MEPs support European Commission on GM honey

MEPs support European Commission on GM honey

The European Parliament is supporting moves to amend the European Union's regulation of honey containing pollen from genetically modified crops. MEPs voted in favor of a European Commission proposal to define pollen as a natural constituent of honey, rather than an ingredient, Agrow reports. The Commission proposed the change in response to a court ruling in 2011 that honey containing GM pollen requires authorization and it disagreed with the court's interpretation that pollen is an ingredient and thus has to be listed on labels (see FCN, Nov. 1, 2013, Page 12).

Defining pollen as a natural component means that honey would be subject to EU labeling legislation on the accidental presence of GM material. However, labeling would only be required if the GM pollen made up more than 0.9 percent of the honey. Since pollen only forms approximately 0.5 percent of any batch of honey, it would never exceed the labeling threshold, said the Parliament's rapporteur, UK Member of the European Parliament (MEP) Julie Girling. Her report was adopted by 430 votes to 224, with 19 abstentions. The Commission's proposals now require agreement from the EU's member states. agra-net

GM food crops are poisonous: MLA

India

GM food crops are poisonous: MLA

Karnataka government on Monday maintained that it is yet to decide whether to grant permission for production of genetically modified (GM) crops - BT Brinjal and BT Maize - in the state.

Agriculture minister Krishna Byregowda said the government had received requests for BT Brinjal and BT Maize. "We are seeking the opinion of both the advocates and opponents of GM technology by organizing meetings. We have not taken a decision yet on brinjal and maize,'' he said while replying to MLAs KS Puttannaiah, BR Patil and Ashok Kheny who urged the government not to grant permission for either field trials or production of GM crops.

"It's poisonous. About 250 scientists have written to the Prime Minister against the adoption of the technology and the issue is before the Supreme Court. The state government shouldn't make any hurried decision on the issue,'' said Puttannaiah.

The minister said a suitable decision needed to be taken taking into account various issues plaguing the farming sector like crop diseases, labor shortage and environmental degradation. He said yield of BT Cotton, which has been produced in the state since 2002, had increased. "But we are not encouraging or giving incentive to growing of BT Cotton.

He said he would convene a meeting and invite the trio to hear their concerns and suggestions on the issue.

PURCHASE OF AGRI LAND

The government is considering relaxing the ceiling for buying agricultural land. As per Rule 79-A of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, if a person wants to buy agriculture land, his household income for five years prior to the purchase of the land shouldn't be more than Rs 2 lakh. In a written reply to MLA SR Vishwanath (BJP), revenue minister V Sreenivas Prasad said the government was considering removing Rule 79-A. TOI

FSG criticises Plant Breeders’ Bill

Food Sovereignty Ghana (FSG), a body opposed to Genetically Modified Foods (GMOs), has described the Plant Breeders’ Bill at the consideration stage before our Parliament as imposition of genetically modified organisms into the food chain.

It said without any form of public awareness and participation in the decision and far from “simply dealing with the rights of the plant breeder, the Bill is designed in such a way as to pre-empt the eventualities of government regulations such as those calling for the labelling of GM foods, or banning some of them for the sake of the environment or the health of Ghanaians”.

The full text of a statement issued by Mr Ali-Masmadi Jehu-Appiah, Chairman of FSG and copied to Ghana News Agency in Accra on Sunday reads:

This is what Clause 23 of the Plant Breeders’ Bill is about:

Clause 23: Measures regulating commerce.

“A plant breeder right shall be independent of any measure taken by the Republic to regulate within Ghana the production, certification and marketing of material of a variety or the importation or exportation of the material.”

The Bill seeks to pre-emptively knock out of order, any attempt by the government to control “the production, certification and marketing of material of a variety or the importation or exportation of the material.” And the “material of a variety” in question is described in Clause 20 (6) of the Bill as follows:

Clause 20 (6):

“(6) An essentially derived variety may be obtained for example by the selection of a

(a) natural mutant or induced mutant,

(b) somaclonal variant, or

(c) variant individual from a plant of the initial variety, back crossing or transformation by genetic engineering.”

