CANADA, GMO n BIOTECH

GMOs in Canada: Facts at a Glance

Are genetically modified organisms GMOs allowed in Canada? Are they grown?

GMOs in Canada have been allowed since the mid 1990s. Canada is one of the top-five producers of GMO crops in the world. The major GM crops produced in Canada include canola, corn, soy, and to a lesser extent, sugar beet. Canada also imports GM varieties of cottonseed oil, papaya, and squash, among others.

Are GMOs labeled in any way?In Canada, GM foods do not require labels advising that the product contains GMOs. Currently, any labeling advising of GMO contents is voluntary. 

How many hectares/acres of land are GM crops grown on?

According to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA), there were 11.6 million hectares (28.6 acres) of GM crops grown in Canada in 2012. 

Are these crops for domestic use or mostly exported?

This varies by crop, but they are used for both domestic and export. 

Although there is official data available on the amount of exports of different crops, according to Statistics Canada, no official data is available on what percentage of the exports are GM. 

Genetically engineered canola form a major component of Canada’s export of this crop, the most profitable of the GM crops.

Andreas Boecker, an associate professor in the department of food, agriculture, and resource economics at the University of Guelph, says:

“This varies by crop. But we have to acknowledge that most of corn serves as feed for domestic production. Canola meal and soybean meal, which are by-products of crushing, also serve as feed ingredients. Markets for non-GM or identity-preserved crops are mostly abroad but they are relatively small compared to the markets where GM or non-GM does not influence buyers’ choice.

“About half of soybean production is exported. But not all non-GM soybeans are exported. Overall, probably more than half of it is used in Canada. Canada also imports a lot of soybean meal from the US. 

“About 10 percent of corn production is exported so most of the GM corn production is used in Canada, however, probably most of it as feed. 

“Canada exports about 85 percent of its canola production, so most of GM canola production is exported.” The Epoch Times.

GMO CAN FEED WORLD

GMO foods can feed world

The recent announcement of the 2013 World Food Prize laureates (three scientists who furthered biotechnology developments) has piqued a renewed biotech debate.

Genetic selection of crops has existed since man first began to put crops under cultivation. Our early crop producers selected the best of their product to be held back for seed, and crossed those selections to enhance them further. Biotechnology allows us to speed up that process.

Iowa’s Norman Borlaug, Nobel Peace Prize winner, dedicated his career to feeding the hungry. He vigorously defended biotechnology as a way to develop new crop varieties even more rapidly in order to boost food production. He saw no evidence that genetically modified organisms were harmful to humans. He believed technological and research-based science is key to a safe food delivery system.

I believe Borlaug would be proud of the Food Prize laureates. As a fellow Iowan and crop producer, I know I am.

It never ceases to amaze me how past plant breeders were able to enhance farmers’ abilities to produce food for a hungry world. This progress moved incrementally forward and required years of tedious work and dedication. With strides continuing in biotechnology, producers now realize dramatic increases in yields.

As a producer, I have several goals and ambitions: make an honest and decent living off the land, while leaving the land in better shape for the next generation. There also is an innate sense of satisfaction knowing I am part of a system feeding a hungry world. It is shortsighted and ignorant to believe we can meet the needs without utilizing new techniques and advances in biotechnology.

One concern in this biotech debate is requiring mandatory labeling for all genetic events. Organic products are more labor intensive and command a higher price in the marketplace. It is to the producers’ advantage to label these products and offer the choice consumers demand. However, requiring all products to be labeled simply tells the consumer what he or she already knows. If the label does not say organic or non-GMO, then one should not assume that it is. Labeling everything else will require segregation of products (probably for each genetic event) and that likely will raise the price of all food products. To assume all consumers around the world can afford higher food costs is simply arrogant.

The bottom line: While we fritter away time debating this issue with our bellies full, there are people who do not know where their next meal is coming from. I support GMO products to help feed the world. The Gazatte.

EU GMO SOYBEAN

GMO Soybeans Are Speed Bump in EU Trade Deal

Scientists started working back in the 1990s to genetically engineer a soybean that’s oil would be free of artery-clogging trans fats, a product farmers think will appeal to consumers as well as food-makers and fast-food chains.

But even though federal regulators approved a soybean variety in 2010 developed by a unit of DuPont, the crop is still only being grown on limited acreage under strict rules to ensure it is kept separate from other soybeans.

The reason is at the heart of a major issue facing U.S. and European negotiators as they try to work out a trade deal, known as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, that can get ratified by Congress.

DuPont has been unable to get the European Union’s approval for the new product, one of an array of genetically engineered crops that are stalled in an EU approval process, even though the company first applied for EU approval in 2007.

DuPont doesn’t plan to market the biotech seeds in Europe and doesn’t expect the cooking oil to sell there either, because of European resistance to many genetically engineered foods, which are produced from genetically modified organisms.

DuPont’s concern, and the concern of U.S. farmers, is that a soy shipment to Europe could be accidentally contaminated with traces of the new soybean, which goes by the trade name Plenish. So, until the EU approves the crop, sales and cultivation of the seeds will continue to be restricted in the United States.

Most of the soybeans now grown in the United States are genetically engineered. The EU allows importation from the United States of some GMO varieties it has approved already — so the concern is about contamination by unapproved beans such as Plenish.

Even a small amount of contamination could lead to a shutdown of soybean trade. Foreign countries don’t hesitate to block shipments of U.S. farm commodities if it’s possible they contain minute amounts of biotech products those nations haven’t approved. Japan and South Korea both imposed bans on U.S. wheat this spring, when stray plants of an unapproved biotech variety were discovered growing in Oregon.

