AGNET NOVEMBER 21, 2000 Genetically modified cotton, no increase in pest resistance Golden rice in a grenade-proof greenhouse Seedy squabble in Switzerland Farmers warned to be careful what type of corn they plant next season Monsanto says farmers still supportive of biotech crops in 2001 Ireland should continue GM crops: report Asian GM labelling proposal below European mark Grain biotech Australia forms alliance with CropDesign of Belgium: deal targets accelerated wheat product development for Australia Eco-chickens come down from their perch Aventis fungicide may cause replant of 20 pct Brazil soy crop Monsanto launches new customer-focused website New advances in seed treatment in place at Pioneer Hi-Bred Royal Society finds near equal pesticide residue on organic & conventional crops Organic farming enhances soil fertility and biodiversity: results of a 21 year field trial in Switzerland Organic is `good', even when the GM version is better: acid test Farmer-to-farmer campaign calls on state attorneys general to learn from Starlink debacle Integration to reap reward at farm gate Ottawa will ask U.S. to end potato ban New tool improves no-till seeding CFIA plum pox virus survey update - November 14, 2000 Stressed raspberries may have something to tell us Keep me some plants to talk to - Charles Oranges, grapefruit, tangerines, and tangelos grown in Florida; limiting the volume of small red seedless grapefruit Use of pesticides in schools and day care centers Agnet is produced by the Centre for Safe Food at the University of Guelph and is sponsored by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Plants Program at the University of Guelph, with additional support provided by the Canadian Food Information Council, U.S. National Pork Producers Council, the U.S. National Food Processors Association, Ag-West Biotech, Novartis Seeds, AGCare (Agricultural Groups Concerned About Resources and the Environment), Meat & Livestock Australia, Tyson Foods, Monsanto Canada, Pioneer Hi-Bred Limited (Canada), Ontario Pork, Ontario Egg Producers, U.S. National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Ontario Agri-Food Technologies, Novartis Crop Protection Canada, Halton Regional Health Department, the Rutgers Food Risk Analysis Initiative, the Crop Protection Institute, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ontario Corn Producers Association, Capital Health, Plant Protection Branch Dept of Agriculture Fisheries Forestry Australia, Performance Plants, Cargill AgHorizons, the Ontario Soybean Growers Marketing Board, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, AdCulture, Food Industry Environmental Network, CMD Grain East, Dow AgroSciences, W.G. Thompson & Sons, Crop and Food Research New Zealand, and the Agricultural Adaptation Council (CanAdapt Program). archived at: http://www.plant.uoguelph.ca/safefood/archives/agnet-archives.htm GENETICALLY MODIFIED COTTON, NO INCREASE IN PEST RESISTANCE November 20, 2000 University of Arizona press release Results of a new study published in the Nov. 21 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences may diminish fears about one of the potential pitfalls of genetically modified crops. Bt cotton has a gene transferred from the bacterium Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) that lets plants produce a natural insecticide, thus reducing reliance on sprays of chemical insecticides. A major concern is that pests could quickly evolve resistance to the Bt toxin in genetically modified cotton. This has not happened yet, according to the new study. Bt cotton was first grown commercially in the United States in 1996 and has accounted for more than half of the cotton acreage in Arizona since 1997. For several years, a team of scientists at the University of Arizona and the Arizona Cotton Research and Protection Council has tracked resistance to Bt cotton in pink bollworm caterpillars, which attack bolls of cotton in the southwestern U. S. They discovered that in 1997 the frequency of a resistance gene in pink bollworm was higher than expected. The estimated frequency of a gene conferring resistance to the toxin in Bt cotton was about 1 in 10 for pink bollworm caterpillars from 10 Arizona cotton fields in 1997. This is roughly 100 times higher than estimates for other pests of Bt crops. Based on this relatively high estimate and projections from computer models, rapid increases in resistance were expected in subsequent years. Surprisingly, the estimated frequency of resistance did not increase from 1997 to 1999 and Bt cotton remained effective against pink bollworm. "Bt cotton is working extremely well in Arizona," said Bruce Tabashnik, UA entomology professor and lead author of the study. "Resistance has not evolved as quickly as expected, said Tabashnik. To help delay resistance, the EPA requires that farmers who grow Bt cotton must also plant refuges of cotton without Bt toxin to allow survival of pests that are not resistant. To understand why resistance has not evolved as predicted, the scientists are developing new models that incorporate the latest data and are expanding field monitoring and research on resistance genetics and ecology. Recent results suggest that on ordinary cotton resistant pests suffer a competitive disadvantage relative to non_resistant pests. Nonetheless, the scientists continue to prepare for resistance problems in the future. "Bt cotton has helped to reduce insecticide use in Arizona cotton to the lowest levels in the past 20 years," said coauthor Larry Antilla of the grower-supported Arizona Cotton Research and Protection Council. "This benefits the public, farm workers, and the environment." GOLDEN RICE IN A GRENADE-PROOF GREENHOUSE November 21, 2000 New York Times Jon Christensen http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/21/science/21RICE.html ZURICH -- In a quiet village on the outskirts of Zurich, a genetically engineered strain of rice that its creator says could save millions of children's lives is, according to this story, locked up in a grenade-proof greenhouse as if it were the Frankenstein monster that some critics contend it is. The story says that unlike any other rice on earth, this so-called golden rice produces beta carotene in its seeds, thanks to genetic instructions that scientists added to the rice from a daffodil, pea, bacterium and virus. Beta carotene is an important source of vitamin A, which is crucial for healthy vision and resistance to disease. The body breaks beta carotene molecules into two vitamin A molecules, also known as retinol. People get beta carotene from fresh vegetables, like carrots, and get vitamin A directly from milk, butter, cheese, liver and cod liver oil. The story cites the World Health Organization as estimating that 124 million children do not get enough vitamin A. Most of these children live in parts of the world where rice is not only the main staple but is often the only food available during the dry season, and infants are often weaned on rice gruel alone. Vitamin A deficiency causes about half a million children to go blind every year and makes many more vulnerable to diseases that cause diarrhea. One million to two million children die each year for lack of vitamin A. Dr. Ingo Potrykus, the German inventor of golden rice, was cited as saying he would like to send his seeds to poor people around the world at no charge, adding, "I would like to send a year ago. There are 3,500 children dying every day. I think we should not delay one day." But golden rice has remained under lock and key since it was created more than a year ago. Meanwhile, the story says, Dr. Potrykus has struggled to free it from a complicated web of more than 70 patents and legal agreements covering items as diverse as DNA sequences and the techniques he and his colleagues used to insert new genes in the rice. He is also racing against an effort to pass legislation that could prohibit the export of genetically modified organisms from Switzerland. The story goes on to say that if everything goes well, within two to three years, golden rice varieties will be made available free to farmers earning less than $10,000 a year from the crop, a figure far exceeding the average income of poor farmers. Farmers will also be able to save seeds from their crop for future plantings because rice is a self-pollinating plant that breeds true year after year. The story says that the free distribution of golden rice seeds and genetic materials will be guided by a humanitarian advisory board consisting of the inventors, Dr. Dubock, representatives from the countries where golden rice will be grown, and Dr. Gary Tonniessen of the Rockefeller Foundation