INDIA: MP COTTON BT

MP's cotton trend: enter Bt, exit all else

More than a decade after Bt cotton was approved for commercial cultivation in the country, Madhya Pradesh has almost shunned other seed varieties of cotton despite conflicting reports about falling yields and the reservations of the state government.

The area under Bt cultivation, which MP farmers first took up 11 years ago, rose rapidly in the initial years, though it now appears to have settled in the range of 6 lakh hectares. The figures are at odds with the state government's claims about making efforts to promote non-Bt cotton. The last state economic survey, in fact, does not even cite figures for non-Bt varieties.

MP has an organic farming policy in place and the BJP government is opposed to genetically modified crops. It has already banned field trials and has written to the Centre registering its protest against the proposed Agriculture Bio-security Bill and Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India.

But the ideological opposition has neither helped wean farmers away from Bt cotton, which activists usually slam for being toxic, nor seen affinity growing towards non-Bt varieties. Dr S K Rao of the Jawaharlal Nehru Agriculture University says farmers prefer Bt cotton seeds because they give higher yields and reduce input costs by cutting down on the use of pesticide.

Head of the directorate of research services, Rajmata Vijayaraje Scindia Agriculture University, Gwalior, Dr H S Yadav says that the demand for nuclear and breeder seeds of non-Bt varieties is almost nil. "Occasionally, some farmer turns up and demands two or four kg," he says. He adds that though the area under cultivation has grown up, productivity has come down.

Jabalpur University was tasked by the state government to develop non-Bt varieties after sensing the onslaught of Bt cotton. It developed Jawahar Cotton-4 and Jawahar Cotton-5 varieties and got them registered with the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Authority, but has not succeeded in making them popular.

Agriculture Minister Ramkrishna Kusmaria, a votary of swadeshi, was at a loss to elaborate what benefits the state's organic policy has brought farmers while responding to a question in the assembly's recent session. In fact, the state government readily provided the acreage under Bt cotton but could not provide the details of cultivation of organic cotton in the state.

Under the centrally sponsored Mini-Mission-II of Technology Mission on Cotton, three exhibitions to demonstrate high-density planting systems are being set up in three districts to promote non-Bt cotton. The government is, however, keeping its fingers crossed on their success. Only 36 farmers in MP have registered for organic farming in 2013-14.

"The choice is between one Bt cotton variety and another," says Nilesh Desai of Hamara Beej Abhiyan and Beej Swaraj Abhiyan, MP, alleging that the non-Bt varieties have already gone out of the market because agriculture universities and bureaucrats toe the line of multinational seed companies.

The NGO had last year brought a report on a decade of Bt cotton in the state and insisted that use of pesticide had not reduced. The report argued that yields had already started to increase before Bt cotton arrived on the scene. In the first couple of years of Bt cotton, productivity increased but came down later, the report claimed.

Desai says there are as many as 40 varieties of Bt cotton seeds being sold by private companies in the state. Since farmers have stopped asking for non-Bt cotton seeds, companies have stopped producing them, he says, alleging that multinational companies are dictating terms to governments and bureaucrats.

Bharatiya Kisan Sangh president Suresh Gurjar claims cultivation of Bt cotton in the Nimad region of MP has come down this year while agreeing that the use of desi varieties is almost over. "When Gujarat farmers could develop Bt varieties, why can't governments and universities follow suit?" he says. He alleges that agriculture research studies are generally commercial in nature and promote the interest of multinationals. INDIAN EXPRESS

Kazakhstan to harvest its first virus-free potatoes in September

Kazakhstan to harvest its first virus-free potatoes in September

Kazakhstan biotechnologists have cultivated a virus-resistant variety of potato namedAladdin using clonal propagation technology, Tengrinews.kz reports citing the project’s research advisor Darkhan Balpanov. 

According to the expert, the method helps protect potatoes from virus, bacterial, fungus and nematode diseases caused by penetration of small malicious organisms. The scientists cultivated the potatoes from micro-tubers with zero level of pathogens that took around 50 days to produce. Additional advantage of the technology lays in the variety's ability to grow in different climatic zones and natural conditions. “The product uses only clean varieties received through traditional GMO-free selection methods,” the scientist stressed.

The scientists insist that they will be able to grow $1 million worth of the virus-free seed potatoes in five years since the beginning of the project’s implementation. This project will provide farms with cheap high quality seeds. “The price of elite seed potatoes is 120 tenge ($0.8) per 1kg, while the price of imported seeds is 300 tenge ($2) per 1kg. In our case the self-cost will make 90 tenge ($0.6) per 1kg,” Balpanov said.

The first harvest of the Kazakhstan virus-resistant potatoes will be gathered in September 2013. It has been planted on the area of around 6 hectares. The scientists plan to harvest around 100 tons of the Aladdin potatoes. In 2014 they plan to collect up to 500 tons of the virus-free potatoes. In the other words, they expect the second harvest to be of commercial scale. 

Balpanov said that the Kazakhstan scientist were in talks with their colleagues from South Korea who were planning to grow batata in Kazakhstan. This culture is normally grows in tropical areas. However, according to Balpanov, it can also be grown in countries with continental climate like Kazakhstan.

