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