For more on the specifics of the bill see: Plant Breeders’ Bill Protects GMOs | Food Sovereignty Ghana http://foodsovereigntyghana.org/plant-breeders-bill-protects-gmos/

Food Sovereignty Ghana is horrified by the mind-boggling attempts by people in responsible positions of public trust who are supposed to know better, to mislead the Ghanaian public and our law-makers that the Plant Breeders’ Bill has nothing to do with GMOs! The Bill has GMOs in the crossed hairs. The objective is to disable the ability of Ghanaians to legally challenge anything relating to the GMO imposition.

The Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Mrs. Marietta Brew Appiah-Oppong, who ought to know better than this, has been a source of this misleading propaganda to divorce the Plant Breeders’ Bill from GMOs. She is on record to have challenged the FSG linkage of the PBB with GMOs at our meeting with the Parliamentary sub-committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs.

It is obvious that there is an orchestrated attempt not only to mislead Parliament into voting for the Bill, but also to throw dust into the eyes of the Ghanaian public about the real intent and import of the Bill vis-à-vis the enabling of the plant breeder to introduce GMOs into our food chain without any public awareness and participation in that decision.

As the debate regarding the linkage between the PBB and GMOs raged on, the Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MOFA) through Deputy Minister at MOFA in-charge of Crops, Dr Yakubu Alhassan, joined the fray to publicly deny pushing a legalisation in support of the introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the country.

“It has, therefore, described as untrue, recent discussions by some institutions, civil society organisations (CSOs) and individuals that the Plant Breeders Bill, currently before Parliament, was meant to give legal backing to the production and consumption of GMOs in the country”. See: No plans to introduce GMOs into Ghana – Agric Ministry

Also, on December, 19, 2013, the Director-General of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), Dr Abdulai Baba Salifu, was reported by the Ghana News Agency to have even organised a press conference to claim that “The Plant Breeder’s Right Bill before parliament, is to protect crop variety breeders and has nothing to do with Genetically Modified (GM) foods as been speculated.” See: Breeders’ bill has nothing to do with GMOs – CSIR http://www.ghananewsagency.org/science/breeders-bill-has-nothing-to-do-with-gmos-csir–68771

It would have been bad enough as it is, even if it could be argued that these people in responsible positions such as the Attorney-General, Director-General of CSIR, and the Deputy Minister for Food and Agriculture in charge of crops, made these these wild claims simply because they have not even bothered to read the Bill for themselves before pronouncing on an issue they have no idea of.

What is even alarming is the fact that these people continued to peddle their lies even after being publicly corrected by Prof. Walter Sando Alhassan during the FSG meeting with the Parliamentary sub-committee on Constitutional, Legal, and Parliamentary Affairs on December 4, 2014. They continued to stubbornly peddle these lies even after this! There seems to be a discernible determination on their part to use plain lies and deceit to push the Plant Breeders’ Bill into law.

Considering the far-reaching implications of this Bill on our sovereignty as a people, our health, as well as the sanity of our environment, the behaviour of these public officials goes beyond gross dereliction of duty to a betrayal of public trust and criminal negligence. It is a sad commentary on the entire Mahama Administration that these officials are still in post, and not under investigation for possible conflicts of interest. Monsanto is notorious for bribing their way in several countries. And such blatant lies from people in responsible positions must give cause for concern.

The very fact that the Plant Breeders’ Bill has gone through First and Second Reading without expunging the obnoxious clauses from it speaks volumes of the vulnerability of our branches of government to undue external influences inimical to Ghana. The Bill is being rushed to comply with the World Trade Organisation’s WTO, Trade and Related Intellectual Property Rights, TRIPS-rules without proper scrutiny. Ghana does not have to make the plant breeder’s right over and above the laws of Ghana in order to be in compliance.

The level and quality of the debates on the floor of Parliament over the Bill betrays a lack of information critical in taking these far-reaching decisions. For instance, most Parliamentarians are even unaware that the Bill before them is asking them to evacuate their sacred responsibility to diligently protect the health and safety of Ghanaians. Fewer still even know that the Bill has anything to do with GMOs. And those who did know and tried to speak up, were told publicly, and without any challenge, as trying “to confuse issues of botany with intellectual property”! See: page 483 of the Hansard, Plant Breeders’ Bill, 2013, Second Reading, 8th November, 2013.

