Agnet Dec. 16/03
P.E.I.
groups push for end to the growing of genetically modified foods
Same old,
same old: European GMO moratorium remains in place
Colombo and
Dhaka keen on GM papaya: Somsak to push for open-field testing
Hammer head:
Plants to the rescue: UT genetically engineering species that will warn of
chemical, biological weapons
BT cotton
not harmful: Govt
SA farmers
oppose GM bill
Dow
AgroSciences, New York attorney general resolve advertising dispute: New accord
recognizes company's right to correct the record about its products
AAAS
application deadline nears
Cargill
breaks new ground in developing chemicals from farm products
Trans-Tasman
partnership to benefit wheat growers
Removal of
cottonseed chemist licensing program, updating of commodity laboratory and
office addresses, and adoption of information symbols
Revision of
fees for the fresh fruit and vegetable terminal market inspection services
Amendment
to the soybean promotion and research rules and regulations
how to subscribe
P.E.I.
groups push for end to the growing of genetically modified foods
December 15, 2003
CP Wire
CHARLOTTETOWN - A coalition of organizations pushing for legislation that would
create a genetically modified-free zone in the entire province of Prince Edward
Island met, according to this story, with Premier Pat Binns on Monday to press
their case, joined by Percy Schmeiser, a Saskatchewan farmer at the centre of a
battle with biotech giant Monsanto over the patenting of genes.
Coalition spokesman Leo Broderick of the Council of Canadians was cited as
saying after the meeting they were pleased with the response they received from
the premier, adding, “We asked the premier very directly to enact legislation
to create a GM-free zone here, we told him that's what we wanted. He said he
would certainly give this request consideration given the seriousness of the
issue as expressed by Mr. Schmeiser in his presentation, which touched on many
issues, not the least of which was the impact of this issue on farmers. … The
last time he gave us absolutely no consideration. He was very much supportive of
genetically modified crops, but this time there appeared to be a major, major
change. We're very hopeful.''
Schmeiser was cited as saying he believes the spread of genetically modified
foods takes away people's right to choose between conventional food, genetically
modified food or organic food, adding, “And that's the biggest movement in
Canada now, towards organic food. I pointed out to the premier today that there
is no such thing as peaceful co-existence with (genetically modified foods).
It's a dominant gene and it will take over whatever species of plant the seed
gets into. ... Eventually it will take over everything.''
(Charlottetown Guardian)
Same
old, same old: European GMO moratorium remains in place
December 16, 2003
BioSciNews Guest Editorial
Jay Holmes
The decision by European Union countries to leave in place a de facto moratorium
on the importation of food products derived from genetically engineered (GE)
plants is another example of Europe's consistently inconsistent approach to
regulating the technology.
The European Union's Standing Committee for the Food Chain's decision to block
imports of GE sweet corn - despite a European Commission recommendation to
approve it and a clean bill of health from the European Food Safety Authority --
amounts to a reversal of the EU's July/03 proclamation to begin importation of
these products (albeit with miniscule thresholds and onerous traceability
requirements). The newly taken decision has thrown plans to lift member
countries' import bans and to re-start the science-based regulatory approval
process for GE crops into limbo.
On the surface the reversal of the EU's previously stated policy regarding
biotechnology-derived food products is surprising. When one looks deeper
however, the reversal appears to be a continuation of the European practice of
using food safety concerns to mask protectionist trade policies with the aim to
keep the continent free of cheaper food imports. Indeed, this decision gives
further credence to the argument being forwarded by the U.S., Canada and
Argentina in their case that is currently before the World Trade Organization (WTO)
that the rationale behind the European moratorium is based more on economics
that science and food safety.
The sweet corn in question, developed by Switzerland's Syngenta and not by
American big business as the Greens habitually claim, is resistant to corn pests
and a herbicide that is more environmentally friendly than traditional
herbicides. Similar crops grown in North America have led to reductions in
pesticide use, reduced fossil fuel consumption by farmers and improved soil
conservation.
Europe's vocal activist industry has taken advantage of the ban to spread their
anti-science, anti-corporate message. Consumers, who had little understanding of
the technology when the moratorium was first introduced, have been exposed to a
five-year campaign featuring "Frankenfoods" and alleged threats
against butterflies. The result? European consumers were left to make decisions
about the technology hearing only this one-sided debate and lacking the ability
to try the products for themselves.
When Canadian consumers were provided with information about a related GE sweet
corn, designed to combat the European corn borer and reduce pesticide use, a
majority chose to purchase the equivalently priced and labeled GE sweet corn.
