EU GMO: Healthy attitude

Healthy attitude

The European Union has some of the most stringent regulations in the world for genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

While there was some hope that a free-trade agreement — also known as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) — under negotiation between the EU and the US will eventually allow a chosen few American GMOs into the EU, the NSA spying scandal has put a strain on the talks.

As of today, only two GM crops have been approved for cultivation in Europe. The more widely grown of the two, MON810, is a type of maize that helps fight off pests. The other permitted product is a potato for industrial use called Amflora. Its waxy starch content is used for making paper.

However, most EU member states have legally banned cultivation of one or both of these crops approved at the EU level.

GMO BANS

Ever since GMO crops started expanding in the 80s and 90s, German farmers remained opposed to genetically engineered fruit and vegetables for fear of health risks and environmental contamination. . Presently, safeguard clauses on GMO food are applied in Italy, Poland, Austria, France, Greece, Hungary, Germany and Luxembourg.

Hostility has been so strong that last year, BASF, the German chemical giant, moved its biotech division away from Germany to the US. Europe has refused to yield to America’s Monsanto, which, too, is packing up to leave.

A spokesperson of the American GM seed producer described it “political obstructionism” and said the company has now reconciled to the fact that it would focus on conventional seed peddling in the continent. The truth of the matter is Europeans do not want genetically modified crops. While GMO cultivation approvals are agreed jointly at the EU level, individual governments can introduce safeguards if they believe that cultivation could present a health or environmental risk.

SAFETY STANDARDS

While most nations in the world, including India, have no GMO-free platform to protect their citizens, Europe is rapidly becoming the leading opposition to GM foods. Often referred to unsympathetically as “Frankenstein foods,” genetically modified crops have time and again been the theme of public disquiet and the target of environmental groups in Europe.

What is at stake ranges from plain, simple choices of shoppers to basic constitutional rights.

The essential foundations of the EU’s policies are tight safety standards and freedom of choice for consumers and farmers.

SERIOUS HEALTH RISKS

European scientists repeatedly warn that GM foods can create unpredictable, hard-to-detect side effects including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, faulty insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system.

Research also shows that Europe is reducing pesticide use and increasing yields — without GM crops. It is supportive of small-scale farming systems that protect biodiversity, increase soil fertility, provide excellent food and deal with climate change.

Mohan Murti

(The author is former Europe Director, CII, and lives in Cologne, Germany.)

HBL

Bangladesh Government to introduce genetically modified cotton

Government to introduce genetically modified cotton 



The government has made a move to introduce genetically modified (GM) cotton varieties at farmers’ level in the country, following the release of four brinjal varieties for demonstration last month. However, the GM variety named Bt cotton would not be prepared in the country. The seeds will be directly imported from Indian seed producer Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company (Mahyco) or other companies from China. “We have already talked to Mahyco and they agreed to provide us an ample supply as per our requirements,” said Md Abdul Latif, executive director of Cotton Development Board (CDB), adding that China was yet to show interest on the CDB’s proposal. The CDB has already decided to import the Bt variety and has sent an application to the agriculture ministry so that they could forward the application to the environment ministry, who will give the final approval to demonstrate any GM crop variety on farmers level, Latif added. He also said authorities were hoping to run a “confined trial” of Bt variety from next season during June-July of 2014. Muhammad Solaiman Haider, member secretary of the National Committee on Bio-safety under the environment ministry, told the Dhaka Tribune, they would look into the matter after getting the application from the agriculture ministry. Genetically modified crops like cotton, golden rice, Bt brinjals and potatoes are “transgenic” crops, and need special approval from bio-safety authorities for field trials. Bt cotton is a variety developed through genetic engineering by inserting crystal protein genes taken from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, popularly known as Bt which is copyrighted by American seed giants Monsanto. The CDB demands that the Bt variety will increase the yield of cotton, as it is highly capable of preventing “American Bollworm,” one of the biggest threats to cotton. However, seeking anonymity, an official told the Dhaka Tribune that introducing Bt cotton in Bangladesh would not bring any good result as the American Bollworm’s tendency to attack cotton had been reduced remarkably in recent years. According to Bangladesh Textile Mills Association (BTMA), the country requires 3.5m to 4m bales of raw cotton to run approximately 363 textile mills for meeting the spinning demands of the country’s garment sector. Against the demand, the country only produces around 150,000 bales by using around 40,000 hectares of arable land, said sources at the CDB. Only around 2% to 3% of the national requirement was fulfilled through local production, while the rest was fulfilled by importing raw cotton from Uzbekistan, India, USA, Australia, Pakistan and different African countries. Earlier on October 30, the government released four GM brinjal varieties at farmers’ level to demonstrate on a limited scale, amid concerns by environment activists that the health impact of Bt brinjal was yet to be scrutinised. The government had also recently approved the decision of holding “confined trials” for two other GM crop varieties – golden rice and potato – which are being developed by Bangladesh Rice Research Institute (BRRI) and Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute (BARI) respectively. dhakatribune

