'GMOs to promote industrialisation'

'GMOs to promote industrialisation'


State minister for industry and technology James Mutende is hopeful that the introduction of the genetically modified foods (GMOs) would promote industrialisation through value addition.

Mutende, who was officiating at the closure of the 1st National Bio-Safety Conference at Makerere University Food Technology Centre, observed that the delayed passing of the Bio-safety and Bio technology Bills does not favour Uganda’s industrialisation.

“Industrialisation is what is moving the world forward. We are talking about improving productivity so that we can produce a lot for commercial purposes. If you have a piece of land and you are producing maize without using genetically modified seeds, you could get 1,000kg of maize, while the one who uses bio technology, which are high yielding, would end up getting 10,000kg out of the same land,” he said.

He added that the use of bio-technology will enhance job creation because farmers will be able to use high yielding resistant crops and engage in commercial production.

“Once you produce more and make it available for industries for value addition, that’s job creation and more revenue,” he said.

Mutende advised the scientists to come out and show everyone what is behind bio technology to allay people’s fears about the technology.

“There are some negative aspects because some scientists are misguided and are campaigning against the bio safety and biotech Bill yet we need it to ensure increased production and at the same time guarantee safety for all of us,” he said.

Eng. Robert Sekitooleko, the vice-chairperson of the parliamentary committee on science and technology, said it will be unfortunate for Ugandans to consume unlabelled imported genetically modified foods yet Ugandan farmers have been denied a chance to grow them.

Mukono district farmers’ coordinator Silver Nganda called for the empowerment of farmers coordinators with knowledge on bio technology to disseminate it to fellow farmers. NEWVISION

CAN WE FEED THE WORLD?

Your burning questions about GM answered

by canwefeedtheworld

Ever wanted to know if GMOs are dangerous to human health or if GMOs pose a risk to the practice of harvesting and saving heirloom seeds? Well now you can have your questions answered. A new website, GMO Answers, has been recently launched. It is an initiative aiming to respond to questions about how food is grown and to make information about GMOs in food and agriculture easier to access and understand. It is funded by the members of The Council for Biotechnology Information, which includes BASF, Bayer CropScience, Dow AgroSciences, DuPont, Monsanto and Syngenta and supported by the American Farm Bureau Federation, American Seed Trade Association, American Soybean Association, and National Cotton Council. Standing at the forefront of the GM market, founders of the site acknowledge that they haven’t done the best job in communicating around their work. This website gives us a chance to grill them on the things we want to know about GM. That said, is this just a PR campaign for the seed corporations and farm lobbies of the US or a desperate attempt to gain ground against the advancing activists? We’d love to hear your thoughts and experiences of using the site.

http://canwefeedtheworld.wordpress.com/

This website is an arena for new and up-to-date information related to the book 'One Billion Hungry: Can we feed the world?', authored by Professor Sir Gordon Conway with Katy Wilson. Your comments and contributions are very welcome, and encouraged.

Is genetic modification and GM food good or bad?

Expert grower and horticulturist urges us to keep an open mind

Would you eat genetically modified (GM) food? The gut reaction of the majority of us it seems is to say ‘no’.

It is a question the Prime Minister refused to answer recently, despite being asked ten times.

But the chances are, he, you and most of us already have – or at least we are likely to have consumed meat, milk or eggs from animals fed on GM maize or soya, that is imported into the EU in large quantities.

There is no requirement for such products to be labelled differently and only one supermarket in the UK assures customers, at least for the time being, its supply chain is GM free.

The debate concerning genetically modified organisms, or GM foods, was reignited recently by a keynote speech made by Owen Paterson, the Environment Secretary. Calling for a more informed discussion on genetic modification, Mr Paterson said he owed a duty to the British public to reassure us that GM is safe, proven and beneficial.

However, with frightening Frankenstein foods making the headlines again, and surveys showing the majority of shoppers wanting GM food banned from supermarkets, the debate was already becoming reactionary and ideological before a more reasoned approach could even begin.

Most reports mentioned the Flavr Savr tomato, which in 1994 in the US became the first commercially grown genetically modified product to be granted a licence for human consumption.

Intrigued by the issues, and prompted by repeated images of the red fruit, it was time to contact our very own tomato expert, Tony Girard from West Chiltington, for a more rational discussion about GM.

Tony is not an expert in GM, nor does he have vested interests or stakes in companies associated with the technology.

