AgBioView - http://www.agbioworld.org
* Enough Food? * Sams Again
* On Club of Rome's 1972 "Limits to Growth"
* Dutch Parliament Launches a Public Debate on GMO
* Green Revolution Hero Bows Out
* Senate Rejects Moratorium on GM Crops in Switzerland.
* Book Review "GMOs: Story Of A Massaged Debate by Anna Meldolesi,"
* Argentine Farmers Bet On Biotech
* The Long Search For Dinner: The Prehistoric Origins Of Farming
* Siddiqui Joins ACPA; Supports Biotechnology, International Trade
From: Wayne Parrott
Subject Enough Food?
>The UN report concludes: " ... for the world as a whole there is enough,
>or more than enough, food production potential to meet the growth of
>The 'we need to increase production' argument for GMOs is pretty much
>dead in the water now, particularly as in practice they often produce
>lower crop yields."
There is plenty amiss with the interpretations. First and foremost,
the key lies in the phrase "world as whole". The problem is that there
is no effective way to get food from those who have too much to those
who don't have enough and who cannot afford it.
Should farmers in the first world give their food away for free? They
would go broke very quickly. Should the taxpayers in the first world
pick up the bill? Perhaps, but it is not going to happen. What about
the people on the receiving end? There is a measure of dignity that
comes from being self-sufficient and providing for one's family, and
which gets robbed when one has to depend on the charity of others for
The answer is more production in those areas which currently need it.
The issue is not necessarily on how to achieve higher yields, but how
to prevent the huge losses which occur due to pests and diseases, both
pre and post harvest. Anyone who says that this can be done solely by
breeding using marker assisted selection (MAS) is sorely mistaken, due
to reasons I have listed previously:
1) MAS only works if the trait of interest exists in the germplasm
pool of the crop. In many cases, resistances against some diseases,
and particularly insects, is not known to exist
2) MAS does not work on plants which are vegetatively propagated
because they are sterile-- eg, bananas and plaintains, both major
sources of calories in the tropics
3) MAS does not work on plants which are vegetatively propagated
because they do not breed true from seed-- eg, sugarcane, many tuber &
root crops which are major sources of calories in the tropics
4) MAS cannot turn genes off
5) MAS is not overly useful when plants have long generation times
Finally, I do not know where the statement that GMO's "often produce
lower yields" comes from. Barring Roundup Ready Soybean, lower yields
have not generally been considered a problem in other crops. I
previously gave examples where lower yields have historically
accompanied new resistance genes bred into soybean. Check the archives
for the reference. The point is that yield loss, when it happens, is
not unique to transgenes, but a general phenomenon well known to
breeders, and which has been around long before transgenes were
around. It takes the breeders a while to overcome the yield
depression, but they always do.
From: Andrew Apel
Subject: Sams Again
Craig Sams said in an earlier post that the Public Health Laboratory
Service (Britain's CDC equivalent) "got caught up" in the issues
regarding the use of composted animal manures as fertilizer and the
microbiological safety of organic food, and that it issued a report
which, Sams says, should "make reassuring reading" for those concerned
about fecal bacteria on organic food. I'll just quote from that report
Sams relies on:
"The study was set up to provide a snapshot of the microbiological
quality of ready-to-eat organic vegetables; it was not set up to
compare organic vegetables with those grown by other methods."
So, all we know from this report is that they found one-half of one
percent of the organic veggies had unacceptable levels of microbes.
Too bad a comparison was not made with conventional veggies, but this
result just sitting by itself leaves me distinctly un-reassured. One
contaminated serving of organic veggies out of every 200 should
certainly alarm vegetarians who seek out organic produce.
From: Red Porphyry
Subject: Re: Technology and the environment: the case for optimism
>Technology and the environment: the case for optimism
>- Matt Ridley
The British journalist Matt Ridley makes an overall compelling case
for technological optimism in the above lecture article (AgBioView
archive msg# 1090). However, he does make one particularly glaring,
but all too common, error in his description of the Club of Rome's
1972 "Limits to Growth" report, which follows:
>The Club of Rome, which published `Limits to Growth' in 1970 said
>total global oil reserves amounted 550 billion barrels. `We could use
>up all of the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end
>of the next decade,' said President Jimmy Carter. Sure enough,
>between 1970 and 1990 the world indeed used 600 billion barrels of
>oil. So, according to the Club of Rome, reserves should have been
>overdrawn by 50 billion barrels by 1990. In fact, by 1990 unexploited
>reserves amounted to 900 billion barrels--not counting the tar shales.
