Agnet Dec. 31/03
Sacramento,
Calif., university's project in genetically engineer crops withers
Judge OKs
genetically modified crop ban vote
Growers like
genetically modified wheat, but foreign markets leery
The latest
issue of AgBioForum
Majority of
B.C buy organic food, new poll shows
GMOs:
dueling assessments
Middle East
area-wide IPM effort progresses
Plant
disease and risk
The
herbicide resistance website
Comprehensive
pesticide use manual
Clothianidin;
notice of filing a pesticide petition to establish a tolerance for a certain
pesticide chemical in or on food
Fluroxypyr;
pesticide tolerance
Cyprodinil;
time-limited pesticide tolerance
how to subscribe
Sacramento,
Calif., university's project in genetically engineer crops withers
Dec. 31/03
Knight-Ridder Tribune
By Edie Lau, The Sacramento Bee, Calif.
A project in genetically engineering crops to produce medicines
began with exuberant hopes at Sacramento State but, according to this story, all
that remains are two disheveled plants with one wrinkled red tomato.
The story says that after five years, the biologist who led the project,
Nicholas Ewing, is giving it up. The experiments didn't work. Ironically, the
very tool he was trying to employ -- biotechnology -- spoiled the studies.
The story says that the problem lay in the seeds. Ewing and his students tried
to genetically engineer seeds they thought were from an ordinary tomato. Trouble
was, the seeds were mislabeled; they arrived with genes already altered.
It was another case of agricultural biotechnology appearing to be out of
control.
Ewing, chairman of the department of biological sciences at California State
University, Sacramento, was cited as saying in an interview this week that,
"This is a significant thing. It illustrates that these (biotech) genes can
be difficult to contain unless we have practices in place to better detect
them."
Ewing was one of 34 people around the world who may have received the
misidentified seeds over the past seven years. The seeds came from the
University of California, Davis, C.M. Rick Tomato Genetics Resource Center --
a repository of seeds from more than 3,600 varieties of wild and domesticated
tomatoes.
Like other such seed banks, the Rick Center is a sort of Library of
Congress for crops -- a place where the genetic diversity of important plants
is catalogued and preserved.
The Rick Center doesn't knowingly keep genetically engineered seed in its
stock. When officials recognized the error this fall, the embarrassed center
issued a recall and apology, followed in mid-December by a public
announcement.
Judge
OKs genetically modified crop ban vote
December 31, 2003
The Press Democrat
Mike Geniella
UKIAH -- Saying the courts should "tread lightly," a Mendocino County,
California, judge Tuesday let stand ballot language that argues for a local
initiative to ban genetically modified crops.
Superior Court Judge Leonard LaCasse was cited as saying he would not block
election officials from printing the March 2 primary ballot, which contained
language Measure H critics had claimed was false and misleading, adding that
while the specific statements may not "constitute the whole truth, they are
not so completely wrong to constitute a falsehood to voters."
He also recognized the deeply divergent viewpoints in the debate over genetic
engineering, reflected in the local ballot measure that has attracted national
attention, stating, "It is instructive that the argument against this
ballot proposal contains language that is at least equally provocative to the
language in favor of the measure."
The measure would make Mendocino County the first in the U.S. to ban cultivation
of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.
Supporters, who include 150 organic farmers and wine-grape growers, contend the
ban is needed to protect Mendocino County's growing stature as a producer of
certified organic agricultural products. They fear genetically modified
organisms could contaminate local organically grown crops.
The measure has run into opposition from other agricultural interests, including
local Farm Bureau President Peter Bradford, and the California Plant Health
Association, a statewide lobbying group representing biotech companies.
The story says that Monsanto Corp., which is a member of the association, last
year spent about $1.5 million to help defeat an Oregon ballot measure that would
have forced labeling of genetically modified foods. The Mendocino measure does
not attempt to impose a labeling requirement.
The Sacramento law firm of Olson, Hagel & Fishburn filed a lawsuit last week
on behalf of the plant association, seeking to have three specific statements in
the ballot argument in support of Measure H stricken from the March ballot.
One statement contended that "organic farms and wineries will lose organic
certification" if their crops become contaminated by modified organisms.