in New York, which supported the golden rice research. Dr. Tonniessen, who oversees grants to improve food supplies and nutrition worldwide, was cited as predicting that golden rice could serve as a model for arrangements to share proprietary biotechnology where it is needed most, adding that, "Golden rice is just one crop and one trait. The potential to improve the nutritional content of many crops in many ways is now technically feasible." Dr. Tonniessen said the idea for golden rice came from the field in developing nations. He once asked plant breeders at the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines what they would choose if they could have genetic engineers insert any gene in rice. The answer was a gene to make rice seeds produce the yellow pigment beta carotene, a trait they had not found in any rice variety and therefore could not propagate by traditional cross breeding. Although beta carotene has no taste, researchers are concerned that consumers in Asia might not like the yellow color because whiteness is highly valued in rice. Still, they hope people will feed it to their children. The key to producing golden rice came from a scientific collaboration that began at a brainstorming session sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation in New York, where Dr. Potrykus met Dr. Beyer, who had figured out how beta carotene was produced in daffodils by isolating the biochemical steps that make the flower yellow. SEEDY SQUABBLE IN SWITZERLAND November 20, 2000 RAFI News Release Rural Advancement Foundation Intl As Washington tries to sort out what a "plant" is, world food security is iced in Switzerland. Industry, Europe, Japan, and the G77 (developing) countries look on in amazement. What "grows" but doesn't "move"? If you're an agronomist, the standard answer is a "plant". In Neuchatel, Switzerland last week however, at a tactically critical food security negotiation, the running joke was "Washington trade policy". As world seed and biotech industries, governments of Europe and Japan, and G77 (developing) countries watched in consternation, U.S.. Government representatives tied themselves in knots trying to explain the difference to disinterested patent and trade lawyers back in their capitol, between plant genetic resources in agriculture from other industrial technologies. The U.S. delegation continuously raised what appeared to other delegations, to be nonsensical conflicts between the World Trade Organization > (WTO) and an agreement being revised by governments in the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) to safeguard the flow of crop germplasm for scientific research and international food security. Plant plots?: Biocrats (bureaucrats in the interrelated agro, biotech, and biodiversity arena) from 40 governments met in Neuchatel Nov.12-17 to update and make legally-binding an International Undertaking that would guarantee a continuing flow of scientific breeding material between countries, and ensure the conservation and development of the plant genetic resources for future generations. At stake were several million seed samples - mostly contributed by poor farmers in developing countries. Despite (some say because of) advances in biotechnology, farmers' traditional seeds form the backbone of plant breeding to fend off new diseases and to allow world agriculture to adjust to global warming. As always, one of the stumbling blocks in negotiations, begun in 1994, is money. Who's going to finance an international network of gene banks to hold the endangered seeds and how will the South (developing countries) benefit from the donation of their invaluable seeds? Seedy "saviors"?: At their previous meeting in Tehran in August, governments were able to accept a proposal that came from an unexpected source. An association including the world's major plant breeding and agricultural biotechnology companies offered to foot at least a small portion of the bill > (the total is estimated at between $200 and $350 million per annum) by agreeing to pay a fixed share of the royalties companies derive from seed patents based on the germplasm that would flow through a multilateral system of 'facilitated access' to be established as one part of the new treaty. While many countries and advocacy organizations object strenuously to "life patenting", the unambiguous message to OECD governments that industry needs a deal and must have open scientific circulation of breeding stock warned country reps that they too should get on side and ante up the needed funds. In the Tehran meeting, the United States indicated its general support for the industry proposal and agreed to allow its adoption without the famous "square brackets" that warn of unresolved issues during negotiations. (The treaty text is festooned with the troublesome brackets.) The U.S. did say however, that they would have to consult back in Washington. Suddenly in Neuchatel, the Americans announced that they could not accept the industry proposal and wanted brackets. According to the embarrassed biocrats, Washington trade representatives following the WTO were concerned that a treaty tithing industry would conflict with trade rules regarding non-discrimination between different technologies. The delegation also hinted that there might not be a full consensus within company circles on the royalty payment. Four made foolish: The representative of ASSINSEL - the seed industry trade association headquartered in Nyon, Switzerland was stunned. ASSINSEL had consulted with its member companies both globally and region by region including in North America. With respect to a possible conflict with trade agreements, the WTO official in the meeting, while acknowledging that any challenge to the deal could only be resolved by a WTO dispute settlement process seemed dubious of any problem. An independent legal consultant under contract to FAO delivered a detailed opinion that convinced virtually everyone that there was no conflict. An African diplomat later told RAFI that the only countries that were likely to challenge the agreement through the WTO were already at the table agreeing to the text. The strange U.S. refusal to go along with other countries - and their insistence that seed/biotech companies in the USA are opposed to royalty tithing - was made more confusing Friday when rumours circulated that a major Gene Giant, such as Monsanto or Dupont, will announce before the end of November a plan to "tithe" by investing in global food security. "No doubt the company will try to grab headlines for its commitment to feed the world's hungry," comments Silvia Ribeiro of RAFI - who attended the Neuchatel session as a civil society observer. "But there is already general agreement within industry that there must be a mechanism to compensate the South for its germplasm - the cornerstone of global food security," said Ribeiro. Nevertheless, and despite a session that dragged late into Friday night, the U.S. delegation refused to budge. Canada, Australia, and New Zealand were drawn into solidarity with the USA. European countries - EU and otherwise - closed ranks against the "foolish four" and were joined by the G77, China, and by Japan as well. The Japanese, perhaps the most publicly outspoken delegation, apparently warned the U.S. that their position could destroy the negotiations. High priests of patents: The Neuchatel meeting collapsed, and its chair Ambassador Fernando Gerbasi of Venezuela, left the gathering to fly to Rome to report to the FAO governing Council whose sessions began today and run all week. Gerbasi, a vigorous and passionate advocate for world food security and long-concerned for the pivotal role of crop genetic resources conservation, will be looking to the Council for advice on how - or whether - the talks should continue. Leaving Neuchatel, many biocrats expressed their anger with the stance taken by the United States, Canada, and Australia especially. "The U.S. diplomats know that there is no problem," one delegate, who asked not to be identified, told RAFI, "They just couldn't get their trade people in Washington to pay attention. Those people think a plant is some kind of industrial manufacturing facility." Another European delegate added, "The Canadian delegation was obviously split and embarrassed over this issue. They know there is no problem but they sided with the Americans to give them time to work out their differences in Washington. Typical Canadian diplomacy," he concluded with disdain. An African biocrat was particularly scornful of the Australian position, "The U.S. will come on side eventually," he assured, "but the Australians are impossible. They are the nasty people. They