India is a complicated place, but has tremendous potential: Paul D Conway, Cargill

US food giant Cargill's vice-chairman Paul D Conway is not perturbed by the tumbling rupee just as he wasn't too revved up by the "Incredible India" slogan when things were better. In an interview with ET, Conway said he supported the food security bill but was concerned about its implementation. He also supports genetically modified crops. Excerpts:

Paul D Conway, Cargill

What brings you to India?

From the business perspective, it is a very complicated place to do business. But we believe there is tremendous potential. That is why we continue to invest here. In Karnataka, we are building a large plant, the single largest investment here. It's a corn milling plant. It's a $100 million greenfield investment.

Does the current economic turmoil change your strategy?

Not really. The decline in rupee since the past six weeks is getting a lot of media attention. We are investing in this new plant in Karnataka for the next 20 years. When the slogan was 'Incredible India', we didn't quite believe that either.

The underlying strengths of India remain. It is the largest producer of milk in the world, it is one of the top three producers of wheat in the world and has the largest growing middle class. Of course, there are issues like infrastructure, which is not what it could be.

What are your thoughts on India's food security law?

For any government to make a right for consumer to have access to food is a good thing. I have concern only on the implementation part. Governments have a tendency to intervene in markets in a way we don't consider helpful.

It usually ends with tears with unintended consequences. What we would like to see is that government consults with private industry on how this laudable project should be implemented. Would it lead to increase in government procurement and intake of grains? That I don't think will be positive.

Would it lead to increase in government storage to check potential wastage? Making grains available at affordable prices to poor people is absolutely fine. Dealing it in a way that doesn't disrupt market and is as efficient as possible is what we will like to see.

How can private traders help?

The public sector setting up framework and the private sector, who can be held accountable, doing more execution — that is the way for the future.

The food bill has revived the debate on GM crops. Do you have a view on that?

We do. We believe that in order to feed 9 billion people in future we need to use all tools in our disposal. We believe that technology has the capability to bring in traits to plant that will allow you to plant in areas where there is drought.

Another one, which is certainly the case in the US, it has cut sharply use of pesticide which is good for the environment. In certain crops it can enhance yields. So north and south American farmers have not bought these things in order to provide pension to CEO of Monsanto or Syngenta. They buy this because it makes economic sense.ET

Eco-Groups Challenge Obama Administration Over GMO Farming in National Wildlife Refuges

Eco-Groups Challenge Obama Administration Over GMO Farming in National Wildlife Refuges

Environmental advocates are once again suing the Obama administration to stop the farming of genetically engineered crops in national wildlife refuges, this time in five refuges in four Midwestern states.

In a lawsuit filed Tuesday in federal court, the environmental groups charge that the US Fish and Wildlife Service unlawfully entered into farming contracts to grow genetically engineered crops at national wildlife refuges in Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota and Illinois without completing an environmental impact review required by federal law.

The Fish and Wildlife Service has allowed farming on national wildlife refuges for decades, and environmentalists claim agriculture has harmful impacts on wildlife, biodiversity and native grasses in the refuges. In recent years, farmers have switched to genetically engineered crops - also known as genetically modified organisms, or GMOs - that are altered to produce or be resistant to pesticides.

Environmentalists are specifically concerned about Monsanto-brand GMOs that are engineered to tolerate the company's Roundup herbicide, which can be sprayed over entire fields to kill weeds while sparing the GMO crops. Widespread use of Roundup has been linked to outbreaks of herbicide-resistant weeds and increased pesticide use. Environmentalists also fear the herbicide could pollute waterways and harm ecosystems in the wildlife refuges.

This is the fifth lawsuit challenging GMOs in national wildlife refuges. In the recent years, lawsuits filed by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) and the Center for Food Safety on similar grounds have stopped the US Fish and Wildlife Service from farming GMOs at refuges in 12 Northeastern states and at 25 refuges in eight Southeastern states.

The Fish and Wildlife Service is working on an environmental impact assessment of farming genetically engineered crops at refuges in the Southeast so it can re-establish its farming programs in the region. The federal agency says it uses farming as a "wildlife management tool" that helps meet conservation objectives for waterfowl and other species.

 In the past, PEER has alleged that support for farming on wildlife refuges goes all the way up to the White House as the Obama administration struggles to boost GMO exports while European consumers and their governments grow increasingly leery of importing American transgenic food. In 2011, a PEER investigation revealed that the White House had formed special biotech agriculture working group made up of top-level officials from every federal agency involved in agricultural trade and beyond. Members of the working group were asked to weigh in on the environmental assessments of GMO farming on national wildlife refuges.

Internal emails show that a lobbyist with the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), a lobby group heavily funded by Monsanto and other GMO purveyors, emailed a senior White House science policy analyst about the legal challenges to GMO farming on wildlife refuges.