The other two statements claimed that "GMO polluted wine" would be
unmarketable in Europe and Japan and that "GMOs will irreversibly
contaminate native plants and trees."
Growers
like genetically modified wheat, but foreign markets leery
December 31, 2003
Helena Independent Record, Montana
Ted Monoson- IR Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON — Farmers in Montana and other states have, according to this
story, mixed feelings about genetically engineered wheat.
National Association of Wheat Growers chief executive Daren Coppock was quoted
as saying during a recent meeting in Washington, D.C that, "The growers of
wheat are on the horns of a dilemma. We see lots of benefits, but there is the
question of consumer acceptance.''
Montana Farm Bureau President David McClure was quoted as saying, "We're
excited about the possibilities of genetically engineered wheat. It's an
exciting product that has the possibility to cut down on the amount of herbicide
that we use. But at the moment most of our foreign customers have not accepted
it."
Wheat that is resistant to the herbicide Roundup is already being grown in test
plots in Montana, according to Monsanto Co. executive vice president Jerry
Steiner. Monsanto produces Roundup and has already successfully introduced corn,
soybean, cotton and canola varieties that are resistant to the herbicide.
Steiner was at the public meeting with Coppock.
Farmers who use the herbicide-resistant varieties are able to spray Roundup on
their fields without worrying that they will damage their crops. Steiner and
other supporters say that it allows farmers to reduce their herbicide use.
According to Steiner this is part of the "overwhelming benefit'' of Roundup
Ready wheat. He said that in tests conducted in Montana, North Dakota and
Canada, fields planted with Roundup Ready wheat had yields that were five to 15
percent greater than fields with conventional wheat.
Despite his excitement about Roundup Ready wheat, Steiner recognizes that there
are concerns among farmers and consumers.
"We recognize that there are questions,'' Steiner said.
Ronald Triani, who is Kraft Foods senior director of scientific relations,
shared Steiner's enthusiasm, but also injected a note of caution, stating,
"We are very confident of the safety of genetically engineered crops. There
in essence will be no safety issue as far as we are concerned.''
***Giving away our edge on farm exports**
December 31, 2003
Sydney Morning Herald
http://www.smh.com.au/letters/index.html
Bob Phelps, Director, GeneEthics Network, Carlton (Vic), writes that instant
bans on beef from the United States by more than 20 countries because of mad cow
disease ("Price of beef set to rise after BSE scare", Herald, December
30) give Australian farmers a competitive advantage in global markets.
Despite this example, the NSW and Victorian governments appear set to fast-track
the growing of genetically engineered (GE) herbicide-tolerant canola in 2004.
That would sacrifice our market edge over other GE canola producers (the US,
Canada and Argentina) whose products are resisted in Europe, Asia and here.
Wheat and barley exports worth billions of dollars may also suffer from the
taint of GE canola.
Monsanto and Bayer are both unconditionally licensed now by the Office of Gene
Technology Regulator to sell GE canola. Yet the companies have published no
scientific evidence to show that their herbicide-tolerant varieties will benefit
farmers.
Even if their wildest claims of production increases and lower costs were true,
possible gains would be a fraction of what all farmers will lose if our GE-free
market advantage is lost forever.
The
latest issue of AgBioForum
December 30, 2003
AgBioForum
Dear AGNET-L Member:
The latest issue of AgBioForum is now available online at http://www.agbioforum.org.
This is a special double issue covering soybean biotechnology, guest edited by
Henry T. Nguyen and Gary Stacey (University of Missouri-Columbia). Following is
the table of contents for the special issue.
1. A Soybean Biotechnology Outlook -- John C. Gardner and Thomas L. Payne
2. The Status of Soybean Genomics and Its Role in the Development of Soybean
Biotechnologies -- Randy C. Shoemaker, Jessica A. Schlueter, Perry Cregan, and
Lila Vodkin
3. The Future of Biotechnology in Soybeans -- John Soper, Dennis Judd,
Daria Schmidt, and Steve Sullivan
4. Genetic Enhancement of Soybean Oil for Industrial Uses: Prospects and
Challenges -- Edgar B. Cahoon
5. Modifications in Soybean Seed Composition to Enhance Animal Feed Use and
Value: Moving From a Dietary Ingredient to a Functional Dietary Component --
Monty S. Kerley and Gary L. Allee
6. Engineering Soybeans for Food and Health -- Anthony J. Kinney
7. The United Soybean Board's Better Bean Initiative: Building US Soybean
Competitiveness from the Inside Out -- David Durham
8. Role of Public and Private Soybean Breeding Programs in the Development of
Soybean Varieties Using Biotechnology -- D.A. Sleper and J.G. Shannon
9. The Dynamics of Biotechnology in the Soybean Marketplace -- Steven Sonka
Other articles:10. Agronomics and Sustainability of Transgenic Cotton in
Argentina – Matin Qaim, Eugenio J. Cap, and Alain de Janvry
11. Labeling Genetically Modified Foods: How Do US Consumers Want to See It
Done? -- Mario F. Teisl, Luke Garner, Brian Roe, and Michael E. Vayda
12. Climate Change for Biotechnology? UK Public Opinion 1991-2002 -- George
Gaskell, Nick Allum, Martin Bauer, Jonathan Jackson, Susan Howard, and Nicola
Lindsey
13. Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods: Does it Really Provide
Consumer Choice? -- Colin A. Carter and Guillaume P. Gručre
14. Research Prizes: A Mechanism to Reward Agricultural Innovation in
Low-Income Regions -- William A. Masters
15. Development and Marketing Strategies for Functional Foods -- Cecilia
Mark-Herbert
16. Factors Affecting the Likelihood of Corn Rootworm Bt Seed Adoption --James
Payne, Jorge Fernandez-Cornejo, and Stan Daberkow
Majority
of B.C buy organic food, new poll shows
December 23, 2003
Nelson Daily News
2
A new opinion survey by Synovate Research shows that just over half (53%) of
BC's grocery shoppers have, according to this story, purchased organic food in
the past year. Of those, nearly one-third say that 25% or more of their grocery
purchases regularly include organic food. Nearly half of current organic food
purchasers predict they will be buying even more organic foods in the future.
Organic food accounts for an average of 11 per cent of all BC food purchases,
the poll shows. Health and taste are the main reasons given for purchasing
organic food: 84 per cent of current and prospective organic food purchasers in
BC believe that organic food is healthier than non-organic.
Patrick Mallet, President of the Certified Organic Associations of BC., was
quoted as saying, "It's fair to say that more and more people are turning
to certified organic food for what it doesn't contain - pesticides, herbicides,
chemical fertilizers, antibiotics or growth hormones."
The poll shows that 51% also believe organic food tastes better than
non-organic.
GMOs:
dueling assessments
January 2004
IPMnet NEWS Issue 121
One of the key envisioned benefits of genetically modified crops (GMOs) is
reduced application of pesticides. Interestingly, two recent studies concerning
the effect of GMOs on pesticide usage in the U.S. arrived at conclusions 180
degrees apart. "Barebones" information about the two reports follows
for those who might want to probe further and produce their own assessment.
Study 1:
What: technical report, "Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on
Pesticide Use in the United States: The First Eight Years." Conduct-ed by:
C.M. Benbrook, Benbrook Consulting and Northwest Science and Environmental
Policy Center.
Findings: "GE crops have modestly increased the overall volume of
pesti-cides applied in the production of corn, soybeans, and cotton from 1996
through 2003." "Total pesticide use has risen some 50.6 million pounds
over the eight-year period studied." Sponsored by: Organic Farming Research
Fdn.; Union of Concerned Scien-tists; Institute for Agriculture and Trade
Policy; and other groups opposed to GM cropping.
Source: BioTech InfoNet Technical Paper Number 6, November 2003, 46 pages, at
http://www.biotech-info.net/Technical_Paper_6.pdf. Contact: C.M. Benbrook,
mailto:Benbrook@hillnet.com.
Study 2:
What: economic study, "Biotech 2012 Business Analysis." (Described in
a news release, "GM Seeds, Generic Glyphosate Taking a Bigger Bite Out of
Major Crop Protection Chemical Markets.") Conducted by: M. Cyr, senior
associate, Agribusiness Practice, Kline & Company.
Findings: "Grower expenditures for crop protection chemicals for corn,
cotton, and soybeans are expected to drop by more than US$1 billion over the
next five years." "New insect resistance genes for corn over next few
years will greatly reduce the need for insecticides." Sponsored by: Kline
& Company; prepared for income generation. Source: 4-volume study, Kline
& Company, an international research and management organization. Contact:
D. Fugate, mailto:Dennis_Fugate@klinegroup.com. Phone: 1-410-418-8934. Web:
http://www.Klinegroup.com/6_20031210.htm.
Middle
East area-wide IPM effort progresses
January 2004
IPMnet NEWS Issue 121
While it may pale in comparison to other, more publicized middle east regional
peace initiatives, a cooperative transnational IPM pro-gram is showing that
countries with widely differing politics, but a common insect pest, can
collaborate to develop an effective area-wide management approach.
A major goal of this cooperative project, beyond contributing in-directly to the
peace process, was to establish a cross-border, area-wide management scheme that
would: a) provide a forum for sharing exper-ience and information; b) promote
regional approaches to address shared issues; c) enhance national and local
programs; and, most importantly, d) provide a vehicle for cooperation among
researchers and experts, officials, farmers, and agricultural suppliers,
according to entomol-ogist R.D. Oetting who served as a technical advisor to the
program for nearly a decade.
Since the mid-1990s, representatives from Egypt, Israel, Jordan, and the
Palestinian Authority have been working together under this in-itiative to
target Bemisia tabaci (tobacco whitefly), a key insect pest throughout the
region. The externally funded work determined that, while numerous pests
threaten greenhouse vegetable production, B. tabaci and the viruses it vectors
was problem number one.
An IPM program was established and the area-wide approach adopted as the only
rational framework for gaining some measure of control across the region, with a
parallel goal of reducing the volume of, and reliance on, pesticides. Two major
emphases were: recruit and train scouts in the region; and, develop a pesticide
resistance monitoring program at strategic locations.
The program initially centered in the Jordan Valley (on both sides of the Jordan
River). Several activities involved participants from all cooperating countries.
A scouting field guide (in Arabic) was produced, followed by organizing training
activities for scouts and farmers. A demonstration greenhouse was built and a
dedicated training center established.
The project, according to participating technical experts, has sig-nificantly
increased communication among farmers and cooperators. Dr. Oetting observed that
the effort also may stimulate development of IPM and resistance programs for
managing other insect pests in field crops and orchards.
--excerpted, with thanks, from "Guest Editorial," by R.D. Oetting,
PHYTOPARASITICA, 32(1), 3-5, 2003; special thanks to Dr. Oetting for generous
collaboration. [#]
Plant
disease and risk
January 2004
IPMnet NEWS Issue 121
Seven papers presented at a 2002 American Phytopathological Society symposium,
"Man-aging Risk to Minimize Crop Loss," are now available online
through the Plant Health Progress segment of the Plant Management Network at
http://www.plantmanagementnetwork.org/pub/php/review/2003/risk/. The included
papers discuss key aspects of determining and managing risk elements of plant
disease ranging across theoretical application and actual field implementation.
The
herbicide resistance website
January 2004
IPMnet NEWS Issue 121
Most of all the world's known information about herbicide-resistant (H-R) weeds
can be found in the International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds at the
colorful multi-sponsor website:
http://weedscience.org. The site's stated purpose is, "to monitor the
evolution of herbicide-resistant weeds and assess their impact through-out the
world." The latest tally of H-R weeds: 284 resistant biotypes, 171 species
(102 dicots and 69 monocots), in more than 270,000 fields worldwide. The easily
navigated site includes an Herbicide-Resistant Weeds Summary Table accessed by
weed scientific or common name, or herb-icide mode of action. Other drop-down
menus concern involved researchers, weed photos, and appropriate contacts. There
is provision to add newly discovered cases of H-R weeds. *-- I. Heap,
International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds, PO Box 1365, Corvallis, OR
97339, USA. Phone: 1-541-929-6636. Eml: mailto:IanHeap@weedsmart.com.