know the U.S. has got it wrong and they're exploiting the confusion to sabotage the talks." "The only useful thing we've learned here," another diplomat said, "is that what we suspected all along is actually true. The trade and patent people in Geneva and in our capitols haven't any idea about the impact they are having on food security or the environment. They only know about commodities, textiles, and CD copyrights. The emperor's have no clothes!" he concluded. Rome resolution: The clear message from Europe and Japan following Neuchatel was that the negotiations should continue and that the pace, if anything, should be quickened. "We need another meeting in February," said one delegate. "That will give the high priests of patents in Washington time to figure out what a plant is. The Australians can stay home if they want. The Canadians will come running behind the Americans and the crisis will be over." The G77 and Europe will be working this week to get a firm resolution out of the FAO Council calling for governments to be reasonable and for the talks to proceed. It's short notice for that kind of diplomatic maneuver. Officials in Rome will also call for governments to be represented in the negotiations at a higher political level in order to avoid further humiliations like that experienced by the United States. "This may seem like a tempest in a teapot," an Asian delegate concedes. "Most diplomats, most people, don't understand how dependent the world's food supply is on the flow of plant genetic resources. This is a tempest in our rice bowl and that's important!" FARMERS WARNED TO BE CAREFUL WHAT TYPE OF CORN THEY PLANT NEXT SEASON November 20, 2000 The Associated Press/Wall Street Journal PEORIA, Ill. -- Illinois farmers are, according to this story, getting early advice about what corn to plant and what to avoid next spring in hopes of preventing a repeat of this year's harvest controversy over StarLink corn. The story says that mishandling of the genetically modified StarLink corn variety, which is approved only for animal feed, resulted in large recalls of taco shells and some other foods earlier this fall. Fears about the U.S. grain supply have been blamed for recent drops in corn exports, and major grain handlers and government agencies are still working to segregate StarLink from corn headed to processing plants. In a letter sent this week, Decatur-based grain processor A.E. Staley Manufacturing was cited as advising farmers to use caution if planting genetically modified hybrids, making sure they only plant those varieties approved for human use by the European Union, which constitutes a major market, adding that, "Just as StarLink corn has changed our corn purchasing operation this year to, among other things, require testing, nothing can be assumed or taken for granted as seed choices are made for spring planting. The only truly safe seed selection will be seed corn free of any genetic modification." Archer Daniels Midland Co., a major grain shipper and processor also based in Decatur, was cited as saying in a policy statement that the company supports biotechnology developments in agriculture but must produce products that will be accepted in overseas markets, which ban some biotech products. ADM officials say all their elevators that supply processing plants will accept non- modified corn and modified strains approved for human use worldwide. Certain other varieties will be accepted only at designated elevators; no StarLink will be accepted. The Illinois Corn Growers Association, the story says, plans to begin distributing a 16-page booklet next week listing what types of corn will be accepted for different uses. Doug Wilson, who farms near Gridley, was cited as saying he's glad processors are communicating with growers this early as they begin deciding what to plant. In the past, he said, advisories about preferred varieties often weren't issued until producers had already bought seed corn and begun planting. MONSANTO SAYS FARMERS STILL SUPPORTIVE OF BIOTECH CROPS IN 2001 November 20, 2000 Agweb Julianne Johnston Responding to a Wall Street Journal article today that states Roundup Ready corn is causing a headache for Monsanto, Carl Casale, Monsanto Vice President of North American Markets, says there's growing confusion regarding the differences between StarLink and Roundup Ready corn. In addition, Casale agrees with Hugh Grant, Monsanto chief operating officer, who said in the article their own market research suggests an increasing number of biotech crop acres in 2001. In the article, reporter Scott Kilman points out market research from A.E. Staley Manufacturing Co., which comes closer than any major grain company to suggesting farmers consider raising only conventional crops. Casale says this is not new news, noting it's basically the same position they had a year-ago. "If you take a step back and look at the timing of this, with the combination of the StarLink controversy, you have to determine what it means. I think it's important to continue to emphasize that Roundup Ready corn has feed and food approval. It has domestic approval as well as Japanese approval, so the largest whole-grain market for U.S. exports is protected," says Casale. "It does not have full regulatory approval in Europe yet, so we take our stewardship responsibilities very seriously. We told farmers to channel it correctly. But the reality of it is that three-quarters of it was either fed on the farm or went to feedlots last year." User satisfaction surrounding Roundup Ready corn is incredibly high, says Casale. "Early indications are that farmers who used in 2000, will use again in 2001 and will plant more acres. When you take a step back, you realize you have an obligation, when you bring new technology to the marketplace, to ensure that it's fundamentally sound scientifically and safe - as well as being able to provide secure markets for the farmers who plant that crop to sell into," says Casale. "What that doesn't mean for me, is making a blanket statement that we won't market it until we have full worldwide approval. We don't have a rational regulatory approval in place across the world, you might do that, but the fact is we don't. Europe doesn't function that way." Casale says that Monsanto's regret is that the Europeans are still working their way through the approval process. He added he doesn't believe it's "fundamentally correct" for the Europeans to determine what American farmers plant. "I don't think it's a question of if the Europeans will approve additional biotech crops, but when Farmers have to plant with the full knowledge that the Europeans have not accepted Roundup Ready corn. The reality is there are a lot of markets other than Europe," he said. This is our third year where significant volume of Roundup Ready corn has been available. Up until now, it hasn't been a major issue. We believe the grain channeling programs we've had in place, as well as education program and the fact that a large portion of this grain is consumed on farm, has not created any significant issues for the marketplace. Looking at what our own market research indicates, Casale says farmers are pretty clear about what biotechnology products are approved for European use. "That is particularly true for YieldGuard corn - that it has full worldwide approval. For farmers, it's purely an economical decision. They will make an informed decision on the farm. The only confusions come that relate StarLink to Roundup Ready corn. But Roundup Ready corn has both feed and food approval," he says. "Our company's position is that we will never introduce technology to the market that doesn't have both food and feed approval. In fact, the subsequent thing that we've done to StarLink, is that we've looked at our own programs and said the other thing we will never do is introduce new technology that doesn't have Japanese approval as well because it's the largest export market for the U.S." "Agriculture is who we are and what we do for a living. We're in this thing for the long haul and we're going to continue to move ahead. We continue to invest in technology and one of the reasons why is because producers absolutely love it," Casale said. IRELAND SHOULD CONTINUE GM CROPS: REPORT November 20, 2000 Ireland should continue to trial genetically modified (GM) crops, a report from the Inter-Departmental Group on Modern Biotechnology says today. The report, published today, said Ireland should take "a positive but precautionary approach to GM issues at EU level and in international forums which acknowledge the potential benefit of modern biotechnology, while maintaining a fundamental commitment to human safety