Agnet May 28/07
Burkina Faso delays production of genetically
modified cotton
Vital
lessons to learn from Mexico and Brazil on
biotechnology
Sad
day for New Zealand
Biodiesel makers see opportunity as New York seeks
greener future
Sensitive, organic crop growers encouraged to
register crop sit
Ore.
man files lawsuit after wife's death blamed on
pesticide
Ministers announce Food Safety Authority to stand
alone
how
to subscribe
Burkina Faso delays production of genetically
modified cotton
28.may.07
Agence France Presse
Burkina Faso has, according to this story, postponed
until 2009 the start of genetically modified cotton
production.
Georges Yameogo, an official with Sofitex, Burkina's
textile and fibre company, was quoted as saying, "We
cannot produce the cotton this year on a
large-scale, but certainly by 2009, after we have
increased the number of transgenic seeds sufficient
in quality and quantity in 2007 and 2008."
The country, which began testing genetically
modified cotton in 2003 with the support of US firm
Monsanto, was the first nation in Africa's Sahelian
region to do so, following the introduction of the
cotton in Egypt and South Africa.
The story explains that Burkina is Africa's largest
cotton producer, churning out some 700,000 tonnes in
2006, and the crops represent 60 percent of the
country's revenue, supporting some two million
people.
Authorities in Burkina Faso have were cited as
saying cotton production must be modernised in order
to compete with industrialised countries that
provide subsidies to their farmers.
Jean Didier Zongo, head of a coalition against
genetically modified agriculture, was quoted as
saying, "We still say that the principle of
precaution has not been observed. We must not risk
going there because we are not sure if there are
negative impacts."
Vital
lessons to learn from Mexico and Brazil on
biotechnology
28.may.07
GMOAfrica.org
http://www.gmoafrica.org/2007/05/vital-lessons-to-learn-from-mexico-and-brazil-on-biotechnology.html
Two major developments in the field of agricultural
biotechnology took place this month. The Brazilian
government announced the approval of genetically
modified corn seed “LibertyLink,” developed by
Germany-based Bayer, for commercial cultivation.
Mexico’s National Confederation of Corn Growers
(CNPAMM) announced that it would start growing corn
genetically modified to resist stem borer from a
U.S.-based seed company.
These are, evidently, significant developments.
First, Brazil and Mexico are world giants in corn
growing, and they’re, therefore, perfect learning
lessons for countries weighing the pros and cons of
genetically modified crops.
Secondly, their decision to permit GM crops didn’t
come overnight. It’s a culmination of protracted and
sometime acrimonious fights between proponents and
opponents of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
These two governments opted to walk down the path of
their scientists, who counseled that GM crops would
benefit farmers.
When the idea of licensing GM crops in these
countries was first floated, there was hue and cry
from the anti-technology crowd. They argued, without
scientific evidence, that GM crops posed health
risks to consumers and the environment.
In fact, some scientists jumped into this bandwagon.
Some even published a misleading study that “found”
genetically modified corn in Mexico to have
cross-pollinated to neighboring conventional
varieties. Journal Science which carried the article
had to withdraw it after thousands of scientists
discovered inconsistencies and untruths in it.
It’s not that the Brazilian and Mexican governments
are forcing GM crops down the throats of their
farmers. They have formulated biosafety laws that
will guarantee farmers optimum benefits of
genetically modified crops while at the same time
safeguarding the health of consumers. This is what
biosafety laws should be all about. They must be
tailored to promote biotechnology investments and
not vice versa.
This, however, doesn’t seem to resonate with most
developing countries, especially those in Africa.
Most developing countries see biosafety laws as
tools to banish GMOs from their territories.
Last month, for instance, the Zambian parliament
adopted a bill to regulate genetically modified
organisms. Saviour Chishimba, chairperson of the
Education, Science and Technology Committee, which
drafted the bill is reported to have said, “The bill
is aimed at ensuring that Zambia remains a GMO free
country.” Should this, really, be the spirit of
biosafety bills?
Sad
day for New Zealand
28.may.07
from a press release
The Environmental Risk Management Authority's (ERMA)
decision to
allow field testing of genetically engineered
brassica crops risks
sending good money after bad, with no chance that
the New Zealand
public will ever agree to eat this plant or have it
grown
commercially here.
"This decision will allow for pest resistant forage
kale, cabbages,
cauliflower, and broccoli containing a caterpillar
killing pesticide
to be taken out of the laboratory into a field.
"Brassica is a particularly problematic crop.
Brassica pollen
travels large distances, the seeds are small and
brassicas cross
easily, with hundreds of variants in existence.
"Rather than reducing the need for pesticides, the
use of Bacillus
thuringiensis (Bt) in genetically engineered crops
is likely to
produce long-term resistance in insects, which means
more toxic
sprays will be needed to control pests," Ms
Fitzsimons says.
