http://www.eco-farm.org/blogs/genetic_engineering/ en marcy@eco-farm.org Copyright 2010 2010-08-23T17:44:57+00:00 http://www.eco-farm.org/blogs/genetic_engineering/eucalyptus_trees/ http://www.eco-farm.org/blogs/genetic_engineering/eucalyptus_trees/#When:17:44:57Z Groups oppose genetically engineered eucalyptus trees By Bruce Henderson bhenderson@charlotteobserver.com Posted: Thursday, Aug. 19, 2010 Environmentalists are challenging the plans of a S.C.-based biotechnology firm to grow genetically engineered eucalyptus trees in the South, saying the fast-growing Australian species could spread uncontrollably. ArborGen LLC won federal permits in May to plant 330 acres of a eucalyptus hybrid in South Carolina and six other states. The test sites include Marlboro County, S.C., about 75 miles southeast of Charlotte. Genetic engineering speeds up the tedious cross-breeding that farmers have used for centuries to boost desirable traits in crops and livestock. Read More... 2010-08-23T17:44:57+00:00 http://www.eco-farm.org/blogs/genetic_engineering/thousands_blind/ http://www.eco-farm.org/blogs/genetic_engineering/thousands_blind/#When:22:12:49Z Thousands Blind for Want of GM Rice? Steve Baragona Voice of America Washington DC, 29 July 2010 Excessive regulation of genetically modified crops has delayed release of a variety of rice that could help reduce the leading cause of preventable blindness in children, according to an editorial published in the British journal Nature. Vitamin A is essential for vision and a healthy immune system. The World Health Organization estimates that at least 250,000 children go blind each year from vitamin A deficiency, and half of them die within a year of losing their sight. Rice doesn't naturally contain this essential nutrient. That's why vitamin A deficiency is so common in parts of Africa and Southeast Asia, where rice is the mainstay of the diet. Read More... 2010-08-04T22:12:49+00:00 http://www.eco-farm.org/blogs/genetic_engineering/farm_bureau_urges_sanctions/ http://www.eco-farm.org/blogs/genetic_engineering/farm_bureau_urges_sanctions/#When:21:11:18Z Farm Bureau urges sanctions against EU's GM crop ban Wednesday, July 28, 2010 By Doug Palmer Source: Reuters The largest U.S. farm group has urged the Obama administration to begin steps towards imposing sanctions on the European Union in a long running dispute over the EU's treatment of genetically modified crops. The American Farm Bureau Federation, in comments given to the administration on Monday, complained the EU still has not complied with a 2006 World Trade Organization ruling against its "de facto" moratorium on approving new varieties of biotech crops for sale in the 27-nation bloc. "The inability of the EU to operate a timely and predictable regulatory process ended U.S. corn exports (to the EU) in 1998 and has reduced corn byproducts substantially," the Farm Bureau said in its recommendations for President Barack Obama's National Export Initiative. "If the EU does not immediately begin to make timely, science-based regulatory decisions on pending and future applications, soybean exports also are at serious risk," the farm group said. "USTR should initiate a retaliation proceeding against the EU to force compliance with the WTO ruling on GMOs (genetically-modified organisms)," the group said. The request comes just a few days before U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk is due to give a speech in Pittsburgh on the Obama administration's efforts to ensure other countries live up to trade agreements. U.S. farmers have widely embraced genetically modified crops, which offer higher yields with reduced pesticides. But the technology is viewed with suspicion by many European consumers because of perceived safety concerns. The United States first challenged the EU's de facto moratorium and other policies that impeded sales of U.S. genetically modified crops at the WTO in 2003 and was joined by Canada and Argentina. The WTO's 2006 ruling largely backed the complaint brought by the three countries, who argued the EU was failing to apply its own scientific approval procedures to GM products. Since then, the United States has agreed at least twice to give the EU more time to comply with the ruling. Washington also began steps in January 2008 to retaliate against the European Union, but later suspended that action. The Farm Bureau initially supported the U.S. government decision not to retaliate in the case in the hope the two sides would find a way to "normalize" trade in biotech crops. Now the group said it has changed its mind. "U.S. agriculture has suffered substantial damage