and environmental sustainability". The committee recommended the establishment of a biotechnology ethics committee and independent generic research conducted in Ireland's climatic and geological conditions, with testing for GM products taking place on a case-by- case basis. The Tanaiste Mary Harney welcomed the report, saying "biotechnology has already provided considerable benefits in the pharmaceutical area, and offers major potential benefits in the medical, agricultural and environmental fields". ASIAN GM LABELLING PROPOSAL BELOW EUROPEAN MARK November 20, 2000 South China Morning Post A proposed mandatory labelling law for genetically modified food will, according to this story, fall short of requirements set by the European Union. The Government is conducting a study on the issue and is expected to outline its decision to the Legislative Council next month. A source said the Government intended to combine elements of laws from the European Union, South Korea and Japan, but would adopt the five-per-cent threshold of the Asian countries. This would mean foods with less than five per cent genetically modified (GM) ingredients would not need to be labelled. The labelling systems of Japan and South Korea are crop-specific and apply to more than 20 food products such as maize, soya bean, potato and oilseed rape. Only the main ingredients of a product must be labelled, and the threshold is five per cent of the total weight. By contrast, the European Union's labelling regime is one of the toughest in the world and requires labels for all food products that contain detectable DNA of GM ingredients. Each such ingredient cannot exceed one per cent of the food. GRAIN BIOTECH AUSTRALIA FORMS ALLIANCE WITH CROPDESIGN OF BELGIUM: DEAL TARGETS ACCELERATED WHEAT PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT FOR AUSTRALIA November 21, 2000 Grain Biotech Australia Pty Ltd Press Release Grain Biotech Australia Pty Ltd (GBA) and CropDesign N.V. (CropDesign) of Belgium announced today that they have signed an agreement for joint wheat product development for Australia. The alliance is designed to accelerate the development of wheat varieties for Australia that combine improved tolerance to drought, frost and salt with superior yield performance. Under the terms of the agreement, CropDesign and GBA will make certain of their technologies and wheat germplasm available to the program. The alliance has exclusive rights to the program for Australia, while CropDesign has exclusive rights outside of Australia. CropDesign and GBA will share royalties from any wheat varieties developed by the alliance and which are licensed internationally. Research under the new alliance has already commenced at GBA9s laboratories at the State Agricultural Biotechnology Centre at Murdoch University in Perth. Grain Biotech Australia is currently developing wheat varieties in all classes and market sectors of Australia, and is using both modern plant breeding methods and gene technology to achieve its goal of producing varieties with added value. Added value will be derived through new input traits that improve production efficiency, and output traits that improve end-use quality and provide novel products. The company has already successfully inserted two new traits (virus resistance and an antioxidant with potential health benefits) into wheat, and has a major strategic thrust in providing varieties with improved tolerance to environmental stresses. According to Dr. Ian Edwards, CEO of Grain Biotech Australia, the alliance opens a major link to a genomics company, and will provide a key source of novel genes. 3This agreement provides excellent synergies by bringing together CropDesign9s world-class functional genomics resources with our expertise in molecular biology and wheat breeding. In Australia we face a number of abiotic or environmental stresses that limit wheat production, and we believe that the cell cycle genes developed by Crop Design will be a key addition to our portfolio of novel genes. We are also delighted to have access to the results of TraitMillTM, CropDesign9s plant evaluation system for high throughput evaluation of genes for crop improvement. We believe that sustainable competitiveness in wheat development requires precisely the combination of strengths in functional genomics, high-throughput gene evaluation, molecular biology and modern plant breeding that we expect to achieve with this agreement2. Dr Edwards, former Worldwide Director of Field Crops Research for Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc has 35 years of international experience in wheat breeding and global variety and hybrid development. He added, 3GBA is committed to ensuring that Australia9s wheat producers and end-users have access to leading technologies that will not only enhance yield but ensure the country9s competitiveness in the global wheat market2. The CEO of CropDesign, Dr Herman Van Melleart said, 3This alliance with GBA will help us validate the company9s strategy and technologies for cereal yield enhancement and stress tolerance under field conditions. This agreement leverages our gene discovery and function research into product development.2 Earlier this year CropDesign was issued a broad U.S. patent, based on an invention of Dr. Pete John at the Australian National University in Canberra, covering plant cell cycle technology. Cell cycle is the process of cell division and cell growth, and is fundamental to all plants and animals. Changes in cell cycle can affect cell growth and plant cell size. By modulating cell cycle and and other genes CropDesign and GBA intend to develop hardier and higher yielding wheat varieties. Dr Van Melleart added 3By moving our technology from the laboratory to the wheat field we expect to confirm its potential for value creation at the farm gate. This agreement also gives us a head start in participating in the development of higher yielding wheat and other cereals for Australia and the rest of the world. With GBA9s expertise in developing gene constructs, transformation, germplasm manipulation and modern breeding techniques, we have found an ideal partner for our functional genomics research in this important crop2. Grain Biotech Australia is headquartered in Perth, Western Australia. It is the country9s first private company to combine biotechnology with applied plant breeding to produce wheat varieties with added value for producers, processors and consumers. The company was founded in 1999 with strong grower support, including the Council of Grain Grower Organizations and the Export Grains Centre. GBA currently conducts the largest private wheat research and development program in Australia. CropDesign, based in Gent, Belgium is an agribiotech company focussed on the application of functional genomics for improved crop performance, including higher yield, heightened tolerance to stress and disease and better quality. CropDesign applies its technology in rice, wheat and other cereals. Founded in 1998, CropDesign employs over 60 people at its research facilities in Gent. http://www.grainbiotech.com http://www.cropdesign.com ECO-CHICKENS COME DOWN FROM THEIR PERCH November 21, 2000 Greenpeace Press Release Greenpeace climbers involved in the Eco-Chicken invasion of the Cargill GM soya factory in Liverpool Docks yesterday were served with an injunction this morning ordering them to leave. The climbers are now complying with this injunction and have descended from their perch in order to leave the premises. The climbers were part of a team of 60 Greenpeace volunteers who invaded The Cargill plant yesterday. The other volunteers, dressed in chicken costumes, were ejected yesterday with eight arrests. Four chickens were charged with aggravated trespass after locking themselves onto a conveyor belt that carries GM soya for processing. They will appear at Sefton Magistrates court tomorrow (Wednesday 22 November at 13.45). The other four have been bailed to appear on 2 February 2001. The climb team of three men and one woman remained overnight in a Portaledge (a climber's tent) suspended from the soya conveyor belt 40 metres above the ground. They had intended to remain in place several days, until supplies ran out, in order to prevent GM soya being processed. Chris Holden, a biochemistry graduate who is one of the climb team, said: "It has been a long cold night but we are disappointed to have to leave. No one wants GM being sneaked into food and we are committed to ending these GM imports by Cargill. Most of this soya is destined for animal feed. The public can stop these imports permanently by demanding that supermarkets, such as Tesco, Asda and Safeway now act to