China rejects another shipment of GMO ‘contaminated’ crops

China rejects another shipment of GMO ‘contaminated’ crops

The Center for Food Safety (CFS) released a report on November 19, 2013 by Reuters that China has rejected a load of corn because it is contaminated with an unapproved GMO corn strain. The GMO product is labeled as Syngenta AG's AgrisureViptera corn, which is also known as MIR 162.

This follows a rejection by China of a load of alfalfa that was also GMO contaminated in Sept. 2013. Farmers in the state of Washington requested that the USDA require compensation for the Monsanto Roundup Ready cross-contamination that resulted in the rejection by China. The USDA ruled that this was a marketing issue, and not something to be addressed by the USDA.

In 2002, Zimbabwe rejected 10,000 tons of US seed corn because it was whole kernel GMO seeds that could have germinated and contaminated the indigenous corn crops across Zimbabwe. After the devastating earthquakes in Haiti, farmers there burned relief supplies of corn provided by Monsanto because the corn was a GMO strain. In both cases, starving people rejected GMO seeds.

In Sept. 2013, the Russian minister of agriculture ordered several branches of Russian government to write position papers that will consider banning the import of all GMO foods. Particular strains of Monsanto GMO corn have previously been banned for importation.

While the influence of Monsanto is extremely effective in Congress and the Supreme Court, there are many wealthy farmers in the West and Midwest that are seeing their export business dwindle because of GMO crop contamination. In this case, the reduced revenue for exports by US farmers may talk louder than the lobbyists for Monsanto, Dow, BASF and DuPont.

A Voice of American report written by Ana Hontz-Ward on Oct. 24, 2013 has the headline In Europe, Debate Intensifies Over GMO Food Imports from US.

Thomas Schmidt, a food and agriculture expert at the German Embassy in Washington, DC, had this to say about the impact of GMO food imports as part of an overall free-trade agreement between the European Union and the US that is currently being negotiated.

“For the Europe side, this is a pretty sensitive issue because there are so many people in our countries who have an adverse opinion about genetically engineered crops and that of course is a political factor in this debate, no doubt about it.”

Opposition to GMO foods has been so strident in Germany that BASF moved its GMO research operation from Germany to the US. A study conducted in Germany found 75% of Germans opposed to GMO foods. There is a willingness to pay a premium for non-GMO foods in Germany and throughout the European Union.

The inaction of the USDA in the Washington GMO contamination of alfalfa indicates the cooperation that the USDA has consistently provided to the major agricultural, pesticide and insecticide companies.

The lack of response to the continued pressure from China, Russia and the EU to reject US crops that are GMO contaminated is a head in the sand approach by the USDA. The refusal to hold agribusiness companies accountable for contaminating crops with GMO seeds reflects the influence of these companies in Congress, the Executive branch, and the Supreme Court.

Contact Senator Sherrod Brown, Senator Rob Portman, Congressman Pat Tiberi and Congressman Steve Stivers and let them know that you want them to write legislation to hold companies like Monsanto, Dow, DuPont and BASF liable when their GMO crops contaminate adjacent non-GMO crops. Ask them to write legislation to carry out long-term studies on the effects of GMO crops on animals and humans, and on the impact of pesticides and insecticides on water, land and the air we breathe. Examiner

Scientists write to PM on genetically modified organisms

IANS A letter endorsed by 250 scientists from across the country addressed to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was released Thursday, in which they have urged that steps be taken to stop open air release of Genetically Modified Organisms. The letter comes as the Supreme Court is scheduled to have a hearing Nov 26, to take a view on the recommendations of a court-appointed Technical Expert Committee (TEC) set up in a Public Interest Litigation related to the environmental release of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in India. The report released by the TEC, which comprises scientists from various science disciplines, have recommended that any open release of GM crops, including field trials, should be stopped until regulatory reform and the gaps in the regulatory system are addressed. The letter written to the prime minister has been initiated by five scientists, and endorsed by more than 250 scientists, 11 former and present vice chancellors of different universities, and three Padma awardee scientists. "There is an undue haste in getting GMOs released into the environment. While there is a growing body of scientific evidence on the adverse impacts of GM crops to human health and biodiversity, there is hardly any effort from the Indian government or public sector research institutions to take up rigorous, independent safety assessment," said Tushar Chakraborty, head of the Gene Control Laboratory, Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and one of the initiators of the letter. Along with the release of the letter, the second edition of the compilation of scientific references and abstracts of more than 400 peer-reviewed papers on various adverse impacts of GM crops/foods was also released by Kavitha Kuruganti of Coalition for a GM-Free India. "There is no dearth of scientific evidence on the adverse impacts of GMOs in our food, farming and environment. What is needed are the eyes to see it, the wisdom to understand it. GM crops are one of the biggest scientific frauds that biotechnology seed industry, ably supported by some of our unscrupulous policy makers and public sector scientists, are pulling off on our country," said Kavitha Kuruganti. There has also been a research study from the Indian Institute of Toxicology, Lucknow, which confirmed the carcinogenic potential of roundup herbicide on human cells, even if present in low concentration. The study has been released at a time when there are efforts from the biotech industry to release herbicide tolerant (HT) GM crops that could substantially increase the usage of herbicides.

Ukraine considers approving GM crops

Ukraine considers approving GM crops

A new government proposal in Ukraine would permit the production and sale of genetically modified soybeans and corn in the country if it becomes law. The proposal marks a shift in Ukraine’s stance toward GM crops, which has been negative until now.

Ukraine’s Ministry of Agrarian Policy and Food has submitted the proposal to the Cabinet for consideration, it was recently reported. Six Ukrainian agricultural associations supported the proposal, along with several Ukrainian agricultural experts. The proposal is anticipated to become law before the end of the year.

The country has had its “On Biosafety” law, which has prohibited the use of GM products or GM seed. However, the possible economic benefits are swaying those in government and research that the adoption of GM crops would be financially beneficial for the country and its farmers.

“We could mull over this issue for a long time, but we, jointly with the associations, have signed two letters to change the law on biosecurity, in which we propose the legalization of the use of GM seeds, which had been tested in the United Stated for a long time, for our producers,” said President of the Ukrainian Grain Association (UGA) Volodymyr Klymenko at a press conference at Interfax-Ukraine.

The Ukrainian market is expected to attract leading global agricultural companies to the region as other European countries have restricted the growth of the GM crop industry in Europe. It is speculated that the Ukraine could become a key producer of GM products in Europe over the next five to seven years, which could spur growth in corn production and thereby increase exports. AGprofessional

US: Future for genetically modified apples in a McDonald's Happy Meal?

US: Future for genetically modified apples in a McDonald's Happy Meal?

Neal Carter, the founder and president of Okanagan Specialty Fruits, wants to create nearly perfect apples that won't brown for weeks, even when bruised or sliced open. The U.S. government could approve his "Arctic Apple" for consumption as soon as early 2014.

Carter told me in a 2012 interview that he envisions his genetically modified apples as a transformative force in the food industry, which knows that browning apples are a turn-off for consumers. "Other than McDonald’s buying apples to make their dippers, apples are hardly at all going to food service. We want to increase that," he said at the time. But will the food service industry--and packaged food providers in general--actually go for a genetically modified apple?

In early November, the anti-GMO environmental group Friends of the Earth claimed that both McDonald's and Gerber aren't interested in the Arctic Apple. Their contention was based on emails from the companies. In one, a McDonald's representative writes that the company has no "current plans to source the Arctic Apple variety." In the other, Gerber explains its GMO-free ingredient policy and writes that it doesn't plan to source Arctic Apples in the future.

The Gerber stance is straightforward: The company doesn't use GMO ingredients in its fruit and vegetable purées, period. But McDonald's has no such policy for its products, and there's no reason to think it wouldn't consider the Arctic Apple in the future if consumer sentiment pointed to its acceptance. In an email, Carter explained his consumer research that indicates people will, in fact, accept the apple: "After learning how we created Arctic apples, consumers are likely or extremely likely to purchase Arctic apples by a margin of three to one." 

While there is still widespread scepticism about the health and environmental safety of genetically modified foods, two recent bills proposing to label GMO ingredients in packaged foods--one in California, one in Washington--failed. In both cases, however, the pro-GMO lobby spent considerably more cash on their campaigns. And Whole Foods recently announced a plan to require GMO ingredient labelling on all foods sold in its stores by 2018. Chipotle also just became the first chain restaurant to implement GMO labelling in its shops.

Source: fastcoexist.com

Seeds of death

Vandana Shiva exposes the link between the use of genetically modified cotton seeds and the tragic suicide of 284,694 farmers in India over 17 years.

The debate over genetically modified organisms (GMO) has greatly intensified in recent months. On one side of the debate is scientific evidence that GMOs are not delivering on their promise, and on the other side is ideological propaganda by the genetically modified seed industry and scientists whose careers are locked into the GMO trajectory.