Instead, the 69 year old is a horticulturist who was at the forefront of commercial tomato growing in the UK for more than 30 years, responsible for the expansion of Sussex-based large scale tomato producer Van Heyningen Brothers to around 200 acres under glass.

The vice chair of the SCI Horticultural Group and past president of The Institute of Horticulture was also instrumental in pioneering the large scale use of the growing of crops in ‘grow bags’ and developed the pot herb business in the UK, the product of which is now very familiar in all supermarkets.

He now works for Koppert Biological Systems and, as its UK Director, helps to support the production of crops with little or no use of harmful chemicals – an awesome arsenal of ‘good guys’ consisting of bugs, bacterium and fungi used to control pests instead.

Chatting in the beautiful gardens of his Wells cottage, we discussed the definition of ‘natural’ and why GM causes such great concerns for so many.

Holding a tomato from his kitchen, Tony reflected how the original tomato wasn’t sweet, was very small, and looked distinctly unattractive. It was also thought to be poisonous.

“Everything that we eat these days started off as being something which is found in nature – but it’s been selected and reselected, cultivated and nurtured until it is something that we want,” said Tony, emphasising the ‘we’, before adding: “As opposed to what nature provided us with in the first place.

“So, we can call what we see today perfectly natural, but natural compared to when? 100 years ago? 1 million years ago?

“Everything evolves, and with tomatoes, the cross pollination breeding programmes that have taken place over many years bring us to where we are now,” he said, looking again at his shop-bought specimen.

Mankind has always applied science and technology, with selective breeding in the past and new fertilizers and pesticides more recently, to achieve the results we have wanted.

So, is GM just an extension of this historical process - the appliance of science on the genetic level, now that advances in technology permit such manipulation? Or is GM a true step-change?

“It is a step-change,” asserted Tony, going on to describe how with genetic engineering genes are removed from one plant species and moved to another to facilitate desirable characteristics.

And the same process can be carried out between an animal species and plant which he said was ‘far more concerning’ and is ‘difficult for most people to comprehend’.

“It has been described as like Frankenstein science, maybe – that is one way of describing it but I don’t see it that way,” he said.

“But it is science, and all of us benefit from science one way or another.

“There are bad things which have happened and still will, but should that prevent us from harnessing the good because of the fear of the bad?

“That doesn’t really take us forward,” he said, answering his own question.

For most of Tony’s career in the commercial growing business, GM was either non-existent or in its infancy. But what the technology could offer has always been desired.

“Customers would come to me and say we want something earlier, later, bigger, fatter, wider, striped, better tasting, and I would say ‘yes’, ‘fine’, if you want to wait ten years then maybe we’ll have something better!

“GM can help, not always, but can help that to happen faster,” said Tony, before questioning: “Is it good? Is it bad?” This time he left his rhetorical questions hanging. But Tony is a realist, and regardless of morality, there will always be a commercial imperative to improve yields, flavour or the look of products.

The UK and the EU are losing their competitive edge and falling behind other global regions less constrained by ideological concerns about GM.

Frustrated how the GM debate has been closed down in recent times here, with consumers and the public often left ignorant and confused amidst the rival fanaticisms of global agribusinesses and environmental campaigners, Tony said: “We must remain open minded.

“We should take the trouble to be well-informed and therefore decisions should always be made on good solid information.

“ Unfortunately good solid information doesn’t always come to the fore - it is all too often manipulated or contrived,” he said.

Undoubtedly, there are significant issues with GM, but it is very hard to argue they only concern safety fears regarding GM products and their consumption by humans.

More pressing perhaps should be concerns regarding ecological contagion, as well as economic implications, since GM techniques and crops are subject to intellectual property laws.

“To say no to GM isn’t right, that’s just burying one’s head in the sand,” concluded Tony.

“But just saying there is no problem at all is also wrong,” he added. “There’s been improvement in what we do as mankind forever.

“GM is part of development and progress, ending up with plants that are more resistant to pests, diseases, drought and high/low temperatures.

“Also requiring less fertilizers and harmful chemicals and in doing so, exerting less pressure on the environment.

“Let’s not forget that many materials and minerals are being used up at an unsustainable rate.

“We just have to produce more of what we want or need while reducing inputs.”

Tony did state that the alternative would be to initiate global population control, reducing mankind’s numbers to a lower more sustainable rate of increase. But this is an issue even more fraught with moral, environmental and existential issues than the genetic modification debate.

Returning to the topic of conversation and genetic engineering’s potential to solve issues we face, Tony said: “It is fascinating, and it can also be frightening if people are frightened of the unknown.

