USA: GM WHEAT - JAPAN RESUMES PURCHASES

Genetically modified wheat: Oregon farmers cheer Japan's decision to resume purchases

Oregon's wheat farmers, already in the thick of this year's harvest, have one less thing to worry about. And it's a biggie.

Drought, crop prices and equipment breakdowns are still on the list of troubles, but Japan's agricultural ministry announced Tuesday that it will resume buying western white wheat from the Pacific Northwest -- a crop valued at up to $500 million a year to Oregon farmers.

The announcement ended months of uncertainty for growers in Oregon, Washington and Idaho. The discovery of genetically modified wheat plants growing in an Oregon field this spring had threatened to shut down their biggest export market.

"It's good news," said Steve Mercer, vice president of communications for the trade groupU.S. Wheat Associates. He said Japan has placed a purchase order for 90,000 metric tons of western white wheat, which is a blend of varieties called soft white wheat and club wheat. Both varieties are grown in the Pacific Northwest, and the order will be shipped from Columbia River ports, Mercer said.

Japan and South Korea postponed wheat purchases in May after learning unapproved "Roundup Ready" wheat plants had been found growing in an eastern Oregon field in April.

Most of the wheat grown in the Pacific Northwest is exported to Asian nations, where it's made into noodles, cakes, crackers and cookies. But buyers there don't want genetically engineered food, and reacted swiftly to cut off purchases when news broke of the rogue plants. South Korea resumed wheat purchases earlier in July after initial testing failed to find more genetically engineered plants or seed.

Oregon Wheat Commission chief executive Blake Rowe said Japan's turnaround is "very welcome" to the state's wheat farmers, who are in the midst of harvest this summer.

"It's great news to have our largest, longest and most reliable customer back buying wheat," he said.

An ongoing investigation by the U.S. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, or APHIS, has found no more genetically modified plants, seed or grain. The agency said this week that it has interviewed 270 growers but has not yet been able to say how the plants came to be in the Oregon field. The plants were a variety developed by Monsanto Co. to resist its Roundup herbicide, but never approved for commercial production.

Japan will test for genetically modified material in wheat shipments, adding to a testing regimen that includes checking for residue of 120 chemicals, Mercer said. Japan buys about 1 million metric tons of western white wheat annually, and Mercer praised Japan's "science-based approach" to the investigation.

"It was from caution that they made the choice they did, and they went forward in very reasoned way," he said.

Condon-area farmer Walter Powell said cooperation by state and federal agencies, trade groups, farmers and the Northwest congressional delegation was crucial in easing export partners' concerns about genetically engineered wheat.

"Realistically, in the back of my mind, I know that if Japan or Korea or Taiwan do any testing and it turns up positive, we've got a whole different scenario," Powell said. "But for right now, it's a tremendous relief."

Hiroshi Furusawa, Japan's consul general in Portland, said Tuesday that "satisfactory" results of the APHIS investigation were a key factor in resuming wheat purchases. Testing in Portland and in Japan should spot any future problems, he said.

"We do rely on what you grow here, and we are pleased once again to be able to resume importing wheat," Furusawa said. "I value this relationship very much, and I'm glad it's continuing."

U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., applauded Japan's decision, saying it "comes at the perfect time for wheat growers and for the state's economy."

Wyden said the resumption of wheat purchases could not have been accomplished without the U.S. Department of Agriculture's "unprecedented transparency and openness" regarding the investigation. APHIS, the investigating agency, is a division of the USDA.

--Eric Mortenson OREGONLIVE

INDIA: NEED A DEBATE ON GM CROPS TOO LIKE ON ECONOMY

Just like on economy, we need a debate on GM crops too

Throughout last week we were treated to some kind of media circus that pitched Nobel laureate Amartya Sen against Columbia University professor Jagdish Bhagwati. A lot of it was unseemly; but the good thing that came out of it was that even those readers who’d normally not pay attention to such topics, ended up reading it and came away better informed. (After some initial wading, I figured if you had read just this piece by Mihir Sharma, you’d have got all that you needed to know about this debate.)