PEER claimed the communication was evidence of "collusion" between the White House and the biotech industry as part of an effort to boost the image of GMO farming worldwide, but the White House has withheld portions of the email, arguing that it contains proprietary business information.

In 2011, a Truthout investigation revealed that BIO and other industry groups had put mounting pressure on the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) to speed up the regulatory approval of new GMO crops. BIO warned the USDA that preparing rigorous environmental impact reviews of each crop would slow the approval process and threaten America's dominance in international agriculture markets.

Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.

Argentine farmers see green light for more corn to China

Argentine farmers see green light for more corn to China

Argentine farmers expect China to soon approve their one remaining variety of genetically modified corn yet to be certified for import by the commodities-hungry Asian country.

Corn growers across Argentina's vast Pampas farm belt want to push quickly into the Chinese market while fellow grain exporter Brazil is stuck on the sidelines, waiting for Beijing to approve its genetically modified corn varieties.

China, whose corn market has long been dominated by the United States, allowed its first major Argentine shipment of the grain to enter the country earlier this month.

Traders in Buenos Aires said the 60,000-tonne cargo included some corn of the MIR-162 strain, which has not yet gotten approval from Beijing. But apparently not enough, if any, MIR-162 was in the cargo to cause problems with Chinese customs.

"It's called asynchronicity," said Fabiana Malacarne, biotechnology chief at Argentina's ASA seed industry chamber. "Importing countries permit a low-level presence of non-approved strains."

The Chinese have signaled likely approval of MIR-162 imports later this year or in early 2014, she added.

"The only issue with China is MIR-162 ... which is tough to detect," said an Argentina-based corn trader with a major export company who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

There is broad scientific consensus that food derived from genetically modified crops poses no greater risk than that from conventional ones. However, advocacy groups argue the risks of GMO food have not been adequately identified.

Most Argentine corn is genetically modified. A small amount was allowed into China late last year as a test case under a China-Argentina GMO deal signed in February 2012.

CHINA WANTS MEAT

Chinese demand is rising for grain-based pork, cattle and chicken feed as the country's expanding middle class wants more meat in its diet.

The United States is the world's top corn exporter, followed by Brazil, which is lobbying China to approve its GMO corn. Argentina, which ranks third, clinched an import deal with China last year.

Various corn varieties are mixed in Argentina's farm-side silos before being trucked to the country's export hubs, making it hard to know which GMO strains are contained in which cargoes.

Aside from MIR-162, all corn strains grown in Argentina - MON-810, T-25, Bt-11, NK-603, TC-1507, GA-21, MON-89034, MON-88017, Bt-176 and MIR-604 - are already approved for import by China, Malacarne said.

Companies such U.S.-based Monsanto and Swiss agrochemicals group Syngenta stand to gain from more use of seeds engineered to increase yield and allow growers to plant in areas lacking optimum corn-growing weather.

"Now that the mechanics are flowing and the first big cargo has gotten into China, we expect future shipments to go smoothly," said Martin Fraguio, head of Argentine corn industry chamber Maizar.

China imports corn mainly from the United States.

Besides bilateral agreements, China requires safety certificates for GMO corn imports. This month's landmark Argentine corn shipment was imported by Chinese state-owned trading house COFCO.

Futures traders see China as a wild card in their attempt to pencil in price projections.

Chicago corn prices have fallen 28 percent since January after hitting record highs during the North American drought in the summer of 2012. Many analysts and traders expect prices to fall further on prospects for a U.S. bumper crop this season.

Argentina's 2012/13 crop is harvested, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates it at a record 26.5 million tonnes. Oscar Solis, Argentina's deputy agriculture secretary, told Reuters last week that the crop was likely to come in at 32.1 million tonnes, with between 22 million and 24 million tonnes going for export. Reuters

India: GM crop is an opportunity, not a curse: Farm expert

GM crop is an opportunity, not a curse: Farm expert

R.S. Paroda, the sixth member of Technical Expert Committee on the genetically modified organisms, has submitted a report to the apex court with views that are diametrically opposite to the one submitted by the other five members of the panel a few months ago.

Paroda, former Director-General of Indian Council of Agricultural Research and currently Chairman of Trust for Advancement of Agricultural Sciences (TAAS), said adoption of innovations such as GM should be seen as an opportunity and not a curse. Risks, if any, have to be addressed and managed scientifically rather than to overreact and halt the very process of risk assessment.

The five members of the technical panel felt that field trials in GM crops should not be allowed till gaps in regulatory mechanism are addressed.

Paroda said the threats of environmental and biodiversity loss due to cultivation of GM crops as mentioned in the Interim Report of the committee is grossly exaggerated. “It is proven that transgenics for pest and disease control are environmentally far more benign than the current use of pesticides. Any precautionary approach on the pretext of environmental safety is misplaced,” he said.