It is under an atmosphere such as this that we call upon Parliament to defer debate on the Bill and begin to initiate a process of public consultations regarding the introduction of GMOs into our food chain. FSG feels very relieved that several civil society groups, workers’ unions, religious bodies, as well as political figures and heads of stake-holder public institutions have come out openly calling for a careful look, further public awareness and consultations, before proceeding. We particularly welcome the counsel by the Catholic Bishops Conference to the Parliament to “make haste slowly” with the Plant Breeders’ Bill. Meanwhile, our goods are getting rotten in the farms, our farmers have no security of tenure, our roads are poor and there are a thousand of things the government can do to ensure food security. There is no reason to rush with the Plant Breeders’ Bill. GNA.. source:Vibeghana

British scientists seek go-ahead for GM 'Omega-3' crop trial

The application for permission to conduct the trial, which submitted to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) on Monday, is subject to a public consultation and an inquiry by a scientific committee that monitors such GM plans.

British scientists have applied for permission to run an open-air field trial of a genetically modified (GM) crop they hope may one day become a sustainable and environmentally friendly source of healthy Omega-3 fats.

The proposed trial - likely to generate controversy in a nation where GM foods have little public support - could start as early as May and will use Camelina plants engineered to produce seeds high in Omega-3 long chain fatty acids.

No GM crops are currently grown commercially in Britain and only two - a pest-resistant type of maize and a potato with enhanced starch content - are licensed for cultivation in the European Union (EU).

But scientists at Britain's agricultural lab Rothamsted Research have developed Camelina plants to produce Omega-3 fats that are known to be beneficial to health but normally found only in oils in increasingly limited fish stocks.

The idea, they told journalists at a briefing on their plans, is initially to supply the fish farming industry - which currently consumes around 80 percent of fish oils taken from the sea - with a non-fish source of these Omega-3s. Beyond that, possibly within a decade, the GM-produced Omega-3 oils could be used in food products such as margarine, the researchers said.

"We now have a vegetable oil enhanced with these two critical fish oils," said Johnathan Napier, a professor of plant science and head of a 15-year research project which has so far shown that the fish-oil producing plants can been grown successfully in greenhouses.

"We know it works in the glasshouse, now (we need to see) does it work in the real world?" he said. The researchers said that although the trial would be in the open air, there was no risk of cross-pollination between the Camelina plant and other field crops grown in Britain.

The application for permission to conduct the trial, which submitted to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) on Monday, is subject to a public consultation and an inquiry by a scientific committee that monitors such GM plans.

A decision could be made within 90 days.

While Britain and the EU have been very reticent about the use of GM crops, they are commonplace elsewhere. The first GM seeds were planted in the United States more than 15 years ago and so far no evidence has been documented of adverse health impacts for people eating GM-derived foods. GM crops can also be imported into Britain and used to produce ingredients for human food and for animal feed.

While he acknowledged there is likely to be some public opposition to the idea of a GM field trial, Napier said he hoped the potential for boosting health and protecting the environment would persuade sceptics of the project's value.

"If you have a crop that has got potential health benefits and sustainability and environmental benefits, and we can articulate that clearly, then I think people will see this is an OK thing to do," he said. Omega-3 oils found in fish are known to help reduce the risk of cardiovascular diseases including heart attacks and strokes. Agri.eu

Ag leaders work to smooth over GMO corn issue with China

DES MOINES | Genetically modified corn from Iowa and elsewhere isn’t cutting it in China, according to news reports.

Iowa agriculture officials and corn industry leaders acknowledge that China recently rejected a shipment of GMO corn from the U.S., but they also say talks are ongoing to smooth the rough spots out of what they call a misunderstanding of what GMOs are all about.

“It’s really hard to know what the reasons would be for something like that,” said Bill Northey, Iowa’s agriculture secretary.

Factors other than the presence of GMOs could be at play in the rejection, Northey said.

“We’ve seen the corn market go down in price, and some suggest some of this corn was probably bought at higher prices ... so there’s some motivation to reject it and not have to pay the higher price,” he said.

Pam Johnson, a sixth-generation corn farmer in Floyd and president of the National Corn Growers Association as well as part of Maizall, a new international corn industry alliance of the U.S., Brazil and Argentina, recently went to a food security summit in China to meet with agriculture leaders and regulators to work through any difficulties.

“We were there to talk about how important biotechnology is, not only to food but to food security,” Johnson said. “We all know we’re fierce competitors in the global marketplace, but we all realize we have challenges and opportunities we all share and it’s to all our benefit if we work together.”

