| |
Today in AgBioView from http://www.agbioworld.org - Feb 15, 2007
* Without Transgenics, Brazil Might Refrain from Profiting US$ 9B in 10 years
* Food or Filth? The European Paradox
* Americans Enjoy GM Food, Why Can't Kuwaitis?, Asks US Official
* Pakistan Plans to Introduce Bt Cotton Shortly
* GM Crops Save Money, Land: Canadian Expert
* Unlikely Crop Chosen For Bioenergy Research
* Internet Discussion - 'Africanness' , Western Science, Journalism and GM Crops
* Genetically Modified Foods Hip-Hop
--
Without Transgenics, Brazil Might Refrain from Profiting US$ 9B in 10 years
- Editorial, Estado De São Paulo (Brazil), Feb 6, 2007
In case the National Technical Commission on Biosafety (CTNBio) does not approve the corn and cotton varieties, which proceedings are stopped, farmers may refrain from profiting up to US$ 9 billion in the next ten years. This alert was made today, on the first day of the 'Show Rural' Coopavel, by the Council for Biotechnology Information (CIB), in a reported developed by Céleres Consultoria.
In the analysis of Anderson Galvão, director of Céleres, corn producers may fail to gain US$ 6.9 billion in the next decade, in case the insect and herbicide resistant varieties are not released by the government for commercial planting. In the case of cotton, the income waiver might reach US$ 2.1 billion. "These figures are a lot more representative than those of soybeans, as the area planted with corn is virtually half of the soybean area. Whereas, for cotton, the area cultivated is of little more than 1 million hectares, which makes transforms these US$ 2.1 billion into very high saving if taking into account the hectares planted", he explains.
For both crops, profits from the adoption of biotechnology, according to the study, would derive from the higher yield and the reduced expenses with herbicides and insecticides. "For while, the benefits are concentrated in the hands of farmers and of the companies that own the technology, but it has already been observed that they have already been shared among the whole chain and they will certainly reach final consumers", states Galvão.
The preliminary data of the report presented today already indicate that a kilo of chicken bred with transgenic soybeans feed could be sold to consumers for a cost 3.3% lower than the chicken raised with conventional feed. In the case of milk, savings represent 3.4% and for pork savings may reach 4%. "From the moment the companies perceive the necessary political security, new technologies will be introduced in the Country and final consumers
**********************************************
Food or Filth? The European Paradox
- Andrew Apel, http://www.cropgen.org/article_109.html
A major conclusion of "The Tolerance of Food Contamination in Europe" (posted at CropGen, http://www.cropgen.org) is that the European Union does not regulate food ingredients which, in the US, would be considered "filth." This seems at first to be an impossible conclusion, as it claims proof of a negative. Yet, that is the conclusion, and it's not because these regulations have not yet been found. Rather, it's because the European Union has specifically exempted such ingredients from regulation.
Even after reading the European legislation which exempts "extraneous matter, such as, for example, insect fragments, animal hair, etc." from regulation, it remains difficult to believe. It becomes more understandable, though hardly more palatable, when placed in the context of the trade issues involved. In short, Europe has lowered its food standards in order to lower trade barriers between member nations. Scarcely anything could make this more explicit than the Commission's declaration that trade disturbances based on the Precautionary Principle are problems which Europe must enact laws to prevent. Even so, there is something more explicit: the food regulation designed to address the 'problem of precaution' declares these contaminants are "not food," and therefore, not subject to restrictions on food.
Much of the rhetoric which surrounds the use of engineered crops for food production makes use of the notion of 'contamination,' a theme avidly promoted by activists. It is interesting to consider what would happen if the European Union passed legislation which declared ingredients from engineered crops to be 'contaminants' on a par with insect fragments and animal hair. The result: they would either not be contaminants, and present a mere "quality" issue, or they would be 'not food,' and not subject to food law.
An obvious paradox arises when trade in safe food would flourish in Europe if it were legally defined as 'contaminated.' Likewise, another paradox when trade in food actually 'contaminated' is expressly exempted by food safety legislation. There is yet a third paradox--when the first two paradoxes coexist within the same legal system.