ensure that the meat, dairy and eggs they sell are not from animals fed on GM. The Greenpeace campaign will continue." Charlie Kronick, chief GM campaigner with Greenpeace, said: "Cargill claims that it is only supplying what customers want, but this is simply wrong. All the costs of segregating GM from non-GM have been added to the price of GM-free soya - effectively penalising customers which want GM-free food. We already know that a huge majority of the British public And most supermarket chains want meat, milk and eggs which are totally GM-free, so it's time Cargill wised up and stopped hiding behind claims about customer choice." Greenpeace has produced a consumer guide to non-GM chickens and eggs which will shortly be available on its website (www.greenpeace.org.uk). A guide to GM-free turkeys will be available later this week, just in time for Christmas. Check out if there's GM inside your shopping basket at http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/gm.htm AVENTIS FUNGICIDE MAY CAUSE REPLANT OF 20 PCT BRAZIL SOY CROP November 20, 2000 Reuters SAO PAULO - Grain analysts Safras e Mercado were cited as saying on Monday that Brazilian soybean farmers are reporting problems with the plantings of the 2000/01 crop due to a batch of Aventis fungicide effecting the germination of seeds, adding in its weekly soybean report that, "The reason seems to be a toxic effect on seeds treated with some lots of the fungicide Rhodiauram, from the chemical company Aventis." Aventis company officials were not immediately available for comment. MONSANTO LAUNCHES NEW CUSTOMER-FOCUSED WEBSITE November 17, 2000 Monsanto Press Release www.monsanto.com ST. LOUIS - Monsanto Company (NYSE:MON) has launched a new internet web site following the completion of its partial initial public offering. The site highlights the company's commitment to its customers -- the grower. The site, located at http://www.monsanto.com, provides customers a direct gateway to the products they use in their fields and around their homes. Customers have immediate access to the company's seed lines and trait technology, animal agriculture products and extensive line of herbicides including the world's top-selling non-selective herbicide, Roundup. "Monsanto today is focused solely on the agriculture industry," says Jim Prendergast, director of internal communications, who commissioned the design of the Monsanto website. "Monsanto.com will allow our customers and consumers the opportunity to learn more about our products, our programs, and our commitments." New features recently added to the site to make it more customer friendly include: the latest product news and related information, seed marketing programs, commodity futures, regional weather reports, regional cash bids for crops, for herbicide application rates, material data safety sheets (MSDSa frequently asked questions (FAQ) section on product uses, a downloadable press kit, which includes high-resolution agricultural photos, updated Monsanto management biographies, Monsanto global locations, the company's historical timeline, Monsanto's vision and operating principles. Biotechnology, and Monsanto's commitment to it retains an important place on the site as well. All of the various content and features for biotechnology have been preserved on the new site, such as links to the Biotech Knowledge Center, a glossary of terms on the science, background information on the technology and product descriptions. The Biotech Knowledge Center and its materials were established to promote a deeper understanding of food biotechnology and other life sciences, and the many issues associated with them. The Knowledge Center is located at http://www.biotechknowledge.com. Through a number of links, the new site remains closely connected to the company's original agriculture portal: http://www.farmsource.com. The new website was designed by Liska & Co. of Chicago. Development and technical architecture for the new site was conceptualized by Bivings Woodell of Washington, D.C. Content strategy and development was provided by Glynn Young Communications of St. Louis, Mo. Monsanto Company, an 85 percent owned subsidiary of Pharmacia Corporation (NYSE:PHA), is a leading global provider of technology-based solutions and agricultural products that improve farm productivity and food quality. For more information on Monsanto, see: www.monsanto.com. NEW ADVANCES IN SEED TREATMENT IN PLACE AT PIONEER HI-BRED November 20, 2000 Pioneer Hi-Bred Press Release CHATHAM, ONTARIO - Canadian corn, soybean and wheat producers will benefit from unprecedented seed treatment accuracy and protection next growing season, with new computerized application technology now in place at Pioneer Hi-Bred Limited's Chatham production facility. The Seed and Chemical Electronic Proportioner System, developed in the U.S. by Gustafson, is exclusive in Canada to Pioneer Hi-Bred. The $250,000 (U.S.) computer-based technology boosts the accuracy and even distribution of seed treatment on all Pioneer's soybean, corn and wheat seed. "We can assure our customers with this system that our seed is better protected from disease because we're getting the right rate evenly and accurately applied to each and every seed," says Tim Weller, seed production location manager for Pioneer's Chatham operation. This year's seed wheat harvest has been treated with the new system; soybean and corn seed from this fall's harvest will be treated as it continues to come off. The system will treat Pioneer's seed for use across Canada. "This is remarkable equipment," says Weller. "It's safer and more convenient for our production staff, and it allows us to more easily apply fungicide and ensure even distribution. This is especially important with newer chemistry products that are applied at low rates making accuracy vital." The seed treatment equipment is a totally closed system with no operator involvement or pre-mixing, for maximum user safety. And two "lines" are in place at Pioneer for optimum efficiency - one to exclusively treat corn, and one for soybeans and wheat. Weller says the technology may be expanded to insecticide seed treatment in the future. ROYAL SOCIETY FINDS NEAR EQUAL PESTICIDE RESIDUE ON ORGANIC & CONVENTIONAL CROPS November 14, 2000 The Royal Society of Chemistry "The results are 1.9% outside limits for traditional growing methods, 0% outside limits for those grown with integrated plant protection (biotechnology?), and 1.7% of organically grown samples containing residues of agrochemicals not allowed in organic farming." INFORMATORE FITOPATOLOGICO: First analysis of residues on organic crops. 4 tables, 2 figures In 1999 Italy carried out the second highest number of tests on foodstuffs, exceeded only by the USA. The Italian Ministry of Health analysed for pesticide residues 7802 fruit and vegetable samples. Only 100 proved to contain pesticide residues outside the limits. Tables show results of MOH tests in 1999 (most contaminated fruit and vegetables), comparison of residues in crops grown by traditional, integrated plant protection and organic methods. The results are 1.9% outside limits for traditional growing methods, 0% outside limits for those grown with integrated plant protection, and 1.7% of organically grown samples containing residues of agrochemicals not allowed in organic farming. A graph shows percent irregularities found in MOH tests (1993 to 1999). These have fallen steadily. Pie-charts show percentage of fruit and vegetable samples without residues, with residues within limits and exceeding limits. Original text in ITALIAN ORGANIC FARMING ENHANCES SOIL FERTILITY AND BIODIVERSITY: RESULTS OF A 21 YEAR FIELD TRIAL IN SWITZERLAND November 20, 2000 FiBL Dossier August 2000 The DOK-long term trial - unique in its conception compares the consequences of bio-organic, bio-dynamic and conventional farming systems Dear friends, here the impressive results of a 21 year field trial from Switzerland, published by the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture in Frick, Switzerland. Its well worth studying the results - an unique set of data comparing conventional, biodynamic and organic farming systems. These results show, that organic farming is a strategy to be taken very serious. ALL new farming strategies should incorporate such results. I cannot see ANY reason why these farming practices should not be combined with modern breeding methods such as adapted genetic engineering, application of systemic aquired resistance etc. etc. Indeed, a combination, wisely adapted, would be the future goal. As usual, with important documents, I also produced a Power Point document, both can be downloaded from