>The Club of Rome made similarly wrong predictions about natural gas,
>silver, tin, uranium, aluminium, copper, lead and zinc. In every
>case, it said finite reserves of these minerals were approaching
>exhaustion and prices would rise steeply. In every case except tin,
>known reserves have actually grown since the report; in some cases
they have quadrupled.
The Club of Rome made no such static predictions in the "Limits to
Growth" report. What they presented was what they believed the future
held for five things (world population, food supply, industrial
output, pollution, and nonrenewable resources) under a number of
different growth scenarios for the world economy. Matt Ridley
describes scenario 1 (the "reference" or "business as usual"
scenario), which assumed that the 1972 "best" estimate of total
nonrenewable resources was correct. The Club of Rome then changed
different assumptions underlying scenario 1 to see what would happen.
Their "Scenario 2" doubled the 1972 "best" estimate of total
nonrenewable resources (due to improvements in resource
exploration/discovery technology) and their "Scenario 3" quintupled
the 1972 "best" estimate of total nonrenewable resources. A very
useful introduction to the "Limits to Growth" scenarios can be found
at the following URL:
One thing that I think stands out pretty clearly from the "Limits to
Growth" scenarios is that the world's political leaders have, for all
practical purposes, opted for what the above Web site calls "Scenario
2" (business as usual, but at least double the 1972 "best" estimate of
nonrenewable resources). The graphical prediction of "overshoot and
collapse" of the worldwide economy by 2040 speaks for itself.
Technological optimists believe all of this is b.s., of course. On the
other hand, the Club of Rome's "business as usual" scenarios have been
reasonably accurate for the period 1970-2000, and they were pretty
much spot on when they said the world would consume 600 billion
barrels of oil in that period. The jury is still out on who's right,
the technological optimists or the limits crowd, but we'll know the
verdict by 2015.
The verdict will also tell us whether the organic soil-builders or the
genetic engineers were right.
From: Ferdinand Engelbeen
The Dutch parliament has launched a public debate about GMOs. The
parliamentary commission for biotechnology and food starts open
debates all over the country. The first debate will be on June, 25 in
Bussum, The Netherlands. Speakers are from government, universities,
industry and NGOs. Other debates are foreseen until the end of the year.
On-line, there is an enquete where the general public can choose what
the most important issues regarding GMOs for them are. Items are:
- What are the pro's and con's of GMO food?
- Is it proven that GMOs are harmless for humans and environment?
- How is the safety of GMOs controlled and guaranteed?
- Is it allowed that humans changes genes in nature?
- What are the pro's and con's of GMOs for developing countries?
- Others - specify
Until now the first three questions seems to be most important for
people who filled in the questionnaire.
One can have a look at http://www.etenengenen.nl ... but you need to
understand Dutch... The presentation of the discussion on GMOs by the
commission and the items choosen as example for discussion seems very
Sincerely, Ferdinand Engelbeen, Oude Ertbrandstraat 12, B-2940
Green Revolution Hero Bows Out
The man who is often referred to as one of the fathers of the Green
Revolution in rice farming, Dr. Gurdev Khush, retires this year as
head of IRRI?s plant breeding program after working for the Institute
for 34 years. It is a measure of Dr. Khush?s stature as the world?s
foremost rice breeder that, in any rice field, anywhere in the world,
there?s a 60 percent chance that the rice was either bred at IRRI
under his leadership or developed from IRRI varieties.
It is a measure of the man that, on the eve of his retirement, he
hotly denies that IRRI should be recognized solely as a center for
germplasm development, and not for its extensive research in the field
of natural resource management. ?Less than 30 percent of IRRI?s budget
over the years has been spent on crop improvement and enhancement of
germplasm,? he declares. ?The rest has been spent on the multitude of
issues that might, these days, be regarded as integrated natural
resource management.? With a smile, he adds, ?We used to call it
?The idea that IRRI is only a breeding center is a misconception,? he
continues. ?We focus our research programs on the known needs of
farming communities. Natural resources, and their management, are the
very first things we consider. The issues that drive a breeding
program include yield, diseases, pest manage-ment, responsiveness to
nutrients, and tolerance for abiotic stress and weeds. All of these
things have to do with the natural environment.?