“The problem is that Europe just delays and delays and delays” making decisions on applications, said Matt O’Mara, director of international affairs for food and agriculture at the Biotechnology Industry Organization, the trade group that represents biotech seed giants such as DuPont and Monsanto Co., which has developed a similar soybean to DuPont’s. “We want there to be a commitment to change this practice, and we believe TTIP is the most effective way to do it.” ROLLCALL

RUSSIA: GMO FOOD

Russians to proudly poison themselves with their own GM food

Russia is preparing to catch up with the world in the production of genetically modified food. Measures for the development of biotechnology and genetic engineering are laid out in the road map developed by the Ministry of Economic Development. Officials hope to reduce imported biotechnology and increase the presence of the Russian Federation in this promising market.

Today, the share of Russia's participation in the rapidly developing but highly controversial biotechnology segment of the market is less than 0.1 percent. Meanwhile, analysts do not doubt the prospects of this trend. According to their projections, by 2025 the world market of GMOs will reach $2 trillion. According to Russian officials, by that time Russia will fully establish its own production of genetically-modified foods to get a larger piece of this pie.

According to the industry experts, today China provides the most serious funding for GMO research. Germany and France are also focusing on the development of biotechnology, and so do Italy and the United States, albeit to a lesser extent. Interestingly, even for Germany, whose government is "preaching" environmental values ​​and maintaining appropriate policies, the development of GMOs does not raise questions. Meanwhile, the vast majority of people in Russia is still convinced of the disastrous effect of genetically modified foods on human health. Experts in the field of science and technology industry do not share these concerns.The road map for the development of biotechnology in the country is available on the official website of the government of the Russian Federation. The proposed measures include biopharmaceuticals, industrial biotechnology, agricultural and food biotechnology, forest biotechnology, bioenergy, environmental biotechnology and genetic engineering. The road map suggests that five years later, by 2018, the production of biotechnological products in Russia will reach the following volumes: in terms of consumption - 300 billion rubles compared to 128 billion in 2012, in terms of production - 200 million rubles against the current 26 billion, in terms of exports - 50 billion rubles compared to 1 billion rubles last year.

"Food industry representatives have long known that no sausage can be made without soy, it is impossible - it will be tasteless, ugly, and so on. So the future of humanity, of course, is in the increase of the production of food products, including through GMO," Vladimir Rudashevsky, deputy chairman of the RSPP Committee on industrial policy and the regulation of natural monopolies and the deputy chairman of the Committee  for Scientific and Technological Innovation and high technology told Pravda.Ru. "I think there is a lot of false information on how bad it is. We remember from history that at one time (100 years ago, probably) it was believed that it is impossible to use additives that are widely used now. 300 years ago people could not use pepper - it was thought that it was a deadly poison. This is not the first such experience for the mankind. There is a great deal of bias against everything new (especially with regard to food."

According to Rudashevsky, it is the development of GMOs that allows manufacturers to fully control food, which is nearly impossible in the current state of affairs. A biologist and scientific expert of Pravda.Ru Anton Evseev agrees with this opinion: "As for the stir caused by many media outlets about the danger of the GMPs (genetically modified plants), everyone who writes about it forgets one simple thing - genetic modification is a natural process that occurs in nature several times a day. In fact, people adopted the idea of ​​genetic modification from microorganisms. Symbiotic and parasitic bacteria and fungi as well as viruses are constantly introducing its DNA into crops. We then eat these natural GMO foods and nothing bad happens to us, we do not die and do not mutate. Moreover, if we look at the problem from this point of view, the process of artificial modification is much more secure than the natural one. We know exactly what scientists are introducing into the plant genome, but never know for sure what the bacteria "stuffs" the plants with. I think we can all agree that a controlled modification is always safer than uncontrolled. "

Russia's potential in the development of biotechnology is very significant. According to Vladimir Rudashevsky, these developments were started by Soviet scientists. To date, Russia has a very powerful biotechnology that, however, does not receive the support required for the development of the best examples of GMO products.

"Without developing our own market, we are giving in to the overseas markets, but here lies a great danger. GMOs coming from China and India, I think, are not as good as we would like, because that's where the technology for these products is poorly controlled. We cannot reject them, so the only way to stop it is to develop our own industry based on the principles of good faith, and we have a perfect scientific basis for this," noted Rudashevsky. He added that Pushchinsky State Science and Research Institute and the Institute of Nutrition used to be involved in this type of work.

According to the expert, the approved road map should attract foreign researchers who for one reason or another are not allowed to work on the development of biotechnology in their country. Provision of a platform for the new developments will help Russia to take a fundamentally new spot on the world stage. However, according to scientists, the creation of food through genetic modification is justified not only from the economic point of view.

"Before we talk about the benefits of using GMPs often called GMOs, we must remember how selection occurs. For example, we want to create a frost resistant plum. As a result, poor breeders have to first make a few hundreds of crosses between different varieties with relatively high frost resistance. It is great if a dozen of them are good and in the second and third generation can show the same characteristics. But there is more to it. Then there is a long period when the growth and development of the selected varieties is carefully observed. Any change in genotype in principle destabilizes it, therefore the so-called frost-resistant plums may be more susceptible to disease, would require a certain type of soil, etc.," noted Anton Evseev.

Even if the new variety is developed, it has to be monitored for a long time to ensure that it does not degenerate in 4-5^th generations, as it often happens. The attempts to avoid this constitute a long and financially costly process. "But all of this can be avoided if the plant is injected with the desired gene. The monitoring period in this case is reduced, and the procedure is simplified. There is no destabilization of the genome, and the plant does not acquire negative qualities along with the positive ones. As a result, it is more efficient, and most importantly, less costly," concluded the biologist.

 Maria Snytkova, Pravda