our ftp server, but also you can go to the FiBL site, see below the imprint with all addresses and authors. the FiBL Document ftp://debate:friends@sgiserv.unibe.ch/home/debate/DOC_slim.pdf the Power Point Document containing all graphs ftp://debate:friends@sgiserv.unibe.ch/home/debate/Monitoring.ppt Imprint Editor: Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL) Ackerstrasse, P.O.Box, CH-5070 Frick Tel. +41(0)62 865 72 72, Fax +41(0)62 865 72 73 E-Mail: admin@fibl.ch, Homepage: www.fibl.ch (the above pdf-file not yet on the website) Federal Research Station for Agroecology and Agriculture (FAL), Reckenholzstrasse 191, CH-8046 Z|rich Tel. +41(0)1 377 71 11, Fax +41(0)1 377 72 01 Homepage: www.admin.ch/sar/fal Sale: FiBL Authors: Andreas Fliessbach, Paul Mdder (FiBL) David Dubois, Lucie Gunst (FAL) Collaboration: Werner Stauffer, Padrout Fried (FAL) Lukas Pfiffner, Thomas Alfvldi, Urs Niggli (FiBL) Editorial staff: Gilles Weidmann (FiBL) Graphics: Silvia Schiffmann (FiBL) Cover photographs: Josef Hdttenschwiler (FAL) Christine Karutz und Lukas Pfiffner (FiBL) (c) FiBL, FAL Summary: In the early seventies, farmers and agricultural scientists were convinced that agricultural production without external input of production factors like synthetic fertilizers and pesticides would not be feasible. Organic farming as an alternative to conventional developed agricultural practice was not taken seriously. At that time of scepticism, some pioneers initiated a movement to support organic farming research, hoping that the Swiss Federal research stations could be persuaded to direct their focus to this field of research. However, with the exception of some rare efforts of policy makers and universities, there was little response. The main task, i.e. to study the feasibility of organic farming, was not covered by any of the official Swiss Agricultural Research institutions. Hence, an initiative of farmers, politicians and scientists founded the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL) in 1973. This private foundation linked administration and practice, and its first task was to elaborate the concept of the DOK field trial. In 1974, the Swiss Federal Office of Agriculture (BLW) charged the former Federal Research Station for Agricultural Chemistry and Hygiene of Environment (FAC, Bern-Liebefeld) to set up a field trial in collabora-tion with the FiBL in order to compare the performance of organic farming systems. When FAC-Liebefeld was shut down, the Swiss Federal Research Station for Agroecology and Agriculture > (FAL- Reckenholz) took over the responsibility for the DOK trial in close cooperation with FiBL. The DOK-long term trial - unique in its conception - compares the consequences of bio-organic, bio-dynamic and conventional farming systems in a randomised plot trial that has no other equivalent. Experimental samples are used by many other laboratories to develop new methods in the areas of soil and food quality. Evaluation of the pros and cons of different land management strategies allows for rational system optimiza-tion. This would not have been possible without the long-term research carried out within the framework of the DOK-trial. The DOK-field trial was started in 1978 at Therwil. In the beginning the main goals were agronomic: yield and product quality. The database of agronomic results of more than twenty years has stimulated the discus-sion about farming systems and has contributed significantly to the general acceptance of organic farming. In Switzerland today, over 5000 farmers successfully farm organically, showing convincingly that organic farming is indeed feasible. In the last decade, therefor research has focused on processes in the soil and on the long-term effects of organic farming practice on the environment. The investigators are indebted to the Federal Office of Agriculture (BLW), the advisory farmers and the field staff for their constant and unflagging support. The collaborative work with national and international rese-arch institutions is gratefully acknowledged. ORGANIC IS `GOOD', EVEN WHEN THE GM VERSION IS BETTER: ACID TEST November 21, 2000 Daily Telegraph Matt Ridley Page 29 Earlier this month, scientists in Atlanta were cited as announcing that a pesticide called Rotenone, which is used by organic farmers and gardeners, can cause the equivalent of Parkinson's disease in rats. That organic farmers use pesticides at all might surprise some people. But how exactly is organic food defined? Lord Vinson of Roddam Dene, after several parliamentary questions, has elicited the fact that the Government delegates the responsibility of verifying that food is "organic" almost entirely to the private sector - chiefly the Soil Association, which "certifies" producers as organic according to whether they obey certain rules. But even the Soil Association admits that there is no test yet devised that can distinguish organic from inorganic food - or identify where inorganic produce has been substituted for organic food. The presence of pesticide residues means nothing, because, as the Soil Association spokesman puts it, pesticide residues are found everywhere, even in the Arctic. Moreover, organic food contains natural pesticides, either applied by the farmer (like Rotenone) or produced by plants themselves in response to pest attack. These can be just as toxic as synthetic pesticides. Otherwise, there simply are no measurable biochemical differences between organic and ordinary food. Of course, the "purity" and health benefits of organic crops are not the only reason why people buy them or grow them. Just as important are the supposed environmental benefits. The story says that organic food is grown without artificial fertiliser or synthetic pesticides, which implies that it has less impact on weeds, insects and birds. The Soil Association defended the use of Rotenone, for example, on the grounds that it breaks down on contact with the soil and cannot have a long-lasting impact on wildlife other than the pest. But so does Roundup, an inorganic herbicide: that is its unique selling point. The truth is that the boundary between organic and conventional production is blurring. Organic farmers face the same challenges from weeds, insects and diseases that all farmers do. They struggle manfully to defeat these by old- fashioned means such as weeding, but increasingly they find they can turn to "natural" chemicals. One of the most popular such natural chemicals is Bt, produced by a naturally occurring bacterium that is toxic to insects. But there is now a cheaper and subtler new way to apply Bt, which ensures that it is produced inside the plant itself and does not have to be sprayed on. This reduces collateral damage to harmless insects. You would expect the organic movement to embrace it, but, because it involves genetic modification, the Soil Association would automatically refuse to certify as "organic" any grower who uses it. In the furore a few years ago about monarch butterflies poisoned by eating Bt maize, almost nobody noticed that a butterfly would get a far higher dose from a field sprayed with Bt by an organic farmer than it ever could from GM maize pollen. Bt cotton is now being tested all over the world with dramatic results. Because the Bt is produced inside the plant, it reaches a pest called the bollworm far more effectively than a spray ever could, and does not reach other insects. In China, 200,000 hectares were planted with Bt cotton this year; an eightfold decrease in the use of pesticides and a noticeable increase in wildlife was the result. The hasty decision of the Soil Association, which holds a near-monopoly in certifying organic production, to take a dogmatic line against genetic engineering looks increasingly odd. If its concern is to reduce synthetic pesticides that reach the consumer and reduce the damage to the environment without using more land or money, then genetic engineering may well be the best innovation for years. This will not be true in every case: some GM crops may need more sprays. But there is nothing to stop the certifiers allowing some GM crops and not others. Otherwise, one is left with the suspicion that the belief in the superiority of organic food is more theological than scientific. FARMER-TO-FARMER CAMPAIGN CALLS ON STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL TO LEARN FROM STARLINK DEBACLE November 21, 2000 from a press release WASHINGTON -- Family farm groups participating in the Farmer-to-Farmer Campaign on Genetic Engineering are calling on their state Attorneys General, who are on the front line of the GE debate, to fill a policy vacuum caused by national inaction. Farmers point to StarLink