Earlier Kazakhstan genetics bred carrots containing anti-tuberculosis vaccine. The scientists managed to inject TBC germ into the root crop and create a sort of an edible vaccine. TENGRINEWS

For more information see:http://en.tengrinews.kz/science/Kazakhstan-to-harvest-its-first-virus-free-potatoes-in-September-18636/
Use of the Tengrinews English materials must be accompanied by a hyperlink to en.Tengrinews.kz 

NO GM FIELD TRIALS: TEC FINAL REPORT (INDIA)

No GM field trials till regulation gaps are addressed, says TEC final report

The final report of the Technical Expert Committee (TEC) set up by the Supreme Court in a Public Interest Litigation on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) has said that it will not be “advisable” to conduct more field trials till gaps in the regulatory system are addressed.

The report was much awaited as a representative of the Union Agriculture Ministry (R.S. Paroda) was added on the panel after the submission of its interim report in October last on the Court’s directions at the behest of the Ministry. The farm Ministry had objected to the absence of its representative on the panel.

However, Dr. Paroda has not signed the report and there is no clarity on whether he gave a “dissenting note” or his comments were annexed to the report. He attended the meetings but did not attend the signing of the report on June 30 in Chennai, The Hindu was told by a member of the panel. Dr. Paroda was not available for comment.

In its final report, the TEC has suggested that the members of the regulatory authority be free of conflict of interest, such a body be set up under the Ministry of Environment or Health. There should be a secretariat of dedicated scientists with area expertise.

Stakeholder participation, need, socioeconomic considerations, societal impact, and sustainability should be some of the dimensions to be incorporated in the risk assessment and this should be done at an early stage in the risk assessment process.

There is a need to include chronic and trans-generational toxicity testing.

The single largest number of applications for field trials to the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee is for Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis — a commonly occurring bacterium found in insect-rich habitats and soils) transgenic (including food crops such as rice and a range of vegetables).

The TEC pointed out that the safety of Bt transgenics with regard to chronic toxicity had not been established and this needs to be done before it can be considered safe. In this regard, the largest deployment of transgenics worldwide is in soybean, corn, cotton, and canola, all of which are used primarily for oil or feed. Nowhere are Bt transgenics bring widely consumed in large amounts for any major food crop that is directly used for human consumption. The TEC found no compelling reason for India to be the first to do so. THE HINDU

INDIA: GMO TEC

This Bill needs deep roots in transparency

The potentially lethal effects of GM crops require that there should be no secrecy around the regulatory processes that will govern them

Newspaper reports have confirmed the recent decision of the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests to “put on hold” the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee’s (GEAC) permitting of field trials of genetically modified crops such as rice, wheat, maize, castor and cotton. The decision to put on hold all approvals — including those granted by the committee — has been taken in view of ongoing public interest litigation before the Supreme Court on the bio-safety of field trials of GM crops.

The functioning of the regulatory regime for genetically modified organisms (GMO) in India throws up many difficult questions, not least among them, how to ensure effective transparency.

Though transparency in the functioning of any regulatory agency is critical, there are additional complications when it comes to GMOs. A regulator who is supervising the distribution of spectrum, or the functioning of the telephone industry, or one who is regulating the quality of a consumer product, can always recant, call back the product, reallocate spectrum, and set right any errors that might have been committed. However, with GMOs, there can be no recall once they have been “let loose” in the ecosystem. Mistakes relating to GMOs could have lethal and irreversible consequences on our health and the environment.

It is, therefore, important that the regulatory processes related to GMOs are scientifically rigorous, free of political or financial bias, without conflict of interest, and subject to vigorous public scrutiny.

Moratorium

Unfortunately, the current system for regulating the introduction of GMOs in India has been adjudged to be very unsatisfactory. A Technical Expert Committee (TEC) set up by the Supreme Court, submitted its interim report dated October 7, 2012. It recommended the suspension of all GMO field trials until, inter alia, a panel of scientists, qualified in evaluation of the biosafety data of GM crops, has been engaged for the scrutiny and analysis of the same, and the conflict of interest in the regulatory body has been removed. “Based on the current overall status of food safety evaluation of Bt transgenics, including the data on Bt cotton and Bt brinjal examined by the TEC and in accordance with the precautionary principle,” the TEC has recommended “a ten year moratorium on field trials of Bt transgenics in all food crops (those used directly for human consumption).”

Toxicity

These findings were reportedly disputed by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) and by some others — what else could have been expected? At their insistence, the TEC has been given an additional member and asked to submit its final report to the Supreme Court. Whatever be the end result, the TEC’s devastating findings in the interim report cannot be wished away. Therefore, given the poor scientific rigour, the prevailing conflicts of interest, and inappropriate processes, it is all the more essential that everything must be open and subject to full public scrutiny.

Based on an appeal by Greenpeace to the Central Information Commission (CIC), asking for information from the Department of Biotechnology and the GEAC, on the toxicity and allergenicity of products being allowed to proceed to field trials, the CIC, while allowing the appeal, has held that “it goes without saying that toxicity and allergenicity of any product to be put on large scale field trial is a matter of overriding public interest.”