More than 40 speakers from China’s government and regulatory system addressed the summit, and they indicated an openness to working with international partners, Johnson said.

“They said they’re looking at changing their definition of food security,” Johnson said. “Instead of saying food security means we can grow it all by ourselves, they’ll be looking to growers in other countries and saying, ‘We want an open and transparent signal about how much we need and what we need, which other markets can respond to.' It’s a huge deal and something we’ve needed.”

One of the messages brought to China was how important that market is to Iowa corn, Johnson said.

“We know livestock and ethanol are very important, but we need to remember 95 percent of world’s population lives outside our borders,” she said. “The issues may be complex, but we think we can and will work on them to make sure we have a global trading system that is efficient, because it’s important to all of us.”

There’s nothing new in biotech crops, and China understands that, Northey said.

“China itself has bought gobs and gobs of U.S. soybeans, and all those are biotech,” he said. “All the corn we’ve shipped has been biotech. But they’re really starting to grow as a corn buyer.”

There are plenty of global markets for Iowa corn, Northey said.

“It matters to the corn market, but if the corn finds another home, it matters to the total demand,” he said. “To most Iowa farmers, we don’t know if it’s going to a chicken feeder in Arkansas or a feed miller in China or Japan. We just know it left, and that disappearance matters.”

Biotech is as much a part of farming as soil and water, said Nick Sawyer, a corn and soybean farmer in Tama County.

“To feed people and feed them effectively, we have to grow the best crop at the highest levels we can,” he said. “Just with the way the system is right now and some of the problems we have with weeds and things, growing with non-genetically modified crops just hurts the yield so much, it probably hurt a lot more people if we didn’t have them. We wouldn’t have enough to feed them.”

Shannon Textor, director of market development with the Johnston-based Iowa Corn Growers Association, said she was in China when some of the corn shipments were stopped.

She said she also has sat in on a number of “really good meetings” that addressed concerns.

“We went to the ports and talked to end-user customers for both pork as well as corn and distillers' grains,” she said. “There’s an understanding why we use technology on our farms. I think there was an appreciation and understanding why farmers use that.”

The U.S. Grains Council has boots on the ground in China and continues to meet with officials, Textor said.

“They’re working on this issue, and it’s all-consuming of their time,” she said. “It’s created a roadblock for trade, so they’re working with the ministry of agriculture.”

Textor said she is optimistic that further understanding will lead to future sales.

“We as farmers need that tech, and the consumers do, too, and I am optimistic we’ll overcome the problems,” she said. Cedar Valley Business

PHILIPPINES: Biotech group asks SC to reverse GM eggplant ruling

PHILIPPINES

Biotech group asks SC to reverse GM eggplant ruling

A BIOTECHNOLOGY agency has asked the Supreme Court to reverse a decision that stopped field trials for a genetically modified, pest-resistant eggplant.

In a 118-page petition for review, International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) sought to overturn a Court of Appeals (CA) ruling that issued a temporary environmental relief order (TEPO) against the testing of Bt talong (eggplant). ISAAA said that the appellate court erred when it granted the relief.

The CA’s former special 13th division ruled last Sept. 20 that issuing a “writ of kalikasan” against Bt talong is “justified and warranted” with the possible risk of violating the Filipino’s right to a “balanced and healthful ecology”.

The CA resolution upheld its May 17, 2013 decision ordering the respondents “to permanently cease and desist from further conducting Bt talong field trials; and protect, preserve, rehabilitate and restore the environment”.

ISAAA said the issue should have been considered “moot and academic” since field trials are no longer conducted for the genetically modified (GM) eggplant.

“Considering that there are no more Bt talong field trials being conducted anywhere in the Philippines, there is nothing more for the Court of Appeals to rule upon. There is nothing more the Court of Appeals to cancel and enjoin,” the petition stated.

ISAAA contended the issue raises “political questions” which are outside the jurisdiction of the judiciary but under the executive and legislative branches. The group also cited the failure to question the field trials with the Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI) before directly proceeding to the courts for relief.

The biotechnology agency further noted that the Philippine system in regulating genetically modified crops “is considered by the APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation) and the ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) as the model for developing countries”.

The petitioner also said current rules on GM crops “are already very stringent to prevent ... harm” and that the field trials of the GM eggplant complied with environmental laws.