as a prime example of how our current regulatory segregation and marketing systems are not able to deal with the complex issues that genetic engineering pose. "While USDA has aggressively promoted biotechnology in agriculture, they have done virtually nothing to address farmer liability issues or to ensure that farmers are adequately protected under current industry contracts" said Bill Christison, a Missouri farmer and president of the National Family Farm Coalition. "Farmers are rapidly losing valuable export markets because of the challenges imposed on farmers by the entire biotech industry." Speaking for the Farmer to Farmer Campaign, Christison said Attorneys General need to move beyond responding to crises such as the Starlink debacle and initiate long- term actions to create farmer protection for liability. Participating grassroots organizations in eight key farm states are calling on their Attorneys General to promote possible legislation to place liability on companies that develop and patent genetically engineered seeds. Farmers will also ask the Attorneys General to investigate the marketing of genetically engineered seeds and the rapid corporate concentration of seed companies and suppliers. "The full extent of farmers' legal liability resulting from growing and marketing GMO crops is unclear. What is clear is that farmers may face substantial liability for violations of GMO contracts, contamination of neighbors' crops, or infringement of the companies' patents," said Lynn Hayes, an attorney with the Farmers Legal Action Group. "Before planting GMO crops farmers should fully understand their responsibilities and evaluate the risks of potential liability." Organizations working in collaboration on the Farmer-to-Farmer Campaign are asking state Attorneys General to: Issue Attorneys General Opinions on the extent to which farmers and/or seed companies are liable for damages caused by GMO contamination of non-GMO crops; failure to segregate GMO crops; GMO contract violations; and patent, licensing, and registration infringements. To support legislation that places liability on companies who develop and manufacture GMO seeds for all economic and environmental damages caused by these products. To investigate GMO marketing practices in their states to determine whether farmers are properly advised of the liability risks and their responsibilities associated with growing GMO crops, and the adequacy of segregation procedures at all stages of the marketing chain to ensure compliance with requirements for the various domestic and export markets. To participate in meetings with farmers to inform them of the legal issues related to production and marketing of GMO crops. To investigate whether companies developing, manufacturing, and marketing GMOs are violating antitrust laws and issue a legal analysis of the impacts of concentration. Farm groups participating in this multi-state strategy are members of the Farmer-to-Farmer Campaign on Genetic Engineering in Agriculture, a collaborative effort among family farm organizations to promote the farmer perspective on genetic engineering. Today marks the one-year anniversary of the release of the Farmer's Declaration on Genetic Engineering in Agriculture. For the past year, farm groups have been expanding the farmer voice on genetic engineering. INTEGRATION TO REAP REWARD AT FARM GATE November 21, 2000 CSIRO Media Release Ref 2000/308 http://www.csiro.au/ Grain farmers are improving their farm gate returns by harvesting quickly and storing their grain on-farm until the price is right. Scientists at CSIRO's Stored Grain Research Laboratory (SGRL) advise farmers that storing grain on-farm is not as straight forward as it may appear. Hygiene, fumigation, aeration and monitoring, are the keys to insect free, safe grain storage, they say. The SGRL recommends growers prepare early and monitor stored grain regularly for insect infestation and quality deterioration. David Rees, a post-harvest entomologist with the Laboratory, recommends growers first remove all possible sources of previous stored grain residues from the storage site. "Insects that infest freshly stored grain are most likely to have come from grain residues left from previous seasons", he says. "It is also important to avoid mixing old with new season's grain, unless precautions have been taken to completely disinfest the old season's grain." David advises farmers to inspect and monitor for insects in stored grain. "Insects can multiply at phenomenal rates if left unchecked. Homemade traps are very useful for early detection of a potential infestation, both in grain and around storage premises." Pest control has been the bane of many on-farm storers, and keeping grain insect-free requires a multi-pronged approach explains SGRL's Peter Annis. "Hygiene measures such as making the storage hostile to pests, killing all the insects in the storage and in the commodity, keeping new insects out of the store, and early recognition and fixing failures in the above actions, are all complementary", he says. Phosphine fumigation soon after harvest, followed by cooling using aeration, and monitoring insect numbers using traps, is a sound integrated approach to managing insects in your grain, he says. "With fumigation, phosphine is the only fumigant widely available for on-farm application, but the grains industry needs to improve the way phosphine is used. For farmers, this means safe use at the recommended dosage and exposure times in adequately sealed storage." Grain quality can be rapidly lost when stored under unfavourable conditions. "Good storage aims to maintain harvest quality - this usually mean keeping it cool and dry." Temperature and moisture content influence the rate that grain deteriorates during storage, he says. "Cooling using aeration is a well-recognised method to maintain the freshness and quality of grain during storage." OTTAWA WILL ASK U.S. TO END POTATO BAN November 21, 2000 The Guardian (Charlottetown) Steve Sharratt A1 / Front Armed with the quality science of more than 1,000 clear tests, the Canadian federal government is, according to this story, prepared to move full speed ahead today and ask the United States to lift its ban on Prince Edward Island potatoes and reopen the Maine border. P.E.I. Agriculture Minister Mitch Murphy was quoted as confirming in a conference call from Toronto Monday night that, "The federal minister (Lyle Vanclief) is convinced the science has been proven. In Vanclief's words, it was full court press to get the border opened." The story says that the minister was in Ontario to press the case that the discovery and quarantine of potato wart in a New Annan field a month ago was completely isolated and contained by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Murphy was further quoted as saying, "There's no reason in the world that APHIS (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services of the U.S. Department of Agriculture) shouldn't accept this scientific evidence. If they don't . . . we've got a bigger issue, a trade issue." Murphy's interview came on the heels of a meeting with Vanclief who, while campaigning for next Monday's federal election, left a debate Monday night with Conservative Leader Joe Clark to meet with the P.E.I. contingent consisting of Potato Board general manager Ivan Noonan and potato wart expert Dr. Ken Proudfoot from Newfoundland. NEW TOOL IMPROVES NO-TILL SEEDING November 21, 2000 USDA ARS News Service A new attachment designed by Agricultural Research Service scientists can improve performance of seed drills for growers who want to use no-till planting techniques. No-till--placing seeds into soil through the leftover plant stalks, known as crop residue-- improves water use and reduces erosion. But even drills designed for no-till are not without problems. In heavy residue, plant material lodges on the seed drill's furrow opening shank and gets dragged along as the equipment moves forward. Piles of residue up to 4 feet long and 1 foot high can spill over into the adjacent seedbed, smothering seedlings as they try to emerge. ARS researchers in Pendleton, Ore., set out to make existing seed drills more effective. Their hope is that by reducing problems with the drills, more farmers will adopt no-till practices. The new device consists of a rubber wheel with flexible "fingers" that attaches next to each furrow opener on the drill. The fingers pin the residue to the soil surface and hold it in place as the seed gets planted, preventing the plant material from lodging onto the drill. The scientists tested their prototype in eastern Oregon, where narrow-row crops like wheat with heavy residue are