Thereby, the CIC had effectively rejected the plea of Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company (Mahyco), the third party supplying such information, that the same should not be given out as it involves commercial confidence and trade secrets protected under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. The CIC rightly pointed out that under the RTI Act, this protection was inoperative when “larger public interest” warrants disclosure.

These developments suggested that even while the official regulatory processes left much to be desired, at least the public was in a position to monitor the situation on its own and challenge any unscientific, biased, or reckless decisions of regulators. Therefore, imagine the rage and horror of the common Indian when she discovered that Section 28(1) of the recently introduced Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) Bill, 2013 proposes to remove information relating to GMOs from under the purview of the RTI Act.

As a State subject

Though there are many other reasons for which this Bill must be condemned, surely this effort to shroud all GMO-related information in secrecy must be the most condemnable and dangerous. Considering the Supreme Court has more than once held that the right to information is a fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution, and considering all legitimate exemptions and exclusions have been listed by Parliament in Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, such efforts to circumvent the law must at the very least be considered unconstitutional and should be opposed at all levels.

It would be surprising if any of the political parties (apart from the ruling party at the Centre) would like to support this Bill. Apart from its attempt to weasel out from under the RTI Act, as far as GMOs are concerned, Section 35 of the BRAI Bill appears to reduce State governments to a mere advisory role, despite agriculture being a State subject. In fact, given the critical hazards associated with GMOs, both to human health and the environment, and the poor state of the regulatory mechanism, each State ought to have been vested with veto power as to the introduction of GMOs. For, once a GMO is introduced, wittingly or unwittingly, it is impossible to ensure that it does not spread far and wide; it certainly is no respecter of State boundaries.

All in all, this is a disaster of a Bill that must be resolutely opposed. THE HINDU

"Mexico Agribusiness Report Q3 2013"

"Mexico Agribusiness Report Q3 2013"


We are forecasting production and consumption growth across the entire agricultural complex out to 2017, although growth rates will vary widely. In general, we are very positive regarding the longterm growth story in Mexico, which we believe will be driven in part by a strong consumer story. Indeed, only consumption of whole milk powder (considered an inferior good in the country) is forecast to grow by less than 1% over our forecast period. Despite this, we have relatively subdued production forecasts as the sector suffers broadly from high feed prices, comparatively poor transport, and few export opportunities given the country's proximity to the US, the world's largest grain and livestock exporter. Indeed, over the forecast period, we see the country remaining a net importer of virtually all agricultural commodities except for coffee and sugar. Other constraints, such as reduced land availability (corn) and extensive government influence (sugar) will also contribute to constrain production.

Key Forecasts

- Corn production growth to 2016/17: 32.6% to 24.0mn tonnes. We have revised down our production growth estimates for corn, as we believe the area dedicated to corn is unlikely to grow significantly in the coming years and usage of genetically modified seeds remains limited. The strong five-year growth figure is owing to base effects.
- Sugar production growth to 2012/13: 14.7% to 6.0mn tonnes. This will be driven by good rainfall in southeast regions of the country, as the area dedicated to sugar for the 2012/13 season is expected to decline slightly owing to falling prices. Our projection for improved output comes despite work protests over low prices.
- Coffee consumption growth to 2017: 13.2% to 2.2mn bags. Growth in consumption will be helped by campaigns from Mexico's coffee producers to encourage domestic consumption, since low domestic consumption makes the industry highly vulnerable to fluctuations in world demand.
- 2013 real GDP growth: 3.2% (down from 3.6% in 2012; predicted to average 3.0% to 2017).
- Consumer price inflation (average): 3.4% year-on-year (y-o-y) in 2013 (down from 3.6% y-o-y in 2012).

Industry Trends And Developments

We are optimistic regarding the fate of the 2013/14 Mexico corn crop due to the large area planted and the expectation of better yields. The risk to production this season is reports of dry weather in key growing regions. However, we have revised down our long-term production forecasts for Mexican corn as we believe structural concerns and limits on the area dedicated to corn will constrain production. Mexico is already one of the world's largest corn importers, and without greater usage of genetically modified seeds, the country's net production deficit is likely to grow in the coming years. SBWIRE

N-Fix technology

World changing technology enables crops to take nitrogen from the air

A major new technology has been developed by The University of Nottingham, which enables all of the world's crops to take nitrogen from the air rather than expensive and environmentally damaging fertilisers.

Nitrogen fixation, the process by which nitrogen is converted to ammonia, is vital for plants to survive and grow. However, only a very small number of plants, most notably legumes (such as peas, beans and lentils) have the ability to fix nitrogen from the atmosphere with the help of nitrogen fixing bacteria. The vast majority of plants have to obtain nitrogen from the soil, and for most crops currently being grown across the world, this also means a reliance on synthetic nitrogen fertiliser.

Professor Edward Cocking, Director of The University of Nottingham's Centre for Crop Nitrogen Fixation, has developed a unique method of putting nitrogen-fixing bacteria into the cells of plant roots. His major breakthrough came when he found a specific strain of nitrogen-fixing bacteria in sugar-cane which he discovered could intracellularly colonise all major crop plants. This ground-breaking development potentially provides every cell in the plant with the ability to fix atmospheric nitrogen. The implications for agriculture are enormous as this new technology can provide much of the plant's nitrogen needs.