“Other people get hugely excited by the unknown.

“What I certainly know of it now is nothing compared to the possibilities which there may be coming down the line in the future.

“Is it good? Is it bad? I will leave that for others to judge.”

Advocacy movement against GM foods in Ghana

Food Sovereignty Ghana, an advocacy movement, has slammed Ghanaian legislators for unanimously passing the Biosafety Act to make room for Genetically Modified foods in the country.

The movement said despite the hostility between the opposition New Patriotic Party and the ruling National Democratic Congress, they agreed to pass the Act, which “most Ghanaians are strongly opposed to”!

A statement issued by Ali Masmadi Jehu-Appiah, Chairperson of the organisation and copied to Ghana News Agency in Accra on Tuesday, said Ghana should reject Genetically Modified(GM) foods in the light of the announcement by Monsanto Corporation, to withdraw applications for Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in the Europe Union.

It said the corporate entity took the decision because of non-acceptance on scientific grounds and rejection by civil society.

The statement said this position was strengthened by the recent recommendations by the Technical Experts Committee of the Supreme Court of India.

“It must be recalled that India was one of the countries which embraced genetic engineering in their agriculture. Thus, they have enough experience to draw the appropriate lessons and evaluate its usefulness for their people and their environment.

“What they have to say about it should be of interest to us... in Ghana. It is, therefore, highly significant that a scientific committee comprising some of the best brains in India is recommending an indefinite moratorium on GE crops, “ the statement said.

“We take this opportunity to reiterate our call for a moratorium on GM foods in Ghana”.

The statement said there are amazing disease resistance breakthroughs that do not require GE technology.

“Despite the public relations efforts of agribusinesses and the scientists... to promote GMO as key to increase food production, there is much evidence showing that GMO’s have not contributed to major yield increases, nor drought resistance, and has generated superweeds and superbugs that require increased use of even more dangerous herbicides and pesticides.

“The vast majority of current GMO crops are used for animal feed, not for people. Then people eat the GMOs when we eat those animals.”

The statement said the irrevocable contamination of the food chain with genetically modified organisms is an unconscionable horror that must not be allowed to happen to Ghana “and we call upon every Ghanaian who eats food to remain vigilant and to demand democratic accountability from their elected representatives”.

“We call on the President to do the right thing and to impose an indefinite moratorium on GM foods in Ghana until it is clear that such an irrevocable step is absolutely crucial for our survival, and not simply a highly misconceived business venture by some unscrupulous corporations who, being turned away by India and Europe, have no qualms about now using Ghanaians as Guinea pigs, for their private profits,” the statement said. GNA

The Environmental Impact of GMOs

The Environmental Impact of GMOs

The debate around genetically modified organisms (GMO) is huge and heated on either side. One of the major considerations when arguing against the use of GMO products is the potential for environmental harm. What exactly are the environmental risks to consider in regards to GMOs?

First of all, it is important to understand what a GMO is precisely. The World Heath Organization (WHO) defines them as organisms whose DNA has been altered in a non-natural way. GM plants are usually changed to be insect resistant, virus resistant, or herbicide tolerant. With these changes come some potentially problematic environmental challenges.

Firstly, toxicity is a huge issue surrounding chemical pesticides and herbicides, used commonly with GMOs, in addition to the toxicity inherent to these plants. GMOs may be toxic to non-target organisms, bees and butterflies being the most talked-about examples currently. Bees are hugely important in the pollination of many food crops, but are unfortunately extremely endangered by modern agricultural techniques, such as GM crops. Monarch butterflies are specifically at risk from GMO maize plants. In addition to bees and butterflies, birds are also at risk from pesticides, and work as biological control agents and pollinators, again, like bees.

Furthermore, the longterm effects of GMOs are not certain. Pests that are targeted by these agricultural methods can adapt to pesticides and herbicides, in addition to the DNA changes in GM plants to make them ¨resistant.¨ This means that they will not always be effective, but their toxic legacies will remain.

Cumulative effects of products such as GMOs are important to take into consideration. Evidence also suggests that small genetic changes in plants may produce even larger ecological shifts, meaning that there is potential for GMO´s to become persistent and weedy in agricultural conditions, since they are modified to be resistant to some modern agricultural techniques. This can also mean being invasive in natural settings, where GMOs, of course, do not occur naturally. It is not impossible for new, human modified, plants to become invasive species in delicate, natural ecosystems.