The Supreme Court has directed that reports be shared with all the respondents of the public interest litigation filed by Aruna Rodrigues on the GMOs. The court constituted a committee with Prof. V. L. Chopra (who opted out), Imran Siddiqui, P.S. Ramakrishna, P.C. Chauhan, P. C. Kesavan and B. Sivakumar to recommend to it on a variety of aspects related to the issue.

It later added Paroda as the sixth member of the panel in November 2012, a month after it submitted its interim report.

While submitting his version, Paroda said the committee had submitted its report without his consent. “They have not even given me a copy of the report,” he said in the letter, a copy of which is available with Business Line.

Meanwhile, the Coalition for a GM-Free India alleged that Paroda faced the issue of conflict of interest. The board of TAAS, for which he acts as a chairman, comprises top executives of companies that promote GM technologies in seed. HBL

INDIA: Pawar’s 'promotion' of GM crops draws activists’ flak

Pawar’s 'promotion' of GM crops draws activists’ flak

A day after agriculture minister Sharad Pawar made a strong pitch for field trials of genetically modified (GM) crops citing the success story of Bt cotton, several anti-GM lobbyists dismissed his call for "sensible approach" to resolve food security crisis as his "mindless promotion" of GM crops. 

Pawar, quoting increase in productivity of cotton and income of farmers after introduction of Bt Cotton in the country, had on Tuesday said, "I think the time has come that we have to take a sensible approach to resolve the problem of food security." 
Responding to members' concern in the Lok Sabha over use of GM crops, he had emphasized that the farmers preferred genetically modified cotton for its higher yield, more disease-resistance and better profitability. 
Strongly reacting to Pawar's claim, the Coalition for a GM Free India, however, said, "If that was true, what accounts for the thousands of farmers in the cotton belt committing suicides year after year in the same period." 
Asking the minister "to stop his mindless promotion of GM crops", the Coalition urged MPs to question Pawar's inaccurate and biased opinions on the issue. 
Sticking to its anti-GM crop stand, Greenpeace - the INGO that has been spearheading the worldwide opposition against genetically engineered crops - pointed out that farmers had to adopt Bt Cotton because of was non-availability of non-Bt cotton seeds which were deliberately made scarce, thanks to aggressive marketing strategies of multinational companies. 
The anti-GM crop groups also referred to the reservations expressed by the Supreme Court-appointed technical expert committee (TEC), comprising scientists from various backgrounds, against genetically engineered crops to bolster their argument. 
Greenpeace said the final report of the TEC strongly recommended that India must take a precautionary approach to GM crops. "This shows that science is divided on the issue of GM crops. But, Sharad Pawar chooses to blatantly ignore scientific evidence and deny the comprehensive and detailed report of the TEC," said the INGO. 
Besides, the six-member committee has failed to make a unanimous recommendation, with one member, RS Paroda, submitting a separate report to the apex court. 
While five members of the committee have recommended an indefinite ban on field trials of GM crops, Paroda — a former director general of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research — has joined issue with the majority view and pitched for field trials for collecting bio-safety data under close observation of experts appointed by the agriculture ministry. 
Pawar, while pitching for field trials of GM crops, also emphasized on taking adequate precautions. He had said, "It is our considered view that Bt transgenic crop is definitely useful, but we have to take all precautions. Is there any bad effect on soil, water, environment, cattle, human beings or other crops? 
"We are ready to take all precautions. After taking all these precautions, if a particular crop and particular research is useful for the nation and the farmers, I think we have to take a positive approach". Times

Vietnam: Importers may set GMO barrier against VN's exports, experts worry

Importers may set GMO barrier against VN's exports, experts worry

Vietnamese associations have warned their members that import countries may prevent the GMO (genetically modified organisms) exports from Vietnam, which is considered a technical barrier like the antibiotics residue one.

Prof Vo Tong Xuan, who is considered the Vietnamese leading rice expert, said foreign importers have become taken more cautious when importing farm produce, while they have warned Vietnamese enterprises against the export of GMOs.

Xuan said that the Europe, Japan and some other markets have always been refusing GMOs, and that if Vietnamese enterprises cannot control the quality of the input materials, they would accidentally export GMOs to the choosy markets. If so, the markets would make the decisions to close the doors to the Vietnamese exports.

Producers told to keep harsh control over input materials

Xuan said the European markets are planning examining GMOs in import products, especially in seafood. One year ago, Japanese mass media reported that GMO was found in the rice noodle sourced from a Vietnamese company. Meanwhile, more and more markets are believed to protest the use of genetically modified products.

Experts have warned that the Vietnamese animal feed market would be jumbled up when Vietnam opens its market to the world under the WTO commitments. The massive imports would make Vietnamese farmers puzzled in choosing feed for farming. And they may accidentally choose the products with GMOs.

