EU’s politics blocks biotech pipeline potential

Europe is closed for business when it comes to biotechnology, and its position will not change in the near future, an English farmer said at the recent International Biotechnology Symposium.

Paul Temple, a third-generation tenant farmer from Driffield, East Yorkshire, England, who planted biotech crops for three years before the EU ruled against the practice, spoke of the frustration “because from a distance the biotech business looks closed.”

“Most farmers have actually never seen (genetically modified) crops in the field in Europe. Most farmers don’t even consider growing GM crops because we’re not likely to grow them. It isn’t part of our equation, so it looks closed,” he said.

Temple said EU farmers are unaware of the global acceptance of biotech crops and don’t know of the amount of investments made in research and development.

“There is no government investment in programs on GM crops in Europe. There isn’t any government R and D that’s going to take this onto European fields,” he said.

“It backs up this feeling that Europe is anti-science, so we’re seeing major companies now walking out of Europe. BASF shut their trial facilities down, and recently we heard that Monsanto was not going to register those traits. These are really negative symbols.

“Farmers are as misinformed as the public. We live in the age of sound bites and Twitter, which is very useful for bits of information, but the kind of complicated background information that you need on this subject is sadly missing.”

Most European consumers, politicians and farmers are unaware of the need for protein imports.

“We are major importers. You often hear farmers saying, ‘Why don’t we grow them ourselves?’ Well, we can’t,” Temple said. “We might grow about 3 million tons of vegetable protein, but we import in excess of 30 million tons.

“We are hugely dependent on imports, the majority of which is GM, and it’s an act of hypocrisy that as farmers we see products coming in, but we aren’t allowed the opportunity or the choice of growing them.

“The import authorization is complex, and it’s political. The real risk for me as a European is that we end up with an uncompetitive livestock sector. We are dependent on protein trade, and if we upset the trade, we run the risk of damaging our livestock sector.”

Labeling is a contentious issue in Europe, and there has been a movement in the U.S., including legislation proposed in Illinois, to label GM-derived products.

“I tend to think that if you began to label it, some people wouldn’t understand. Retailers in the United Kingdom have dropped the GM-free feed requirements,” Temple said.

“We have identity-preserved, GM-free soya, but it’s significantly more expensive. The choice exists for the consumer in organic form, but we haven’t seen the public migrating to it. The public doesn’t really care.”

The biotech crops problem in the EU boils down to politics, according to Temple.

“Spain has adopted the use of GM crops. It’s had them for 10 years. It sorted out its supply chain and hasn’t had any problems,” he said.

“France was doing exactly the same until (then-President Nicolas) Sarkozy as an act of politics banned (GM crops) from cultivation. Despite the fact that the court ruled this ban illegal, the moratorium was held, and the currently president has reinforced his desire to maintain the ban. That’s the kind of negative news we have within Europe.

“Romania before it joined Europe was growing GM soya and exporting soya, but on joining the EU, it couldn’t grow it and now imports.”

The Directorate General for Health and Consumer Affairs of the European Commission overseas the GM portfolio.

“Every EU country provides a commissioner and sadly are not proving strong enough to make any form of leadership through this whole process,” Temple said.

Despite the commission’s stand, food safety never has been an issue.

“We have a European Food Standards Agency, and often its advice is ignored when it’s subjected to the political process,” Temple said.

He said there sadly is no hope for a change in the near future.

“We are noticing language changing with our politicians where there is support given strongly within the UK, but it is getting rid of the problems in Europe that will be the problem,” he said.

“We are seeing retailers dropping a visible opposition, but they’re not taking a visible profile of the necessity and possibilities if biotech is available.

“EU will remain import dependant. We are seeing limited trials of GM crops in field situations now. There are wheat trials in the UK. But the cost of policing the trials is actually more than the trial itself, so it has a long way to go.”

Despite the EU stance, biotech crops are recognized as being potentially vital for food security and sustainable intensification, and world-class science continues to be conducted in laboratories across Europe.

“The problem at the moment I don’t see how it will get out of the laboratories and into the fields. Politics is our pipeline blockage,” Temple said.

“Farming constantly needs new science to harness landscapes, new science to deal with and mitigate climate change and the volatility that we’re seeing and new genetics for progress. Farming needs new business models that adapt the technology.”

He said young farmers will need to do things “very differently from the way I’ve been able to do them and the way my parents were able to do them — the challenges they face will be far greater than I could ever imagine.”

Temple defined food security as global production and trade.