Unfortunately in this verbal duel we forgot to read and debate this news: The Technical Expert Committee (TEC) constituted by the Supreme Court, which is hearing the public interest litigation seeking moratorium on public field trials of Genetically Modified (GM) crops, came out with its report. In this report the panel is seeking a freeze on open field trials of GMOs (genetically modified organisms). The report says, the “system has major gaps and these will require rethinking and relearning to fix.”

The court will now seek a response from the government and if the apex court accepts this report with its current recommendations, then, many scientists say, it could prove detrimental to all genetic modification in agricultural research in India.

Enormously serious as this news was, it could have equally benefited one and all if we had a “scientific” debate on the subject by some senior scientists. How about the most respectable pro-GM scientist G Padmanaban, professor emeritus and former director of IISc pitched against one of the founding fathers of biotechnology in India, Pushpa M Bhargava who is now one of the most ardent critics of the use of GM technology for solving some agri issues. Incidentally, the American Journal of Science organized a debate between the two a few months ago, conducted by editor Bruce Alberts. Alas, such debates don’t carry much charm for mainstream Indian media, both newspapers and magazines.

I asked both senior scientists why we don’t we have debates on this issue and if they’d want to participate someone were to organise one. Unsurprisingly both seem very willing and keen to have such open debates as long as the rules are defined; it doesn’t get personal and statements are backed by scientific evidence.

To get the facts first, I’ll state their positions upfront. Both are distinguished biochemists but have now taken up the role of being the public face of pro- and anti-GM technology.

Padmanaban believes that the TEC report is very “disappointing” though it was a foregone conclusion. “If you saw the four out of five names in the committee, and knew their stated positions on this, it was known that they’d give a report like this, one that’d curb GM research. There’s just one dissenting voice in the committee.”

The position that Padmanaban has taken is that the biodiversity fear created by the anti-GM community is magnified several times over and that as long as the particular gene that is being introduced in the crop, in this case Bt, is tested for safety, there’s no danger to the biodiversity. As for harm to the humans, he says people have consumed Bt corn for over 15 years in at least six countries and there’s no scientifically validated study that shows any harm to human health or environment. In short, the GM technology is as safe or not  any other breeding technique in agriculture.

Bhargava’s stated position is: we need more testing, given that GM crops are grown by just a handful of countries (90 UN member countries do not grow GM crops) and the growing public opinion (of which he is a very prominent voice) warrants that more tests need be done. In the American Journal of Science debate, Bhargava cites an example that is not quite scientifically validated: He says if the increase in incidence of gastrointestinal disorders among Americans and the use of GM crops were to be plotted, there’d be an “overlap in the curves”. He even mentions high incidence of autism, and other health problems.

Well, as far as I know (and can search the literature) there’s no published scientific evidence to prove this correlation between GM food consumption and various health problems. (In fact, I remember asking Mriganka Sur, who heads the Simons Center of Autism at MIT, Mass., last year if scientists had any handle on the increasing cases of autism in the US and he said they didn’t have a clue, it could even be the increasing use of plastics, environmental pollution, etc. In this video, Sur talks about the challenge of autism spectrum disorder and how he’s gearing up to solve it, one mutation at a time.)

So as the GM issue gets muddled — yes, that’s the word to describe it when it comes to its perception and understanding in India — if we had a sustained public debate that relied on science rather than dogma or hearsay, we’d all come away more informed. Today, with every Supreme Court move, the subject gets harder to grasp.

Things have come to such a state that most newspapers don’t even accept opinion pieces from scientists that aim at explaining the technology, says Padmanaban. Citing the example of a respectable, large newspaper (whose name I have promised him I will not disclose), he says he’s had many instances where the editorial team just keeps mum on such articles, once even admitting that the “editor did not want pro-GM articles”.

The science Academies in India could have at least arranged a few discussions among the editors of the country but they put their foot in their mouth when in 2010, at the time of being called upon to prepare a scientific report, they messed it by “plagiarizing” and doing a shoddy job of it. “Science is a big casualty in all this and it’s highly misinterpreted,” laments Padmanaban.

Prof Bhargava too agrees that more intellectual public debates would help. “I’d love to do such debates. I’ve said umpteen times let’s have a scientific discussion; let it be moderated by someone we trust.” He gets nostalgic about some debates in the past, notably one that was held on the “scientific temper” at the Nehru Centre in Mumbai, where every seat in the Discovery of India Hall was occupied during the three-day public debates.

He says the TEC report is very well produced with exhaustive references, whereas the industry body, ABLE, gives only sound bites or quotes to the media.
Now, that’s a serious provocation. How about ABLE taking the TEC report and producing a scientific rebuttal, at least to points that need a scientific rebuttal? (Policy issues of course rest with the govt.)

I’d also agree with Prof Bhargava when he says that it upsets him that at 85 he has to come out and speak while others don’t come forward. Ideally, it should be the practicing scientists who should come out and debate in the open. Both Bhargava and Padmanaban, 75, have lived their active laboratory years, if they get into any such slugfest, it’s due to their commitment to science and society! Why are other scientists, pro or anti-GM, socially insensitive? FIRSTPOST

CHANGING SCENARIO IN BIOTECHNOLOGY

Seed giants try to change image of GMO crops

In an unprecedented partnership, the major seed and crop science companies have come together to launch a website hoping to improve the image of genetically-engineered crops.

GMOAnswers.com went live on Monday, serving up data about the industry, answering questions from the public, and linking to studies that claim no harmful effects from altering a crop's DNA.

Monsanto, DuPont, Dow AgroSciences, Syngenta, BASF and Bayer CropScience are all behind the venture as members of the Biotechnology Industry Organization.

So-called GMO seeds accounted for 35 percent of the $34 billion global commercial seed business last year, according to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications.

However, Europe has all but banned crops grown from GMO seeds, and there's growing resistance to them in the U.S., where nearly all corn and soybeans used to feed livestock have been modified.

In response, the industry is no longer avoiding the "GMO" acronym, instead putting it front and center of its campaign. The biggest threat to the industry may be efforts in different states to force the labeling of food products with GMO ingredients. 

"Food is personal, so we want to open the door for personal discussions," said GMO Answers spokeswoman Cathleen Enright. "We recognize we haven't done the best job communicating about GMOs—what they are, how they are developed, food safety information—the science, data and processes."

Critics do not believe industry efforts will succeed in convincing consumers GMO foods are safe. "This latest effort will likely do little to stop the consumer backlash against genetically engineered foods that has been brewing for years," Wenonah Hauter of Food & Water Watch told Reuters.

The industry worries that food labeling could turn off consumers and encourage farmers to return to traditional seeds, which could, in turn, lead to smaller yields.

A story in this weekend's New York Times reports that many citrus farmers in Florida believe the only thing that may save the state's orange crop from an incurable disease will be DNA from another species.

"People are either going to drink transgenic orange juice or they're going to drink apple juice," said one University of Florida scientist. The fear is that given the choice, Americans will choose apple juice.

Whole Foods has committed to "full GMO transparency" by 2018, and Chipotle Mexican Grill is doing the same, "moving to remove such products from its supply chain."

GMO Answers includes a question and answer section. "How can you be sure that GMO foods won't affect human health long term?" asked one commenter from Albany, N.Y.

A reader responds, "After 17 years of commercial GM crops and therefore food, there has not been a single documented case of harm from consuming GM food. Proving a negative is impossible so we are left with looking at the track record of safety."

Another counters, "I do not understand how any serious scientist could make the argument that GMOs are safe because X number of meals have been eaten without anyone getting sick. The same argument was made about cigarettes for decades." CNBC