Finally, biodiversity, while it is critical in all ecosystems and to the sustainability of all species, is put at risk by GMOs. When GM crops are planted, generally in a monocrop fashion, many heritage seeds are no longer used. The nature of GMOs means fewer weed flowers and, therefore, less nectar for pollinators. Toxins released into the soil through the plants´ routes mean fewer soil bacteria, which are integral to healthy soil for plants to grow without the use of chemical fertilizers. Toxic residues are left in the soil of GM crops. Nutrients are not returned to the soil in mono crops and from GMO foods, meaning that soil is becoming dry and void of all nutrients, generally integral to the growing process. A cycle of dependence on GMO seeds and chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides is then created in order to grow a single crop. In addition to soil issues, the irrigation used to grow GM foods naturally carries all of these problems into water sources and into the air. This exposes different bacteria, insects, and animals to the same problems.

All of these impacts must be taken into consideration in the larger picture; GMO´s DNA may end up in soil, compost, animal feed and byproducts, and other living organisms from insects to larger pests. Bees can transport pesticides, herbicides, and DNA through the air into the environment. Once a plant is introduced in an agricultural environment, it is reasonable to assume it will become part of a larger ecosystem, meaning the problem of environmental damage done by GMOs is much larger than simply potentially harming our health.

Aside from environmental issues, GMOs are the topic of social and ethical debates as well. It goes without saying that we live in an inter-connected world, where the way we interact with nature can cause a complex array of consequences. Being informed on the food we are consuming, and the way modern agricultural techniques are affecting the environment, is one effective way of consciously interacting with the natural world. One Green Planet

Education on genetic seeds necessary

Education on genetic seeds necessary

At the Delta Area Young Farmer Emerging Issues Conference hosted by the Mississippi Farm Bureau Federation recently at the Monsanto Learning Center in Scott, Ab Basu, the managing director of state affairs for Biotechnology Industry Organization, and Jerry Slocum of the USDA Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21st Century Agriculture addressed issues regarding genetically modified organism and labeling.

Basu first expressed his excitement about the preemption bill in Mississippi, which would allow them to fight bans on biotech seeds at the state level instead of county by county.

The biotechnology industry is currently fighting the ban on biotech seeds county by county in Oregon, where it costs between $500,000 to $750,000 per county.

To fight the ban at the county level they have to organize with farm bureaus, county farm bureaus and farmers in order to make the appropriate impact.

Basu said a theory, based on their research, is that there is a merger between organic companies and global environmental groups, because a couple of years ago “a lot more money poured in to fight the use of genetically modified organisms.”

These two groups are fighting by going after fertilizers, pesticides and by targeting GMOs by trying to get labeling on all food that was made with GMOs.

There are 28 countries and 420 million acres, as of last year, growing biotech seeds.

Although GMOs are on the raise across the globe, there has been a drastic decrease in approval of new GMO technology, which Basu attributes to a backlog in the USDA and political reasons that stem from misinformation.

The labeling of foods that use GMOs is inconsistent with science-based U.S. policy, sends a false message to consumers and has a negative impact on innovation, according to Basu.

“We embrace ‘right-to-know’,” said Basu. “We want consumers to be educated as to what they’re eating and where their food comes from. We don’t want, however, the food companies to have to be in the position to have to put warning labels on their packages.”

The food companies are highly against the idea of GMO labeling on the front of their packaging because they have spent years and significant amounts of money developing their brands.

“We’re working with anyone and everyone we can to try and educate the legislative leadership that this is not something they want to do and the repercussion for farmers could be pretty negative and pretty extensive,” said Basu.

Basu encourages farmers to work with the farm bureaus to oppose anti-GMO legislation and to educate their communities about what they use, why they use it, and the environmental and efficiency benefits they receive from using GMOs.

“It’s been a long struggle, but it’s been an important fight,” said Slocum.

According to Slocum, there are 78 million acres of planted soybeans in the United States, 95 percent of which are GMOs.

Of all the soybeans grown in Mississippi, 96 percent are GMOs.

Ninety percent of the 97 million acres of corn grown in the U.S. is GMO, while the corn in Mississippi is 95 percent GMO.

Ninety-three percent of the 10 million acres of cotton grown in the U.S. are GMOs and in Mississippi 99 percent of the cotton are GMOs.

“It’s the most rapidly adopted technology in the history of agriculture,” said Slocum. “Faster than the tractor. Faster than hybrid seed.”