Comprehensive
pesticide use manual
January 2004
IPMnet NEWS Issue 121
Pesticide use manuals are a staple of most nations, states, or
other entities and an important source of information. Standing tall
amongst this group in terms of sheer depth of information, usefulness,
and reader-friendly format is the 2nd edition of the Univ. of Cali-
fornia's THE SAFE AND EFFECTIVE USE OF PESTICIDES. This revised, up-
dated, and expanded 2000 version (of a 1988 first edition) contains
detailed information for selecting, applying, handling, storing, and
disposing of pesticides, all within an IPM context of reducing reliance
on pesticides where possible. Editor P.J. O'Connor-Marer, marshaling
material from dozens of specialists, has emphasized prevention of
groundwater contamination, protection of workers, wildlife, and en-
dangered species, plus reduction of environmental impacts. Included
principles apply to all areas of pest management--agricultural, urban,
greenhouse, and public health. Not only is this softbound volume packed
with practical information, its 352 pages are heavily illustrated and
artfully designed with a complementing second color. The per copy price
is very reasonable and orders of 10 or more copies receive a 26 percent
discount. Publication #3324. *-- Comm. Svcs/Publications, ANR, Univ.
of California, 6701 San Pablo Ave., 2nd. Floor, Oakland, CA 94608-1239,
USA. Eml: mailto:danrcs@ucdavis.edu. Fax: 1-510-643-5470.
Phone: 1-510-642-2431. Web: http://danrcs.ucdavis.edu.
Clothianidin;
notice of filing a pesticide petition to establish a tolerance for a certain
pesticide chemical in or on food
December 31, 2003
Federal Register: Volume 68, Number 250
[Page 75504-75507]
[DOCID:fr31de03-70]
[[Page 75504]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[OPP-2003-0366; FRL-7334-2]
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: This notice announces the initial filing of a pesticide
petition proposing the establishment of regulations for residues of a
certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities.
DATES: Comments, identified by docket ID number OPP-2003-0366, must be
received on or before January 30, 2004.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or
through hand delivery/courier. Follow the detailed instructions as
provided in Unit I. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Kenny, Registration Division
(7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number: (703) 305-7546; e-mail address:kenny.dan@epa.gov.
Fluroxypyr;
pesticide tolerance
December 31, 2003
Federal Register: Volume 68, Number 250
[Page 75430-75438]
[DOCID:fr31de03-21]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[OPP-2003-0377; FRL-7340-5]
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
fluroxypyr in or on field corn, sweet corn, sorghum, range and pasture
grass. Dow AgroSciences LLC requested this tolerance under the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality
Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA).
DATES: This regulation is effective December 31, 2003. Objections and
requests for hearings, identified by docket ID number OPP-2003-0377,
must be received on or before March 1, 2004.
ADDRESSES: Written objections and hearing requests may be submitted
electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. Follow the
detailed instructions as provided in Unit VI. of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joanne I. Miller, Registration
Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number: (703)305-6224; e-mail address:
miller.joanne@epa.gov.
Cyprodinil;
time-limited pesticide tolerance
December 31, 2003
Federal Register: Volume 68, Number 250
[Page 75438-75442]
[DOCID:fr31de03-22]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[OPP-2003-0394; FRL-7337-5]
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This regulation extends the time-limited tolerances for
residues of cyprodinil, 4-cyclopropyl-6-methyl-N-phenyl-2-
pyrimidinamine in or on onion, dry bulb; onion, green; and strawberry.
Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested these
tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as
amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA). The
tolerance will expire on December 31, 2004.
DATES: This regulation is effective December 31, 2003. Objections and
requests for hearings, identified by docket ID number OPP-2003-0394,
must be received on or before March 1, 2004.
[[Page 75439]]
ADDRESSES: Written objections and hearing requests may be submitted
electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. Follow the
detailedinstructions as provided in Unit VI. of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shaja R. Brothers, Registration
Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number: (703) 308-3194; e-mail
address:brothers.shaja@epa.gov.
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