New Plant Type: In his 34 years at IRRI, Dr. Khush has become one of
the world ?s most decorated scientists, winning the Japan Prize in
1987, the World Food Prize in 1996, and both the Wolf Prize from
Israel and the Padma Shri Award from his native India in 2000. In his
final months at IRRI, he received news that, at a ceremony in the
Great Hall of the People in Beijing, the State Council of China had
awarded him the China International Scientific and Technological
Cooperation Award for 2001. Dr. Khush?s final work, the creation of
IRRI?s new plant type, is almost complete. The plants are already
yielding strongly in temperate areas of China, and they are expected
to be ready for farmers in tropical Asia by 2005. Developing the new
plant type has taken nearly 12 years of hard and sometimes
disheartening work. It is designed to yield up to 12 tons per hectare
in irrigated tropical conditions, but adjusting its genetic
characteristics to match tastes and environmental conditions has been
more difficult than expected. Nevertheless it?s almost ?ready for the
?I expect it to move very quickly into farmers ? fields once it is
released,? Dr. Khush says. ?It will give farmers the chance to
increase their yields, so it will spread quickly. Already it is
yielding 13 tons per hectare in temperate China.?
Looking back on his three and a half decades with IRRI, Dr. Khush says
he has come to love the Institute as his home. ?It provided me an
excellent opportunity for professional development and allowed me to
contribute to world food security.? He believes that IRRI will have an
important role to play in developing technologies for food security,
environmental protection, and poverty alleviation for many years to
come. He also believes that the Institute should be developing
collaborative arrangements with private-sector corporations. ?IRRI has
tremendous assets that the private sector does not possess, such as
genetic resources, knowledge, and links with the national agricultural
research and extension systems of rice-growing countries. The private
sector, on the other hand, has resources to invest in cutting-edge
science and the generation of technologies. So, the roles of IRRI and
the private sector should be synergistic.?
A Farmer?s Son: Gurdev Singh Khush was born the son of a farmer in the
village of Rurkee, in Punjab, India, in 1935. After excelling at high
school, he went on to graduate from Punjab Agricultural University
with a bachelor?s degree in science, majoring in plant breeding.
Determined to further his studies in the United States, the young
Khush borrowed money from relatives and went to England, where he
worked as a laborer in a canning factory to earn his fare to America.
There, he obtained a scholar-ship to study genetics at the University
of California, Davis, and did so well that he gained his Ph.D. in
genetics in less than three years. He was not yet 25 years old. Dr.
Khush then spent seven years at the University of California, Davis,
researching the cytogenetics of toma-toes. He joined IRRI as a plant
breeder in August 1967, when he was 32, and immediately began to make
his mark on food production in a hungry developing world. He has since
played a key role in developing more than 300 rice varieties in IRRI
?s race to keep rice production ahead of population growth.
One of them, IR36, was released in 1976 to become the most widely
planted variety of rice, or of any other food crop, the world has ever
known. It was planted on 11 million hectares in Asia in the 1980s,
yielding an additional five million tons of rice a year, boosting rice
farmers ? incomes by US$1 billion, and, because of its resistance to
pests, saving an estimated $500 million a year in insecticide costs.
IR64 later replaced IR36 as the world?s most popular rice variety and
IR72, released in 1990, became the world?s highest-yielding rice variety.
The Nobel laureate, Dr. Norman Borlaug, has summed up Dr. Khush ?s
career by saying, ?The impact of Dr. Khush ?s work upon the lives of
the world?s poorest people is incalculable.?
Busy Retirement: Dr. Khush will move to California upon his retirement
at the end of August, but he won?t be away from IRRI for long. He will
return for a few months every year to work as a consultant. Aside from
this work, Dr. Khush looks forward to a busy retirement. He intends,
first, to write about 10 research papers from information he has been
unable, for lack of time, to compile. Then he intends to write a book
on aspects of rice culture, possibly for use in high schools. After
all that, he might consider an autobiography. As well, Dr. Khush has
been invited to serve on the boards of several companies, but he
hasn?t accepted anything yet.
First, he intends to spend more time with his family. His wife,
Harwant, has a Ph.D. in educational management, his son Ranjiv is a
molecular biologist, his eldest daughter Manjeev and youngest daughter
'Save the Children Foundation' in Washington, D.C.
Senate Rejects Moratorium on GM Crops in Switzerland.