A leading world expert in nitrogen and plant science, Professor Cocking has long recognised that there is a critical need to reduce nitrogen pollution caused by nitrogen based fertilisers. Nitrate pollution is a major problem as is also the pollution of the atmosphere by ammonia and oxides of nitrogen.

In addition, nitrate pollution is a health hazard and also causes oxygen-depleted 'dead zones' in our waterways and oceans. A recent study estimates that that the annual cost of damage caused by nitrogen pollution across Europe is £60 billion—£280 billion a year.

Speaking about the technology, which is known as 'N-Fix', Professor Cocking said: "Helping plants to naturally obtain the nitrogen they need is a key aspect of World Food Security. The world needs to unhook itself from its ever increasing reliance on synthetic nitrogen fertilisers produced from fossil fuels with its high economic costs, its pollution of the environment and its high energy costs."

N-Fix is neither genetic modification nor bio-engineering. It is a naturally occurring nitrogen fixing bacteria which takes up and uses nitrogen from the air. Applied to the cells of plants (intra-cellular) via the seed, it provides every cell in the plant with the ability to fix nitrogen. Plant seeds are coated with these bacteria in order to create a symbiotic, mutually beneficial relationship and naturally produce nitrogen.

N-Fix is a natural nitrogen seed coating that provides a sustainable solution to fertiliser overuse and Nitrogen pollution. It is environmentally friendly and can be applied to all crops. Over the last 10 years, The University of Nottingham has conducted a series of extensive research programmes which have established proof of principal of the technology in the laboratory, growth rooms and glasshouses.

The University of Nottingham's Plant and Crop Sciences Division is internationally acclaimed as a centre for fundamental and applied research, underpinning its understanding of agriculture, food production and quality, and the natural environment. It also has one of the largest communities of plant scientists in the UK.

Dr Susan Huxtable, Director of Intellectual Property Commercialisation at The University of Nottingham, believes that the N-Fix technology has significant implications for agriculture, she said: "There is a substantial global market for the N-Fix technology, as it can be applied globally to all crops. N-Fix has the power to transform agriculture, while at the same time offering a significant cost benefit to the grower through the savings that they will make in the reduced costs of fertilisers. It is a great example of how University research can have a world-changing impact."

The N-Fix technology has been licensed by The University of Nottingham to Azotic Technologies Ltd to develop and commercialise N-Fix globally on its behalf for all crop species.

Peter Blezard, CEO of Azotic Technologies added: "Agriculture has to change and N-Fix can make a real and positive contribution to that change. It has enormous potential to help feed more people in many of the poorer parts of the world, while at the same time, dramatically reducing the amount of synthetic nitrogen produced in the world."

The proof of concept has already been demonstrated. The uptake and fixation of nitrogen in a range of crop species has been proven to work in the laboratory and Azotic is now working on field trials in order to produce robust efficacy data. This will be followed by seeking regulatory approval for N-Fix initially in the UK, Europe, USA, Canada and Brazil, with more countries to follow.

It is anticipated that the N-Fix technology will be commercially available within the next two to three years. PHYS.ORG

Some farmers finding rootworms no longer resistant to genetically modified corn

Some farmers finding rootworms no longer resistant to genetically modified corn

Some Iowa corn growers who planted a genetically-modified variety called B-T corn are finding their plants no longer resist corn rootworms — and some crops are being badly damaged. Darwin Bettin, who farms in northwest Iowa’s Sac County, says he’s used B-T corn for a decade and it’s always kept away the pests, until now.

“I could see corn laying down in my field and none of my neighbors fields,” Bettin says. “I was old enough, I told my wife, if I didn’t know better, that looks like rootworm damage.” Since the corn was bred by Monsanto to resist rootworms, farmers didn’t have to use pesticides.

Now, some are resorting back to chemicals as the insect has developed a resistence to the B-T corn. While the trend is a setback for farmers, it’s a boon for farm chemical makers like Philadelphia-based FMC, where spokesman Aaron Locker says profits are up.

Locker says, “FMC reported a 9% increase in first quarter sales in its agriculture solutions business and 20% increase in fourth 4th quarter sales.” That’s due in part to the resistance in corn rootworms. Bettin lost half his crop to rootworm damage and says his local seed dealer refunded some of his money, but not Monsanto.

Bettin says, “As much money as those companies have made off of us selling us those traits over the years, I think they’d be willing to step up to the plate when their trait doesn’t work.” A spokesman for B-T maker Monsanto says the company is investing millions of dollars in research to bring new products to market.

The federal EPA says it could restrict the future use of B-T seed, but Monsanto is working to introduce new varieties while encouraging farmers to rotate crops. RADIO IOWA

FOCUS ON GMO

Masters of Health Expo Includes Focus on GMOs

This weekend, the Masters of Health & Wellness event returns to Dodds & Eder in Sag Harbor. Presented by Ana Nieto and her holistic health consulting firm Turtle Shell Health along with the Sag Harbor Chamber of Commerce, the two day Preventative Health & Sustainable Technology Expo is designed not only to highlight a range of holistic health practices and services, but also offer information on businesses and organizations promoting green or sustainable technology in the building trades.

