Agnet Dec. 18/03
Get facts
straight about GM opponents
Monsanto
responds to letter
Gates
Foundation announces $25 million grant for HarvestPlus
New
coordinator for Golden Rice Network joins IRRI
Top award
for scientific support team stays in Philippines 3 years running
Genetically
modified maize confiscated in Italy
Dow
subsidiary to pay $2 million for making false safety claims in pesticide ads:
Largest pesticide enforcement penalty in U.S. history
IFT
congressional science fellowship
Ag outlook
forum to be held
Ports of
entry for certain plants and plant products
Importation
of fruits and vegetables
how to subscribe
Get
facts straight about GM opponents
December 18, 2003
The StarPhoenix (Saskatoon)
A17
Marc Loiselle, a Vonda-area resident and communications and research director
for the Organic Agriculture Protection Fund, Saskatchewan Organic Directorate,
writest that in comparison to the editorial, Lousy optics in wheat deal, (SP
Dec. 2), which he applauds for making strong points on why we need to stop GE
wheat, the editorial, GM food poll badly skewed (SP Dec. 5) was shockingly
ignorant and offensive.
Labelling organic farmers such as Loiselle as "anti-GM fearmongers" is
ridiculous. Many other farmers who have not adopted certified organic farm
management are just as opposed to the use of GM canola and to the introduction
of more GM crops.
Reasons for this opposition include issues of contamination, marketing, food
safety and security, patenting of life, and control of our seed and food
sectors. Increasing evidence supports a strong movement against GM crops and
foods -- based on science, common sense and factual experience.
Loiselle says that organic farmers in Saskatchewan have been hardest hit by the
introduction of GM canola. We have lost our ability to grow certified organic
canola because of the extent of contamination of seed stocks, the ubiquitous
nature of gene transfer from pollen drift and the spread of GM canola seeds and
plants by wind, wildlife, equipment and transportation.
Our class action lawsuit against Monsanto Canada and Bayer Cropscience is based
on this claim and others, including questions of liability, negligence and
trespassing.
Loiselle also says that in the current worldwide debate, the terms
"genetically modified," "genetically engineered" or
"transgenic" are used interchangeably and understood to describe the
same thing. They describe techniques, using recombinant DNA, by which the
natural genetic material of plants are altered in ways that could not be
obtained by methods of natural reproduction or natural recombination. A
genetically modified organism (GMO) is a plant, animal or micro-organism
transformed by genetic engineering.
Therefore, the line "products that have undergone genetic engineering over
12,000 years of farming practices" is clearly nonsense. Sure, there has
been natural genetic change throughout history, but it never involved
introducing genetic material into unrelated species. That is possible only now,
by invasively forcing the host organism to accept foreign genes.
The editorial said the Royal Society of Canada and Health Canada experts have
deemed GM foods pose "absolutely no danger to human or animal health."
You would not have written that had you read the Feb. 5, 2001, report by the
society's expert panel on the future of food biotechnology called Elements of
Precaution: Recommendations for the Regulation of Food Biotechnology in Canada.
It's clear that many people do not trust government agencies such as Health
Canada or the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to be unbiased and thorough when
they investigate and test for safety and health concerns.
The regulatory system that allows GM crops and foods to be grown and sold in
Canada is fundamentally inadequate and flawed. It consists primarily of
determining approval based on a decision threshold, something called
"substantial equivalence" which, in the words of the expert panel, is
"scientifically unjustifiable when used to exempt new products from full
scientific scrutiny. When it comes to human and environmental safety, there
should be clear evidence of the absence of risks; the mere absence of evidence
is not enough."
As regards genetically engineering our food, it is abundantly clear that not
abiding by the precautionary principle leads to many problems that are very
difficult to undo.
While Monsanto argues that GM crops give farmers choice, the reality is that
they appear to give choice to some, but take choice away from everyone else,
including the consumer. Add in no effective labeling of foods containing GMOs
and we end up with what we have now: a system that profits only the
patent-holding companies and their subsidiaries, while Canada's citizens and its
environment are subjected to wholesale experimentation.
As with far too many politicians, editors appear to be chameleons when it comes
to forming a position on issues of great importance such as genetic engineering
of our food.