“In sum, the evidence on record shows that stringent safeguards have been implemented during the conduct of the Bt talong field trials to ensure that the right to a balanced and healthful ecology will not be violated and to protect the environment,” the petition read.

The appellate court that ruled against the eggplant’s field trials was likewise accused of “bias and partiality” when it ruled based on the findings of a herbicide-tolerant corn, which ISAAA said is unrelated to the GM eggplant.

Named respondents are Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Philippines), Magsasaka at Siyentipiko sa Pagpapaunlad ng Agrikultura (Masipag) and several individuals.

The case stemmed from the multi-location field trials of the genetically engineered eggplant, which is purportedly resistant to fruit and shoot borer, a pest that infests the plant. Bworldonline

Can a hungry world say no to GM Crops & have food security?

Can a hungry world say no to GM Crops & have food security?


Rice provides up to 80 percent of food calories for poor societies, but lacks micronutrients such as Vitamin A. Worldwide, every year, hundreds of thousands of children die due to a lack of Vitamin A and multiples thereof become permanently blind. In the late ’90s, Golden Rice was developed because the inventors were concerned about food security and food quality. Through genetic engineering scientists were able to generate Golden Rice in which the intensity of colour is an indication for the level of Pro-Vitamin A. Forty gram of golden rice per day can save eyesight and the lives of more than 2 million people every year. The attempt by Greenpeace and other NGOs to block transfer and acceptance of Golden Rice is criminal because it has been proven to be completely safe. Furthermore, Golden Rice will be provided to farmers in developing countries free of costs for the trait.

In many countries GM crops are not accepted because they are thought to be unsafe for both human health and environment. However, more than 2,000 scientific papers over the last 10 years have evaluated the safety of GM crops on human health and all of them have concluded that they are as safe as crops obtained by conventional breeding. Furthermore, for the past 15 years, people in the United States have been eating GM crops and, until now, not one single negative health effect has been observed. Another argument posed by anti-GM organisations is that growing GM crops will lead to a decrease in biodiversity. But the contrary is true: In areas where insect-resistant crops are grown, the population of non-target insects — varieties other than the ones the crops are resistant to — is much larger than in areas where conventional crops were grown. Additionally, GM technology will allow us to go back to the old varieties that were used in agriculture, but this time with added trade value, resulting in crops with higher yields or drought-resistance and other such traits. Protestors against GM crop try to convince people that these crops are much more expensive for farmers. But if all expenses and yield gains of GM crops are taken into account, they are even less expensive than growing crops conventionally. As compared to conventional seeds, GM seeds are indeed more expensive, but their quality, as measured by their germination rate, is much higher, thus making them more cost-effective. And because GM seeds are herbicide and/or insecticide-resistant, less herbicide or insecticide is used to spray in the fields, effectively reducing the cost for the farmer; insect-resistant GM crops have proven to cut insecticide sprays by more than 25 percent. GM crops also require less tillage, which reduces carbon emissions and allows for the growth of a second crop in the same season, resulting in even more yield gain for the farmer. 

Finally, fewer patents are valid for farmers in  developing countries. All this together will result in an increase in global farm income of nearly 51 percent in developing countries and 49 percent in developed countries. Ironically, the extreme opposition to genetic modification has led to hyper-regulation, which has raised the cost of bringing GM crops to market. Currently, only multinationals and large entities, public or private, can afford to comply with these rules. Small enterprises in developing countries are ultimately hurt much more than the conglomerates. Everyone knows that climate instability will lead to storms, global warming and extreme climate variations. For the moment, we have no plants ready to survive under such extreme conditions and it is therefore important that researchers all over the world, and also in India, work on the development of stress-tolerant plants. Activists claim that western Europe — which has shunned GM crops — is better off as compared to the US when it comes to productivity and pesticide use, but this is not true. If you consider the global pesticide and herbicide use of the past years, indeed more of it was used but this is not due to the growth of GM crops but to the overall increase in the amount of arable land. It is proven that GM crops result in much higher yields per hectare and less pesticides and herbicide use. In order to obtain the same kind of yields for conventionally bred maize or soybean, even more land and pesticides will be needed. The effect of the refusal to grow GM crops is dramatic. Because of the absolute ban in Europe, many scientists are leaving, and with them they are taking their knowledge and technology. Europe will end up far behind on agriculture knowledge and it will find it difficult to reach the frontline again.
We are facing an enormous shortage of food. Today, out of around 7 billion people on this planet, almost 2 billion people are hungry. By 2050, the world’s population will be 9 billion. That’s another 2 billion mouths to feed. To do so, the amount of food we produce between 2014 and 2050 must be equal to the amount grown in the last 2,013 years. To obtain this enormous quantity of food, agricultural production as we know it today will not be enough. More arable land and water will be needed, climate changes will have an enormous impact on agriculture and changing diets of people in the western world will demand even more food. Genetically modified crops can, however, be an answer to these increased food requirements. And society should look at the product and not at the process that made the product. More than 2,000 scientific papers over the last 10 years have evaluated the safety of GM crops on human health and all of them have concluded that they are safe. The writer is a professor at Ghent University and co-winner of the 2013 World Food Prize. He was the first to develop the technology that allowed transfer of foreign genes into plants  Money Control