The Technical Expert Committee (TEC) appo­inted by the Supreme Court of India and made up of India's most eminent and independent scientists, has strongly recommended a ban on open field trials of genetically engineered crops until a robust, impartial regulatory mechanism has been put in place.

After two decades of commercial applications, data clearly shows that GMOs neither increase yields nor decrease the use of agrichemicals, but have instead created super-pests and super-weeds.

It is because of these failures - and the fact that GMOs are linked to patents, which translates into royalty extraction and high prices - that GMOs serve only to worsen the economic status of farmers.

India has now recorded more than 284,694 far­mer suicides in that span of 17 years, between 1995 and 2012. The region most badly affected is Maharashtra - the region which has the biggest land area utilised for the cultivation of genetically modified Bt cotton.

According to P. Sainath, a journalist who has covered farmers' suicides systematically, "The total number of farmers who have taken their own lives in Maharashtra since 1995 is closing in on 54,000. Of these, 33,752 have occurred in nine years since 2003, at an annual average of 3,750. The figure for 1995-2002 was 20,066 at an average of 2,508 a year. We also know from these records that suicides incre­ased after Bt cotton was introduced on a large scale.

Farmers chose Bt cotton not because it was the best alternative but because all other alternatives were destroyed. The seed varieties were replaced. The Central Ins­titute for Cotton Res­earch has not released any public varieties since Monsanto first entered the market, and today, most Indian seed companies are locked into licensing arrangements with Monsanto.

Nor is it true that yields have incre­ased, as was predicted. Yields of cotton in the pre-GMO period reached 1,200 kg in good years. After the introduction of Bt cotton yield has stagnated at less than half this figure (500 kg).

As the University of Ca­n­terbury research team led by Professor Jack He­i­nemann has also shown, North American crop production has fallen behind that of Western Europe, despite farmers in the United States using genetically modified seeds and more pesticide.

According to the researchers of Univer­sity of Canterbury, the key difference between the regions is the adoption of GM seeds in North America and the use of non-GM seed in Europe. The failure to control pests has also led to an increase in pesticide use.

A study published in the Review of Agrarian Studies also showed a higher expenditure on chemical pesticides for Bt cotton than for other varieties by small farmers. Non-target pest populations in Bt cotton fields have exploded; and it is expected that this will likely counteract any decrease in pesticide use.

In China, where Bt cotton is widely planted, populations of mirid bugs - pests that previously posed only a minor problem - have increased 12-fold since 1997.

A 2008 study in the International Journal of Biotechnology found that any financial benefits of planting Bt cotton had been eroded by the increasing use of pesticides needed to combat non-target pests.

In the US - and due mainly to the widespread use of Roundup Ready seeds - the use of 4 herbicide (a group of herbicides) increased 15 % from 1994 to 2005. This is an average increase of a quarter of a pound per each acre planted with GM seed according to a 2009 report published by the Organic Centre.

Moreover, the rise of gly­sophate (the herbici­de in Roundup) resistant weeds has made it necessary to combat these weeds by employing other, often more toxic, herbicides.

Farmers are being asked to use 2,4-D, an ingredient of Agent Orange; the toxic material that was sprayed by US troops in Vietnam. This trend is confirmed by 2010 USDA pesticide data, which shows skyrocketing glysophate use accompanied by a constant or increasing rate of use for other, more toxic, herbicides.

In Argentina, after the introduction of Roundup Ready soya in 1999, overall glysophate use more than tripled by 2005-2006.

A 2001 report found that Roundup Ready soya growers in Argentina used more than twice as much herbicide as conventional soya growers.

This is the scientific evidence. Yet, contrary to the evidence, India's Minister of Agriculture, Sharad Pawar, stated in the Lok Sabha last August that farmers prefer genetically modified cotton as it gives higher yields, is more disease-resistant and more profitable.

This claim is false. Bt cotton has not given higher yields. It is not disease resistant. Disea­ses that never affected cotton, like aphids and jassids, have exploded. The bollworm, which Bt cotton was supposed to control, has become resistant and Monsanto has had to introduce Bollgard II, a higher variety of insect-resistant genetically modified cotton. All this has created debt, not profits for farmers.

If seed costs jump 8,000% and pesticide use increases 1,300%, farmers' incomes do not increase. Pawar's unscientific promotion of GMOs against all evidence is echoed by scientists whose careers are locked into the development of a failed technology.

Good science looks at evidence and takes feedback from the real word. Bad science shuts its mind to evidence and be­comes propaganda. Sa­­dly, in the GMO deb­a­te, those defending GMOs have only power and propaganda on their side.

This is an edited version of an article published in the Deccan Chronicle.

Vandana Shiva is the executive director of the Navdanya Trust, India.