“We’ve been doing this Masters of Health and Wellness event for three years,” explains Nieto. “Usually, they are small networking events. This year, we decided to go a bit bigger.”

“What we’re tying to do with the event is bring the community together — the different companies and anyone doing anything in the health and wellness industry,” she adds. “We usually focus on holistic health, but this year, we’re including sustainable companies. We’re also collaborating with Neoteric, the Amagansett Gallery, to bring in artwork.”

More than 30 vendors will take part in the expo this Saturday and Sunday, and Nieto explains the exhibitors tables will be set up in the parking lot of Dodd’s & Eder. Indoors, presenters will speak both days on topics such as healthy cooking, Feng Shui, food law and veterinary medicine. Congressman Tim Bishop will also give an address at 2 p.m. on Saturday.

Saturday evening will be given over to a cocktail party and dinner (with food by Chef Todd Jacobs and his new restaurant Fresh Hamptons) benefiting the Slow Food East End Chapter. The goal of the Slow Food event is to raise funds to create a farmer’s market coordinator position on the East End.

Keynote speaker for the Slow Food event will be Jeffrey M. Smith, the executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology. Smith is a leading spokesperson on the health dangers of GMO’s (Genetically Modified Organisms) and in addition to his keynote address Saturday night, the expo will feature a 1 p.m. Sunday screening of Smith’s film “Genetic Roulette: The Gamble of Our Lives” with a Q&A discussion.

For the uninitiated, GMOs are organisms whose genetic material has been altered through engineering. It is particularly prevalent in this country in the form of seeds which have been designed to possess specific traits such as resistance to herbicides, pests or improved product shelf life.

But Smith maintains the crops that come from these GMOs which are prevalent in our food supply are causing all sorts of illnesses and allergies in society — everything from allergies, diabetes, obesity and Alzheimer’s. While the explosion of many of these medical conditions in America is largely blamed on poor diets and processed food, Smith contends the real culprit may not be the processed food itself, but, in fact, the GMO ingredients hidden within it.

Smith grew up in Westchester and spent summers in Montauk. But he lives in Iowa now, where genetically modified seeds are widely used by farmers growing crops for the American food supply. He notes his interest in GMOs began more than 15 years ago with a lecture by a genetic engineer who told the audience how dangerous he felt the emerging technology was.

“This was in 1996 when they were about to plant these seeds in the Midwest and he said everyone who eats them will have unpredicted side effects and it will pollute the seed gene pool,” recalls Smith. “I was alarmed and realized the concerns he was expressing were nowhere to be found in the press or anywhere else.”

“It was an infant technology without societal awareness and oversight,” he adds.

Smith explains that though the FDA sounded the alarm about GMOs in the early 1990s and the toxins, diseases and problems that could arise through their use, serious studies, he adds, were never done. Instead, Smith says, the government wanted to promote GMOs because it was believed they would help increase U.S. global domination of the food trade.

But it turns out European consumers as a whole weren’t particularly keen on eating foods made from GMOs and many refused to buy them.

“But even when that strategy backfired and they had to compensate for markets closed to GMOs, producers didn’t admit failure and just pushed to open up more markets,” he says.

One of the major markets has been the United States itself. And today, because there are no federal labeling guidelines in place, GMOs can be found in a staggering array of grocery store items without the public’s awareness.

But, notes Smith, the tide of public opinion is turning. Some of that he says is based on studies surfacing which show that when livestock herds suffering from ulcers, diarrhea and early death are switched from a GMO to a non-GMO diet, their health improves dramatically and quickly.

He adds that doctors are finding the same is true of people.

“Thousands of doctors are prescribing non-GMO diets today and are seeing improvement in their patients,” says Smith. “When you look at rising disease rates and the increase in GMOs, it’s shocking. We’re looking at diabetes, Crohn’s disease, inflammatory bowel disease, Autism and Alzheimer’s and the cancers.”

“There’s a cover up of health dangers. We’ve caught the biotech industry rigging research to hide problems,” he adds. “Independent studies are rarely done due to the unavailability of funding. When they are done, there’s an immediate attack on the science and a personal attack.”

“It’s an orchestrated, well designed attack to set an example to dissuade anyone from doing the research,” maintains Smith. “That’s convinced scientists to refuse to do GMO research because they might lose their status or funding.”

Since 1998, Smith’s group has been documenting the stories of whistle blowers who speak out against GMOs. But, he adds, the PR machine for the bio-tech industry has effectively discredited studies and stories and kept them out of the mainstream media.

“But what has been working is consumer rejection,” says Smith. “This is one of the most critical times in my 17 years doing this work. We are seeing acceleration toward the tipping point.”

Just as consumers in Europe rejected GMO products by not buying them (forcing large US food producers to create non-GMO alternatives for that market), Smith now finds US consumers are taking things into their own hands through their purchasing power. That means largely turning to organics.