Research conducted in 2000 and published last month in the British Food Journal,
found that consumers chose GE sweet corn over its traditionally produced
equivalent by a ratio of 3:2. Follow-up studies showed even greater support for
the use of GE technology in 2001 and 2002. Many consumers cited the reduced use
of pesticides in the production of GE sweet corn as the reason for their choice,
although quality and taste were also key concerns.
Ironically, the EU, with its large and often Byzantine food safety systems, has
been the site of some of the world's most high profile food safety disasters.
The British experience with bovine spongiform encephalopathy and foot and mouth
disease, and dioxin contamination scares on the continent have led to the
creation of a public that is hypersensitive to food safety risks - a sensitivity
that has been taken advantage of by activist groups and those with an interest
in erecting non-tariff trade barriers.
If nothing is done to dispel the myths created by activists and given credence
by Brussels-based trade isolationists Europe may find itself with a populace
that is mired in anti-science hysteria and an economy that is out of step with
rest of the world.
Jay Holmes is a graduate student with the Food Safety Network at the University
of Guelph.
Colombo
and Dhaka keen on GM papaya: Somsak to push for open-field testing
December 15, 2003
Bangkok Post News
Porpot Changyawa
http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/14Dec2003_news13.html
Bangladesh and Sri Lanka are, according to this story, interested in buying Thai
genetically engineered papaya, to feed their under-nourished population, and the
demand is prompting Agriculture and Cooperatives Minister Somsak Thepsutin to
rush to lift the ban on open-field testing of GM crops, likely to start with
papaya.
The Agriculture Department was cited as saying the South Asian countries have
asked it to share growing techniques for the GM fruit.
Vilai Prasartsee, chief of the Office of Agricultural Research and Development,
said the department had developed GM papaya since 1995 in field trials in Khon
Kaen.
It is resistant to ringspot virus, a disease which can cause a drastic loss of
yield. It boasts high yields, large size and firm peels, characteristics which
could be good for export.
Hammer
head: Plants to the rescue: UT genetically engineering species that will warn of
chemical, biological weapons
December 15, 2003
Knox News
J.J. Stambaugh
http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/science/article/0,1406,KNS_9116_2500047,00.html
University of Tennessee researchers are, according to this story, genetically
engineering certain species of flora to glow when they come into contact with
toxic substances in the ground or air.
Professor Neal Stewart, a genetic scientist in UT's Department of Sciences and
Landscape Systems, was cited as saying researchers hope to create a new type of
early warning system that is literally part of the surrounding environment,
adding, "We are genetically engineering plants for various purposes, and
we're also studying the safety of genetically engineered plants. We're
engineering some plants to sense things in their environment, such as
explosives, maybe biological or chemical warfare agents. You sow the plants, and
they tell you what's what. We train the plants to talk to us."
Stewart, who holds the Racheff Chair of Excellence, was further cited as saying
the research could also be used to improve detection of plant diseases, adding,
We're genetically engineering plants - and have been doing so for several years
- to light up. They essentially fluoresce upon signaling. We have different
instrumentation to detect the fluorescence - it's very visual. If you show a
black light on it, it will light up green in the dark."
BT
cotton not harmful: Govt
December 15, 2003
Hindu Business Line
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/businessline/blnus/07151506.htm
NEW DELHI: The Indian government has, according to this story, given a clean
chit to Bt cotton after trials indicated that it does not have any harmful
effect on environment and animal health.
The Minister of State for Agriculture, Mr Hukumdeo Narayan Yadav, was quoted as
informingg Lok Sabha in a written reply that, "Trial conducted by ICAR and
Department of Biotechnology have indicated that Bt cotton does not have any
harmful effects on environment, non-target organisms, soil micro-flora including
animal health. … The realisable benefits of Bt technology are proportional to
the level of lepidopteran pest infestation. The performance of Bt cotton is also
dependent on agro climatic conditions, genotype of the hybrids and management of
crop.”
SA
farmers oppose GM bill
December 15, 2003
ABC News
http://www.abc.net.au/news/australia/sa/200312/s1010200.htm]
The South Australian Farmers Federation is, according to this story, opposing
the State Government's bill on the control of genetically modified crops.
The story says that the Government has received 108 submissions in response to
the draft, since its release six weeks ago and hopes to have it passed by next
February.
Gary Burgess from the federation's gene technology task force, was cited as
saying the bill, in its current form, could be manipulated by anyone opposed to
GM crops.
Mr Burgess is concerned that an opponent of GM crops could use the bill to argue
that they are a risk to crops which might never be grown.