All this can easily be explained in a European system which gives priority to free trade among its member states over food safety and the precautionary principle, and inverts these interests to defend trade interests against outsiders.
This is neatly illustrated by a recent announcement by the Soil Association that it might make "food miles" an element of organic certification. In Britain, the Soil Association confers organic status on foods which meet its standards and can be counted, for practical purposes, as a governmental body. Imports of "organic" food into Britain naturally have the effect of lowering market prices, but a 'food miles' requirement would selectively discriminate against imports. If there were a true consumer-based concern about the impact of travel delays on freshness, the Association would instead consider refusing certification for stale produce. The result of such a measure? Withered produce could retain its "organic" certification, but at a higher price to consumers.
This suggestion by the Soil Association is very much in line with what appears to be a European decision to maximize the benefits of internal trade without regard to consumers. However, this presents a conundrum: if European legislation truly reflects consumer preferences, it invites the conclusion that Europeans would rather eat insect fragments and animal hair than what scientists have shown to be safe--safe to the very limits of their ability to imagine the remotest hazard.
Equally baffling is the silence on these issues of activist groups who claim to represent the interests of consumers. These groups, many of whom are funded by European governments and have access to government deliberations at the highest levels, have dodged the issue of food filth as deftly as European governments. Activist groups are opportunists. They constantly seek issues they can magnify into causes which magnify their political power, and increase the donations which provide their bread and butter. This presents the conundrum all over again: if European activists truly represent consumers, would European consumers truly prefer to eat insect fragments and animal hair, etc., instead of food that scientists have declared safe to the most extreme limits of detection?
The issues of food contamination in Europe are too complex to address in any one paper, but for now, it's at least time to open a transatlantic dialogue on what 'food contamination' truly is.
**********************************************
Americans Enjoy GM Food, Why Can't Kuwaitis?, Asks US Official
- Boie Conrad Dublin, Arab Times. Feb 14, 2007 http://www.arabtimesonline.com
'USDA director counters 'danger claims''
Food derived from genetically modified (GM) plants is as safe as those produced from conventional sources, according to the Abu Dhabi-based Regional Director of the Agricultural Trade Office of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), David J. Williams Tuesday during a round table discussion with the press at the US Embassy in Bayan.
Williams' visit was prompted by allegations about the dangers of GM foods raised by two Greenpeace activists during a press conference held in Kuwait last week. Countering the issues raised by Arnaud Apoteker and Andi Freimuller on the supposed adverse effects GM foods could have on human health, Williams said that US regulatory process ensures that all biotech products that are commercially grown, processed, sold, and consumed are as safe for the environment and for human and animal health as their conventional counterparts. According to him, the US government's regulatory system is transparent, predictable, open to public comment, and based on sound science. It is continuously reviewed and evaluated to ensure it meets the challenges of this evolving technology.
He said that the agencies responsible for its regulation are the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Food and Drug Administration or FDA. In further touting the safety of GM foods, Williams cited the European Commission's Directorate General for Research's report which states: "Research on the GM (Genetically Modified) - plants and derived products so far developed and marketed ... has not shown any new risks to human health or the environment ... Indeed, the use of more precise technology and the greater regulatory scrutiny probably make them even safer than conventional plants and foods.
"GM foods available on the international market have undergone risk assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health in any other form than their conventional counterparts." According to a June 2005 report by the World Health Organization, Modern food biotechnology, human health and development: and evidence-based study." The UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) report "The State of Food and Agriculture, 2003-2004" further states: "Thus far, in those countries where transgenic (GM) crops have been grown, there have been no verifiable reports of these causing significant health or environmental harm."
Numerous organizations and scientists have determined that biotech foods pose no threat to humans or the environment. These include the French Academy of Sciences, the 3,200 scientists who sponsored a joint declaration on biotech foods, and numerous scientific studies - including a joint study conducted by seven national academies of science (The national academies of the United States, Brazil, China, India, and Mexico, plus the Royal Society of London and the Third World Academy of Sciences.Data provided to newsmen shows that biotech crops are farmed worldwide with 8.5 million farmers planting a total of 89.9 million hectares of biotechnology crops in 2005. The United States was the leader with 49.2 million hectares, followed by Argentina with 16.8 million hectares; Brazil with 9.2 million hectares; Canada with 5.6 million hectares; and China with 3.2 million hectares.