“The tide is turning here quickly,” he says. “The natural food industry has become very sensitized to the GMO issue. The non-GMO label sales grew 26 percent in 2012. The Whole Foods president said when the product is third party verified to be GMO free, sales go up 15 to 30 percent. The influence now is spreading, not just from the Whole Foods shopper, but throughout the spectrum.”

Smith notes all Target home brands will be GMO free by 2015 and Chipotle’s restaurant is currently labeling its GMO items and will be non-GMO soon. Meanwhile, Connecticut has passed GMO labeling laws and Washington State is expected to follow. Two dozen more states have introduced legislation, including New York which Smith notes has a hearing on the topic next week.

“We now have a consumer led revolt based on the documented science and more and more it’s based on direct consumer experience or stories of friends who removed GMOs from their diet and saw their weight and skin problems clear up, the fog lift, and improvements in asthma, Autistic symptoms and gastrointestinal disorders.”

“The stories are unprecedented,” he says. “When I started gathering them a few years ago, I was shocked. I never expected improvement would be so quick. The recovery was so dramatic when they got GMOs out of their diet.”

“The group with the greatest conviction that GMOs are a problem are health care professionals who get to tell thousands of patients to stop GMOs and see what happens — and now we’re seeing pet owners doing the same thing,” he says. “The proof is in the non-GMO pudding. It’s causing a revolution  — like lighting a fire on dry grass.”

Smith adds that this weekend, in addition to seeing his documentary “Genetic Roulette” (which was named the 2012 Movie of the Year by the Solari Report and the Transformational Film of the Year by Aware Guide), and taking part in a Q&A, those interested in eating GMO free can get the Institute for Responsible Technology’s guide of non-GMO brands available on the market.

Smith is also hoping the focus on this topic in Sag Harbor will help spread the word about GMOs among the powerful and connected residents out here.

“A group of very successful people spend summer in the Hamptons,” he says. “They’re extremely influential, and may have ways to change things.”

WHAT TO EAT, WHAT NOT TO EAT

A Hippie’s Defense of GMOs

I’m a vegetarian yoga instructor, and even I can tell the case against genetically modified food is overblown.

Let me get a few things out of the way.

I'm a crazy hippie. I go to Burning Man every year. I teach yoga. I live in a co-op. For the past two years, I've been delivering organic vegetables for a local delivery service. I've been eating vegetarian for years, and vegan for the past four months.

I'm also fascinated by genetics. I read every book that comes my way on evolutionary theory, population genetics, and mapping the genome. I took several classes on the subject at the University of Pennsylvania. All told, I have a pretty solid understanding of how genes work.

And ultimately, I'm just not that scared of GMOs.

Now don't get me wrong. I understand where my liberal friends are coming from. I share the same desire for a safe and healthy food supply. There's a lot that disturbs me about the state of food production and distribution in America.

I think Monsanto is evil, that patenting seeds and suing farmers is unethical, and that some GMO crops (like Roundup Ready Soybeans) lend themselves to irresponsible herbicide and pesticide use and cross-contamination.

But I'm also not going to let my anti-corporate sentiments get in the way of a diverse and promising field of research.

When genetic engineering is used to decrease pesticide use, to add nutrients to crops in malnourished countries, and otherwise improve the quality of our food products, then it's a valuable tool that can contribute to a safe and healthy food supply.

I want to address three points that are often brought up by anti-GMO advocates that are either simply untrue, or a lot more nuanced than we've been led to believe:

1. GMOs create more "unnatural" mutations than traditional breeding methods.

Genetic manipulation is nothing new. Humans have been breeding plants and animals for thousands of years. Many of our staple crops (wheat, corn, soy), would not exist without human intervention. The same goes for domesticated farm species.

Whether we’re using genetic modification or selective breeding, we're playing God either way. But some people seem to think that selective breeding is "safer"—that it allows less opportunity for damaging mutations than genetic engineering does. This couldn't be more wrong.

The entire process of evolution is dependent upon mutation. UV radiation changes the structure of the DNA code in each individual organism. Most of these mutations aren't beneficial. Some leave out necessary proteins. Others add useless information. And yet, a percentage of these "errors" are helpful enough that they're passed along to future generations and become the new normal.

If there's any danger with genetic engineering, it's that we can be too precise in our manipulation. We can ensure that each new generation of seeds contains the exact same DNA sequence, double-checked for errors and mutations eliminated. The "unnatural" process actually produces fewer mutations, not more.

2. GMOs contain animal DNA that has been "spliced" into plants.

One of the most enduring myths about genetic engineering concerns a GM tomato which, as legend would have it, contained flounder genes spliced into tomato DNA. While it's true that Calgene experimented with a freeze-resistant tomato, the company used a "synthesized ... antifreeze gene based on the winter flounder gene"—not a cut-and-pasted copy of the gene itself.

Those freeze-resistant tomatoes never made it to market, but a different version called the Flavr Savr did. Tomatoes contain a protein called polygalacturonase (PG), which breaks down the pectin in the cell walls, causing the tomato to soften as it ripens. To create a tomato that would ripen more slowly, Calgene took the gene that encodes for PG and reversed it. This backward strand of DNA, known as an "antisense" gene, binds to the forward-running strand and cancels it out. Without PG, the pectin (and therefore the tomato) breaks down more slowly. The simplicity of the process is remarkable. No toxic chemicals, no mysterious bits of DNA. Just a simple tweak of the tomato's own genetic code.