For the sake of consumers such as SP readers, don't publish accusations of
manipulation by what you call "pressure groups" unless you have
investigated thoroughly what you claim. Otherwise, you leave yourself wide open
to criticism.
Monsanto
responds to letter
December 17, 2003
Stratford Beacon-Herald
4
Trish Jordan of Monsanto Canada, writes that Ann Slater should do more extensive
research before misinforming readers about what Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
(AAFC) stands to gain if Monsanto commercializes Roundup Ready wheat (Ag Canada
in Bed with Monsanto, Dec. 11 letter originally printed in Sun Media's Ontario
Farmer).
Had she done so, she would have learned that the Roundup Ready wheat variety
being developed under the collaborative working agreement between AAFC and
Monsanto is already currently available in the marketplace as a conventional
variety (AC Superb). So, AgCanada is already receiving royalties from the
commercial seed company marketing conventional AC Superb. This won't change, nor
should it, when these same varieties, with the addition of the Roundup Ready
trait, are commercialized at some point in the future.
Secondly, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada plays no role in the food, feed and
environmental regulatory review of plants with novel traits in Canada. That is a
responsibility that rests with the world-renowned Canadian Food Inspection
Agency, Health Canada and the Pest Management Regulatory Agency.
Finally, instead of criticizing Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada for pursuing
innovative new technologies designed to help the western Canadian wheat industry
grow and remain competitive, Ms. Slater might want to consider congratulating
them for conducting research that has the potential to provide a financial
return to the department. Would she rather AgCanada conduct research that has no
opportunity for commercial benefit? Research for the sake of research is
important and should continue -- whether funded privately or publicly. However,
research that results in new, beneficial commercial products for Canadian
farmers is what helps keep the agriculture industry competitive.
Gates
Foundation announces million grant for HarvestPlus
December 2003
IRRI Hotline Vol. 13 No. 4
International Rice Research Institute
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation announced on 14 October a US$25 million
grant to HarvestPlus, a global research initiative to breed and disseminate
crops for better nutrition. Using an innovative approach called biofortification,
agricultural and nutrition scientists are working to breed crops with higher
levels of micronutrients such as iron, zinc and vitamin A.
The collaborative initiative is a challenge program of the Consultative Group on
International Agricultural Research, combining the expertise and resources of
eight of the group's 16 international research centers and an array of
governmental, nongovernmental and academic partners around the world. Leading
HarvestPlus are the Colombia-based International Center for Tropical Agriculture
and the International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington, D.C. IRRI is
a major player in HarvestPlus, responsible for developing varieties of rice
biofortified for enhanced nutrition.
"Hidden hunger" for essential micronutrients still afflicts more than
2 billion of the world's poor. Vitamin A deficiency alone causes more than 1
million deaths and 400,000 cases of blindness each year. Iron deficiency and
associated anemia affect billions of people, impairing mental development,
weakening immune systems and reducing stamina. As the daily food of more than
half of humanity and most of the world's poor, rice offers enormous potential
for improving public health through biofortification. In the Philippines,
Bangladesh and eastern India, for example, rice provides 50-80 percent of the
calories people receive. A small increase in its nutritional value would have
significant benefits for poor consumers' health.
The initial focus of HarvestPlus is to boost the presence of iron, zinc and
vitamin A in rice, maize, beans, wheat, cassava and sweet potatoes -- the first
tier crops identified by the program. The last in a series of start-up meetings
for each crop took place on 6-8 October at IRRI, where biofortification of rice
is already underway. One highlight of the meeting was the announcement that a
conventionally bred high-iron line of the popular variety IR68, pre-released in
the Philippines as Maligaya Special #13, looks likely to be disseminated as a
national variety before the end of 2003.
"Two strategies for delivering micronutrients have so far
demonstrated their worth in the battle against malnutrition," said Howarth
Bouis, director of HarvestPlus. "These are distributing dietary supplements
to the poor and fortifying foods with conventional additives. However, neither
of these strategies reliably reaches the most remote and inaccessible
communities, which often suffer the greatest need. Biofortification promises to
do just that by breeding micronutrients directly into the staple crops that
farmers grow for their own table and that sustain the poorest consumers."
