GM technologies, at a high-level debate in the capital last week.

A panel of experts discussed the possibilities for organic food to become “more robust” in front an audience including the government’s chief scientific advisor John Beddington, who last month called for GM crops to ensure global food security.

The panel, in discussing the role of GM in 21st Century Farming at last week’s Westminster Food & Nutrition Forum, suggested that if GM could overcome issues relating to its public image and the vandalism of trials, it could make real progression in replacing fertilisers, which continue to increase in cost and tackling food security.

Dominic Dyer, chief executive of the Crop Protection Association, said: “In the US they are way ahead of the game on organic genetically modified foods and then there was a whole load of opposition.

“That was the last opportunity we had on that front before trench warfare set in. It is my concern that you can have a few organisations that scaremonger and make the governments back off.”

Julian Little, chair of the Agricultural Biotechnology Council, told delegates that GM could be vital with changes to the environment impacting on agriculture. He said: “Drought tolerance will definitely be important. Climate change means there will be insect problems in the UK that we have not had to deal with before.

“There were trials into blight tolerance in potatoes in the UK which were trashed twice, but if we could find a potato that gave true blight tolerance then organic growers would have a real option to continue in a difficult climate.”

But Patrick Holden, director of the Soil Association, hit back at suggestions the lobbying body harness the opportunity. He said: “We looked at the option of GM with interest when it was first debated, but the more we looked at it the more concern grew. The GM debate is a distraction and it is a dangerous issue with the possibility of some of the larger developing companies having a vice-like grip over agriculture. I see no future for GM in the future of UK agriculture and the answers lie in things like plant breeding tactics.”

The debate comes as the Foods Standards Agency embarks on a 12-month consultation exercise looking into the various challenges surrounding GM food.

Dyer added: “A lot of what the Soil Association says is about lifestyles and we are not going to stop people eating meat and creating food shortages tomorrow, so we need to use the world’s resources well. We need to get realistic about the problems we face.”

Rich ‘may evolve into separate species’

The rich could all be cyborgs in the future.

“Gradually, by selective breeding, the congenital differences between rulers and ruled will increase until they become almost different species. A revolt of the plebs would become as unthinkable as an organized insurrection of sheep against the practice of eating mutton.”

- Bertrand Russell, “The Impact of Science on Society”, 1953

The super-rich may evolve into a separate species entirely in the future due to enhancements in biotechnology and robotic engineering, American futurologist Paul Saffo has said.

Telegraph | Oct 25, 2009

By Amy Willis

Mr Saffo, from San Francisco, says in the future people will be able to grow their own replacement organs, take specially tailored drugs, and use genetic research tools to alert them from any possible hereditary health dangers.

He adds that tomorrow’s world will be a fusion of biology and technology, where robots do the chores, cars drive themselves and artificial limbs are better than real ones.

Mr Saffo’s comments reflect claims by American scientist Ray Kurzweil who only a few months ago said immortality was only 20 years away due to the speed of advancements in nanotechnology.

But Mr Saffo says these improvements would only be affordable to the super-rich. And because of this, he says, advancements may lead to a divide between the classes and eventually could lead to the super-rich evolving into a different species entirely, leaving his not-so-rich counterpart behind.

“In the 1980s it was the personal computer – came out of the garage, changed the world. In the 1990s it was the web. The next big device to wander into our lives is robots,” he told the Sunday Times.

“We may find we are absolutely dependent upon these electronic insects and that we don’t even know we are dependent upon them until something breaks.

“I sometimes wonder if the very rich can live, on average, 20 years longer than the poor. That’s 20 more years of earning and saving. Think about wealth and power and the advantages that you pass on to your children.”

Zero tolerance for GM foods in Europe

For Europeans, genetic engineering of plant life is ‘sinful’

thehindubusinessline.com | Nov 2, 2009

by Mohan Murti

Food is to European culture what free speech is to American culture. There may not always be a good scientific reason for concern, but to consider eating something that has resulted from some laboratory manoeuvring is felt by many Europeans as a kind of refutation of the true self.

Whether judiciously or not, most Europeans are frightened to death of genetically modified food. And, this is not entirely a matter of Europeans’ falling victim to protectionist propaganda or frenzy. Trying to force genetically modified food down European throats is the surest way to guarantee that they swallow neither the potatoes nor a lot of the tactics to dump GM foods.