GENEVA, June 14 (Xinhua) - The Swiss Senate has rejected a proposal to
introduce a moratorium on the commercial use of genetically modified
(GM) plants, local media reported Thursday. However, it said strict
scientific and environmental controls needed to be imposed. The House
of Representatives has still to discuss the issue. A majority of 23
against 16 votes in the Senate on Thursday threw out a proposal for a
moratorium until 2008 for the release of GM crops in agriculture,
forestry and horticulture.
Supporters of the moratorium had argued that more time was needed to
assess the possible risks of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) for
the environment and mankind. They also denied that a ban would block
research or hamper the pharmaceutical and the chemical industry.
The Senate agreed to impose a strict set of restrictions on genetic
engineering in the non-human field. The commercial use of GM crops
depends on the federal authorities giving their approval. If the law
takes effect, environmental groups will have the right to appeal, and
foods containing GM ingredients will have to be clearly labeled. These
safeguards took into account sufficiently the concerns of critics of
In other business, the Senate unanimously approved a 10-year ban on
the commercial use of genetically engineered animals. The two-day
debate highlighted the dilemma facing many of the senators, which is
to weigh up the advantages and potential dangers that could result
from GMOs. In 1998, Swiss voters turned down a proposal to introduce a
wide-ranging ban on GMOs, including a ban on the patenting of animals
Book Review "Genetically Modified Organisms. Story Of A Massaged
Debate by Anna Meldolesi,"
published in ?Le scienze? (Italian edition of the magazine Scientific
American), no. 394, June 2001, by Gilberto Corbellini, bio-medicine
historian of the University of Rome ?La sapienza?.
?Organismi geneticamente modificati, storia di un dibattito truccato?
(Genetically modified organisms. Story of a massaged debate), by Anna
Meldolesi, publisher Einaudi, Turin, Italy.
Indifference and political expediency by now have jeopardized the
future of Italian biotech research. The technophobic prejudice that is
monopolizing the cultural scenario encourages the proliferation of
almost indecent writings on genetically modified organisms. So it is
almost surprising that this book has found a publisher in Italy.
Free from prejudice and on the strength of a scrupulous analysis of
original documents and a thorough journalistic inquiry, the text
investigates the scientific, economic and political contents of the
worldwide debate on GMOs. Going back to the origins of the GM scare,
the author shows as non-existent dangers have been exploited for
propagandistic goals to fuel biotech fears. Then she goes back over
the emergence of the GMOs market in US and the loss of credibility by
life sciences companies engaged in an aggressive and monopolistic
race. Therefore the golden rice story introduces the reader to the
biotech potential to face food shortage and malnutrition in less
The book shows as in countries where food problems are real ? China,
Cuba and Kenya among them ? there are programs under way to exploit
GMOs for addressing food, health and environment problems. The
appendix finally portrays the distressing Italian scenario, where a
Steiner follower together with a few biologists and physicists more
interested in politics than in science took over the ag ministry and
tried to destroy even the last traces of a remarkable tradition in the
agricultural genetics field.
More Information on the book and how to order:
Argentine Farmers Bet On Biotech
- Athena Jones, Reuters 14-Jun-2001
BUENOS AIRES, Argentina, June 14 (Reuters) - Genetically modified (GM)
soybean seeds have made Argentine farmer Hector Salmoiraghi's life a
lot easier, he says as he stoops to examine a soybean plant in a vast
field lined with eucalyptus trees. Salmoiraghi, whose father and
grandfather were also farmers, has been growing soybeans for 25 years,
outside the port city of San Pedro, some 124 miles (200 km) northwest
of Buenos Aires. "Genetically-modified soy simplified everything," he
said, adjusting his black gaucho-style beret and standing tall in his
rubber boots and Wrangler jeans.
Salmoiraghi began using U.S.-based biotechnology giant Monsanto's
Roundup Ready (RR) soybean seeds five years ago.Made to be resistant
to the company's powerful Roundup weed killer, the seeds cut costs by
an estimated $50-$60 per hectare (2.47 acres) by reducing the
preparation needed before planting.
Salmoiraghi, who planted 250 hectares (617.5 acres) with GM soy this
season and plans to plant more next year, says he'd never go back to
the traditional seeds: "It wouldn't make sense. GM soy is much easier
to work with."He is one of thousands of Argentine farmers singing the
praises of GM products, and now the government is behind them more
than ever before.
Argentina, a major grain and oilseed producer, is second only to the
United States in the use of biotechnology products and has recently
re-dedicated itself to promoting their development and attracting
biotech companies that want to invest here. After 3 years of a de
facto moratorium on approving GM products, Argentina in May authorized
the use of Monsanto's RR cotton. Weeks later, the government created a
biotechnology commission and Agriculture Secretary Marcelo Regunaga
set off for the United States, where he met with biotech companies and
visited research centers.