from the EU's failure to abide by its WTO commitments and this damage will continue to grow as long as the EU does not comply with the WTO ruling," the Farm Bureau said. © Copyright 2010 Thomson Reuters Source: Reuters 2010-07-28T21:11:18+00:00 http://www.eco-farm.org/blogs/genetic_engineering/technology_for_corn_hybrids/ http://www.eco-farm.org/blogs/genetic_engineering/technology_for_corn_hybrids/#When:20:12:46Z Syngenta Seeds, Inc. Launches Agrisure Artesian(TM) Technology, First Water-Optimized Technology for Corn Hybrids Tuesday, July 27, 2010 Syngenta Seeds, Inc., today unveiled its Agrisure Artesian™ technology, the new brand name for its range of water optimized hybrids and the newest addition to the Agrisure® family of high-performance trait products. A limited quantity of hybrids with this technology, which has demonstrated the potential to deliver 15% yield preservation under drought stress, will be available through the company‘s Garst®, Golden Harvest® and NK® product brands. Agrisure Artesian technology enables corn plants to use available moisture more efficiently, resulting in higher yields on drought-stressed acres including dryland and limited-irrigation farms in the western Corn Belt. Growers on rainfed acres in the central and eastern Corn Belt likewise can use Agrisure Artesian technology to help stabilize yields in years of inconsistent rainfall or in fields with variable soil types and moisture-holding capacity. In years of ideal rainfall, hybrids with Agrisure Artesian technology have demonstrated no yield penalty compared with hybrids without the technology. "Any grower will tell you how tough it is to watch corn roll up under heat and drought stress during tasseling and silking, knowing those plants may never fully regain that lost yield," says David Morgan, president of Syngenta Seeds, Inc. "We are pleased to announce Agrisure Artesian technology, the industry‘s first water-optimized corn technology, to help growers preserve yields when moisture is limited due to lack of rains, poorly timed rains or limited-irrigation situations." Syngenta created Agrisure Artesian technology through years of advanced molecular breeding to begin identifying and mining the many genes from the corn genome responsible for managing water use in corn. Syngenta‘s first-generation water-optimized hybrids combine multiple genes from this pool, all of which were identified as helping corn plants manage available water more efficiently. The Agrisure Artesian brand name was chosen to reflect the power of this technology, similar to the power of a flowing artesian well to improve accessibility of water for plant life. Initial hybrids featuring Agrisure Artesian technology will be released primarily in the western Corn Belt – where the probability of drought stress in any given year is virtually 100 percent and yield of dryland corn can be less than 50 percent of irrigated yield levels. Agrisure Artesian technology will be sold with Agrisure 3000GT and Agrisure GT trait technologies. Syngenta is also developing a complementary water-optimized hybrid product utilizing a genetically modified (GM) trait. These hybrids are anticipated to be available post-2015, pending receipt of all regulatory and key import market approvals. PDF Version Syngenta is one of the world's leading companies with more than 25,000 employees in over 90 countries dedicated to our purpose: Bringing plant potential to life. Through world-class science, global reach and commitment to our customers we help to increase crop productivity, protect the environment and improve health and quality of life. For more information about us please go to www.syngenta.com. Source: Syngenta   2010-07-28T20:12:46+00:00 http://www.eco-farm.org/blogs/genetic_engineering/chile_film_wins_top_award/ http://www.eco-farm.org/blogs/genetic_engineering/chile_film_wins_top_award/#When:20:03:23Z The ''Seeds are Sacred'': Chile Film Wins Top Award By Rosanne Boyett Beacon Staff Writer Published Monday, July 26, 2010 Here: Cibola Beacon The New Mexico chile, latest candidate for genetic engineering, stars in an award-winning documentary that has touched the heart and soul of New Mexico. This one-hour film, “Genetic Chile,” examines how corporate ownership of genetically modified organisms has changed traditional foods. “The seeds are sacred,” said Isaura Andaluz and she is adamantly opposed to the New Mexico State University-Las Cruces' plant-engineering project. In 2008 the state legislature authorized $1 million to fund research at the campus for genetically engineered chile plants. The outcome is designed to permanently alter this