Ghana: GE Foods & Excessive Chemical Usage In Food Production

Ghana

GE Foods & Excessive Chemical Usage In Food Production

THE WAY FORWARD TO GHANA’S FOOD SAFETY AND SECURITY????

The media in Ghana is becoming a more powerful tool in championing a lot of important issues in Ghana today. They need a lot of commendations from all Ghanaians. However, the gradual shift to exposing what I will call perceived corruption in government need to be looked at again. Well, probably that is where they can easily be noticed to acclaim their fame and celebrity titles. Notwithstanding that, I will once again say kudos to those relentless journalists like Azure Manasseh, Anas Arim-Yaw Anas and many others who are helping in the fight against corruption through their reportage, with particular reference to the most recent uncovering of the root at GYEEDA.

Just as scandals such as the Woyome saga, Isofoton, GYEEDA, the infamous Vicky leaks among others invited a lot of inks and air time; there are other equally important issues on health and other fields that must also be given the necessary attention through the ink and air waves.

The subject of Genetically Engineered foods came into the lime light for discussion in the last half of last year. It would interest you to know that even though it had the media attention, the radio frequency and ink allocation to the subject was just negligible as compared to politics and perceived corruption. Yes, I agree that corruption has eaten deep into our fabrics, which I believe is one of the root causes of abject poverty among the less privileged in our society. The collective war against corruption would, in effect go a long way to better the life of that poor farmer, fisherman, fishmonger and the overtaxed formal sector worker. Food crops produced at the remote part of our country may not be left to perish if this farmer had access to motorable road with the aid of monies retrieved from the activities of corruption. I am reliably informed that the judgement debt dashed out to Woyome ALONE could construct a first class road for the people within the stretch of Atebubu via Kwame Danso to Kwadjokrom, Sene East District, in the Brong-Ahafo Region, where it shares significant economic boundary with Northern Volta, Kete-Krachi.

Now, employing the power of the ink and radio frequency to wage the war against harmful health and food policies such as the Genetically Engineered foods would not be a war to arriving at a victory for the less privileged alone; you and I and everyone else who consumes food crops produce in Ghana or elsewhere. That does not exclude the lawmaker who may sit in parliament to pass the bill for Genetically Modified food crop production or consumption in Ghana.

The high dependence on chemicals for farming in Ghana today has not been dealt with properly. In an attempt to add insults to injury would be the legalization of Genetically Modified foods in Ghana in addition to the indiscriminate chemical food production we are already battling with. The long term health implications will just be enormous to curtail.

Apart from the “galamsey”, most water sources have also been contaminated through the activities of these chemicals used in farming. Literature has it that the long term consumption of foods sprayed with chemicals being used on our farms today exposes human health to a lot of cancers. Over reliance on these chemicals for the production of food crops makes our present and future human generation or spicy endangered.

We seem to be having countless retailers in every corner of our farming communities who engage in the sale of these chemicals. This calls for intersectoral collaboration among the Food and Drugs Authority, Ministry of Health and the Agricultural Ministry to ensure that the sale and proliferation of these agro chemicals are regulated; just as how drugs sold over the counter for human consumption are being regulated. Meanwhile, if there are regulations to check the over sale and its application, then it must be strengthened.

I have noticed that when I was young, the tomatoes and garden eggs I harvest from the family’s backyard garden, free from any chemical intervention, have sharp contrast in colour to the present day tomatoes and garden eggs produced under severe chemical intervention. I have also noticed easy separation of the water content of these vegetables named above after they have been grinded in my earthenware bowl, and left for few minutes- that is the ones bought from our open markets today. On the other hand, that could not be described of the ones used to be produced from the family’s backyard garden and the school farm, years ago. What do you observe/experience when you consume our raw fruits and vegetables these days?? I do not know what you experience, but of late, I do experience diarrhoea and itchy tongue after consuming carrots, cabbage and sometimes oranges. Indiscriminate use of chemicals in their production, I guess.

I am very certain that we have very fine food safety policies to protect the innocent consumer, but I could also say these policies, if they exist, they have been thrown to the dogs. Employees (experts) may be on gargantuan salaries and attending series of workshops on food chain management, but are doing practically nothing to ensure food safety in this country. Who must be the right watchdog to keep such people on their toes to carry out their job description??? The same watchdog that exposes corruption and the reckless politician- the vibrant Ghanaian journalist, I think.

When the subject of Genetically Engineered foods came up for discussion in this country, one would have expected our journalists spearheading the crusade against it; with support from experts on the subject. The few media houses who discussed the subject were rather flooded with political communicators who skewed the discussion to the advantage of which ever political party they owe/pay allegiance to.

The long term health implications of Genetically Modified (Engineered) food consumption is my main concern in this write-up, but the economic toll it will have on this country cannot also be relegated to the ground.

Genetically modified foods are un-natural way of producing food. In other words; altering the seeds nature has given to us.

If Genetically Modified food could cause lesions in rats, then you and I could imagine what it will do to us (humans). The safety of Genetically Modified food production is not verified to the maximum yet, and I do not think authorities in this country would want to use Ghana as the lab rats to test the safety of Genetically Modified foods. There is also enough scientific literature supporting the attributable risk between cancer and Genetically Modified foods. We are already battling with excessive use of chemicals in food production; which also has strong association with cancer. Endorsing the production of Genetically Modified foods would only mean we are signing our death warrant within the shortest possible time.