common. Their results showed that seeding with the wheel attachment increased the number of seedlings 10 to 50 percent, depending on field conditions. ARS has applied for a patent on the equipment, which is available for licensing (Patent application 09/594,659). ARS is the chief scientific research agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. CFIA PLUM POX VIRUS SURVEY UPDATE - NOVEMBER 14, 2000 November 18, 2000 Canadian Food Inspection Agency http://www.cfia-acia.agr.ca/english/plaveg/hort/survey6e.shtml On June 23, 2000, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) confirmed the presence of Plum Pox Virus (PPV) in an orchard in the town of Niagara-on-the- Lake, Ontario. PPV was discovered in three Fantasia nectarine trees at two sites. Laboratory testing by the CFIA9s Centre for Plant Health in Sidney, B.C. confirmed the virus was PPV strain-D, the same strain of PPV that was found in Prunus trees in Pennsylvania in October 1999. PPV does not affect human or animal health. PPV is a serious disease infecting stone fruit species of the genus Prunus including peaches, nectarines, plums, apricots, almonds and ornamental varieties. Plum Pox Virus does not kill trees, but makes fruit unmarketable and can drastically reduce yields in susceptible varieties. There is no treatment for infected trees. They must be destroyed to prevent the spread of the disease. PPV is spread over short distances by aphids and over larger distances through grafting of infected budwood or nursery stock. Survey Update The 2000 National PPV survey has now been completed. Sampling was conducted in Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, and Nova Scotia. Additional positive sites have been identified in Ontario in recent weeks, and one positive sample has been identified in Nova Scotia. No positives were found in British Columbia or Quebec. Samples were tested by the CFIA Centre for Animal and Plant Health in Charlottetown, P.E.I., in addition to CFIA laboratories in Sidney, B.C. and Nepean, Ontario. Sample preparation support was provided by laboratories of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada in Summerland, British Columbia and Vineland, Ontario. For more information about Plum Pox Virus contact: CFIA Plum Pox Virus General Inquiries (toll-free): 1-877-854-1599 or visit the CFIA Website: www.cfia-acia.agr.ca STRESSED RASPBERRIES MAY HAVE SOMETHING TO TELL US November 20, 2000 The Daily News (Truro) Peter Heckbert 1 / Front BIBLE HILL - According to this story, Drucie Janes's learning curve went up several degrees this year and all because of stressed raspberries. Janes is busy these days putting the final figures together on the preliminary portion of a larger study which is designed to determine if drought conditions affect the raspberry plant's uptake. The story says that the research was proposed after an attempt to clear land a few years ago with the herbicide Vision left Monsanto company officials wondering why raspberry plants managed to survive the fall application of the spray. Janes was cited as saying conditions were drought-like the year the plants were sprayed and the company would like to know if that played into the plant's ability to survive. Janes has been involved in the research from the roots up. She spent the month of August in a greenhouse in Bouctouche, New Brunswick, growing raspberry plants in drought-like conditions. The story explains that the preliminary study involved analyzing the results from four plants. For the rest of the study, which she said should be done by March, Janes has 45 other plants in the freezer to work with. And she's hoping the preliminary study will show some consistencies which may save her some time over the next few months. KEEP ME SOME PLANTS TO TALK TO - CHARLES November 20, 2000 PA News Matt Adams According to this story, the Prince of Wales today officially opened an 80 million seed bank intended to preserve more than 4,500 threatened plant species for posterity -- and joked that he wanted to ensure that they survived for him to talk to in the future as he described the Millennium Seed Bank in West Sussex as the "Bank of England of the botanical world." Charles was cited as calling on the world's nations to ensure there was no environmental crisis which would mean that its "gold reserve" would have to be used. Experts from around the world, including China, Kenya and Mexico, gathered at the Kew Gardens seed bank at Wakehurst Place in Ardingly, deep in the Sussex countryside. More than 300 million seeds will eventually be stored in the glass building, where a huge bomb and flood-proof vault, big enough to hold 29 double-decker buses, will safeguard the most endangered species. ORANGES, GRAPEFRUIT, TANGERINES, AND TANGELOS GROWN IN FLORIDA; LIMITING THE VOLUME OF SMALL RED SEEDLESS GRAPEFRUIT November 21, 2000 [Federal Register: (Volume 65, Number 225)] [Page 69851-69856] [DOCID:fr21no00-1] DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 905 AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Department of Agriculture (Department) is adopting, as a final rule, without change, the provisions of an interim final rule limiting the volume of small red seedless grapefruit entering the fresh market under the marketing order covering oranges, grapefruit, tangerines, and tangelos grown in Florida. The marketing order is administered locally by the Citrus Administrative Committee (Committee). This rule limits the volume of sizes 48 (at least 3\9/16\ inches in diameter) and 56 (at least 3\5/16\ inches in diameter) red seedless grapefruit handlers can ship during the first 11 weeks of the 2000-2001 season beginning September 18, 2000. This limitation provides a sufficient supply of small sized red seedless grapefruit to meet market demand, without saturating all markets with these small sizes. This rule should help stabilize the grapefruit market and improve grower returns. EFFECTIVE DATE: November 22, 2000. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William G. Pimental, Southeast Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, P.O. Box 2276, Winter Haven, Florida 33883- 2276; telephone: (863) 299-4770, Fax: (863) 299-5169; or George Kelhart, Technical Advisor, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, room 2525-S, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090- 6456; telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-5698. Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Jay Guerber, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, room 2525-S, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456; telephone (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-5698, or E-mail: Jay.Guerber@usda.gov. USE OF PESTICIDES IN SCHOOLS AND DAY CARE CENTERS November 17, 2000 Federal Register http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi- bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2000_register&doci d=00-29512-filed EPA solicits pre-application grant proposals by December 15 and is prepared to provide up to $100,000 for the establishment of a Technical Resource Center for promoting the adoption of integrated pest management (IPM) in schools and day care centers - EPA notes that the " ... Center will be regionally based (region of the country and target states to be identified by the applicant). The Center will provide information, guidance, education, training and other tools necessary for schools and day care centers to successfully launch and sustain IPM programs geared at reducing children's exposure to pests and pesticides. ... This notice describes eligibility, activities, application procedures and requirements, and evaluation criteria." EPA Contact: Katherine Seikel, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of Pesticide Programs at (703) 308-8272; e-mail: seikel.kathy@epa.gov - EPA November 17 Federal Register: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi- bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2000_register&docid=00-29512-filed To subscribe to Agnet, send mail to: listserv@listserv.uoguelph.ca leave subject line blank in the body of the message type: subscribe agnet-L firstname lastname i.e. subscribe agnet-L Doug Powell To unsubscribe to Agnet, send mail to: listserv@listserv.uoguelph.ca leave subject line blank in the body of the message type: signoff agnet-L For more information about the Agnet research program, please contact: Dr. Douglas Powell dept. of plant agriculture University of Guelph Guelph, Ont. N1G 2W1 tel: 519-824-4120 x2506 fax: 519-763-8933 dpowell@uoguelph.ca http://www.plant.uoguelph.ca/safefood archived at: http://www.plant.uoguelph.ca/safefood/archives/agnet-archives.htm