"We share the biotechnology policy of the U.S.," said Regunaga in a
recent interview. "I told (U.S. Agriculture) Secretary (Ann) Veneman
that in all the international forums, we need to present a common
position in which Argentina would have a more aggressive attitude than
it has had in the past." Argentina is betting that biotechnology is
the wave of the future. But sharing a common policy with the United
States also means the countries could share common foes.
ANTI-GM GROUPS: While proponents say GM products increase efficiency,
environmental and consumer groups say the products are not well
regulated and could contain hidden health and environmental risks. We
are against the sale of these products until there is conclusive
evidence of the long-term effects they could have," said Karla
Irigoyen, the Chile-based representative of watchdog group Consumers
International. "There is a lot of concern about the use of GM products
in Argentina, not only for the sake of Argentine consumers but also
for consumers in all of Latin America," where Argentina sends exports,
The government is well aware that GM products are controversial and
will step up measures to ensure that no unapproved products are used
illegally and that approved products are safe, said Regunaga. Also
approved in Argentina are insect-tolerant corns made by Swiss company
Novartis and Monsanto, a herbicide-tolerant corn made by Franco-German
company Aventis and an insect-tolerant cotton made by Monsanto.
THE TRADE ISSUE: Argentina's renewed commitment to biotechnology means
that GM products are here to stay, at least for the time being. But
whether GM is the future will depend on the impact the use of these
products has on trade. Agricultural shipments make up about 60 percent
of Argentina's exports and GM products are a particularly dicey topic
in the European Union and Asia, where imports of some products have
been restricted on concern they may not be safe for human consumption.
"By approving (GM products) Argentina is definitely moving in the
wrong direction and is risking its exports," said Emiliano Ezcurra,
the coordinator of the biodiversity campaign for the Buenos Aires
office of global environmental group Greenpeace. Argentina sent nearly
30 percent of its grain exports and about 60 percent of its vegetable
oil exports to Asia in 2000, according to data from the Agriculture
China last week ruled that all production and sales of GM foods,
including imports, must have government approval certifying that they
do not cause any harm to humans, animals or the environment. It
remains to be seen how the move will affect Argentine exports.
The European Union, where Argentina shipped about 10 percent of its
grain exports and 60 percent of grain byproducts in 2000, has not
approved any new GM crop varieties since 1998. The European Parliament
in February approved strict rules to regulate GM organisms, but France
and five other countries said they would continue to block new GM
permits until further rules are put in place ensuring gene-altered
products can be traced back to their source.
"In Europe, it's a question of time," Carlos Popik, president of the
Argentine unit of Monsanto, told Reuters in a recent interview. "The
question is purely political," he said. "Europe prefers to increase
production by subsidizing it instead of making it more efficient.
These are the types of things that will be changed by time."
Regunaga seemed unconcerned about Europe: "In Europe there are people
in favor of and people against" biotechnology, he said. "Certainly, we
are going to try to find our friends in Europe so that we can have a
more aggressive international position in favor of biotechnology."
Politics aside, Argentine farmers will likely continue to support
development of GM products that cut costs. Salmoiraghi says RR soy has
helped farmers survive in San Pedro, as lower global commodity prices,
high interest rates and fuel prices and tax pressure have sent many
small producers packing. "GM soy has helped us," he said. "It hasn't
helped as much as it could have because prices have fallen, but it has
certainly helped because with these fuel prices, I'd say that even we
medium-sized producers wouldn't be around anymore."
The Long Search For Dinner: The Prehistoric Origins Of Farming
-Emily Sohn , U.S. News and World Report 18 Jun 2001
Some of the first seeds of civilization sprouted when people stopped
chasing dinner and started raising it. Settlers formed villages.
Landowners gained power. And a boom in leisure time eventually led to
gourmet delis and Internet cafes. But who shepherded the first lamb or
watered the first asparagus crop?
Such questions have long intrigued anthropologists because of a basic
curiosity about humanity's major cultural transitions. But recently
geneticists have become interested as well, for more practical
reasons. A long-range perspective on genetic diversity, they argue,
could help modern farmers avoid the perils of selective breeding and
cultivate meatier livestock and more resilient crops. Much of the
search for domestication's beginnings has focused on a vast region of
the Middle East called the Fertile Crescent. Stretching from the
Persian Gulf to southeastern Turkey and northern Egypt, the area's
high mountain pastures and low-lying plains were generally hot, wet,
and lush at the end of the last Ice Age, 11,000 years ago. Thick
stands of barley, rye, wheat, and lentils grew wild. Cattle, sheep,
goats, pigs, and gazelles roamed free.
Such conditions were ripe for people to plant their own seeds and tame
their own livestock, says Yale archaeologist Frank Hole. Even so, the
switch from hunting and gathering to domesticating and cultivating
seems to have happened independently in scattered places around the
world, according to a flurry of new analyses involving both fossils
and DNA. Goats were likely the first to give up their wild ways,
according to archaeologist Melinda Zeder of the National Museum of
Natural History in Washington, D.C. People don't kill their own goats
the same way they kill wild ones, Zeder notes. To maximize meat for
their efforts, hunters kill the biggest animals first, while herders
kill small, young males and keep females around longer to breed. In
fact, Zeder found a fossil pattern in the Fertile Crescent site of
Ganj Dareh, from about 10,000 years ago, that supports that theory.
Other DNA evidence indicates that after the initial domestication of
goats, migrating people took the animals with them all over the world
to trade as good sources of meat, milk, and wool. Other scientists
have found multiple origins for cows, pigs, and yaks.
This new research suggests that modern breeders could learn some
important lessons from their predecessors. For thousands of years,
shepherds preserved the genetic vigor of their herds by keeping
variety in the gene pool, Zeder says. More recently, breeders have
instead sacrificed such genetic diversity for profitable traits,
including rapid growth, disease resistance, and higher-quality meat,
milk, and fur.
Squash detective. In a similar way, research on ancient plant
domestication could help improve today's crops, says Bruce Smith, an
archaeobotanist with the National Museum of Natural History. He has
pinpointed the origins of squash domestication to 10,000 years ago in
Oaxaca, Mexico, and plans to cross wild squash with genetically
modified squash to test whether genetic tinkering might threaten
Scientists are also on the trail of the first domesticated corn,
beans, carrots, and garlic. One group recently announced dating the
first domesticated maize, from a cave in Oaxaca, to about 6,300 years
ago. Other work is revealing corn's genetic transformation from an
unappetizing, unwieldy plant to the easily harvestable and succulent
crop of modern times.
Yet, even as scientists reveal what people were harvesting and
husbanding thousands of years ago, they can't offer a simple recipe
for how early man came to think of it all as dinner. Says Smith:
"There is a whole smorgasbord of puzzles for scientists to work on."
Siddiqui Joins ACPA Staff; Will Support Biotechnology, International
WASHINGTON (May 31, 2001) - Isi Siddiqui has been named senior
director of biotechnology and trade for the American Crop Protection
Association. He will join the staff June 1.
In his newly created position, Siddiqui will support ACPA's
biotechnology programs and supplement existing staff expertise. He
will devote considerable time on government agency and congressional
outreach. Also, the association will capitalize on his expertise in
international trade including relationships with the Organization of
Economic Cooperation and Development, the World Trade Organization and
the United Nations. Through ACPA's global federation in Brussels,
Siddiqui will provide new leadership to industry's long-term strategy
to reduce and eliminate tariff burdens. Siddiqui's vast knowledge as a
former state regulator will be a bonus to ACPA's state affairs program.
Siddiqui joins ACPA from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, where he
served as undersecretary for marketing and regulatory programs
responsible for agricultural marketing, animal and plant health, grain
inspection and market concentration issues in the final days of the
Clinton Administration. His assignments were publication of several
high priority final rules, and agricultural biotechnology and
Previously, he served as senior trade adviser to USDA Secretary Dan
Glickman, focusing on international trade and agricultural
biotechnology; and USDA deputy undersecretary for marketing and
Before joining USDA, Siddiqui spent 28 years in various positions with
the California Department of Food and Agriculture, culminating his
career there as director of the division of plant industry.
Siddiqui holds a bachelor of science from U.P. Agricultural University
in India, and a master of science and a doctorate from the University
Organized in 1933, ACPA is the not-for-profit trade organization
representing the major manufacturers, formulators and distributors of
crop protection, pest control and biotechnology products. APCA member
companies produce, sell and distribute virtually all the scientific
technology products used in crop production by American farmers.
Contact: Pat Getter
(202) 872-3893 or firstname.lastname@example.org http://www.acpa.org/