But hold on a minute. What if they had used a gene from a fish in creating this tomato? Would the tomato taste fishy? Would you have to watch out for fish bones in your pasta sauce? Not unless you've added anchovies.

Genes are basically bits of computer code that are interchangeable from species to species. When you isolate a tiny bit of gene, it doesn't retain the essence of whichever species it came from. You might have a bit of DNA that says simply, "Grow appendage X on the abdomen" but doesn't specify what kind of appendage. If you put that code into a fly, it activates the part of DNA that grows a wing. Put that same code into a mouse, and it grows a foreleg. It doesn't make the mouse any more like a fly.

3. GMOs are radioactive, cause cancer, and/or are bad for the environment.

This is a trickier question to answer, and I'll be the first to admit that we need more research into the long-term effects of GM products. But I'm going to bet that the answer turns out to be something like this: Some GMOs are safe, and others are not. Lumping all GMOs into the same category is like lumping all fertilizers or all pesticides into the same category. Genetic changes are only as dangerous as the proteins they encode for—just as in any plant. Consider how many "natural" plants have genes that produce poisons and toxins.

In the case of the Flavr Savr tomato, I wouldn't be too worried. It simply blocks a protein that the tomato itself produces. In the case of herbicide-resistant soybeans, I'd want to know more. What kind of herbicide is being sprayed on the plants? Are traces of the herbicide still found in the food when it reaches our plate?

While I voted for the labeling act that was on the California ballot last year, a simple "contains GMOs" label would be of little use to me. I want to know what specifically about the organism was modified so I can reach my own conclusions.

Personally, I think the GMO scare is a distraction from far more important issues going on in the food industry:

• A factory-farming system that's abusive to the animals we raise and results in unnatural, highly processed meats
• An obesity epidemic resulting from subsidized corn crops and unchecked fast-food marketing
• A glut of "natural and artificial" flavorings, sweeteners, and colors
• Lack of access to quality produce in urban "food deserts"

If we really want to do something about public health issues, then these are the problems we should be focusing on. I'm not going to object to something that could have a positive effect on the world's food supply because there's a chance that something I eat might give me cancer 10 or 20 years down the line.

That risk already exists. I'm just as likely to get cancer from the unmodified but highly processed foods that are already in the market.

In the meantime I'm going to support those GM efforts that might actually do some good for the world. There's the Golden Rice Project, which fortifies rice in developing countries to combat micronutrient deficiencies. There have been attempts to genetically modify trees both to fight pollution and to decrease fossil fuel dependency.

And then there's the banana vaccine for Hepatitis B, which, due to regulatory restrictions, may be reworked into a nonedible vaccine in the tobacco plant.

I don't know about you guys, but these sound like pretty liberal objectives to me.

GM crops, combined with sustainable and organic agriculture, might do more to advance our cause than any other scientific advancement of the modern era.

By all means, let's march against Monsanto. But then let's put genetic engineering into the hands of forward-thinking, progressive scientists so we can start a real agricultural revolution. By Saul Of-Hearts

EU GM ISSUE: MONSANTO BACKS OFF ON CROPS

Monsanto Steps Up Efforts on EU GM Imports, Backs Off on Crops

Agricultural biotechnology giant Monsanto will scrap all pending approval requests to grow new types of genetically modified (GM) crops in the European Union in the coming months, company officials confirmed on 17 July. The company will now focus its efforts on securing EU approval to import genetically modified products, which are widely grown and marketed in the United States and South America.

“We will no longer be pursuing approvals for cultivation of new biotech crops in Europe,” a company spokesman told the Telegraph newspaper. “Instead, we will focus on enabling imports of biotech crops into the EU and the growth of our current business there.”

In an interview with Reuters, José Manuel Madero, Monsanto’s President and Managing Director for Europe, called the decision a strategic business move that will also see the company focus more on conventional maize, soybean, and sugar beet seeds in Europe.

“Conventional seeds is the area where we are focusing at this time in Europe, and we are funding the business in a way that we haven’t done for more than 15 years,” Madero said.

The decision covers EU approval requests to grow five GM maize varieties, one variety of soybean, and one sugar beet. However, the company said that it would not withdraw its application to renew the approval for its insect-resistant MON810 maize - the only GM crop currently cultivated commercially in parts of Europe.

European biotech difficulties

The move reflects the frustration felt by many biotech companies towards the EU’s approval system for GM seeds and imports, which can often face years of delays. Attitudes toward the biotech industry vary widely across Europe, however, which has presented difficulties for legislators in Brussels.

Some British ministers have been championing for the establishment of a domestic GM industry, citing food security concerns. The UK environment secretary also recently initiated a lobbying effort in the EU to relax strict restrictions on growing GM crops for human consumption for fears of being “left behind.”

However, much of Europe still remains hostile towards the idea of GM food; only three varieties have ever been given the green light for cultivation - two of which are only for industrial purposes.