"The problem is you don't actually have to be affected under this
legislation to bring an action, in fact you may only have a piece of paper that
says you might be affected in five years time and that would be grounds enough
to go to court and that's just untenable.
"That vexatious legislation that could stop the economic development of the
state," he said.
Dow
AgroSciences, New York attorney general resolve advertising dispute: New accord
recognizes company's right to correct the record about its products
December 15, 2003
From a press release
INDIANAPOLIS -- Dow AgroSciences and the New York attorney general have resolved
differences over how pesticides can be described in company communications
accessible to New Yorkers.
The new agreement expressly acknowledges the company's right to defend its
products against false statements made by others and clearly distinguishes
between such defense and claims made in advertising.
This action, formalized in a consent order, updates a ten-year-old agreement
with the New York attorney general's office under which the company agreed that
in advertising or product literature accessible to residents of the state of New
York it would not refer to its products as "safe," even when used as
directed and regardless of how thoroughly they had been studied.
That agreement, however, led to further disputes when the New York attorney
general's office interpreted the provisions as applying to responses posted on
the company's Web site to allegations made against its products -- the Internet
not having been anticipated at the time of the 1994 agreement -- and also to
other communications not identified as subject to restriction.
Additionally, the company's right to defend against attacks made on its
products, such as chlorpyrifos insecticides (trademark, Dursban(R)), was
challenged by the attorney general's office as violating the 1994 agreement.
The new agreement, resolving these disputes, includes a $2 million payment by
the company to the New York attorney general's office. While the company
disagrees with the attorney general's position on that prior agreement, it is
making the payment as a means of resolving the dispute without protracted
litigation, and in order to obtain an affirmation of the company's right, in the
state of New York, to correct false statements about its products.
"The 1994 agreement restricted our ability to support and defend our
products," said Guy A. Relford, the company's head of litigation,
"even if our statements were true. For instance, the old agreement was
interpreted by the New York attorney general as prohibiting our informing people
that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had registered one of our products
as a Reduced Risk Pesticide.
"Further conflict resulted," Relford added, "when the old
agreement was interpreted as affecting a wider range of communications than we
had anticipated. Today, those issues are resolved, and we're ready to move
forward."
Under the new agreement, Dow AgroSciences is allowed to inform New Yorkers
without fear of reprisal from the attorney general that certain of its products
are registered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as Reduced Risk
Pesticides.
The new agreement between Dow AgroSciences and the New York attorney general's
office addresses advertising, does not affect product labeling and expressly
distinguishes between advertising and the company's response to product-related
public concerns.
"We could not have accepted this agreement," Relford said,
"without specific provisions in the consent order affirming our right to
respond to false statements about our products, including statements made in the
context of the attorney general's investigation.
"In essence," Relford added, "the new agreement reaffirms our
right to provide residents of the state of New York with important information
about the proper use, and the health and environmental characteristics, of our
products, consistent with what federal and state law allows."
www.dowagro.com
AAAS
application deadline nears
American Association for the Advancement of Science Press Release
www.fellowships.aaas.org
Help shape public policy in Washington, DC.
Scientists and engineers are invited to apply for one-year science and
technology policy fellowships in Washington, DC, beginning September 2004. These
10 programs, administered by the American Association for the Advancement of
Science (AAAS), are designed to provide each Fellow with a unique public policy
learning experience and to bring technical backgrounds and external perspectives
to decision-making in the U.S. government.
Fellows serve in the Congress, the Department of Homeland Security, the National
Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the Department of State,
the Department of Defense, the Agency for International Development, the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Agriculture, the Food and
Drug Administration, and other federal offices.
Applicants must have a PhD or an equivalent doctoral degree by the application
deadline (January 10, 2004) from any physical, biological or social science, any
field of engineering or any relevant interdisciplinary field. Individuals with a
master's degree in engineering and at least three years of post-degree
professional experience also may apply. Applicants must be U.S. citizens and
federal employees are ineligible. Stipends begin at $60,000.
For application instructions and further information about the AAAS Science and
Technology Policy Fellowship Programs, contact:
1200 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: 202/326-6700
E-mail: fellowships@aaas.org
Web: www.fellowships.aaas.org.
Underrepresented minorities and persons with disabilities are encouraged to
apply.
Cargill
breaks new ground in developing chemicals from farm products
December 15, 2003
Knight-Ridder Tribune
Chris Clayton, Omaha World-Herald, Neb.
BLAIR, Neb. -- Cargill, whose primary focus has been food ingredients, is,
according to this story, exploring industrial products it can make with the
chemical compounds derived from corn, soybeans and other crops, that would
replace petroleum-based polymers.