They have also warned that Vietnam should take caution with the plan to grow GMOs domestically, because this could be a threat to the farm produce export. The biggest importers of Vietnamese farm produce are from Japan and Europe who don’t want GMOs.

Meanwhile, Pham Duc Binh, Deputy Chair of the Vietnam Livestock Feed Association, said the feed for the aquaculture has been mostly imported from North and South of America, where genetically modified plants have been growing in a large scale.

Lam Anh Tuan, Director of Thinh Phat Food Company ltd, said Vietnam does not have GMO rice variety, which means that Vietnam will not have GMO rice or GMO rice-made products. However, Vietnamese exporters still should keep cautious with the input sources, as more and more importers have set the requirements on non-GMO products.

Vietnam considers setting up GMO examination mechanism

Truong Dinh Hoe, Secretary General of the Vietnam Association of Seafood Exporters and Producers (VASEP), said though no GMO barrier has been officially set up, Vietnam still needs to apply necessary measures to control its export products’ quality as the importers have voiced their warnings.

VASEP has advised its member companies to strictly control the input materials and sign the contracts with the partners on buying non-GMO feed.

Meanwhile, Xuan has urged the government to set up a mechanism which allows to strictly control the GMOs and mark off the GMO plant growing areas into zones. It is also necessary to force producers label GMO products.

Xuan said that only when Vietnam can master the technologies will the import markets accept Vietnamese GMO food, and only when farmers can take initiative in the production management, should they think of developing GMO products.

Vietnam plans to put GMO plants into production in a large scale from 2015. VietnamNet

Spain Considers Trial Release of Genetically-Modified Olive Flies

Spain Considers Trial Release of Genetically-Modified Olive Flies

“Oxitec’s modified olive fly strain proved itself a highly effective weapon, totally eliminating a wild-type population in less than two months.”

Genetically-modified olive flies will be released in a Catalan olive grove if a field trial proposed by British biotech company Oxitec is approved in Spain.

According to German expert group Testbiotech, which opposes the trial, it would be the first release of GM animals in the European Union.

The olive fly – Bactrocera (Dacus) oleae – is one of the key pests affecting olive cultivation and is managed mainly via pesticides.

Oxitec believes its modified olive fly strain – called OX3097D‐Bol and developed about three years ago – offers a more effective, chemical-free solution.

After what is says were promising greenhouse trials, Oxitec seeks approval to release its flies about 8 km from the port in Tarragona, one of Catalonia’s main olive oil production regions. It’s understood that six nets would each cover various trees and the trial would last 2-3 months.

Oxitec says it want to test the mating competitiveness, longevity and persistence of the fly in the field.

Female offspring die in larval stage

In information sent to the European Commission in January, Oxitec said only males would be released. On mating with wild females, any resulting female offspring would fail to develop beyond the late larval stages.

“No significant interactions are anticipated. The modification is limited to theolive fly by reproductive barriers. In the event that the OX3097D‐Bol olive fly is eaten by predators present at the release site the inserted genetic traits are not anticipated to have any toxic effect,” it also said.

Catalan government says exhaustive evaluation needed before decisions

A spokeswoman for the Catalan Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Fisheries, Food and Environment told Olive Oil Times that Oxitec’s application had been referred to the Catalan Biosafety Commission.

Before any decision was made, an exhaustive risk assessment of the proposed trial, a 30-day public information period, and consultation with experts and stakeholders were among steps required, involving both the Catalan commission and the Spanish National Commission of Biosafety.

She said the company was interested in using about 48 olive trees in Tarragona over an area of about 0.16ha and had indicated that it had also applied to release its flies in Italy and Greece.

Oxitec says its strain can quickly wipe out wild olive flies

Oxitec has yet to reply to requests from Olive Oil Times for more information.

However, Oxitec CEO Hadyn Parry told Spanish media that because female offspring of the Oxitec strain fail to reach adulthood, “they can’t mate and the plague gradually disappears.”

And in an article published in January, Michael Conway, a PhD student at the University of Oxford and Oxitec, said that in recent greenhouse trials,

“It is an approach that we are confident is more economic, greener, and more sustainable than any existing alternative,” he said.

Fears of escape and unforeseen impacts

Public interest scientific group Testbiotech’s spokesman Christoph Then said among the group’s fears was that male descendants of the GM flies, which unlike the females could mate and propagate further, would escape and spread without control.

“If the genetically engineered flies escape, the harvest in the regions concerned would become non-marketable. Genetically engineered larvae living inside the olives are not allowed for food consumption in the E.U.”