traditional staple of New Mexican cuisine. “It makes me angry as hell,” said Jenn Schramm after viewing “Genetic Chile.” Another area resident said, “Anyone who eats should be concerned about what is happening to our food supply and the control Monsanto and other corporations have on what we buy at the grocery store.” District 6 State Representative Eliseo Alcon said, “As someone who eats a lot of chile I need to find out more about GMOs and this film.” State Senator Lynda Lovejoy, District 22, commented, “We need to be concerned about GMOs not being labeled because this raises health issues for consumers.” Typically corporations that patent a GMO seed conduct food safety studies in secret and they are done only for three months. There has never been a long-term, multi-generational food safety study completed, according to the film's creator Chris Dudley. “If these industry scientists were so certain their products were safe, it would seem to me that they would be demanding more long-term, multi-generational food safety studies to defend their thesis,” said the filmmaker. The expense of developing GMO seeds has lead to an unprecedented consolidation of plant breeders and a marked loss in crop diversity. These altered seeds are more expensive than conventional varieties. Increasingly GMO seeds are being created with multiple genetically-induced traits, making the seeds even more expensive. Based on patent restrictions farmers are not allowed to save seeds to use for future plantings. Often agricultural producers choose GMOs because they produce crops that allow for a substantial decrease in labor costs and are less expensive in the short term. Corn and soy crops are both heavily subsidized by the federal government, which essentially guarantees farmers' profits. Breeding does not involve any artificial manipulation of the genes. Traditional agricultural breeding involves selecting certain parents for mating. The hereditary substance of the father and mother are combined in a natural process. Conventional crossbreeding produces genetic control and balanced functioning within the seed. With genetic engineering these hereditary functions are disrupted through the artificial insertion of new genetic material into the plant's seeds. Biotech proponents have argued that humans have been manipulating genes for ages in breeding but opponents state that premise is intentionally misleading. This GMO technology may result in an unpredictable creation of new molecules that may be toxic, allergenic or may disturb the metabolism of the cell, this disruption of cell functions may generate unexpected toxic or allergenic molecules. The potential for development of unknown characteristics is one of the reasons opponents question the value of GE products. “Controlling the seed is not some abstraction. Whoever controls the seed controls the world's food supply,” according to a May 2010 article in Vanity Fair magazine. In May the New Mexico Filmmaker's five-member judging panel named “Genetic Chile” this year's top documentary film. Each summer the winning films in the six categories are shown at seven locations across the state. Eligibility for entries includes filming in New Mexico by a resident filmmaker. Lovejoy stated the New Mexico Filmmakers' goal is to raise residents' economic status by promoting jobs in the state's film industry. Concerns: For thousands of years farmers and herders have selectively bred their plants and animals to produce useful hybrids. It was a hit or miss process because the actual mechanisms that governed inheritance were unknown. Knowledge of genetic mechanisms resulted from careful laboratory breeding experiments carried out over the last century and one- half. By the 1890's the invention of better microscopes allowed biologists to discover the basic facts of cell division and sexual reproduction. With better research equipment genetic research focused on the transmission of hereditary traits from parents to children. A number of hypotheses were suggested to explain heredity but Gregor Mendel, a little- known Central European monk, was the first person whose theories of genetic trait transmission were acknowledged. The 1866 publication of his hypothesis went unrecognized until 1900 when his ideas gained acceptance. In contrast to more than a century of scientific research on plant hybrids, the development of genetically modified organisms has altered the cultural understanding of agricultural production. Reliance on this country's corporate agricultural system is a continued threat to small farmers and has unpredictable effects on the natural environment, according to filmmaker Chris Dudley, an Albuquerque resident. He included the following concerns about GMOs and food production in his film “Genetic Chile.” 1. GMOs do not increase yield. There is not one single marketed GMO that has demonstrated increased yield, enhanced nutrition, salt resistance or drought tolerance. 2. Until recently there have been no long-term food safety studies done on even one GMO seed. 3. The corporate owners of the seed patents have forbidden independent food safety studies. 4. At least 80 percent of GMO crops are tolerant of, not resistant to, the proprietary herbicide. This means the plants are filled with the herbicide. 5. There seems to be something questionable about a crop that is defended by a consortium of corporate scientists and government agencies. Typically scientists that criticize GMOs are attacked, muffled or de-funded. “Genetic Chile” legislative contact: Legislative contacts for genetically modified organisms and the New Mexico chile are listed below. • State Representative Ken Martinez, District 69, call: 287-0716 or 287-8801 • State Representative Eliseo Alcon, District 6, call 285-6387 or 1-505-986-4254 • State Senator Lynda Lovejoy, District 22, call: 1-505-786-7498 or 1-505-352-0967 • State Senator David Ulibarri, District 30, call: 287-8241 or 1-505-986-4265 Copyright © 2010 Cibola Beacon. All rights reserved. Source: Cibola Beacon 2010-07-28T20:03:23+00:00 http://www.eco-farm.org/blogs/farmer/i_work_on_farms_i_am_a_criminal/ http://www.eco-farm.org/blogs/farmer/i_work_on_farms_i_am_a_criminal/#When:23:50:06Z By Jonah Raskin I am a professor at Sonoma State University. I am also apparently a criminal, and perhaps involved in a conspiracy to violate the law. I work without pay on small, local organic farms in northern California - because I love to do it - and in the eyes of the law - specifically California's Division of Labor Standards Enforcement - the farms that are benefiting from my unpaid labor are operating illegally. This summer farms in northern California have been fined as much as $18,000 for violations of the law that says that sisters, brothers, cousins and aunts of farmers cannot work without pay. According to the law, anyone who does work on a farm must be paid at least the minimum wage. That might sound fair, and protection for workers, but it is outrageous and unjust. It is an example of the stupidity of the law. If family members cannot work on a family farm then both the family and the farm - two institutions that form the bedrock of traditional American values - are in grave danger from the forces of law and order. And if friends cannot volunteer to pick berries or plant tomatoes than the volunteer spirit which we need is greatly undermined. For a year I worked on a farm to gather information for a book I wrote about small, organic farms. I was up at 5 AM, working by 6 AM, and dead tired by noon, but it was a tiredness I could live with and not the mental fatigue that I experience as a college professor. I learned about farming by farming. I believe that all Californians and indeed all Americans could learn about the value of small, organic farms by going to farms to plant, weed, cultivate and harvest. It's just what our society needs - ordinary citizens getting away from their computers and into the outdoors to work with their hands alongside farmer workers. I will go on working on farms. I will work for free. I will enjoy the open air, speaking Spanish to the men from Mexico who are paid, and who are worth every cent they earn. I am not taking work away from them, nor am I giving the small, organic farms I work for an unfair advantage over those farms that do pay interns and family members and friends. I see what I am doing as a spiritual activity. It is good for the soul, my soul, and it is a way to build bridges between Anglos and Latinos that are far too few in our society. I have brought my students to the small, organic farms near the campus of Sonoma State University and they learned as much on the farms as they do in the classroom. The State of California should be helping to bring citizens to farms to work, not putting up roadblocks to prevent them from working in the fields. Jonah Raskin is the author of Field Days: A Year of Farming, Eating and Drinking Wine in California   2010-07-21T23:50:06+00:00 http://www.eco-farm.org/blogs/farmer/break_through_discovery/ http://www.eco-farm.org/blogs/farmer/break_through_discovery/#When:20:55:56Z Farther Afield Tom Willey T & D Willey Farms Not a regular reader of the powerhouse scientific journal, Nature, from which a rare article on organic pest control was torn and sent along by a CSA member in last week’s mail, I gave it a go. One glance left a quick impression that submissions to Nature are purposely written in languages unintelligible to all but parochial tribes of scientists. But the title’s lure: “Organic agriculture promotes evenness and natural pest control” (July 1, 2010) scorched me with dogged determination to digest its substance, so I commenced looking up definitions of each newly encountered, quirky term. Turns out, lead author David Crowder and his entomologist colleagues are conducting just the type of research for which I and other natural systems farmers have long advocated, explaining their article’s near impenetrable complexity. Any farm is an agroecosystem, a disrupted facsimile or remnant of the natural ecology it replaced, featuring fewer species of plants, insects and microorganisms than it once did in a native state. Crowder’s team set out to compare relative biodiversity on Washington state’s organic and conventional potato farms, focusing on a whole complex of insect predators, parasitic nematodes and fungi which contribute to natural suppression of the dreaded Colorado potato beetle. These researchers’ “break through” discovery, which landed a coveted Nature publication, was that the absolute number of species present in a potato field (richness) was less important than the relative abundance of each species (evenness). Organic farms exhibited vastly more balanced predator populations of insects, nematodes and fungi, than did conventional potato fields. Greater population evenness on these organic potato farms led to 18% fewer pests and 35% larger plants. Concerned they might be observing a phenomenon that would not play out on a broader landscape, the team scoured scientific literature for similar evenness comparisons on other farms growing other crops. The nearly forty relevant studies they unearthed all agreed with their findings in Washington potato fields. Like careful scientists, they don’t speculate as to the reasons for such results, but the late Harry Shorey, UC Kearney entomologist always startled listeners with his claim: “The key to effective insect control is to keep pesticides off plants”. “Balance of nature” is a term we bandy about but rarely investigate at levels of complexity embraced by Crowder’s ambitious team. Their work provides a glimpse into the interwoven world of food webs our best next-generation young minds will need to penetrate to sustain the success of humanity’s agricultural revolution. –Tom Willey 2010-07-20T20:55:56+00:00 http://www.eco-farm.org/blogs/farmer/the_bovine/ http://www.eco-farm.org/blogs/farmer/the_bovine/#When:18:30:40Z Farther Afield By Tom Willey T & D Willey Farms Those docile black and white Holstein “milk machines” on today’s industrial dairies hardly evoke an image of their wild progenitor, the enormous auroch, Bos primigenius, that commandeered Eurasian forests some 8,000 years ago, on the cusp of its impending domestication. European scientists, hot on the trail towards sequencing the complete auroch genome from ancient, well-preserved bone, intend to resurrect this extinct bovine from which all modern domestic cattle arose. Motivation for such an undertaking derives from “Jurassic Park” fascinations as well as the potential utility of repopulating Northern Europe’s forests in which this native herbivore once browsed, contentedly munching on beech saplings, which today threaten to choke these boreal ecosystems. The proposed back-breeding project, using domestic cattle strains, which yet carry key portions of the ancient auroch genome, is reminiscent of a similar early 20th century effort carried out by the brothers Heck, directors of the Munich and Berlin zoos. The Hecks seemingly “reversed evolution” by crossing numerous cattle breeds to combine remnant characteristics from their wild auroch ancestors, the last of which perished in 1627 on a Polish game preserve. Without any sophisticated genetic tools beyond the fresh rediscovery of Mendel’s laws of inherited traits, the two German zoologists produced beasts that in all visual respects appeared identical to depictions of aurochs in famous French and Spanish cave paintings from the Paleolithic era. This astonishing breeding experiment inadvertently launched much misguided interest in human eugenics, which the cruel Nazi regime pursued to a devastating end. Several dairying friends of mine who transitioned their herds to pasture have quickly recognized that today’s cows, bred for maximum production on grain diets, do not perform particularly well when foraging grass. These visionary herdsman are now calling