Indeed, Cargill officials believe corn and soybeans can one day replace
petroleum in a variety of manufactured products.
James Stoppert, senior director of industrial bio-products for Cargill, was
quoted as saying, "I really think it can be a revolution in the chemical
industry."
Larry Johnson, director of the Center for Crop Utilization Research at Iowa
State University in Ames, was cited as saying bio-refining is within the grasp
of small farm cooperatives as well, adding, "We are on the verge of a
bio-economy. The question is: How fast will it develop?"
The story says that researchers at Iowa State have developed their own products,
including a soybean-based glue they may sell to companies that make building
materials.
Cargill's Blair facility, which processes 68 million bushels of corn annually,
is integral to the company's push into bio-refining. Built in 1995 to produce
ethanol, livestock feed and corn syrup, the 650-acre facility employs nearly
500. The campus now includes private firms, which have invested $1 billion.
Cargill's wet-milling process uses decades-old fermentation technology in new
ways. The facility squeezes an average of 32 1/2 pounds of starch from a
56-pound bushel of corn. That starch forms the basis of the new polymers.
One early success has been industrial-grade lactic acid, produced by Cargill and
a Netherlands company, Purac, the largest producer of lactic acid in the world.
The story adds that the companies anticipate huge markets for lactic acid, for
both food and industrial uses. Lactic acid is an ingredient in food additives,
solvents and polymers used to make amino acids and precursors for
pharmaceuticals. Potential uses exist for use in polyesters, acrylics and
polyurethanes.
One consumer of the lactic acid is the $300 million Cargill Dow LLC plant built
in 2001 as a joint venture with Dow Chemical.
Cargill Dow converts the lactic acid into polylactic acid, which is an
ingredient in a variety of polymers, especially plastic grocery bags. Sanyo
Electric has just introduced a biodegradable compact disc made from the Cargill
Dow polylactic acid.
Trans-Tasman
partnership to benefit wheat growers
December 15, 2003
Press Release by Crop & Food Research
The development of higher yielding wheat cultivars to meet the New Zealand
demand for high quality flours for bread and pastry will result from a new joint
venture signed this week between New Zealand and Australian researchers and
industry.
New Zealand currently mills 200,000 tonnes of wheat for bread, but New Zealand
growers can only supply 100,000 tonnes; the shortfall is imported mainly from
Australia. The HRZ Wheats joint venture aims to breed high quality milling
wheats for what is known as the 'high rainfall zone' in Australia. These
conditions are similar to those that exist for wheat growing in New Zealand.
HRZ Wheats involves Crop & Food Research, Australia's CSIRO, and the
Australian industry body Export Grains Centre. Crop & Food Research and
CSIRO are contributing their breeding and commercialization skills while the
Export Grains Centre is providing an average of $1 million of funding per year
for the next 10 years.
Crop & Food Research's chief executive Paul Tocker says the New Zealand
market is not large enough to support a substantial wheat breeding programme,
and neither is it a priority for government research funding.
"By partnering with Australia in this programme we can develop higher value
cultivars for Australia which are also suitable for New Zealand growers."
"We expect that within a few years new higher value, higher yielding,
milling wheat cultivars will be released in New Zealand.
"This new venture ensures we retain a milling wheat capability in New
Zealand and it provides a platform on which we can develop further breeding
projects to add value to the New Zealand industry."
Removal
of cottonseed chemist licensing program, updating of commodity laboratory and
office addresses, and adoption of information symbols
December 16, 2003
[Federal Register: (Volume 68, Number 241)]
[Page 69944-69948]
[DOCID:fr16de03-2]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
[Docket Number ST02-03]
RIN 0581-AC18
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This rule amends the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) regulations
by removing the cottonseed chemist licensing program and the related official
cottonseed grading program. This regulation will update various commodity
testing laboratory addresses and will adopt two information symbols in the form
of approved AMS shields to indicate that products have been tested by AMS.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective January 15, 2004.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James V. Falk, Docket Manager, USDA,
AMS, Science and Technology, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 3521 South
Agriculture Building, Mail Stop 0272, Washington, DC 20250-0272; telephone (202)
690-4089; fax (202) 720-4631, or e-mail: James.falk@usda.gov.