“Biotechnology that I’ve seen on my own farm offers the potential to solve problems, and it was with great frustration that after three years of growing it I had to stop because it was solving problems,” he said. “Europe simply fails to offer farmers choice.” agrinews

Tension over GM crops grows in Tanzania

Scientists say they can help, but regulations set strict liability on use

Students receive a lunch of corn and bean porridge at a primary school in the northern Tanzanian village of Engaruka. / Sharon Schmickle/Special to the Register

A typical Tanzanian family will not pass a day without eating ugali — a stiff porridge made from ground corn, somewhat like Italian polenta.

Would Tanzanians eat ugali if the flour came from genetically modified corn?

Tension over that question is tearing at the country, with scientists insisting the answer should be “yes,” while GM foes say, “No way!”

Most of Tanzania’s corn is grown by smallholder farmers who typically plant seeds from traditional varieties and rely on natural rains. But the rains have failed them. The country’s 44 million people suffered severe droughts in 2003, 2005 and 2011. Millions needed food handouts to survive.

Beyond drought, local scientists say this basic crop also is threatened by climate change, disease and pests.

Genetic modification could help overcome those problems, scientists say. The technology has been adopted by more than 17 million farmers in other countries.

Under current government regulations, though, Tanzanian scientists cannot conduct field trials with GM plants. And farmers cannot cultivate any crop developed with the new biotechnology.

Alois Kullaya is one of several local scientists who are urging the government to relax the regulations. He is principal agricultural research officer at Mikocheni Agricultural Research Institute and also Tanzanian coordinator of a research consortium called Water Efficient Maize for Africa.

“We have finished confined laboratory trials from genetically modified seeds in 2009, but until now we can’t conduct field trials because of restrictive liability regulations, which means that all this research goes to waste,” Kullaya said.

Drought, disease drive need for modified crops

He said there is no question the technology is needed. Tanzania faces a future where farmers will have more mouths to feed under ever more difficult conditions — due to the double whammy of population growth and climate change.

Another threat comes from plant diseases. Several regions have been hit by viruses that cause maize lethal necrosis disease. Infected plants wither and wilt, with leaves turning from green to yellow. They often die before flowering. The disease can destroy an entire crop.

GM technology offers an eventual solution to that problem too, scientists say.

Under Tanzania’s biosafety regulations, though, developers of GM crops could be held liable for negative effects claimed in connection with them. The regulations, adopted in 2009, set out a “strict liability” principle. Essentially, it holds that anyone associated with importing, transporting, selling or using a GM product faces liability for any perceived harm.

Critics say this is a “guilty until proven innocent” approach.

Tanzanian President Jakaya Kikwete, whose government has adopted an agricultural development blueprint dubbed Kilimo Kwanza, has said the regulations will be eased, but he has not given a specific time frame for doing so.

Tanzania’s East African neighbors take a different, fault-based, regulatory approach with higher standards for proving harm and negligence. So researchers developing GM crops have shied away from Tanzania and worked instead in Uganda and Kenya.

While Uganda and Kenya have not given final approval for commercial sales of GM crops, farmers in those countries have been able to see field trials demonstrating their effectiveness. In Uganda, for example, scientists are making headway in trials of GM bananas that resist a destructive wilt disease. Tanzanian farmers have lost thousands of acres of the crops to the same disease.

Anti-GMO activists defending regulations

Opponents of genetically modified organisms are urging Kikwete’s government to hold the existing regulations in place. To allow GM crops would be to risk injury to health and the environment, they argue.

“Whoever introduces GM crops should be responsible for whatever happens on the ground,” said Abdallah Mkindi, Coordinator of Tanzania Alliance for Biodiversity, a 19-member organization of environmental and organic farming groups.

He alleges that local scientists are a front for multinational seed companies. Those companies eventually will control Tanzania’s farmers if they are allowed to sell GM products, Mkindi and his allies maintain. Rather than improve food security, that prospect threatens food for the future, they say.

“GMO is not a solution to famine,” Mkindi said.

Farmers want options, technology that works

Cassava is another crop that scientists have targeted for genetic modification, inserting genes intended to help the widely consumed tuber resist diseases and pests.

Cassava farmers at Mapinga village near Dar es Salaam said yields have been poor in recent years because of cassava mosaic disease. Mwajuma Mpanju said her crop was wiped out by the disease three years ago.

Farmers are interested in any technology that works, she said. All tools should be available so that farmers themselves can choose what is best to meet their needs.

What farmers want, she said, is choice — a variety of seeds and tubers on the market.

Indeed, scientists warn that Tanzanian farmers may take to the GM crops on their own if they see remarkable success in Uganda and Kenya.