EU to cut carbon emissions by 40% by 2030

UK overruled in landmark climate deal that requires bloc to produce 27% of its energy from renewable sources

Europe will cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by 2030, compared with 1990 levels, the toughest climate change target of any region in the world, and will produce 27% of its energy from renewable sources by the same date.

The landmark deal was reached after grinding negotiations dragged onto the deadline of 11am on Wednesday, as warring factions within theEuropean commission and member states fought over whether to water down the proposals.

The EU is now the first to set out emissions reduction targets ahead of a crunch meeting of world governments in Paris in 2015 that will decide a global framework for avoiding dangerous levels of global warming. Every other major developed and developing economy is expected to set out its own binding national emissions target within the next year, for the United Nations talks to go ahead.

Ed Davey, the UK's energy and climate change secretary, bitterly opposed the renewable energy target, but was overruled as big member states including Germany, France and Italy backed it.

Davey said: "Today's proposals are a step in the right direction towards an ambitious emissions reduction target for Europe. They provide the flexibility to tackle climate change in the most cost-effective way, so that British consumers aren't paying over the odds to go green." But he added that "the UK remains concerned about any renewables target."

Europe's emissions trading system will also be reformed as part of the 2030 energy and climate package, with a more flexible mechanism to allow the surplus of carbon permits to be curbed, and member states will have an "indicative" target - that is, not legally binding – of improving energy efficiency by 25% by 2030.

Disputes behind the scenes meant that the unveiling of the blueprint, the biggest climate initiative delivered by Brussels since 2008, was delayed by 40 minutes.

The targets are weaker than many green campaigners had called for, but stronger than the alternatives that some member states and commissioners were championing right to the final stages of the negotiations. The Guardian understands that some commissioners were calling for an emissions target of only 35%, compared with 1990 levels, while the UK failed to gather support for its own opposition to a bindingrenewable energy target. Studies show that the EU's emissions are likely to be 25% below 1990 levels by 2020, making the targets easier to meet.

Jose Manuel Barroso, president of the European commission, told a press conference on Wednesday: "We want this package to be owned by all Europeans. We believe that this package is ambitious but realistic." He said Europe had shown it was a leader on tackling climate change.

The measures will be debated by member state governments and the European parliament, before they can be fully accepted. The European council, made up of the heads of state or government of the EU member states, will discuss the proposals in March.

Connie Hedegaard, the EU's climate chief, hailed the compromise. She said: "If all other big economies in the world do a relatively ambitious effort equal to what we are now proposing, the world will be in a better state when it comes to combating climate change."

However, reaction to the deal was mixed. The European Wind Energy Association said that the renewables target included in the deal, which had been in doubt until the final moments, was too weak and would cost potential jobs as a result. Thomas Becker, chief executive of the industry body, cited a study from the European commission that found a 30% target on renewables could have created more than 560,000 jobs and boosted economic growth by saving on expensive fuel imports.

The 27% renewables target may be easily achieved by 2030 not least because Germany, the world leader on renewable power and the EU's biggest economy, is implementing a radical energy shift away from nuclear into renewables.

Barbara Hendricks, the German environment minister, strongly supported both the renewable energy and emissions targets. Unlike the UK, she said Berlin was keen to have binding renewable targets and added that the 40% carbon cut was the minimum acceptable to Germany. At the UN climate talks in Paris next year, she said, it was entirely conceivable that Europe would move beyond the 40% carbon reduction target.