Strong public opposition and scientific studies showing that MON810 seed could harm biodiversity have also driven several European countries - including France, Germany, and most recently, Italy - to impose national bans on Monsanto’s MON810 maize, even though it has been approved for cultivation throughout the EU.

Monsanto officials say that the company will decide the exact withdrawal date of each application after carrying out a careful analysis on a case-by-case basis, taking its obligations to business partners into consideration.

Focus on trade

Controversy for Monsanto is unlikely to fade any time soon, with the company confirming that it will step up efforts to ease restrictions on imports of GM products from countries with more lax biotech cultivation rules. Polls have shown that a majority of European consumers are opposed to human consumption of GM foods.

Brussels adopted a more open approach to GM imports in 2011, when it backed away from its zero tolerance policy. (See Bridges Trade BioRes, 7 March 2011) While almost 50 GM products have been approved for import into the EU - the vast majority for animal feed or food processing - approval of new products for import will likely be a slow and difficult process.

Europe is one of the world’s major buyers of biotech grain, according toReuters, importing more than 30 million metric tons of mostly GM animal feed each year for its livestock industry.

Monsanto plans to invest €225 million in corn production plant expansions that are already under way in France, Hungary, Romania, and Turkey, which officials say will create more than 150 new full-time jobs and many more seasonal jobs.

Some environmental groups have expressed optimism over the move to back off on crop cultivation.

“Over the last couple of decades, GM crops have proven to be an ineffective and unpopular technology, with unacceptable risks for our environment and health,” said Mark Breddy, a spokesman for Greenpeace EU. “Monsanto’s retreat could finally create the space for European farming to focus on modern practices and technologies that offer real advances for food production and rural communities.”

Canada GEESE story: GMO Wheat Spread

Pooping Canada geese may have spread genetically modified wheat, documents show

OTTAWA — Canada geese may have spread viable seeds of genetically modified wheat grown at the Central Experimental Farm, documents from Agriculture Canada show.

The odds aren’t high, the department says.

But the geese ate the experimental wheat last summer at the Experimental Farm. Geese are voracious eaters and leave droppings every few minutes.

The fear is that these geese may have left poop with living GM wheat seeds that could allow GM wheat to spread outside the controlled field, or even away from the farm itself.

The issue blew up on a Friday night in 2012, taking the department by surprise.

Now the Citizen has obtained internal emails, with many of the relevant details blacked out, showing the rush by federal bureaucrats to find out whether the GM seeds had flown the coop, potentially to other farms.

GM wheat is not approved in Canada. Many growers, including the Canadian Wheat Board, strongly oppose it, saying that growing GM wheat will make all Canadian wheat harder to sell in Europe and Asia.

And the last thing any grower wants is to have ordinary wheat crops accidentally mixed with the GM varieties.

This happened last month in Oregon, where a farmer discovered transgenic wheat growing on his land. He had never planted any and the source remains unknown, but Japan and South Korean briefly banned U.S. wheat imports.

Many species of plants are commonly spread when birds eat berries or nuts and then drop the seeds in their feces.

The issue seems to have come out of left field for the Experimental Farm.

On Aug. 24, 2012, an Agriculture Canada staffer wrote, in an email to her colleagues, that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) had just informed her of an incident involving an Agriculture Canada wheat researcher.

The CFIA regulates trials of experimental GM crops. Its records show that in 2012, Agriculture Canada had two permits to run “confined research field trials” of experimental wheat in Ottawa. These are outdoor trials where strict controls are intended to minimize the chance of DNA introduced by humans from escaping to the environment.

These trials are reserved for GM crops; crops where the DNA is altered through human-induced mutations (often with chemicals or radiation); or conventionally-bred crops that are so genetically different from those in the environment that they can’t be allowed to mix.

CFIA refused to answer questions about the incident Tuesday.

Agriculture Canada emails show the department had to scurry to find out whether GM wheat seeds “will survive in the goose ‘poop’.”

On the following Monday, Agriculture Canada produced a list of “talking points” designed to make the problem look minor if the public found out.

This list concludes that “the dispersal of viable seed by urban and suburban populations of Canada Geese is minimal,” and adds that the seeds are spring wheat which “would be killed by the winter frost.”

The experimental wheat was surrounded by rows of ordinary wheat in the field, a standard technique in GM tests to keep the genetically modified DNA from spreading beyond the field.

The geese ate both kinds, meaning only some of the seeds they spread were genetically modified, the talking points note.

“So in reality, only a small population of the geese probably fed on very little material resulting in much dilution ...” The rest of the talking point is blacked out.

An Agriculture Canada spokesman echoed those talking points Tuesday, confirming that the wheat was an experimental variety designed to resist fungus, and adding that “the latest research indicates that there is minimal risk of dispersal of viable seeds through Canada geese droppings. Additionally, since the seeds were a spring wheat cultivar, even if the seeds were to survive a goose’s digestive system, they would be killed by winter frost.”

The experimental wheat contains a collection of genetic material called GLK1 which can help a variety of plants resist fusarium, a destructive fungus that affects many grains.

Last year Canada geese destroyed some $250,000 worth of experimental crops at the Farm. This year the Farm hired a company that uses border collies to stalk the geese and eventually drive them away.