After Burkina Faso adopted BT cotton, which contains a defense against destructive insects, farmers in neighboring West African countries reportedly obtained the seeds even though they were illegal in those countries.

“In Uganda, BT banana is doing very well,” Kullaya said. “If we don’t allow GMO field trials ... farmers in (Tanzania) will likely adopt the variety.”desmoinesregister

Karnataka joins hands for Global March Against Monsanto; for food safety

Karnataka joins hands for Global March Against Monsanto; for food safety

With the world all set to observe October 16, 2013, as World Food Day, Karnataka has joined the Global March Against Monsanto and for food safety and seed sovereignty.

In this regard, farmers, consumers, scientists, students, activists and others have vociferously pointed out the rejection of genetically-modified (GM) crops and the corporatisation of food systems.

Inaugurating the public action against Monsanto, veteran freedom fighter H.S Doraiswamy exhorted the gathering to continue this struggle for keeping our food and farming systems free from the clutches of multinational corporations like Monsanto. 

“It is alarming that governments are getting into partnerships with this corporation and jeopardising seed sovereignty of Indian farmers. We are here to show corporations like Monsanto that we will not tolerate any jeopardising of our farming, food and environment,” said P Srinivas, co-convenor, GM Free Karnataka Coalition. 

Meanwhile, on October 11, 2013, the Karnataka High Court had dismissed petitions that challenged criminal prosecution of top officials of Monsanto/Mahyco and University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, who have been accused of biopiracy in promotion of Bt Brinjal, India's first food GMO.

Speaking on the occasion, Leo Saldanha of Environment Support Group (ESG), which first exposed the issue said that Monsanto worked to take away control over seeds from local farming communities as an integral part of their business model. “Now they have been caught red-handed illegally appropriating Brinjal varieties endemic to India and which constitute our biodiversity heritage.” 

“We will continue to closely monitor efforts of national and state biopiracy regulatory agencies to ensure the criminal proceedings against the corporation and collaborating institutions reaches its logical end and serves as an example against similar biopirates for all time to come,” he added. 

He demanded the state government to immediately conduct an investigation into the failure of Bt cotton in the state and blacklist companies like Monsanto, which had pushed the poor farmer in Karnataka to severe distress.

“On the one hand, scientific evidence on adverse impact of GM crops on human health, environment and farm livelihoods is increasing, on the other hand, the Central government is pushing for GM crops into our farms and plates. The latest in these efforts is the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) Bill, which proposes to create a single-window clearance system designed for easy approval of GM crops. This is nothing but a Monsanto Protection and Promotion Law,” said Neha Saigal, sustainable agriculture campaigner, Greenpeace India.

Addressing the gathering Kavitha Kuruganti, national convenor, Alliance for Sustainable and Holistic Agriculture (ASHA), called the attention of the national and state government to the fact that this World Food Day has a theme of 'Sustainable Food Systems for Food Security and Nutrition.' 

“It is high time that we steer away from an agriculture paradigm promoted by multinational corporations like Monsanto which fills our farms and food with toxic chemicals and risky GM crops for the profit of these companies into an ecological farming paradigm which has a triple bottomline of social, ecological and economic sustainability,” she added. FnB news

EU must open up on GM food

Genetically modified (GM) technology is shaping our lives, but European farmers are being told that they are not allowed to have any part of it.

It's being used routinely in our medicine, industry and our food.

There are now 170m hectares of GM crops being grown worldwide, almost all of which is produced outside the EU.

Despite the fact that billions of people and animals have been consuming GM plant varieties without any ill effects for nearly 20 years, the EU remains a no-go zone.

The ultimate irony is that millions of tonnes of GM feeds, principally soya and maize, are imported into the EU every year to help feed the animals that we, in turn, consume.

Our policy makers are gradually realising the lunacy of the current situation.

A relatively low-key conference in Dublin last week revealed a significant sea-change in opinion within the ranks of senior academics and officials from around the world.

Run by the Environmental Protection Agency delegates at the conference, also heard from local experts such as Teagasc's Ewan Mullins.

He estimates that our 9,000ha of potatoes is sprayed annually with up to 360 tonnes of fungicides.

If anything, the amount of chemical potato growers are using is increasing as they battle with ever evolving strains of blight.

All the while, the GM technology to allow blight resistant potatoes to be grown is ready to be rolled out.

It is just one example of the blinkered approach that we in Europe have against GM.

The EU's Food Safety Authority, EFSA, cleared GM as "safe for conventional production" years ago. But regulators have stuck to the precautionary 'better safe than sorry' approach ever since.

That's fine but how many years must pass before we can accept that GM technology is safe?

The GM potato trial in Oakpark might help de-mystify the technology, but Ireland is no great leader on this subject.

Our stance in many decisions on GM at EU level has been to simply abstain from voting.

While European politicians sit on the fence, the rest of the world moves on.

Billions are being spent on R&D by the global agri sector to increase production to meet a 70pc hike in food demand by 2050. But more and more of the R&D is being diverted away from the traditional tools of agro-chemicals in favour of the biosciences that foster developments in GM.Independent

'Make safe food and water fundamental right'

On the eve of World Food Day, a group working for safe food promotion has written an open letter to Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar seeking his support to make safe food and drinking water a fundamental right of every citizen of India.

World Food Day is celebrated every year Oct 16 and this year the theme is sustainable food systems for security and nutrition.

"The 2011 global hunger index report ranked India 15th among leading countries with hunger situation. About 25 percent of the world's hungry population resides in India and 42 percent children in our country are undernourished while 18 percent do not have access to safe drinking water," said Rachna Arora of Public Awareness on Genetically Modified Foods.

"Although the World Food Summit and the Millennium Development Goals observe the importance of food, they have failed to recognise access to safe food as a legal right. The Indian government could set a precedence for other developing countries to follow," added Arora.

The group Oct 12 organised a protest march against Monsanto India Limited, its associates and subsidiaries asking these to wind up their business and operations in India for unethical promotion of dangerous foods.

"Consumer interests are not being protected. Genetically modified (GM) organisms are being sold openly without our knowledge. None of the imported processed food products containing GM corn are labelled. What makes it worse is these products like Kelloggs Corn Flakes are made very attractive to children through unethical advertisements," said Shalini Venugopal, an organiser of the march. BS

GM golden rice opponents branded 'wicked' by UK environment secretary

Owen Paterson accused of swallowing industry hype on GM crops over claim that vitamin-enriched rice could prevent blindness and death among children in poor countries

GM golden rice has been modified to contain beta carotene, a source of vitamin A. Above: Cambodian farmers grow rice in Kampong Speu. Photograph: AFP/Getty

People who oppose golden rice, a new variety of GM crop, are "wicked" and could be condemning children in developing countries to blindness and death, according to the British environment secretary.

In an emotive intervention into the polarised debate about genetically modified crops in poor countries, Owen Paterson, a known advocate of GM foods, came out strongly in favour of golden rice, which has been developed to contain beta carotene, a source of vitamin A.

Supporters of the rice, including GM company Syngenta, claim a single plateful can provide 60% of a child's daily vitamin A requirement, potentially reducing blindness and other illnesses that afflict millions of children in developing countries. According to the World Health Organisation, dietary vitamin A deficiency compromises the immune systems of about 40% of children under the age of five in the developing world.

Paterson has expressed dismay that opponents of golden rice have, as he sees it, delayed its introduction for many years.

"I feel really strongly about it," Paterson told the Independent. "I think what they [opponents] do is absolutely wicked. There is no other word for it. It's just disgusting that little children are allowed to go blind and die because of a hang-up by a small number of people about this technology."

His statement, described as personal by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, coincided with the launch of what appeared to be a co-ordinated campaign by some scientists and a handful of GM advocates in the US and UK to back golden rice.

In the past two weeks, Scientific American has accused Greenpeace and other anti-GM organisations of using "misinformation and hysteria" to delay its introduction, while a group of experts writing in Science – including Martin Rees, former president of the Royal Society – have argued strongly that it should be commercialised.

Paterson's outburst also coincided with the launch of a pro-golden rice group by the US environmentalist Patrick Moore, who accused Greenpeace of a "crime against humanity" for having tried to delay its introduction.

"Their crime is 8 million children dead," said Moore. "Golden rice is the cure for a crisis that kills more people each year than malaria, HIV/Aids or tuberculosis. The zero-tolerance policy towards GM by Greenpeace and its allies has blocked this cure, resulting in 8 million deaths, mostly among poor children. We believe this is a crime against humanity as defined by the international criminal court."

Greenpeace and development groups have fought back, however, accusing Paterson of following the GM industry line.

Dr Doug Parr, chief scientist at Greenpeace said: "Owen Paterson believes problems caused by vitamin A deficiency have one and only one solution: GM 'golden' rice. And if you don't agree with him, you are 'wicked'. There are more than half a dozen vitamin A strategies in use today. Golden rice is not one of them because it doesn't yet exist. I think he's falling into a trap over GM and I don't think he understands the issue. He's swallowed the industry spin hook, line and sinker without talking to anyone with a different view. It's the politics, not the technology, that has failed to deliver access to a healthy diet for everyone."

The World Development Movement in London said Paterson was not interested in the plight of malnourished people. "There's more than enough food to feed the world's population – the problem is access," said the group's policy officer, Christine Haigh. "Malnutrition in the global south is almost exclusively a result of people's inability to access enough food, or a sufficiently varied diet. The way to solve it is to improve incomes – not to hand power to the multinationals that already control our food system, further squeezing producers and forcing them into an industrial monoculture production that posits golden rice as a solution rather than a problem."

Scientists have pointed out that the rice is not a commercial venture and is not owned by western multinationals such as Monsanto or Bayer. "There is much public support for golden rice in Asia but, unfortunately, some western NGOs have recently influenced local activists to destroy some of the field trials in the Philippines, which is very regrettable," said Denis Murphy, a biotechnology adviser to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation in Rome.

However, Chito Medina, environmental scientist and national co-ordinator of Masipag, a network of Filipino farmers, scientists and development workers, countered: "Vitamin A deficiency and malnutrition are complex issues that are inextricably linked to poverty and access to resources. Golden rice is a simplistic, techno-fix solution to the problem."

Others backed the introduction of vitamins into crops and foods, but said it was not necessary to do it using GM. "Golden rice is a Trojan horse for the GM industry," said Jonathan Matthews, director of GM Watch. "It's not even available yet. We do not know if it's effective. This is a feelgood product that appears to give the moral high ground to the industry. In fact, it may be diverting resources and distracting attention from farming methods that are proving themselves to be effective at both reducing poverty and improving health."

Many countries have reduced vitamin A deficiency using traditional methods. A programme by the Philippine government's Food and Nutrition Research Institute, reduced its prevalence among children from 40.1% in 2003 to 15.2% in 2008, according to the latest available figures(pdf).

Golden rice was developed in Switzerland by Igor Potrykus, a biologist at the Institute for Plant Sciences, and Peter Beyer, of the University of Freiburg, Germany. But their idea of a humanitarian GM crop whose seeds would be made freely available to poor farmers ran into problems when it was tested on Chinese children without the necessary approvals.

Since then, golden rice has gone through a multitude of regulatory processes and field trials in the Philippines. It awaits approval from the country's regulators. The Guardian

GM 'golden rice' opponents wicked, says minister Owen Paterson

Opponents of the development of a type of genetically modified (GM) rice enriched with vitamin A are "wicked", the environment secretary has said.

Owen Paterson is known as a strong supporter of GM food technology

In an interview with the Independent, Owen Paterson said they could be condemning millions of people in the developing world to a premature death.

Mr Paterson backed a letter from international scientists calling for the rapid development of "golden rice".

But campaigners say the benefits claimed for the rice are misleading.

'Dark shadow'

Mr Paterson told the newspaper: "It's just disgusting that little children are allowed to go blind and die because of a hang-up by a small number of people about this technology.

"I feel really strongly about it. I think what they do is absolutely wicked. There is no other word for it."

Mr Paterson did not specify any particular groups in his interview but also said opponents of GM technology were "casting a dark shadow over attempts to feed the world".

BBC political correspondent Carole Walker said Mr Paterson was known as a strong supporter of GM crops but his language seemed certain to raise hackles with those who took a different view.

A Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs spokeswoman said it was Mr Paterson's strong personal view.

'Cause for outrage'

People in the developed usually world get enough vitamin A from their diet by eating foods like cheese, yoghurts and eggs.

But deficiency is a common problem in developing countries, and is estimated to affect between 140 million and 250 million children under the age of five.

Vitamin A is needed for healthy skin and eyes and to help strengthen the immune system so that the body can fight infections. Deficiency can lead to blindness, illness and death.

Supplements are available and the World Health Organisation advocates routine administration of vitamin A in countries where deficiency is a problem.

High doses of vitamin A can be harmful, however, particularly in pregnancy

Meanwhile, in a letter to US journal Science, a group of leading academics has accused Western non-governmental organisations of fuelling opposition to the development of GM technologies.

They wrote: "If ever there was a clear-cut cause for outrage, it is the concerted campaign by Greenpeace and other non-governmental organisations, as well as by individuals, against golden rice."

Environmental campaigners such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth have said there are more effective solutions to vitamin A deficiency.

Mr Paterson also used the interview to defend the government's handling of the badger cull - aimed at preventing the spread of bovine TB - against criticism from animal welfare groups.

He said: "I cannot understand anyone wanting to tolerate this disgusting disease.

"I find it incomprehensible that these badger groups don't see that this is a horrendous disease for the badgers themselves."

BBC News