New
coordinator for Golden Rice Network joins IRRI
December 2003
IRRI Hotline Vol. 13 No. 4
International Rice Research Institute
Gerard F. Barry recently joined IRRI as the new Golden Rice Network coordinator.
Dr. Barry holds BS and MS degrees in microbiology from University College, Cork,
Ireland, and a PhD in biological sciences from Columbia University, New York.
Before joining IRRI, he was director of research for product and technology
cooperation at Monsanto in Missouri, USA. His major responsibility at IRRI is to
work with plant breeders, biotechnologists, intellectual property rights
specialists, and biosafety and regulatory agencies in Asian countries to
facilitate the development and deployment of transgenic Golden Rice. This effort
aims to alleviate vitamin A deficiency among the poorest rice consumers.
Top
award for scientific support team stays in Philippines 3 years running
December 2003
IRRI Hotline Vol. 13 No. 4
International Rice Research Institute
Filipino researchers have won, for the third consecutive year, the world's most
prestigious award for a scientific support team in publicly funded agricultural
research. The award was announced in October during the annual general meeting
of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) in
Nairobi, which each year presents the CGIAR Excellence in Science Awards.
The winning team comprises 33 Filipino scientists working in IRRI's Genetic
Resources Center. The researchers operate the center, which manages the
International Rice Genebank, and play a central role in the center's achievement
of significant scientific advances in the conservation and use of rice genetic
resources. This year's winners are responsible for maintaining and making
accessible to farmers, plant breeders and other scientists the world's most
comprehensive collection of rice genetic resources -- about 110,000 samples of
traditional and modern varieties of cultivated rice, as well as wild species.
Since 1986, the genebank has distributed 250,000 seed samples, facilitating the
free movement of germplasm among 96 countries. This includes repatriating 32,000
rice samples to 34 countries of origin.
Restoring traditional rice varieties can increase farmers' income, as
dramatically demonstrated in the IRRI-led project Exploiting Biodiversity for
Sustainable Pest Management, which netted last year's support team award. The
research saw high-value but disease-susceptible traditional rice varieties
interplanted with disease-resistant hybrids to produce, with reduced spraying of
fungicide, a healthy crop worth nearly US$280 more per hectare than a crop of
hybrids alone.
Access to the traditional varieties stored by the GRC was pivotal to the
project's success. Genetic resources also support IRRI's hybrid rice breeding
team, which won the award in 2001.
Genetically
modified maize confiscated in Italy
December 17, 2003
ANSA via Checkbiotech
http://www.checkbiotech.org/root/index.cfm?fuseaction=news&doc_id=6806&start=1&control=224&page_start=1&page_nr=101&pg=1
CAMERINO, Italy -- Some 1,500 quintals of contaminated grains of transgenic
maize were found in a warehouse in Camerino, central Italy, by the Italian
Forest Rangers Corps CFS, it was reported on December 16, 2003.
After long investigations the CFS found GMO (genetically modified organisms) in
the maize hybrid, launched on the market by the Italian branch of the U.S.
seeds' genetics and production company Pioneer Hi-Bread. The 1,500 quinals of
contaminated grains were piled up in the Torre del Parco silo in Camerino and
were left uncovered. They were planned for resale to numerous farmers as animal
food. The producer company was condemned of business fraud and the maize will be
destroyed under the control of CFS.
Large quantities of maize, coming form agricultural areas such as Pollenza,
Urbisaglia and Porto d'Ascoli, turned out to contain GMO, according to a
contamination test carried out by the Zooprophylactic Institute in Fermo.
Dow
subsidiary to pay million for making false safety claims in pesticide ads:
Largest pesticide enforcement penalty in U.S. history
December 15, 2003
New York Office of the Attorney General - News Release
Attorney General Eliot Spitzer today announced that Dow AgroSciences, LLC, a
subsidiary of the Dow Chemical Company, will pay a $2 million penalty for
illegally advertising safety claims about its pesticide products in New York
between 1995 and 2003. This is the largest enforcement penalty ever obtained in
a pesticide case. "Pesticides are toxic substances that should be used with
great caution," said Attorney General Spitzer. "By misleading
consumers about the potential dangers associated with the use of their products,
Dow's ads may have endangered human health and the environment by encouraging
people to use their products without proper care."
Consumer and public health advocates hailed the settlement. Edward Groth III,
PhD, a senior scientist with Consumers Union, publishers of Consumer Reports,
said: "Chlorpyrifos (Dursban) was one of the most highly toxic active
ingredients used in home pesticides. Dow's exaggerated safety claims for this
very toxic chemical, cited in the Attorney General's lawsuit, were simply
outrageous. Consumers should thank Eliot Spitzer for putting a stop to such
gross corporate deception."
Dr. Philip Landrigan, chair of the Department of Community and Preventative
Medicine at Mount Sinai Medial Center, said: "Excellent studies conducted
by independent scientists have clearly shown that chlorpyrifos, the active
ingredient in Dursban, is toxic to the human brain and nervous system and is
especially dangerous to the developing brain of infants. I applaud the actions
of Attorney General Spitzer to stop these misleading and potentially dangerous
safety claims."
Spitzer sued Dow for repeatedly violating a 1994 agreement with New York State
prohibiting advertising touting the safety of its pesticide products. As part of
the 1994 agreement, the company agreed to stop making claims that its products
were "safe." However, an investigation by Spitzer's office found that
almost immediately after the company entered into the agreement it once again
began to make misleading safety claims in its print, video and internet
advertising.
Pursuant to a Consent Judgment signed December 12 by Judge Joan Madden in
Manhattan Supreme Court, Dow is required to pay a $2 million penalty, is barred
from making safety claims about its pesticide products, and is required to
implement a compliance program consisting of the following components:
A complete internal review of all advertisements being published by Dow or its
agents in New York State and removal of any advertisement that makes safety
claims about pesticide products;
The appointment of an attorney working under the company's Director of Ethics
and Compliance who will be responsible for reviewing and approving all
advertising. No advertisement will be published in New York State unless it has
first been reviewed by the appointed attorney; and, A training program regarding
federal and state law and the consent judgment for all employees and advertising
agency personnel involved in creating or reviewing advertisements.
An investigation in the early 1990s by the Attorney General Office found that
Dow engaged in false and misleading advertising that violated both state and
federal laws. In exchange for not paying fines for its illegal advertising
claims, Dow signed an agreement with the state in 1994 in which it pledged to
reform its advertising and marketing practices.
The Attorney General's investigation revealed that, after the 1994 agreement,
Dow continued to illegally advertise the safety of chlorpyrifos and other
pesticides. The investigation centered on Dow's advertising of the Dursban?
pesticide product line, which contains chlorpyrifos, a synthetic chemical
compound that has been linked to severe health problems in humans, including
poisoning, nerve damage and birth defects. The federal Environmental Protection
Agency, specifically citing health risks to children, took action in 2000 to
prohibit most household uses of chlorpyrifos. As recently as March, 2003, Dow's
internet site included the statement: "Consumer exposure from labeled use
of chlorpyrifos products provides wide margins of safety for both adults and
children." In contrast, Dow's safety data sheet for Durban TC? (chlorpyrifos)
states that excessive vapor concentrations are attainable and could be hazardous
on single exposure."
IFT
congressional science fellowship
December 17, 2003
Institute of Food Technologists Newsletter
http://www.ift.org/cms/?pid=1000363
The Institute of Food Technologists (IFT) seeks a Congressional Science Fellow (CSF)
for 2004 – 2005. The CSF program provides a unique opportunity for a qualified
IFT member to work for one year, beginning September 2004, for a member of
Congress or a Congressional committee. The Congressional Science Fellow has the
opportunity to share scientific perspectives on food and agricultural issues
while learning about the legislative process and policy environment. The IFT
Fellow is viewed as an ambassador of the food science and technology community.
Qualifications include: either a doctoral degree in food science, food
technology, or a related field, or a master's degree and five years postgraduate
professional experience; IFT membership; and U.S. Citizenship. Federal employees
are ineligible. IFT provides a $54,000 stipend and a relocation allowance.
Additional support from other sources, such as a present employer, is permitted.
The Fellowship is affiliated with the American Association for the Advancement
of Science's Congressional Science and Engineering Fellowship Program. The
application deadline is Feb. 7, 2004. Application materials are available at
http://www.ift.org/cms/?pid=1000307 or from IFT's Ted Cartwright at
202-466-5980; e mail: ttcartwright@ift.org.
Ag
outlook forum to be held
December 17, 2003
Institute of Food Technologists Newsletter
http://www.ift.org/cms/?pid=1000363
The USDA's Agricultural Outlook Forum will be held February 19-20, 2004, in
Arlington, Va. The forum provides the agricultural community with timely
forecasts of farm prospects and insight into developments affecting the farm
economy. For more information, see http://www.usda.gov/agency/oce/waob/agforum.htm
.
Ports
of entry for certain plants and plant products
December 18, 2003
[Federal Register: (Volume 68, Number 243)]
[Page 70421-70423]
[DOCID:fr18de03-1]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
[Docket No. 03-067-1]
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Direct final rule.
SUMMARY: We are amending the regulations governing the importation of nursery
stock and other articles by designating the ports of Atlanta, Georgia, and Agana,
Guam, as plant inspection stations. The addition of the two plant inspection
stations will help reduce transportation time and costs to importers who must
currently import plants through inspection stations that are considerably
distant from the importers’ facilities.
DATES: This rule will be effective on February 17, 2004, unless we receive
written adverse comments or written notice of intent to submit adverse comments
on or before January 20, 2004. If we receive written adverse comments or written
notice of intent to submit adverse comments, we will publish a document in the
Federal Register withdrawing this rule before the effective date. ADDRESSES: You
may submit comments or notice of intent to submit adverse comments by postal
mail/commercial delivery or by e-mail. If you use postal mail/commercial
delivery, please send four copies (an original and three copies) to: Docket No.
03-067-1, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3C71, 4700
River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment
refers to Docket No. 03-067-1. If you use e-mail, address your comment to
regulations@aphis.usda.gov. Your comment must be contained in the body of your
message; do not send attached files. Please include your name and address in
your message and “Docket No. 03-067-1” on the subject line.
You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our reading room.
The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street
and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is
there to help you, please call (202) 690-2817 before coming.
APHIS documents published in the Federal Register, and related information,
including the names of organizations and individuals who have commented on APHIS
dockets, are available on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/rad/webrepor.html.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. James A. Petit de Mange, Senior
Staff Officer, Quarantine Policy, Analysis and Support, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River
Road Unit 60, Riverdale, MD 20737-1232; (301) 734-8295.
Importation
of fruits and vegetables
December 18, 2003
[Federal Register: (Volume 68, Number 243)]
[Page 70448-70463]
[DOCID:fr18de03-15]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
[Docket No. 02-106-1]
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: We propose to amend the fruits and vegetables regulations to list a
number of fruits and vegetables from certain parts of the world as eligible,
under specified conditions, for importation into the United States. All of the
fruits and vegetables, as a condition of entry, would be inspected and subject
to treatment at the port of first arrival as may be required by an inspector. In
addition, some of the fruits and vegetables would be required to meet other
special conditions. We also propose to recognize areas in Peru as free from the
South American cucurbit fly. These actions would provide the United States with
additional types and sources of fruits and vegetables while continuing to
protect against the introduction of quarantine pests through imported fruits and
vegetables.
DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before February 17,
2004.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by postal mail/commercial delivery or by
e-mail. If you use postal mail/commercial delivery, please send four copies of
your comment (an original and three copies) to: Docket No. 02-106-1, Regulatory
Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3C71, 4700 River Road Unit 118,
Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No.
02-106-1. If you use e-mail, address your comment to regulations@aphis.usda.gov.
Your comment must be contained in the body of your message; do not send attached
files. Please include your name and address in your message and “Docket No.
02-106-1” on the subject line.
You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our reading room.
The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street
and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is
there to help you, please call (202) 690-2817 before coming.
APHIS documents published in the Federal Register, and related information,
including the names of organizations and individuals who have commented on APHIS
dockets, are available on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/rad/webrepor.html.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Wayne Burnett, Senior Import Specialist,
PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 140, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 734-6799.
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