“The Oxitec insects are manipulated with synthetic DNA, which is a mix of maritime organisms, bacteria, viruses and other insects. It is not known how these insects will interact with changing environmental conditions, so far they have only been bred in the laboratory,” he said. OLIVEOILTIMES

Scientific American: "Mandatory labels for genetically modified foods are a bad idea"

Scientific American: "Mandatory labels for genetically modified foods are a bad idea"

In its latest issue, Scientific American denounces the activist disinformation campaigns that have been trying to impose mandatory labeling on foods containing ingredients derived from biotech crops. The worry is that some 20 states are currently considering such scientifically ignorant labeling mandates. The editorial (behind a paywall) notes:

Instead of providing people with useful information, mandatory GMO labels would only intensify the misconception that so-called Frankenfoods endanger people's health. The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the World Health Organization and the exceptionally vigilant European Union agree that GMOs are just as safe as other foods. Compared to conventional breeding techniques-which swap giant chunks of DNA between one plant and another-genetic engineering is far more precise and, in most cases, less likely to produce an unexpected result. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has tested all GMOs on the market to determine whether they are toxic or allergenic. They are not.

The editors at Scientific American also point out that the anti-biotech activists know all too well that consumers would misconstrue any biotech labeling as a warning labels. The editorial also notes that had California's Proposition 37 mandating GMO labeling passed last year, it would have substantially increased food prices without providing any safety benefits whatsoever.

Private research firm Northbridge Environmental Management Consultants estimated that Prop 37 would have raised the average California family's yearly food bill by as much as $400. The measure would also have required farmers, manufacturers and retailers to keep a whole new set of detailed records and to prepare for lawsuits challenging the "naturalness" of their products.

The SciAm editors further note:

Antagonism toward GMO foods also strengthens the stigma against a technology that has delivered enormous benefits to people in developing countries and promises far more. Recently published data from a seven-year study of Indian farmers show that those growing a genetically modified crop increased their yield by 24 percent and boosted profits by 50 percent. These farmers were able to buy more food-and food of greater nutritional value-for their families....

Ultimately, we are deciding to whether we will continue to develop an immensely beneficial technology or shun it based on unfounded fears.

Finally, the editorial properly excoriates Greenpeace and other activist groups for promoting "misinformation and hysteria" against the development of vitamin A-rich Golden Rice. Consuming Golden Rice could help prevent blindness and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of poor children every year. REASON

150 Companies, Organizations Urge GMO Crop Trial Action

150 Companies, Organizations Urge GMO Crop Trial Action

Organic food manufacturer Amy’s Kitchen, Farm Aid, Clif Bar & Company, The Urban Farm, Organic Seed Alliance and the Center for Food Safety are among more than 150 farm organizations, millers, retailers, bakeries, seed businesses and food processors urging the US Department of Agriculture to improve its oversight of experimental trials of genetically engineered crops.The groups have signed a letter to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack that centers on their concern over the discovery this summer of unapproved genetically engineered wheat in Oregon. The signatories say the contamination shows the inadequacy of US regulation of genetically engineered crop field trials. The incident also reinforces the sensitivity of export markets, all of which reject genetically engineered wheat.The economic impacts of the genetically engineered wheat discovery were immediate, the signatories say. Shipments from Oregon wheat farmers were temporarily put on hold after the unapproved wheat was found.More than 400 field trials of genetically engineered wheat have been approved across the US over the last 20 years. However, the introduction of genetically engineered wheat has stopped 10 years ago after markets abroad rejected the product. Many US food and beverage companies prohibit the use of genetically engineered wheat.The delegation has asked the USDA to halt new approvals of genetically engineered wheat field trials at least until the contamination investigation is complete. The group also says the USDA should publish a report detailing the investigation, implement recommendations that aim to improve field trial oversight, and require mandated containment protocols for all genetically engineered crop field trials.A report released in May from watchdog group Food & Water Watch accuses the USDA of partnering with Monsanto and other GMO seed companies to push biotech crops abroad, forcing farmers to buy genetically modified seeds and agrichemicals.Biotech Ambassadors: How the U.S. State Department Promotes the Seed Industry’s Global Agenda says the State Department lobbied foreign governments to adopt pro-biotech agricultural policies and deployed rigorous public relations campaigns to boost the industry’s image. Aside from Monsanto, the seed industry is dominated by a handful of players including Dow Chemical, Bayer, DuPont and Syngenta. Environmental Leader

Jordan: Gov't finalising law to regulate sale of genetically modified food

Gov't finalising law to regulate sale of genetically modified food

Environment and health experts from eight countries, including Jordan, are drawing up a framework to increase monitoring over genetically modified materials.

At the opening of the 13th biosafety workshop on Monday, experts and policy makers underscored the importance of reducing or eliminating hazards caused by the transportation and use of genetically modified organisms and their products.

Besides Jordan, representatives from Egypt, Tunisia, Albania, Macedonia, Bangladesh, Turkey and Iran are taking part in the five-day workshop.