During 2006, in the Unites States, 61 percent of corn area, 89 percent of soybean area, and 83 percent of cotton area was planted with biotechnology crops.Other countries growing biotechnology crops include: India, Iran, Philippines, Australia, South Africa, Paraguay, Uruguay, Colombia, Honduras, Mexico, Czech Republic, Romania, Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany. Soybeans account for 60 percent of global biotech area, followed by corn at 24 percent, cotton at 11 percent, and canola at 5 percent. According to a 2004 study by the University of Minnesota, the global commercial value of biotechnology crops was $44 billion during the 2003/2004 crop year.
Despite all the scientific data and evidence showing the safety of biotech products some EU member countries issued bans on GM foods led by France, Germany. Greece, Italy and Austria which prompted the US, Argentina and Canada to file a case with the World Trade Organization (WTO) which ruled, in 2006, that the European Union's moratorium on approving agricultural biotech products and unjustified EU member bans on previously approved biotech products was unjustified. The WTO Panel found that the EU had presented no scientific or regulatory justification for its moratorium, and thus that the moratorium resulted in "undue delays" in approving biotech products in violation of WTO rules.
With respect to the bans on biotech crops approved by the EU prior to the adoption of a moratorium, the Panel upheld the United States' claim that, in light of safety assessments issued by the EU's own scientists, the member state bans were not supported by scientific evidence and were thus inconsistent with WTO rules. David J. Williams assumed office as the USDA's Agricultural Trade Office Regional Director in August last year after a four-year stint in Mexico and prior to that, in India.
**********************************************
Pakistan Plans to Introduce Bt Cotton Shortly
- Fibre to Fashion, February 15, 2007 http://www.fibre2fashion.com
Pakistan's Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock (MINFAL) is trying hard to get approval for two varieties of the locally developed bio-tech (Bt) cotton from the Ministry of Environment’s National Biosafety Committee (NBC).
The Government of Pakistan is planning to introduce Bt crops in the country but authorities are proceeding slowly in introducing the new technology in farming. According to a report from Global Agriculture Information Network (GAIN), Pakistan has spent more than Rs1 billion on research & development in biotechnology through various ministries and Higher Education Commission (HEC).
Pakistan, at present is producing small quantities of a variety of biotech crops, but within one to two years, genetically modified crops will be authorized to be grown in Pakistan.
**********************************************
GM Crops Save Money, Land: Canadian Expert
- West Australian (Perth), February 14, 2007
Genetically modified crops deliver financial and environmental gains for Canadian farmers worth tens of millions of dollars a year, a visiting international research scientist claims.
Dr John O'Donovan, a scientist from the Canadian Agriculture Department, said more than 95 per cent of canola growers in Canada used canola genetically modified for herbicide resistance to improve crop performance against weeds.
He will speak at an Agriculture Department forum today. WA farmers are banned from growing GM crops. He said that in one year alone, herbicide-resistant canola systems in Canada reduced fuel consumption by 31.2 million litres, cut herbicide applications by 6000 tonnes, and boosted grower revenue by $14 a hectare.
The use of herbicide-resistant canola led to higher crop yields and encouraged more farmers to adopt conservation tillage systems. Dr O'Donovan said Australia was in a good position to learn lessons from countries such as Canada and the US, which had been using the technology for more than a decade.
**********************************************
Unlikely Crop Chosen for Bioenergy Research
- Jeffrey Javier, Arizona Daily Wildcat, Feb. 14, 2007 http://media.wildcat.arizona.edu
By The cassava, a root similar to a potato that is grown mainly in South America and Africa, has been chosen to have its genome sequenced by researchers, including a UA scientist, for humanitarian and energy purposes by the U.S. Department of Energy Joint Genome Institute.