"We must be cautious about promises of containment
and monitoring,
and that the trial will not be allowed to flower.
"The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry raised
some very serious
concerns following the last round of brassica field
trials. They
highlighted failures to meet several conditions
surrounding
monitoring, non-cultivation of trial sites and
buffer zones. Other
evidence shows that canola plants were allowed to
flower to enable
seed production, and at the end of the field tests,
the plant
material was disposed of by ploughing into the
ground. These seeds
can lay dormant in soil for up to 15 years.
"ERMA received 959 submissions on this application -
of which 941
were opposed to the trials. What part of "No" don't
they understand?
"Risks include the transfer of the changed genes to
wild plants.
For example, plants engineered to be resistant to
pesticides may
transfer their resistance to weeds. It has already
been proven that
this can happen, and that new resistant weeds can
survive in the
wild. And almost all GE plants use antibiotic
resistant genes -
another area of grave concern in agriculture and
wider society.
"The announcement of 10 years worth of funding for a
trial with no
safety testing when even the project leader has
admitted there can be
no guarantees of containing the trial to the site is
tantamount to a
publicly funded handout for scientific folly.
"The way forward for New Zealand is organics and
integrated pest
management, building on our clean, green image."
Biodiesel makers see opportunity as New York seeks
greener future
28.may.07
New York Times
Ray Rivera
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/28/nyregion/28biodiesel.html?_r=1&ref=nyregion&oref=login
Plans for two biodiesel fuel refineries are,
according to this story, under way in Brooklyn.
From outward appearances, this little patch of Texas
in Greenpoint, Brooklyn, would not seem to easily
fit into Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s plan for a
greener, less petroleum-dependent future.
But this fuel terminal may soon be home to one of
the largest biodiesel fuel manufacturing plants in
the country. The terminal’s owner, the Metro Fuel
Oil Corporation, is awaiting city approval to
produce 110 million gallons of fuel a year from raw
vegetable oils. The output would amount to more than
40 percent of the biodiesel fuel produced in the
country last year.
The Greenpoint plant and a smaller proposed plant in
Red Hook, Brooklyn, both scheduled to open next
year, would be the first biodiesel refineries in the
city, hitching onto an industry that has been
concentrated in the Midwest and the South.
The growth and eastward expansion of the industry
are being driven by high petroleum prices and
government programs aimed at reducing pollution and
demand for foreign oil. But these changes are also
creating concerns that the push for alternative
fuels, if not managed carefully, could have
unintended consequences like deforestation and
higher food prices in the race to convert more land
for fuel crop production.
Sensitive, organic crop growers encouraged to
register crop sit
03.may.07
High Plains Journal [Kansas]
http://www.hpj.com/archives/2007/may07/may7/Sensitiveorganiccropgrowers.cfm
Growers of organic and sensitive crops are
encouraged to post their crop locations on a web
page hosted by the Kansas Department of
Agriculture's pesticide and fertilizer program, so
pesticide applicators will know where to use extra
caution to prevent drift.
"Each year, the number of acres devoted to sensitive
and organic crops in Kansas grows," said Gary Meyer,
manager of the pesticide and fertilizer program.
"With that expansion comes increased concern that
sensitive and organic crops will be impacted by
pesticide drift."
The most common herbicide-sensitive crops in Kansas
are cotton, grapes, tomatoes, and fruit and nut
trees. Exposure to minute concentrations of some of
the more commonly used hormone-type herbicides can
result in crop damage or failure. Organic growers
could lose their USDA certified organic status if
any type of pesticide, including insecticides and
fungicides, are detected in their crops.
Meyer hopes that by making sensitive and organic
crop locations available to applicators via the
Internet, opportunities for drift will be reduced.
Ore.
man files lawsuit after wife's death blamed on
pesticide
28.may.07
NWCN.com
Associated Press
http://www.nwcn.com/statenews/oregon/stories/NW_052707ORNpesticidedeathSW.16b86174.html
EUGENE, Ore. -- Fred Kolbeck, whose wife died after
their home was sprayed with pesticide has, according
to this story, sued Swanson's Pest Management for
$2.5 million, claiming the Eugene company is
responsible for the death of his wife, Florence,
after a technician sprayed pesticide chemicals in
their home two years ago.
Swanson's operations manager, Joan Jensen, declined
comment on the case, saying there's "nothing new to
report."
The complaint filed in Lane County Circuit Court
said that a state investigator found the company's
technician wasn't licensed to treat homes and had
failed his licensing test seven times.
Ministers announce Food Safety Authority to stand
alone
28.may.07
New Zealand Government
Hon Jim Anderton
http://www.beehive.govt.nz/ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentID=29550
Agriculture Minister Jim Anderton and the Minister
of State Services, Annette King, today announced the
separation of the New Zealand Food Safety Authority
from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF),
thereby creating a new Public Service department
administering Food Safety. The new department will
be established on 1 July 2007.
"The new department, which will retain the name New
Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA), will continue
to protect and promote public health and safety in
relation to food and food-related products, and to
develop economic opportunities by facilitating
access to international markets for these products,"
Jim Anderton said.
Annette King said that at the time NZFSA was
established in 2002, "It was accepted that MAF was
New Zealand's only credible brand in international
trade. Now, however, NZFSA is operating as a highly
reputable agency and no longer needs to be attached
to MAF to ensure its credibility in international
trade.
"Separating the two agencies will result in more
effective relationships for NZFSA and an agency with
a clear focus on food safety issues for New
Zealanders," Annette King said.
The new department will reflect the services and
outputs of NZFSA as it currently operates,
preserving the existing responsibilities, services
and intersecting networks of both MAF and NZFSA.
"As part of the decision making process, officials
from NZFSA and MAF made a significant and valuable
contribution. The process was also informed by
advice from Fonterra, the Meat Industry Association
and the Ministry for Foreign Affairs and Trade,"
Annette King said.
The State Services Commissioner, Mark Prebble, will
appoint an acting Chief Executive, who will assume
the responsibilities of the Chief Executive of NZFSA
until a new CEO is appointed.
Questions and Answers on the New Zealand Food Safety
Authority
What will it cost to separate NZFSA from MAF?
Establishing NZFSA as a Public Service department
will require a $7.5 million capital contribution,
with additional and ongoing costs for both
departments of $2.95 million per annum. There is a
one-off set up cost of $0.63 million. These costs
will be fully funded by the Crown.
Will there be job losses?
No. Only one position in NZFSA will substantively
change as a result of the separation. NZFSA will
need to fill 15 new corporate service positions to
operate as a stand-alone department. However, four
of these will be positions transferred from MAF,
giving a net 11 new positions.
Will MAF and NZFSA share services?
Yes. As part of a shared services agreement, NZFSA
will purchase services from MAF, for a proposed
payment of $5.9 million, including contract
management, financial services, procurement, payroll
and information management. This arrangement will be
for a period of five years, with a review clause
after two to three years.
How will these shared services be managed?
The preferred governance model is a committee
comprising the Chief Executives of MAF and NZFSA,
supported by their respective corporate service
directors and by a new shared position of Manager,
Shared Services.
What will be the functions of the new department?
The functions that will transfer from MAF to NZFSA
are those that relate to the administration of the
Food Act 1981, the Animal Products Act 1999 (except
in relation to live animals and germplasm), the
Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act
1997 and the Wine Act 2004.
Who was consulted over this decision?
In addition to officials from NZFSA, MAF and advice
from Fonterra, the Meat Industry Association and the
Ministry for Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Treasury
and the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet
were consulted.
Agnet is produced by the
International Food Safety Network at Kansas State
University, and is supported at the Gold Fork level
by:
Marler-Clark.
Agnet is supported at the Sterling Fork level by:
Monsanto Canada, CropLife Canada, National
Restaurant Association, Dairy Farmers of Canada and
the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural
Affairs.
Agnet is supported at the Silver-plate Fork level
by:
National Pork Board, Canadian Animal Health
Institute, Syngenta Crop Protection Canada, Ontario
Farm Animal Council, Pritzker Ruohonen Law Firm,
Casco Inc., Sholl Group/Green Giant Fresh, Ontario
Agri-Food Technologies, American Air Liquide,
Feedlot Health Management Services, and University
of Florida Pesticide Office.
Agnet is supported at the Stainless Fork level by:
Canadian Cattlemen's Association, Gorton¹s Inc.,
National Turkey Federation, International
Association for Food Protection, American Dairy
Queen Corporation, New Science Management,
University of Oklahoma, Oregon State University
Department of Forest Science, City of Vernon, CA,
and Nutrition Action Healthletter, Center for
Science in the Public Interest.
The Food Safety Network presents a unique
opportunity to bring together all those associated
with agriculture and food, to enhance the safety of
the food supply. To provide financial support to the
Food Safety Network, please visit
http://www.foodsafety.ksu.edu/en/donations.php. For
information on collaboration or fee-for-service
opportunities, please contact Dr. Doug Powell:
dpowell@ksu.edu
To subscribe to the html version of Agnet
(subscription is free), send mail to:
listserv@listserv.ksu.edu
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.ksu.edu
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. diagnostic medicine/pathobiology
Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS
66506
cell: 785-317-0560
fax: 785-532-4039
dpowell@ksu.edu
http://www.foodsafety.ksu.edu
The Food Safety Network's Canadian toll-free line
for obtaining food safety
information: 1-866-50-FSNET (1-866-503-7638)
archived at
http://archives.foodsafety.ksu.edu/agnet-archives.htm
|
|
|