Environment Ministry Secretary General Ahmad Qatarneh said the participating countries should come up with laws that regulate, within a legal framework, the import, marketing and sale of genetically modified food.

"Genetically modified organisms and their modern technologies have great effects on health and the environment; therefore, laws that govern their use and marketing should be drafted," Qatarneh said at the opening session.

He noted that biological safety must be included in national policies, while research centres' capabilities in examining genetically modified materials must be enhanced.

Meanwhile, Raed Bani Hani, director of the nature protection department at the Environment Ministry, said the ministry is finalising a new law to regulate the import, marketing and sale of genetically modified food.

"The biological safety draft law has been finalised, and we are looking into incorporating it as a chapter within the amended Environment Protection Law to give it urgency status," Bani Hani told The Jordan Times on the sidelines of the workshop.

He said the legislation will obligate importers to label food items with genetically modified ingredients before they reach the shelves, underscoring that consumers in Jordan buy food items without knowing that some of them are genetically modified.

Preparing the biological safety draft law is part of the biological safety national framework which the Ministry of Environment launched in 2011. The framework is funded by the UN Environment Programme and the Global Environment Facility.

Genetically modified organisms can be defined as organisms in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally.

The technology, often called "modern biotechnology" or "gene technology", allows selected individual genes to be transferred from one organism into another, also between non-related species.

Such methods are used to create genetically modified plants, which are then used to grow genetically modified food crops, according to the World Health Organisation website.

There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from genetically modified crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food.

However, critics have objected to genetically modified foods on several grounds, including safety issues and ecological and economic concerns, according to web sources. Jordan Times

INDIA Farmers prefer growing GM crops: Pawar

• Farmers prefer growing GM crops: Pawar
• 
  

Farmers tend to prefer growing genetically modified crops as they give a higher yield, are more disease resistant and provide more profits, Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar said today. 
"We are for organic farming - there are no two ways about it. But in Bt cotton production, 86 lakh bales were produced in 2002-03 when 0.38 per cent of the total area was growing the crop and it grew to 352 lakh bales in 2011-12 when 91.47 per cent of the area produced it. The jump shows how production has grown," he said in Lok Sabha. 
"The farmer is wiser than me...It is not proper to say that Bt cotton is not useful," he said during Question Hour. 
Pawar pointed out that pesticide use has fallen from 46 per cent to 21 per cent since Bt cotton production has increased and this shows the benefit. 
He said countries like the US engage in propaganda against genetically modified crops "but they themselves are growing such crops and even exporting them to us." 
"Time has come to solve the food security problem of this country," Pawar said. 
He maintained that growing Bt cotton is "a very sensible decision" and the income of farmers has increased substantially. "Income per hectare has increased from Rs 7,000 to Rs 16,000 since cultivation of Bt cotton," he said. 
Pawar, however, rued that few states, including Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat and Karnataka, have agreed to allow scientific tests of GM crops. Other than Bt cotton, GM varieties of brinjal, soyabean, corn, tomatoes and other crops are being developed. 
He said government does not wish to restrict export of Bt cotton but has to protect domestic industries like the handloom sector. "We want India to be a reliable exporter. As of now there is no restriction on Bt cotton export," he said. PTI

HB 1 tackles issue of labeling genetically modified food

HB 1 tackles issue of labeling genetically modified food

The debate over genetically modified foods may be coming to Florida's Capitol, if a bill filed for the 2014 session can get heard in a committee.

HB 1 by Rep. Michelle Rehwinkel Vasilinda is similar to a bill she filed in the 2013 session that requires labeling of genetically modified food. But her 2013 bill and the Senate companion never were taken up by committees.

Since the end of the 2013 session on May 3, Connecticut passed a labeling law but it requires other states to pass them as well before it takes effect. A 2012 ballot initiative in California calledProposition 37 was killed by voters last year after Monsanto Co. and other opponents spent $46 million against the measure, according to Voters Edge.

Rehwinkel Vasilinda, D-Tallahassee, says her bill is in response to 1,500 petition cards received from residents across the state asking for a labeling requirement on genetically modified foods. She said she thinks it has a better chance of getting a vote in 2014.

"There are a couple of states that are very seriously looking at it," she said. "Sixty-one countries require food labeling: The EU (European Union), Japan, a number of our trading partners. The more people learn about it they say they really want to know (through labeling)."

Food and Water Watch has launched a nationwide campaign to petition elected officials to support legislation in states that resulted in the petition cards being sent to Rehwinkel Vasilinda.

Another group called A Coalition of States for GMO Labeling says genetic engineering creates unstable combinations of plant, animal, bacterial and viral genes that cannot occur in nature or through traditional crossbreeding.

"Despite two decades of biotech industry promises, none of the GMO (genetically modified organism) traits currently on the market offer increased yield, drought tolerance, enhanced nutrition or any other consumer benefit," the group says.

But Monsanto, which produces genetically modified crops and contributed $8.1 million toward defeating Proposition 37 in California, says it is against labeling proposals in the absence of any demonstrated risks posed by genetically modified food.

Others say opponents are ignoring the potential global benefits of genetically modified food while ignoring the lives that can be saved from providing food in hungry nations.

Rehwinkel Vasilinda said she is sponsoring HB 1 because she thinks it represents a consumer issue and that it's important for people to know what they are putting into their bodies.

"It's a real free-market kind of thing," she said. "If you know and want to make a decision yes or no, the least government can say is, 'Label your foods so people can make decisions about what they want to buy.'" TheFloridaCurrent

Labeling Of GMO Foods Has Different Implications For Food Producers

By STEVE JACKSON

The Washington state initiative that calls for labeling genetically modified foods will impact food producers in the state and those that sell here. Some feel it will cost them more, others see it as a chance to expand their market.

I-522 would require genetically modified foods sold in Washington to carry a label stating that they contain GMO’s, or Genetically Modified Organisms. Such foods, like GMO Corn, contain genes from another plant or animal in order to make them grow better or resist pests like insects. Some food producers say that is going to be a tough requirement to meet. Michal Gilmartin is president of Commercial Creamery, based out of Spokane. The company specializes in making specialty dairy, cheese or yogurt powers, the kind found in package foods, like mac and cheese or au gratin potatoes. The company sells those powders to the Mac and cheese producers. But if the GMO labeling rule is approved, Gilmartin says it will likely end up being a complicated and costly process when it comes to dealing with his customers:

Gilmartin: “our sales people and food scientists will be working with their food scientists trying to deicide if there is a simple organic version of this cornstarch that will work or do we replace it with something else. Once we have a reformulation that is acceptable, their question is going to be what will it cost me?”

Gilmartin wonders if some of his food marketing customers might decide to stop sales to Washington state if they have to reformulate at extra cost just to meet GMO requirements. Supporters of I-522 say it’s not about changing any formulas, but merely gives consumers the right to know if a food product contains GMO’s. Even so, Gilmartin worries what that would mean for sales:

Gilmartin: “I think that is the intention of this bill, is to put a label on the front of the food package, and the implication is there is something wrong with this , you’d better be careful.”

In contrast, Matt Davidson runs Davidson Commodities, which markets lentils, garbanzo beans and split peas sold under the name PNW Coop Specialty foods. The produce is grown by a farm cooperative on the Palouse. None of those crops are GMO, and Davidson wants customers to know that. His company has been certified by an independent organization , called the Non-GMO project, as being GMO free:

Davidson: “They are a third party verification company and they go through our plant and all or goods, and certify there are no GMO’s there.”

Davidson says he believes being labeled non-GMO has been a good move, marketwise:

Davidson: “Our non GMO verification status has allowed us to compete in the marketplace with organic varieties. The organic food market can be pretty pricey. A lot of our customers have chosen our product over an organic brand because of that non GMO verification.”

But there is an odd twist to the story. Currently organic foods seem to be a big draw for folks that want to avoid GMO’s. But that doesn’t mean that will always be the case:

Davidson: “you know the biotech companies want to get into the organic market as well, so whose to say down the road, there’s not GMO organic seed available.” 

Washington Voters will decide the fate of Initiative 522 in November. Spokane Public Radio

Why Genetically Modifying Food Is A Bad Idea

Why Genetically Modifying Food Is A Bad Idea

Recently the debate over genetically modified (GMO) foods has heated up again.  In just the past few weeks, articles about GMOs have appeared in Slate, the New York Times, and Grist.  And over the weekend New York Times writer Amy Harmon wrote again of the saving graces of genetically engineered foods, this time citing “Golden Rice” as a clear example of the life saving abilities of GMOs.

Yet journalists on both sides of the argument seem to have forgotten there are many ways aside from “ science” to describe the world around us, and that there are other highly effective tools out there to solve hunger and malnutrition besides genetic engineering.

Let me be clear – I am not “afraid of science,” a claim that someone invariably writes at the end of an article like this one to try and discredit its argument.  I, like millions of people around the world, am against genetic engineering, but not because of the proven or refuted science behind it.

So the question is why?  Why am I part of a huge, and growing, group not willing to believe the “facts” (according to its proponents) about the benefits of genetic modification?  Why am I against the creation of Golden Rice, even if it may stop millions of children from going blind?

The basic answer is simple: trust.

Science has a credibility problem.  It has for too long been used to distort food and twist the natural into long lasting Twinkies and nutritionally void Lunchables.  Tobacco was good for us, we were told, and DDT was fine to spray on our fields.  Food dyes are all still considered safe for our kids to eat, and “natural” foods, we are made to believe, are made of naturally occurring ingredients.

In all cases we have been misled, and today it is not “false fears” that has breed skeptical consumers, it is experience.

Equally suspect is the ridiculous notion that anything in the world – be it love, or windmills, or children, or genetically engineered rice – can be all good.  Regardless of what “scientists,” Bill and Melinda Gates or anyone else involved with creating genetically engineered foods might say, and I am willing to bet the farm there will be unforeseen consequences, just as there are in every other aspect of our lives.  11,000 farmers in the southern United States found this out the hard way when they lost an estimated $150 million in rice sales in 2006 because of a contamination by a genetically modified strain, even though, claims Harmon, “science” says cross pollination will be “extremely limited.”

And what about the assertion that we should all get over our hangups and embrace genetic engineering for the lives it can save?

Gerard Barry of the International Rice Research Institute is quoted in Harmon’s article as saying that “critics who suggest encouraging poor families to simply eat fruits and vegetables that contain beta carotene [instead of Golden Rice] disregard the expense and logistical difficulties that would thwart such efforts.”

This is the most audacious claim made by those who believe genetic engineering is the way to go.  Namely the insistence that genetic engineering is somehow better, and in the long run, cheaper than other more natural ways of eating and that the logistical complexities of getting fruits and veggies to malnourished human beings are too large to overcome.

Baloney.

The amount of money it has cost to concoct a product like Golden Rice is enormous.  Scientists first got initial funding for Golden Rice from the Rockefeller Foundation in 1982 and have now been supported (with monies to cover lab expenses, legal fees, teaching assistants, salaries, long patent processes, etc) for more than 30 years.

Meanwhile, again and again, simple low-cost, low-tech solutions like “kitchen gardening,” improved agricultural methods, and cover cropping have been found to give outstanding nutritional and economic results quickly to farmers.  If people can grow a carrot or yam for far less expense and trouble than developing a strange looking rice (it is bright yellow – and we think getting people to eat brown rice has been hard!) – why aren’t carrots or yams the first stop for solving the problem?

Why are we pouring money into lab salaries, field trials and professional conferences instead of ensuring that people around the world have nutritious – and tasty (do you want to eat only rice?) – food to eat every day?

I believe the real question which needs to be asked is not “why is the public so reluctant to embrace the “science” behind genetic engineering?” but “why are scientists intent on solving solutions in the most costly and complex way imaginable?”  Why has feeding the hungry become a self-serving competition for lab funding when viable solutions to the problem (and the organizations to carry them out) are available now?

Why are we spending millions (billions?) of dollars reinventing the wheel when we already have several that work?

Just because science can improve nutrition by genetically engineering food, doesn’t mean we have to. Forbes

Real threat to food security is ginned-up panic over GMOs

Real threat to food security is ginned-up panic over GMOs

There has been a lot of commotion about GMO crops in the press this summer. It amazes me that there are so many folks trying to gin up panic over GMO crops. These individuals seem to get their information mostly from the Internet and not from documented research or even the hands-on experience most of us have had with these crops for 15 years now. The real problem with GMO crops in my opinion is just plain ignorance on the basics of biology, genetics or more specifically, deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA).  

The truth is every crop grown has been genetically modified for at least the last 10,000 years. The modern corn plant looks nothing like the ancestral plants, teosinte, which corn originated from. Teosinte does not produce an ear and most folks would mistake it for johnsongrass. Soybeans look nothing like the wild relatives they were selected from thousands of years ago. Most folks looking at soybeans’ wild parents would easily mistake them for kudzu as they do not stand upright but crawl on the ground and most produce very small seed with black coats. Vegetable crops like tomatoes were first selected from plants that produce fruit closer to what horse nettle produces today. The list goes on and on for crops across the spectrum.

The point is, it took thousands of years for our ancestors to select for certain traits and develop all the crops we rely on today to live. It really is a great gift they have given us. The truth is without all the hard work from countless generations to continually select for high yielding nutritious crops, we could not support the population on the planet today.

The problem is it took thousands of years to develop these crops to adequately feed and clothe the world’s population. There will be, at a minimum, another billion mouths to feed by 2050. We do not have thousands of years to develop crops that can feed that population. We have less than 37 years and counting.

The GMO technology is a great tool to help us reach the goal of feeding the population by 2050. This process has proven to speed the development of desperately needed, pest-fighting crops. More recently, increased yield and more water-use-efficient crops have been developed from this process. There are even more exciting new technologies on the horizon. Despite what some folks have found on the Internet, all of this has occurred without any documented problems to the environment or human health. 

My big concern is that 20 or 30 years from now food prices could be so high that people will become desperate to feed their families. That is not a world any of us want. To be able to support that population we will need all the tools available to develop and raise crops. These include not only cultural control methods of integrated pest management like cover crops and crop rotation, but also proven-safe technologies like GMOs. DeltaFarmPress