The UA, which played a major role in sequencing the genome of rice, is providing one of the multi-institutional team's main researchers, Steven Rounsley, associate research professor for BIO5 Institute and the Department of Plant Sciences, with a place to study the cassava genome in the newly opened BIO5 building.
"The cassava is a very important crop for subsistence farmers in Africa, and to obtain more information that farmers can use will help them build better crops for the poorest people," said Vicki Chandler, director of the BIO5 Institute.
The cassava, which is second to rice in the developing world as a main source of food, has a unique potential for conversion into ethanol because of its high percentage of starch, Rounsley said. Interest in the cassava from the science community is still small, Rounsley said, but since the U.S. Department of Energy's Bioenergy Initiative, the government has taken interest in bioenergy and turning things like corn or other starchy material into ethanol fuel.
"The cassava is not generally an interesting crop for the scientific community, but the recent energy proposal kicked it all together and there is a reality for a potential energy use," Rounsley said. Despite the interests in ethanol fuel, the future of converting the starch in the cassava into ethanol is still unsure, and it will be a long-term research process before they come up with future uses such as alternative fuel, Rounsley said.
But for billions of people in developing countries, the cassava is part of a daily diet. From a humanitarian perspective, the cassava genome sequencing project will benefit those people who eat it on a daily basis. "The problem with the cassava is that it's so full of starch. There is very little in nutrition," Rounsley said. "Protein is missing and there is a cyanide compound in raw cassava that makes it poisonous to eat."
In sequencing the cassava genome, there are hopes to make it more nutritious and safer to consume, and to protect the root from disease. "Plant diseases can wipe out entire crops, and if this happens to a farmer in Africa he not only loses his source of income, but also his food source and the food source of the community," Rounsley said.
Africa and South America are one of the largest producers of cassava because the root can survive draught conditions and can grow in poor soil, Rounsley said. "The cassava is a major crop in Latin America, and the cassava is not a trivial crop, and the genome sequence of the cassava will be helpful in identifying ways to improve the crop," said Robert Leonard, head of the plant sciences department.
**********************************************
Random Internet Discussion - 'Africanness' and GM Crops
Full postings at http://groups.google.com/group/AUsummit07/browse_thread/thread/996eca18d1a99465/b2e9d913dfe855c0#b2e9d913dfe855c0
Dear Pieray Awele,
As the editor of African research policy magazine Research Africa which is based in Cape Town in South Africa, and as a London-trained journalist, I'm afraid I fall under the heading of journalists following a 'western' tradition on this continent. But I have to interject on a few points you raise.
I agree that some reporting by African journalists is not always as critical of the issues they report on as would be desired. But this, I argue, is a problem which has its roots in regimes that suppress the freedom of the press and a lack of training-and not to do with science reporting per se, nor with the 'western' tradition of journalism.
In this 'western' tradition, it is bad journalism to take reports at face value. But it is equally bad journalism to approach stories with a headful of pre-packaged ideas. I would fear for this continent if many brought to their journalistic careers the kind of zeal you call for above-more akin to an evangelical preacher than a disinterested seeker of truth, which surely is what we desire our news writers to be.
What you seem to propose is just replacing one set of dogmas-what you call western journalism-with another, one that turns its back on the west and rejects all its lessons and teachings and opportunities for Africa.
And when you talk about the 'truth' of GM, what are your sources regarding the "toxic, carcinogenic, allergenic, mutagenic, and pathogenic effects" of GM? If you have good, reliable, ones-based on sound facts and real data-it's a story I'd be prepared, nay, obliged to write in my western' tradition of journalism.
Linda Nordling
Editor, Research Africa
-----
Dear Prince Pieray Odor,
you have not the slightest proof that G.E. food has ever harmed a human being. Otherwise come forward to give scientific evidence, otherwise you are really not credible in this statement.
And do not come with the doubtful Pusztai experiments with rats, which have been judged non-conclusive by hundreds of food scientists, except a very few hardnosed adversaries. You should read for instance the final report of a multimillion EU-project on food safety, well received by the large majoritiy of hundreds of food scientists and then you would be a bit more modest in your accusations.
-------
>Dear Mike and other Colleagues,
>... But what are tens of such people among millions of shamelessly corrupt scientists who are only interested in money and award, including the political Nobel Prize!! The tens of moral, honest and noble scientists ....
Pieray,
What nonsense. From where I sit right now I could throw paper darts at nearly 100 moral honest and nobel scientists, most of whom will never receive a major prize and who certainly aren't very interested in money or they would have become bankers, lawyers or the like.
Despite the neo-ludites who would have us believe that every scientific and technical advanced has harmed human and other life, the world today sustains a larger, healthier and longer lived population than ever before. The benefits are not evenly, or even fairly, distributed, but that doesn't mean that scientists are taking the wrong path. Unlike pretty much every other human activity that simply redistributes, or consumes, that which already exists, science and technology creates new resource. Whether that new resource be a means of producing or storing energy, methods of transport, more productive agriculture, cleaner water, or a million other things. Sure scientists are rewarded for this effort, but the reward they receive is negligible compared with the transformation that results.
Please try and bit a little bit more grateful for the efforts of others, it will cost you nothing!
Michael
---
> Original posting from Pieray
http://groups.google.com/group/AUsummit07/browse_thread/thread/996eca18d1a99465/b2e9d913dfe855c0#b2e9d913dfe855c0
> Dear Mike and other Colleagues, I am absolutely for the information of the world about the place of science in human, animal, plant, and microbe existence, and the existence of the other beings of our common creation, and for human development. I advocate the moralisation of the reporting of science and human development.
> I am also absolutely in favour of the use of African languages, traditional symbols, symbolisms and institutions for the purpose of informing Africans about the place of science in creation, man-God relations, the essence, meaning and moral purposes of human existence, relationships and ecology.
> What I am very seriously worried about is the lack of Africanness or authenticity and continentalism in the journalism of Africans. I mean that they try to imitate westerners in their communication style and ethics and, as I said earlier, they report African affairs as westerners report them and want them to be reported. They do not engage foreign information/their sources in dialectics, with the view to ascertaining truth independently.
> Consequently, they destroy and harm our interests, advantages and development. In the particular case, that is, on national consideration, they constitute haters, antagonists, opposers, destroyers and supplanters of the traditions and customs of their nations based on the uninformed, wrong and politically concocted criticisms of western people and their agents, including the United Nations Network of Political organisations to which UNESCO, UNICEF, UNDP, UNFPA, IMF, WB, WTO, WEF, etc belong. I have read the promotion of genetically modified foods and the application of genetic engineering or biotechnology to the production of what is called biofuel by many of them with unspeakable disappointment and shame. I believe that their desire for financial benefits or awards motivates the anti-life and anti-national and continental interests journalism that they practice. Africans in the BBC, VOA AND CNN are most disgusting and disappointing to listen to.
> With regard to science, what I advocate is that mass information media should deconstruct what scientists say, and that everything should be done to get at the truth about scientific discoveries, their applications, and their impacts or consequences on man and the rest of creation. It is no more a secret that most scientists research into what they are paid to research into and say what they are paid to say as their finding and not the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
> In this respect, I can never feel that I have over mentioned Dr. Arpard Pustai, Dr. Stanley Ewen and Nobel Laureate John Fagan when I speak of moral, honest and noble scientists. But what are tens of such people among millions of shamelessly corrupt scientists who are only interested in money and award, including the political Nobel Prize!!
> The tens of moral, honest and noble scientists need the mass information practitioners to complement their dedication to humanity, overwhelm the millions of corrupt scientists and bring the disrepute and condemnation that they deserve upon them. I am for the aggressive use of the media of mass information to get truth across to people concerning the toxic, carcinogenic, allergenic, mutagenic, and pathogenic effects of invading the DNA of an organism, extracting its genes, carrying the genes across their natural boundaries through a virus, and inserting them into the genome of another different and distinctive species of organism, and journalists should not promote this as safe for agriculture or for any other purpose.
> Prince Pieray Odor
**********************************************
The Genetically Modified Foods Rap Project
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWE4wgE2KRw
### |