More than ever today, Europeans are talking about where their food comes from. Food scares push people towards farmers’ markets and more home-cooked fare made with fresh ingredients.

The Atharva Veda 12:1:62, says

O Mother Earth,

Let thy bosom be free

From sickness and decay

May we through long life

Be active and vigilant

And serve thee with devotion

In most of Europe, this Atharva Veda concept of manipulation-free, local-food movement has been gaining momentum in recent years.

Right Decision

Europeans applaud the recent Indian Government’s pronouncement to postpone its decision on the approval of genetically modified Bt aubergines. There are compelling reasons, Europeans feel, why India cannot afford to ignore the environmental and health risks of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

In Europe, regulations are being imposed in the Parliament, individual European nations, and some stores themselves have all imposed restrictions on GM foods.

There is virtually no market for GM foods in Europe as consumers and farmers have overwhelmingly rejected them. EU labelling and traceability regulations also give consumers better information to decide.

Several European retailers have a policy of not selling, under their own brand name, any product requiring a GM label in their markets. Most have put this policy in place years ago, and all have quality-control tests and audit systems to exclude GM ingredients. Countries that have planted GM crops on a large scale have seen their exports to Europe crash.

European Scenario

European farmers are rejecting GM crops and turning to ecological farming. They do not want to be at the mercy of bullying multinationals which are threatening to take control of food.

Most of the 27 EU nations are opposed to GMOs because of risks to the environment and the kind of cross-pollination, of which the Spanish farmers and others have complained. They have been calling for the EU’s agreement on authorising such crops, and the evaluation methods used by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to be beefed up, notably to put more emphasis on the risks of cross-pollination.

Only a handful of GMOs have been approved for cultivation in the EU; of them, only Monsanto’s MON810 maize, approved in 1998, is so far being grown.

The MON810 case has become a source of transatlantic friction. The US has warned Europe against using environmental issues as an excuse for protectionism.

In Germany, the federal states are responsible for official food surveillance. Each of the 16 states has established at least one laboratory for analysing foods for their content of GMOs and, thereby, for their compliance with labelling regulations. Each year, thousands of foods are tested.

The individual results vary from state to state and year to year, but there is a clear trend.

Foods derived from unauthorised GM crops are usually picked up by the European Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) and turned back at the borders. This system prevents unauthorised products from reaching the European market.

GMO-free label

Since May 2008, it has been possible in Germany to apply the label “without gene technology” to food products. Its primary application is in the identification of foods such as milk or meat, derived from animals for which no genetically modified plants such as maize or soy were used in feed.

The criteria are stricter for other foodstuffs: Neither the application of additives obtained through genetic modification nor the accidental admixture of genetically modified plants is allowed.

The standardised logo is making it easier for consumers to choose food products without gene technology in an informed manner.

No more soy shipments are reaching European shores from the US. After several ships were turned away due to traces of Bt maize MON88017 and MIR604 being found in the cargo, all importers are shying away from the risk of such imports.

Europeans are convinced that contamination of the food-chain with GM ingredients and GMOs would create serious and possibly irreversible economic impacts on farmers.

The resulting economic losses — together with patent infringement lawsuits by the biotechnology companies — are likely to lead to a veritable Pandora’s box of legal actions.

Genie in the Bottle

For Europeans, genetic engineering of plant life is ‘sinful’

Europeans believe that the science of genetic engineering is unpredictable and that this ‘Golden Goose’ of industry is laying some stale, mouldy, rotten eggs.

The author is former Europe Director, CII, and lives in Cologne, Germany.

No men OR women needed: Scientists create sperm and eggs from stem cells

Men and women being sidelined from the process of making babies.

Daily Mail | Oct 28, 2009

By Fiona Macrae

Human eggs and sperm have been grown in the laboratory in research which could change the face of parenthood.

It paves the way for a cure for infertility and could help those left sterile by cancer treatment to have children who are biologically their own.

But it raises a number of moral and ethical concerns. These include the possibility of children being born through entirely artificial means, and men and women being sidelined from the process of making babies.

Opponents argue that it is wrong to meddle with the building blocks of life and warn that the advances taking place to tackle infertility risk distorting and damaging relations between family members.

The U.S. government-funded research also offers the prospect of a ‘miracle pill’ which staves off the menopause, allowing women to wait longer to have a child.

It centres on stem cells, widely seen as a repair kit for the body.

Scientists at Stanford University in California found the right cocktail of chemicals and vitamins to coax the cells into becoming eggs and sperm.

The sperm had heads and short tails and are thought to have been mature enough to fertilise an egg.

The eggs were at a much earlier stage but were still much more developed than any created so far by other scientists.

The double success, published in the journal Nature, raises the prospect of men and women one day ‘growing’ their own sperm and eggs for use in IVF treatments.

The American team used stem cells taken from embryos in the first days of life but
hope to repeat the process with slivers of skin.

The skin cells would first be exposed to a mixture which wound back their biological clocks to embryonic stem cell state, before being transformed into sperm or eggs.

Starting with a person’s own skin would also mean the lab-grown sperm or eggs would not be rejected by the body.

The science also raises the possibility of ‘male eggs’ made from men’s skin and ‘female sperm’ from women’s skin.

This would allow gay couples to have children genetically their own, although many scientists are sceptical about whether it is possible to create sperm from female cells, which lack the male Y chromosome.

The U.S. breakthrough could unlock many of the secrets of egg and sperm production, leading to new drug treatments for infertility.

Defects in sperm and egg development are the biggest cause of infertility but, because many of the key stages occur in the womb, scientists have struggled to study the process in detail.

Researcher Rita Reijo Pera, of Stanford’s Centre for Human Embryonic Stem Cell
Research, believes new fertility drugs are just five years away.

However, safety and ethical concerns mean that artificial sperm and eggs are much further away from use.

Dr Reijo Pera said any future use of artificial eggs and sperm would have to be subject to guidelines.

‘Whether one builds the boundaries on religion or just on an internal sense or of right and wrong, these are important. In this field, it is not “anything goes”.’

Scientists at Newcastle University claimed to have made sperm from embryonic stem cells earlier this year but the research paper has been retracted.

Dr Allan Pacey, a Sheffield University expert in male fertility said: ‘Ultimately this may help us find a cure for male infertility. Not necessarily by making sperm in the laboratory, I personally think that is unlikely, but by identifying new targets for drugs or genes that may stimulate sperm production to occur naturally.

‘This is a long way off, but it is a laudable dream.’

Dr Peter Saunders, of the Christian Medical Fellowship, said that IVF should be the preserve of married couples.

‘The question is, why are we creating artificial gametes (eggs and sperm) and aborting 200,000 babies a year when there are many, many couples willing to adopt?’

Josephine Quintavalle, of the campaign group Comment on Reproductive Ethics, warned that any flaws in the artificial sperm or eggs could be passed on to future generations.

Anthony Ozimic, of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, said: ‘The use of artificial gametes in reproduction would distort and damage relations between family members.

‘There are no instances of any major medical advance achieved by abandoning basic ethical principles such as safeguarding the right to life.’

GM crops no panacea for food security: US scientist

thenews.com.pk | Oct 24, 2009

By Shahid Husain

KARACHI: Senior US scientist Dr Michael Hansen has said genetically modified crops are not the panacea for food security. Rather, the answer to food security lies with small-scale, ecologically rational, sustainable agriculture that focuses on local food systems.

“If you look carefully at global data, the most engineered crop is soybean. Ninety per cent of US acreage, 98 per cent of Argentina acreage and 60 per cent of Brazil are engineered,” he said.

“Scientific data show that on an average Roundup soybean has 10 per cent lower yield than non-engineered soybean. So if you want to feed more people, genetically-engineered soybean will not be the answer,” he said.

In an exclusive interview with The News recently, Dr Hansen, who is associated with the Consumers Union (USA), a non-profit publisher of consumer reports, said: “There is a global agreement under the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTDI) and it basically answers the question what kind of agriculture will be most useful in feeding the poor of the world. This four-year assessment, involving 400 scientists, concluded that ‘business as usual is not acceptable.’ They say the answer is not high technology such as genetic engineering or nano technology; rather the answer lies with small scale, ecologically rational agriculture that focuses on local food systems, reforms of trade laws and enabling policy environment and paying attention to gender issues.”

Asked to comment on giant US multinational Monsanto’s claim that Bt cotton requires less water and is pest free, he said: “It’s wrong! In 2002, Bt cotton smuggled from Australia was planted in Sindh. A detailed survey of 138 farmers in four districts reporting growing Bt cotton on 4,249 hectares showed that local cotton variety non-engineered NIAB-78 received six irrigations while Bt cotton received 11 to 12 irrigations which resulted in increased cost of 1,750 rupees per acre. That clearly shows that Bt cotton uses more water.

“Similarly, in 2002, farmers were surveyed in five districts in Punjab. There the cost in terms of rupee per acre for water was Rs2,600 for Bt cotton and Rs2,100 for non-Bt cotton. Bt cotton used 25 per cent more water in Punjab than non-Bt cotton and almost 100 per cent more water in Sindh.”

Asked to what extent the apprehension was true that with the introduction of Bt cotton and other genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) seed business in Pakistan is likely to be monopolised, he said: “The answer is yes.”

Citing a report of the US Department of Agriculture and the Pakistan Annual Cotton Report released in May 2009, he said Monsanto has gained approval for a plan to introduce advanced genetically-modified crop technology and hybrid technology in Pakistan.

“Approval was granted by the Economic Coordination Committee of the Cabinet. In exchange, Monsanto would bring advanced genetically-modified hybrid seed technology to Pakistan.

The government has promised a law called the Plant Breeders Rights and Seeds Act and they will vigorously enforce that law. Such a law will effectively give Monsanto monopoly control over the seed industry in Pakistan since Monsanto is the largest seed company in this country.”

Asked to what extent the claim that GMOs are drought-resistant is true, he said: “While it is true that transnational chemical corporations such as BASF and Monsanto are taking out patents on ‘climate ready genes’ such as genes from drought tolerance, heat tolerance and flood tolerance, Monsantoís field test of drought tolerant corn and drought tolerant maize shows that under drought conditions, the drought-tolerant maize has higher yields. However, under normal conditions, maize has less yield than conventional seeds.

Then there are also other problems with tolerant crops: work with drought-tolerant wheat shows the same results. Increased yields under drought but lower yields when there is normal rainfall.”

He said in the meantime, in the last 10 years the International Centre for Improvement of Maize and Wheat (CIMMYT) has released 50 variations of either hybrid or open pollinated maize varieties. So that means that genetically-engineered hybrid has not produced any useful drought-tolerant wheat varieties while conventional breeding has produced them.

“It makes more sense to go with the conventional technology such as traditional plant breeding that has already shown results in this area while genetically-modified technology has produced no useful results,” he said.

Finnish Chefs Urge Ban on GM-Foods

YLE News | Oct 21, 2009

A group of Finnish chefs, including television celebrities, have signed a petition urging the government to ban the import and sale of genetically-manipulated foods. They feel that allowing GM-foods into the natural food chain destroys the safe and natural production of food.

Chefs Hans Välimäki, Kai Kallio, and Jaakko Nuutila delivered the petition to Finance Minister Jyrki Katainen on Wednesday.

This autumn, the government is set to debate a bill which would allow the import and production of GM foods and crops in Finland.

“It’s also important to guarantee that consumers can identify genetically modified foods and animal products that have used genetically modified feed,” says the petition.

Government scientist and Royal Society in double push to promote genetically modified crops

Scientists are determined to change public attitudes to GM crops, which have been condemned by critics as “Frankenstein food”.

London Times | Oct 20, 2009

by Valerie Elliott

A double push for Britain to grow more genetically modified (GM) crops is to be made today John Beddington, the Government’s chief scientific adviser, is to renew his call for GM crops to ensure global food security.

His support for the controversial technology coincides with a study from the Royal Society, Britain’s most prestigious scientific institution, out tomorrow, which will also endorse the need for Britain to conduct more GM crop trials.

Scientists are determined to change public attitudes to GM crops, which have been condemned by critics as “Frankenstein food”.

Ministers, scientists, farmers and food companies think that the time is right to soften public opinion and to try to win them round to the benefits of GM production.

A new 12-month public consultation exercise on GM food to be undertaken by the Food Standards Agency.

Ministers have asked the watchdog to find out if the public mood has changed towards GM produce.

The move is also in response to concerns by food manufacturers and supermarkets which fear that the growing use of GM technology in overseas food production will make it “impossible” shortly to maintain a non-GM food supply.

A similar exercise took place six years ago which found that most people would not choose to eat or buy GM foods.

The scene has changed dramatically since then with the burgeoning economies in China and India increasing demand for protein.

The impact of climate change with more extreme temperatures leading to increased risk of drought and flooding as well as competition for land use, water scarcity and fuel costs are also likely to cause instability in food production and supply worldwide.

Professor Beddington, addressing a global food summit organised by Cabi, a leading international scientific research body, in London, will highlight GM production as one of the ways the world can guarantee secure food supplies.

GM is not “the silver bullet” but should be used as part of range of solutions to meet the estimated 50 per cent increase in demand for food expected by 2030, he will say.

“A range of solutions will be needed if a world population set to pass 8 billion by 2030 is to be fed equitably and sustainably. Improved protection of crops from pests and diseases in the field and during storage will be critical to reducing crop losses and has a major contribution to make,” he will say.

The 100-page Royal Society report assesses the varous biological approaches that have been proposed to improve crop yield.

Sir David Baulcombe, of the University of Cambridge, who chaired the study, is to outline the steps that governments need to adopt to ensure that in coming decades farmers in the developed and the developing world are fully equipped to feed their growing communities.

Professor Baulcombe said: “If we are to take full advantage of the benefits which science can offer to food production, then we must act now, by identifying valuable science technologies, investing in research, and by laying the regulatory framework to bring these technologies to market.”

A spokesman for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said: “We have always said that GM might be part of the answer to issues of food security. We are not closed to the technology. But we need the scientific evidence from GM trials to show that growing GM crops will pose no harm to human health or the environment.”

At present there is only one British trial under way at Leeds University where scientists are monitoring a GM potato variety which is resistant to blight, a common pest which can decimate crops.

GM Soy Herbicide Linked to Birth Defects

NaturalNews | Oct 13, 2009

by David Gutierrez

The active ingredient of the popular herbicide Roundup, widely used on lawns and genetically modified (GM) crops worldwide, causes birth defects of the brain, heart and intestines even in minuscule doses, Argentinean researchers have found.

“The observed deformations are consistent and systematic,” said lead researcher Andres Carrasco, director of the Laboratory of Molecular Embryology at the University of Buenos Aires.

Argentina is the world’s third largest exporter of soy, planting nearly 17 million hectares (42 million acres), or half of the country’s cropland. Much of this soy has been genetically modified by the Monsanto Corporation to be resistant to the company’s trademark herbicide, Roundup. As a consequence, massive quantities of Roundup are sprayed over soy fields across the country. In many cases, the herbicide is sprayed from the air and may drift over nearby communities or enter their water supplies.

Approximately 200 million liters (53 million gallons) of Roundup are used in Argentina each year.

The new study, conducted by the National Council for Scientific and Technical Research (CONICET), was ordered by the Argentinean Health Ministry in response to complaints filed before federal courts over the health effects of widespread herbicide spraying. For the past five years, a wide coalition of environmental and rights groups have pointed to significantly higher rates of birth defects, cancer, lupus, and diseases of the kidney, skin and respiratory systems in communities located near field of GM soy. Most recently, the nonprofit Rural Reflection Group (GRR) published a paper containing reports of health effects from rural doctors, residents and experts.

The group has called for a ban on the use of Roundup in accordance with the precautionary principle.

In the first phase of the CONICET study, researchers diluted Roundup’s active ingredient, glyphosate, to a strength 1,500 times less than that used on GM soy crops. Other than water, no ingredients were added. The researchers then submerged amphibian embryos into this glyphosate solution, finding that the embryos consistently developed into animals with deformed heads.

In the second phase, researchers injected embryos directly with the diluted glyphosate solution. In addition to head deformity, the researchers observed reduced head size, increased death of skull-forming cells, deformed cartilage and genetic changes to the animals’ central nervous system, on a much larger scale than in the first part of the study.

“One should be able to suppose, with certainty, that the same thing that happens to amphibian embryos can happen to humans,” Carrasco said, noting that the observed results were “completely comparable to what would happen in the development of a human embryo.”

“Pure glyphosate, in doses lower than those used in fumigation, causes defects … (and) could be interfering in some normal embryonic development mechanism having to do with the way in which cells divide and die,” he said. Because the researchers deliberately excluded any of the additives that are also found in Roundup, they concluded that the herbicide’s active ingredient was definitely to blame for the effects.

Because the levels of glyphosate used “were much lower than the levels used in the fumigations,” the risk in real life “is much more serious” than that seen in the lab, Carrasco said.

“The companies say that drinking a glass of glyphosate is healthier than drinking a glass of milk, but the fact is that they’ve used us as guinea pigs,” Carrasco said.

Why are Monsanto Insiders Now Appointed to Protect Your Food Safety?

The New Secretary of Agriculture is a Fan of Factory Farms, GM Crops and More

mercola.com | Oct 10, 2009

by: Dr. Mercola

As I write this I am in Washington DC for the International Vaccine Conference and I just did a 12 hour amazing tour of the Capitol that I will describe later, along with pictures that I will post on Facebook. So politics and patriotism is fresh in my mind.

When President Obama took office, many Americans welcomed what was supposed to be an era of much needed change not only for the economy but also for the food industry and U.S. health care system.

Time magazine put it quite well when they described current farm policy as “a welfare program for the megafarms that use the most fuel, water and pesticides; emit the most greenhouse gases; grow the most fattening crops; hire the most illegals; and depopulate rural America.”

And as has been recently disclosed by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), between 2003 and 2006, millionaire farmers received $49 million in crop subsidies, even though they earned more than the $2.5 million cutoff for such subsidies. In a speech given at the end of 2008, President Obama stated that this was a prime example of the kind of waste he intends to end when he takes office.

Meanwhile, American medical care is the most expensive in the world.[1] The United States spends more than twice as much on each person for health care as most other industrialized countries. And yet it has fallen to last place among those countries in preventing avoidable deaths through use of timely and effective medical care.

That the system is fatally flawed and in need of a radical overhaul is self-evident.

In fact, according to a 2008 report published in the New England Journal of Medicine[2], 90 percent of Americans believe our medical system should be “completely rebuilt” or that “fundamental changes” are required.

And many are looking toward the Obama Administration to carry out these fundamental changes — changes that appear, on the surface at least, to be in the works.

But while health care reform is finally on the table, and an organic farm has, for the first time, been planted on the White House lawn, there are an unsettling number of foxes being appointed to guard the U.S. health care and food industry hen houses … foxes that have entirely too many connections to Monsanto, the chemical manufacturer turned agricultural giant that is slowly gaining control over the world’s population, one seed at a time.

Full Story

Uproar as GM canola ‘contaminates’ beehive

A Greenpeace activist takes samples in a genetically modified canola field near Teesdale, east of Geelong. Photo: Jason Souith

The Age | Oct 2, 2009

by ADAM MORTON

GENETICALLY modified canola has jumped containment lines and “contaminated” a commercial beehive in western Victoria, prompting claims that people are not being told enough about what they eat.

Scientific testing on behalf of Greenpeace Australia found Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” canola strain, which is resistant to some herbicides, had contaminated hives near Bannockburn owned by Edmonds Honey.

Victoria lifted a moratorium on growing GM canola in November 2007 after being advised it could be kept separate from non-GM crops.

Greenpeace spokeswoman Louise Sales said the contamination meant people were being denied choice: anyone buying honey from the affected hive could be eating GM food without knowing it.

She said it showed GM canola was “uncontrollable”. “We’re calling on the Federal Government to keep its election promise — basically not to release GM canola into the environment unless it was produced safe ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. We don’t believe it stands up to that test,” Ms Sales said.

The health effects of GM canola remains contentious, though it is regarded as safe for consumption by the Commonwealth Office of the Gene Technology Regulator and the Australian Academy of Science.

Local farmers and Melbourne restaurateur Dure Dara joined a protest against the spread of GM material into neighbouring crops. The beekeeper affected by the contamination, John Edmonds, was less worried. He was concerned it could affect sales and said labelling should be improved. But he said beekeepers had been using GM cotton for years without negative health impacts.

A spokeswoman for the Federal Government said the health risks of GM canola had been extensively investigated and found not to differ from non-GM canola. GM labelling standards were being reviewed, with a report due mid-next year.

The State Government said the potential impact of GM canola on bee-keepers was considered in a review before the state moratorium was lifted.

Mr Edmonds said he would report the campaigners to police for removing and testing his honey frames.