Revision
of fees for the fresh fruit and vegetable terminal market inspection services
December 16, 2003
[Federal Register: (Volume 68, Number 241)]
[Page 69941-69944]
[DOCID:fr16de03-1]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
[Docket Number FV-03-301]
RIN 0581-AB63
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This rule revises the regulations governing the inspection and
certification for fresh fruits, vegetables and other products by increasing by
approximately 15 percent certain fees charged for the inspection of these
products at destination markets. The fees for inspecting multiple lots of the
same product during inspections will be increased from $14.00 to $45.00, and the
per package fees for dock-side inspections will be changed from a three interval
schedule, based on weight, to a two interval schedule based on different weight
thresholds. These revisions are necessary in order to recover, as nearly as
practicable, the costs of performing inspection services at destination markets
under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (AMA of 1946). The fees charged to
persons required to have inspections on imported commodities in accordance with
the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 and for imported peanuts under
section 1308 of the Farm Security and Rural Investigation Act of 2002. EFFECTIVE
DATE: January 15, 2004.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rita Bibbs-Booth, USDA, 1400 Independence Ave.,
SW., Room 0640-S, Washington, DC 20250-0295, or call (202) 720-0391.
Amendment
to the soybean promotion and research rules and regulations
December 16, 2003
[Federal Register: (Volume 68, Number 241)]
[Page 69953-69954]
[DOCID:fr16de03-4]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
[Doc. No. LS-02-14]
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This final rule amends the Soybean Promotion and Research Rules and
Regulations (Rules and Regulations) established under the Soybean Promotion,
Research, and Consumer Information Act (Act) by requiring first purchasers of
soybeans and producers marketing processed soybeans or soybean products of a
producer's own production in the States or regions of Delaware, Louisiana, South
Carolina, Texas, Eastern Region, and the Western Region, to remit and report
assessments on a quarterly basis rather than a monthly basis. This change
reduces the administrative costs of monthly reporting imposed on these smaller
soybean producing States and regions.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 1, 2004.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth R. Payne, Chief; Marketing
Programs Branch; Livestock and Seed Program; Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS),
USDA, Room 2638-S; STOP 0251; 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC
20250-0251; telephone 202/720-1115.
Agnet is produced by the Food Safety Network at
the University of Guelph and is sponsored by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture
and Food, Plants Program at the University of Guelph, Agricultural Adaptation
Council (CanAdapt Program), AGCare, Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors,
ConAgra Foods, Inc., Pioneer Hi-Bred Limited (Canada), Ag-West Biotech, Inc.,
Monsanto Canada, Meat and Livestock Australia, National Pork Board, Pew
Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Council for
Biotechnology Information, Canadian Animal Health Institute, Croplife Canada,
Syngenta Seeds Canada, Inc., Canadian Food Information Council, Saskatchewan
Agriculture, Food and Rural Revitalization, JIFSAN, National Cattlemen's Beef
Association, National Food Processors Association, Ontario Agri-Food
Technologies, Institute of Environmental Science and Research, Ltd., BC Ministry
of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Feedlot Health Management Services, Syngenta
Crop Protection, Ontario Corn Producers' Association, DuPont Canada, Inc.,
Office of Consumer Affairs, Burger King, Sobeys Ontario, McCain Produce Inc.,
Canadian Institute for Food Inspection and Regulation, Canadian Wheat Board,
National Meat Association, Seminis Vegetable Seeds, Ontario Soybean Growers,
Bunge, Ltd., UC Davis Biotechnology Program, Consumer Federation of America
Foundation, Optibrand, University of Idaho Department of Microbiology, Molecular
Biology and Biochemistry, Tactix Government Consulting, Inc., Plant Bioscience
Ltd., CanAmera Foods, Hospitality Institute of Technology and Management, Inc.,
Hartono and Company, Agri Business Group, Inc., and Global Public Affairs.
To subscribe to the html version of Agnet (subscription is free), 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
(replace agnet-L with agnettext to subscribe to the text version of agnet)
To unsubscribe to the html version of Agnet, send mail to:
listserv@listserv.uoguelph.ca
leave subject line blank
in the body of the message type:
signoff agnet-L
(replace agnet-L with agnettext to unsubscribe to the text version of agnet)
For more information about the Agnet research program, please contact:
Dr. Douglas Powell
Associate Professor
dept. of plant agriculture
University of Guelph
Guelph, Ont.
N1G 2W1
tel: 519-824-4120 x54280
cell: 519-835-3015
fax: 519-763-8933
dpowell@uoguelph.ca
http://www.foodsafety.ksu.edu
The Food Safety Network's bilingual toll-free line for obtaining food safety
information: 1-866-50-FSNET (1-866-503-7638)
archived at "http://131.104.74.73:96/agnet-archives.htm