According to Slocum, the U.S. government, including the USDA, FDA, and EPA, are highly in favor of genetically modified technology.

United States Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsac, according to Slocum, said, “There’s only two reasons to label food. One is to talk about nutritional content and two, to warn people of dangers in the food like an allergy.”

Organizations want to label GMO food because of the way it’s produced but Slocum points out that organic food is labeled by the way it is produced and that none of it, including the seeds are tested.

“Everything that you grow is tested if it’s biotech,” said Slocum. “It’s the most tested food in the history of mankind.”

The debate over biotech food has shifted from the question of safety, to the disruption of ecosystems, and has now shifted to the public’s “right-to-know.”

“Over 3 billion meals have been served with biotech foods around the world and not one person has died or gotten sick as a result,” said Slocum.

There have been no ecosystems have been destroyed, and developing nations are adopting biotech faster than the U.S.

“We live in the most litigious society on the planet and if anyone could sue Monsanto because their products weren’t safe, they would have sued them a long time ago,” said Slocum. “We stand on the high ground. It’s the most tested and proven way to produce food on the planet.” THE BOLIVAR COMMERCIAL

Federal District Courts Request FDA to Define “Natural”

Federal District Courts Request FDA to Define “Natural” With Respect to Genetically-Modified Organisms (GMO) Foods

By NAT LAW REVIEW

Three federal district court judges have recently requested the FDA to state whether the terms “natural” or “all natural” can be used to refer to foods containing genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) to help resolve pending consumer class actions over the term. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the Northern District of California started the trend in Cox v. Gruma Corp., a case in which the plaintiff alleges that Gruma’s use of “all natural” on its tortilla shells violates various consumer protection laws because they contain genetically-modified corn. In Van Atta v. General Mills, pending in Colorado and involving GMOs in granola products, a magistrate judge agreed with Judge Rogers and recommended a stay of proceedings in the case pending the FDA’s response to Judge Rogers’s request. Most recently, in Barnes v. Campbell Soup Co., also pending in the Northern District of California and involving GMOs in various soups, a different judge also stayed the case pending the FDA’s response.

These cases are potentially important because there are many pending consumer class actions, particularly in California, over whether the use of some variant of the term “all natural” is proper in light of one of more ingredients in the food at issue. Indeed, some quip that food labeling litigation has replaced tobacco and asbestos as the favorite category of suit for the plaintiffs’ bar. Thus, the FDA’s response to the request by these courts, and the courts’ further actions based on the response, could resolve or guide the resolution of many of these cases.

It is often said that the FDA does not have a definition of “natural.” There is reason to question this common wisdom. As noted in one of our Alerts from December 2011, it is true that the FDA published a notice in the Federal Register in 1993 stating that it declined to adopt a definition of “natural.” It is equally true, however, that at the end of that same notice the FDA stated that it planned to maintain “its current policy… not to restrict the use of the term ‘natural’ except for added color, synthetic substances, and flavors as provided in [21 C.F.R.] § 101.22. Additionally, the agency will maintain its policy… regarding the use of ‘natural,’ as meaning that nothing artificial or synthetic (including all color additives regardless of source) has been included in, or has been added to, a food that would not normally be expected to be in the food.”

Further, the FDA has sent warning letters based on this “non-definition” from the Federal Register. On the other hand, in 2010 it declined a request from a federal district court in New Jersey to state whether high-fructose corn syrup is “natural.” It will be interesting to see if the FDA responds to the current requests and how any response the FDA may provide to the requests compares to the Federal Register “non-definition.”

These cases are also interesting because they raise questions concerning the powers of two of the three branches of our federal government with respect to each other. The FDA already faces serious resource constraints. What if several courts start asking it to define natural or other terms with respect to numerous different ingredients, not just GMO ingredients? If the courts impose deadlines, FDA may have to shift resources from other presumably important work to comply with the deadlines. Congress imposed statutory deadlines for FDA to issue several food safety regulations in the Food Safety Modernization Act and FDA failed to comply with them. What happens if it misses a court’s deadline? What if two or more courts impose conflicting deadlines? If the courts do not impose deadlines, it could be quite some time before the FDA responds. What happens to the cases in the interim? Will discovery be stayed as it has been in the cases mentioned above? If so, could important evidence be lost? If not, will the courts and parties waste lots of valuable time and money while they await the FDA’s response? Hopefully none of this will come to pass, but these questions do show how making such requests to FDA could lead to problems. © 2013 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP