Contaminated US rice has been found all over Europe, including in the UK and Germany

Bayer's illegal GM rice continues to inflict damage on US rice industry

In yet another blow to the US rice industry, the world's largest rice processing company, Ebro Puleva [1], which controls 30 per cent of the EU rice market, has confirmed to Greenpeace that it has stopped all imports of rice from the USA to the EU due to the threat of contamination by genetically modified (GM) rice.

The move follows a string of scandals, with illegal GM contamination found in rice products all over Europe. In January 2006, a strain of Bayer's GM rice, which was not approved for human consumption, was found in US rice intended for export. As a result of Bayer's recklessness, the global food industry is facing massive costs associated with this contamination, including testing costs, product recalls, brand damage, import bans and cancelled imports and contracts.

In a letter to Greenpeace [2], the Chairman of Ebro Puleva states: "We regret that US rice is facing a problem with GM rice and decided to stop any imports of US rice since August 2006."

Ebro Puleva has also indicated that it will not consider purchasing from the US until the situation is under control. Instead, the company will purchase rice from other countries, with the exception of China, which continues to have problems with GM contamination of its rice.

"By imposing a blanket ban on rice imports from the US, Ebro Puleva has acknowledged how real and costly the risk of GM contamination is," pointed out Jeremy Tager, GM campaigner, Greenpeace International. "With GM now as uneconomic as it is unacceptable, governments in countries that grow or import GM must stop placing farmers, consumers, the environment and industry at such high risk."

At least three multi-million dollar class action lawsuits have been filed by US rice farmers against Bayer CropScience already, as farmers struggle to protect their livelihoods [3]. Ebro Puleva has said they expect to bring legal actions against Bayer as well.

The strain of Bayer's illegal GM LL601 rice was first detected in rice intended for export from the US earlier in 2006. This variety has not been approved for human consumption anywhere in the world. It has only been grown in field trials that ended in 2001, and yet in September 2006, testing commissioned by Greenpeace and then by various European government agencies showed a broad variety of products on supermarket shelves in Europe had been contaminated by Bayer's illegal GM rice. Following the Greenpeace exposé a leading German supermarket chain Edeka announced that they would cease selling all US long grain rice. A number of European retailers, millers and processors have followed suit.

"It is now time for governments to respond strongly as well. They cannot leave enforcement of food safety laws to industry alone. We urge the EU to enforce its laws more vigorously and ensure that all member states comply, particularly those that have thus far refused to enforce EU law," concluded Jeremy Tager.

For further information, please contact:
Greenpeace Press Office: 0207 865 8255
Graham Thompson, GM Campaigner, Greenpeace: 0207 865 8293

Notes for editors:
[1] Ebro Puleva, with a presence in 40 countries, is the first supplier of rice as a raw material for the major companies of the European food sector. It has taken over and now owns Riviana Foods, Inc, the leading company on the US rice market, with extensive distribution networks in the United States and Central America; Kraft Foods' rice business in Germany, Austria and Denmark; and Panzani, one of the leading food enterprises in France. http://www.ebropuleva.com/ep/en/acerca_ebro/negocioarroz.jsp

[2] The letter from the Chairman is available online.

Donald Rumsfeld

5th October 2005 Greenpeace today released a confidential draft of an internal Pentagon document "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations", which reveals how the US government's aggressive new policies for nuclear weapons are being turned into military practice. The new doctrine shows military planners anticipating that US nuclear weapons might be used pre-emptively, and in much less intense crises than envisioned previously, including in a conventional conflict.

The document, which includes comments by all the major military commands, provides the first formal update of US nuclear operational policy since the Bush administration took office.

The editing of the document reveals sharp internal disagreements about the legality of the US's new posture, specifically its implied endorsement of the use of nuclear weapons against targets whose destruction by a nuclear weapon must inevitably lead to massive civilian casualties. A final version of the document is expected this autumn.

The document reveals:

• Plans for the pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons against non nuclear countries and against countries which the US judged might be intending to use chemical or biological weapons against its forces or allies.
  
  
• That the Bush administration's public claims to be reducing the role of nuclear weapons are false.
  
  
• That nuclear weapons might be used in less intense crises than previously considered including in a conventional conflict.
  
  
• That the distinction between conventional forces and nuclear weapons is being discarded and nuclear weapons being integrated into conventional weapons planning and missile defences.

That the main purpose of missile defences is to defend military forces not civilians.

That some commanders do not believe that the threats used to justify the new doctrine actually exist. The editing process also reveals internal divisions about the legality of the new nuclear doctrine.

On one hand the document concludes the United States is legally free to use nuclear weapons pre-emptively if it chooses, "no customary or conventional international law prohibits nations from employing nuclear weapons in armed conflict."

However the editing process reveals a debate among the different commands over the legality of different types of targeting of nuclear weapons. Of particular concern was the legal status of 'countervalue targeting', which directs the destruction or neutralization of selected enemy military and military-related activities, such as industries, resources, and/or institutions that contribute to the enemy's ability to wage war.

The US strategic command, STRATCOM, which directs nuclear warfighting commented "Many operational law attorneys do not believe 'countervalue' targeting is a lawful justification for employment of force, much less nuclear force. Countervalue philosophy makes no distinction between purely civilian activities and military related activities and could be used to justify deliberate attacks on civilians and non-military portions of a nation's economy...For example, under the countervalue target philosophy, the attack on the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11 could be justified". They concluded that therefore "countervalue targeting violates" the Law of Armed Conflict and suggested changing the phrase "countervalue" to "critical infrastructure targeting".

The European US command, EUCOM, responded by strongly objecting to the use of the term 'critical infrastructure' to hide the fact that the new nuclear warfighting doctrine encourages nuclear targeting which could well lead to massive civilian casualties.

The refusal of EUCOM to agree with this terminology led to both the terms "critical infrastructure targeting" and "countervalue" being withdrawn from the document to end the discussion. However this type of targeting appears to continue, and simply changing the terminology obviously does not change the illegal targeting itself.

Greenpeace disarmament campaigner Dr Dominick Jenkins said, "This document should send a shiver down the spine of everyone. It confirms that the Pentagon is prepared to use nuclear weapons pre-emptively and in situations which will involve massive civilian casualties."

He continued, "Historically, where US nuclear policy leads the UK generally follows. And with the UK facing a choice of whether to build a new nuclear weapon system in this parliament it is crucial that both MPs and the public seriously examine these documents."

"The UK can't allow itself to be dragged down this path. We must step back from the brink of a new nuclear arms race - by taking Trident off patrol, stopping all preparations to build a new atomic bomb and restarting the multi-lateral disarmament negations which have already helped to eliminate over half the world's nuclear arsenals."

Editor's Notes

Download the documents:

US Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations

Comment matrix on Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations

Understanding the Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations

For more information contact William Peden, Greenpeace International Disarmament on 00 31 653 504 731 or page Greenpeace UK press office on 07659 108982

Esso Purfleet: villains

Responding to reports that Tony Blair is attempting to broker a climate deal with George Bush - dubbed Kyoto-lite - Greenpeace Executive Director Stephen Tindale said:

"Getting Bush to even accept man-made climate change is happening would be real progress, but Tony Blair can't expect plaudits for giving the US administration a gentle private prodding while tens of thousands die and emissions rise under his own government.

"Too often we see Tony Blair standing side-by-side with Bush and not even mentioning what he has called the biggest threat we face. On global warming Bush isn't with us, he's against us. It's time the Prime Minister spent some of the political capital he's amassed in Washington and demanded not just agreement on the science but huge cuts in US emissions."

For more information, contact the Greenpeace press office on 0207 865 8255 / 07801 212967.

Free Speech Victory logo

UNITED STATES/Miami, Florida

In a stunning setback to the Bush administration's attempt to shut down Greenpeace, a Federal Judge in Miami has dismissed the US government's case against us for exposing illegal mahogany shipments.

Judge Adalberto Jordan cited insufficient evidence in dismissing the case. Upon granting a jury trial last month, he expressed doubts about the Justice Department's ability to prevail against Greenpeace's claim that the criminal statute involved is unfairly vague. "It is not a good sign," he wrote, "when the government resorts to defining a phrase by repeating the phrase itself."

The prosecution was widely criticized as an attempt to silence Greenpeace. Al Gore called the case "highly disturbing" and Senator Patrick Leahy warned that a successful prosecution would "have a chilling effect on free speech and activism of all kinds."

This was the first time that an entire organisation faced prosecution by the US government for free-speech related activities. The case arose from an action in February 2002, when Greenpeace volunteers carried out a peaceful protest against a cargo ship which was transporting illegal mahogany from the Brazilian Amazon.

Unable to find a law against protecting the environment, the US government had to improvise. The best they could come up with was an obscure 1872 law against "sailor mongering." The bizarre statute was originally designed to discourage owners of inns and brothels from boarding ships as they were about to enter port, in order to lure the sailors into their establishments. It has only been used twice in its 132-year history.

Greenpeace USA Executive Director John Passacantando stated "The conduct for which the Ashcroft Justice Department seeks to prosecute Greenpeace was, essentially, whistle-blowing -- publicly exposing and preventing violations of U.S. law prohibiting the importation of illegally harvested mahogany wood."

Speaking from the Miami Federal Courthouse, Passacantando said that "America's tradition of free speech won a victory today, but our liberties are still not safe; the Bush administration and its allies seem bent on stifling our tradition of civil protest, a tradition that has made our country stronger throughout our history."

Over 100,000 people world-wide sent protest messages to George Bush and US Attorney General John Ashcroft demanding that the case be dropped.