Harry Verhaar, head of global public and government affairs at Philips, said: "Today's proposal falls short of expectations of European companies looking for a strong framework to invest and innovate in Europe. The omission of a binding energy efficiency target is particularly disappointing. European policy-makers must realise that Europe will never lead on cheap energy and must lead on least consumed energy - energy efficiency is a key driver in making Europe more competitive and energy-independent."

Mahi Sideridou, managing director of Greenpeace, said the deal was not strong enough: "The January sales are on and it looks like Europe's dirty energy companies have bagged a bargain. The commission's plan for 2030 is a sell-out that would knock the wind out of a booming renewables industry. European citizens will pay the price [in] fewer green jobs, more imports of expensive fossil fuels and shorter lives because of pollution."

Monica Frassoni, president of the European Alliance to Save Energy, said: "This is a depressing day for Europe. We currently have an energy paradigm where we send billions of euros out of Europe rather than employing people in Europe to save energy. Today's communication was a chance to fix this - instead the commission has given in to the intense lobbying efforts of the large energy providers and energy intensive industries, and what we have is a disaster both for Europe's climate and our competitiveness." The Guardian

European Parliament says no to GMO

The Members of European Parliament (MEPs) called on the European Commission (EC) not to allow the genetically modified maize crop Pioneer 1507 on the EU market. This insect-resistant crop could be dangerous to harmless butterflies and moths, said a resolution approved on Thursday 16 January 2014. “Based on this proposal, we are clearly lacking evidence on the safety of this new GMO strain to have it on the EU markets" said Dagmar Roth-Behrendt, a German member of the S&D group, who opposed approval along with other members of the environment committee.
Since the non-renewal of a couple of other authorisations in the mid-1990s, there is only one variety of maize - the MON 810 from Monsanto - which is currently authorised to be cultivated for commercial use in the EU. This one would be the second one.
In the case of maize 1507 from Pioneer, MEPs have decided to object to this proposal for an authorisation because they were very surprised by the Commission attitude to take a positive decision which had been opposed by 12 member states (with only six Member States voting in favour of the authorisation).
The risk assessments from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) show that highly sensitive butterflies and moths may be at risk when exposed to maize 1507 pollen. Yet, Pioneer refused to present additional documents regarding monitoring and risk mitigating measures for these non-target species.
Lastly, the Commission took this decision of authorisation arguing that it had been condemned by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) last September. However, the ECJ has only ruled that the Commission had failed to act. It has not prevented the Commission from presenting a new proposal recommending not to authorise maize 1507.
MEPs cannot know when the decision of the Council will come. Yet, what I can say is that any new authorisation for GMO cultivation is an issue, as it is always a challenge for the Council to find a majority either in favour or against such a decision. This is the reason why requests for authorisation can remain a very long time without a final decision.
Last July, Monsanto announced it will withdraw pending approval requests to grow new types of genetically modified crops in the EU, explaining that there was a lack of commercial prospects for cultivation. It is true that the regulatory environment is made difficult due to the fact that several member states are not in favour of new authorisation for cultivation. It must also been said that the lack of evidence provided by the industry on the safety of new GM crops does not help to dispel EU citizens’ recurring doubts on GMOs. This is why for the time being the majority (61%), of Europeans are opposed to the development of GM food in Europe (Eurobarometer of November 2010). They consider GMOs as not offering benefits, as unsafe, as inequitable and as worrying. Source: European Parliament

Comprehensive GM test developed

In response to increased demand for monitoring and labelling of genetically modified (GM) foods, scientists have developed a comprehensive method for detecting GM ingredients. It is claimed to be the first of its kind in the world.

Policymakers, particularly in Europe, have instituted regulations to monitor GM products. Although researchers have designed a number of methods to detect genetic modification in crops, no single test existed to conduct a comprehensive scan.

Li-Tao Yang and Sheng-Ce Tao and colleagues have developed a test they call MACRO, which stands for multiplex amplification on a chip with readout on an oligo microarray. It combines two well-known genetic methods that flag about 97% of the known commercialised genetic modifications - almost twice as many as other tests.

The researchers say the test can easily be expanded to include future genetically modified crops. foodprocessing.com.au