upon out of favor breeds such as the Dutch Belted and others, well adapted to pasture, as genetic reservoirs of disease resistance and consistent production under new grass paradigms. Western cultures, especially, have prospered by an eight millennia-long intimacy with bovine relatives, a profound respect for which has significantly eroded over our current industrial age. Perhaps retrieving the great mother auroch from an abyss of extinction will engender in modern Homo sapiens some newfound appreciation for the fellowship and interdependence we share with all Earthly beings. –Tom Willey 2010-07-19T18:30:40+00:00 http://www.eco-farm.org/blogs/genetic_engineering/new_book/ http://www.eco-farm.org/blogs/genetic_engineering/new_book/#When:18:24:09Z TWN Biotechnology & Biosafety Series no. 12 Genetically Engineered Backslide: The Impact of Glyphosate-Resistant Palmer Pigweed on Agriculture in the United States By Edward Hammond Publisher: TWN (ISBN: 978-967-5412-27-1) Year: 2010   No. of pages: 32 ABOUT THE BOOK The widespread planting of "Roundup Ready" crops that are genetically engineered to be resistant to the herbicide glyphosate has led to the emergence of glyphosate-resistant weeds in fields in the United States. Of these weeds, the species believed to pose the greatest threat to agricultural productivity is Palmer amaranth - more commonly known as Palmer pigweed - which has infested cotton and soya farms across the southern US and is expected to spread to new areas and crops. The approach currently adopted to stem its spread has been to apply more and more herbicides, including chemicals which are banned in many countries due to their toxicity. American farmers have also had to revert to agricultural practices used in the 1980s and earlier, such as hand weeding and increased tillage. Such measures will not only push up farm production costs, but give rise to adverse environmental impacts as well. This paper examines the worrying extent and implications of the Palmer pigweed problem, which the author says shows up the folly of US agriculture's increasing reliance on genetically modified herbicide-resistant crops. ABOUT THE AUTHOR EDWARD HAMMOND is an American policy researcher who has worked on biodiversity, biological weapons and infectious disease issues since 1994. From 1999 to 2008 he directed the Sunshine Project, an international non-governmental organization specializing in biological weapons control. Hammond was Programme Officer for the Rural Advancement Foundation International (now the ETC Group) from 1995 to 1999. He holds MS and MA degrees from the University of Texas at Austin, USA, where he was an Inter-American Foundation Masters Fellow. Email: twnet@po.jaring.my for further information 2010-07-19T18:24:09+00:00 http://www.eco-farm.org/blogs/genetic_engineering/bayer_loses/ http://www.eco-farm.org/blogs/genetic_engineering/bayer_loses/#When:18:19:11Z Bayer Loses Fifth Straight Trial Over U.S Rice Crops Thursday, July 15, 2010 By Margaret Cronin Fisk and Joe Whittington Bayer AG lost its fifth straight trial over contaminated U.S. long-grain rice to a Louisiana farmer who claimed the company's carelessness with its genetically engineered seed caused exports to plunge. A jury in St. Louis said today the company should pay damages of $500,248. The company previously lost two trials in state court and two in federal, for a total of more than $52 million in jury awards. It faces about 500 additional lawsuits in federal and state courts with claims by 6,600 plaintiffs. It hasn't won any rice trials so far. The Louisiana grower, Danny Deshotels, and his family claimed the company and its Bayer CropScience unit were negligent in testing their genetically modified LibertyLink seed, causing a dive in exports to Europe. "Five different juries under the laws of four different states in both federal and state courts now have unanimously found that Bayer was negligent and liable to rice farmers for damages," Don Downing, Deshotels' lawyer said after the trial. "Not a single juror in any of the five trials found for Bayer." Bayer, based in Leverkusen, Germany, denied it was negligent and disputed the damages claims. It said after today's verdict it "will consider its legal options." "The facts in this specific case do not support an award of damages," Greg Coffey, a CropScience spokesman, said in the statement. "The company maintains that it acted responsibly and appropriately at all times in the handling of its biotech rice." Sixth Trial Coming A sixth case is scheduled to begin trial July 19 in state court in Arkansas, followed by a federal trial in St. Louis in October, Coffey said yesterday in an interview. Lawyer for growers will continue pushing these cases to trial "until Bayer decides it is willing to provide fair compensation through settlement," Downing said after the verdict. Bayer has been participating in mediation discussions in the federal lawsuits in St. Louis, Coffey said. The company is "hopeful that all parties might approach resolution in a positive and reasonable manner," he said. The newest loss might spur Bayer into "thinking seriously about a settlement," said law professor Carl Tobias, of the University of Richmond in Virginia. "Five in a row seems pretty convincing," he said in a phone interview. "But Bayer might think it's worth it to test out a few more." Five States Farmers in five states claim the company and Bayer CropScience negligently contaminated the U.S. long-grain rice crop with its genetically modified LibertyLink seed, leading to export restrictions, bans on two kinds of high-yield seeds and a plunge in prices. The rice growers' "reputation for producing a pure product was destroyed, with the export market lost," Downing told the federal court jury yesterday. "It was Bayer's carelessness, and Danny Deshotels was hurt." Bayer didn't dispute contamination. It denied it was negligent and said rice sales rebounded after an initial drop. The farmers' losses "were minimal and short-lived," Mark Ferguson, the company's trial attorney, said in closing arguments at the trial. "Global prices recovered quickly with the discovery of other markets." Grower's Home Deshotels lives in Lettsworth, Louisiana, about 100 miles north of New Orleans and two miles west of the Mississippi River, Downing said. The grower asked for about $1.5 million in damages for lost sales and contamination of his land, seed and equipment. The jury of seven women began deliberating yesterday. The LibertyLink brand was being studied at Louisiana State University in an effort to create a crop that could be safely sprayed with a weed-killer. In August 2006, the U.S. Agriculture Department announced that the modified seed had been found in commercially grown long-grain rice in Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, Arkansas and Missouri. Five days later, the European Union announced a ban on U.S. imports to the 27 countries in that group, Downing said at the start of the trial. Within four days of the announcement, a decline in rice futures had cost U.S. growers about $150 million, according to the farmers' complaint in federal court in St. Louis. Rice Held Safe Restrictions were eased after Bayer's rice was declared safe by the Agriculture Department in November 2006. There are no claims in the rice litigation that LibertyLink harmed or risked human health. Farmers say the contamination cost them the European market for long-grain rice and that sales haven't rebounded. "Our rice exports to the EU fell off a cliff, almost literally, and you will see that they still haven't recovered," Downing said in opening statements at the trial June 21. Europeans "are still eating rice, but the customers we were selling to are now buying from these countries: Thailand, Pakistan, India and Uruguay." Farmers in five states asked to be allowed to pursue their claims in class action, or group suits, one action per state. U.S. District Judge Catherine Perry in St. Louis in August 2008 refused, instead scheduling test trials on typical claims. The outcomes may provide the basis for settlement negotiations. Previous Losses Bayer's previous federal court losses were for about $2 million in December and about $1.5 million in February. Those juries didn't award punitive damages. The two state court losses both came in Arkansas. The first verdict was for about $1 million, including $500,000 in punitive damages. The second was for almost $48 million, with $42 million in punitive damages, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Bayer filed post-trial motions to set aside the verdicts in federal court and "is seeking appellate review in the two state trials," said Coffey, the company spokesman. The case is In Re Genetically Modified Rice Litigation, 06- md-1811, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis). With assistance from Andrew Harris in Chicago. Editors: Michael Hytha, Charles Carter To contact the reporters on this story: Margaret Cronin Fisk in Southfield, Michigan, at mcfisk@bloomberg.net; Joe Whittington in federal court in St. Louis at joethewhitt@sbcglobal.net. To contact the editor responsible for this story: David E. Rovella at drovella@bloomberg.net. ©2010 Bloomberg L.P. All Rights Reserved. 2010-07-15T18:19:11+00:00