Besides, Genetically Modified foods also have strong adverse effects on the immune system. Our immune system, I would say, is the soldier of our body. It has naturally been conditioned to fight off enemies (pathogens) that enter our body to cause infections leading to diseases. It is just as how our security men; the navy and soldiers watch over our territorial to prevent the enemy from invading; same could be said of our immune system. Our immune system defends us against pathogens and other things that make us sick. White blood cells and other chemical weapons of the immune system rush to find and destroy the pathogen (germ). Special white blood cells and chemicals called antibodies stand guard. Under normal circumstances these antibodies grab or hold onto a pathogen that shows up and fights it off; hence prevents us from getting sick most often. The point I am driving at is that, in the event of consuming Genetically Modified foods, which has the greater tendency of altering our immune system, the immune system (soldier of the body) would be rendered a toothless dog in fighting pathogens that may attack our body. A study conducted in 2008 showed that feeding mice with Genetically Modified food for 30 days caused an immune reaction and altered the number of cells that regulated the immune function in the body.

Genetically Engineered foods are also pesticide resistant foods. Pesticide resistant foods can also create super-creatures. If you know why quinine, at a point in time became less effective in fighting plasmodium parasite in humans, you would appreciate the possible easy emergence of these super-creatures through Genetically Engineered foods. These super-creatures cannot be controlled easily. This will create a problem in managing their numbers and that is another threat to crop production. Who knows, Ghanaians may becoming super –humans too.

The negative economic connotation for endorsing the production of Genetically Engineered foods in this country would be that: there will be a threat to food security and long term high dependence on the “well to do” countries. If we accept to go the Genetically Engineered way of food production, in the next 10-20 years, our natural food crops will be extinct; paving way for the Genetically Engineered food crops. Do we (Ghanaians) have the capacity to engineer food crops for production to feed ourselves as a developing nation?? No, is my answer. Do we then live ourselves at the mercy of hunger?? No; we must go importing with millions of Ghana cedis from the already rich nations or those who have the capacity for the production, such as China, India, Brazil and the likes. That should be another form of mental slavery, but this time, agricultural or economic slavery.

Fellow Ghanaians, policymakers, vibrant journalists and stakeholders let us wake up and say no to Genetically Modified foods. In my opinion, it is not the remedy to food starvation in any developing nation, rather, it would worsen our woes of extreme hunger and poverty; rendering us poorer and in the long run, make the “well to do” nations richer. If it were a good initiative, the World Health Organization would have recommended it as one of its strategies in achieving goal one (1) of the Millennium Development Goals; Reducing Extreme Hunger and Poverty. We will be losing greater portion of our human resource asset to diseases attributable to Genetically Modified foods. Any government who values its human resource base for development will not append its signatory to this defacto economic treaty. The adage: “a healthy nation is a wealthy nation” says it all.

Author: Gbolu Mawuli Samson

National Service, Asunafo South District Health Directorate (Public Health).

Email: samquaaqu@yahoo.com

Is Monsanto Giving Up on GMOs?

Is genetically modified seed giant Monsanto doing the unthinkable and moving away from genetically modified seeds?

It sounds crazy, but hear me out. Let’s start with Monsanto's vegetable division, Seminis, which boasts it is the "largest developer and grower of vegetable seeds in the world." Monsanto acknowledges Seminis has no new GM vegetables in development. According to a recent Wired piece, Seminis has has reverted instead to "good old-fashioned crossbreeding, the same technology that farmers have been using to optimize crops for millennia."

Why? The article points to people's growing avoidance of genetically modified foods. So far, consumers have shown no appetite to gobble up GM vegetables. (But that doesn't mean people aren't eating GMOs: Nearly all GMOs currently on the market are big commodity crops like corn and soy, which, besides being used as livestock feed, are regularly used as ingredients in processed food—think high-fructose corn syrup and soy oil.)

But the Wired piece also suggests a factor that doesn't get nearly enough attention: GM technology doesn't seem to be very good at generating complex traits like better flavor or more nutrients, the very attributes Monsanto was hoping to engineer into veggies. Here'sWired:

Furthermore, genetically modifying consumer crops proved to be inefficient and expensive. [Monsanto exec David] Stark estimates that adding a new gene takes roughly 10 years and $100 million to go from a product concept to regulatory approval. And inserting genes one at a time doesn't necessarily produce the kinds of traits that rely on the inter­actions of several genes. Well before their veggie business went kaput, Monsanto knew it couldn't just genetically modify its way to better produce; it had to breed great vegetables to begin with. As Stark phrases a company mantra: "The best gene in the world doesn't fix dogshit germplasm." [Emphasis added.]

Okay, that's vegetables. What about Monsanto's core business, selling seeds for big industrial commodity crops like corn, soybeans, cotton, and alfalfa? Monsanto has come to dominate these markets with its Roundup Ready products, which are designed to withstand Monsanto's flagship herbicide, and, for corn and cotton, its "Bt" products, which are engineered to produce a toxin found in Bacillus thuringiensis, an insect-killing bacteria. Does the company have lots of novel GM products in mind for this vast, lucrative sector?

Monsanto's latest Annual R&D Pipeline Review, a document released earlier this month that showcases the company's research into new product lines, foretells all kinds of impressive-sounding stuff. But a surprising amount of the company's new research, even for its most lucrative crops like corn and soy, promise either new iterations of herbicide tolerance and Bt, or rely on classical breeding—not biotechnology.

The one major exception is a corn seed relying on a new kind of GMO: RNA interference (RNAi) technology, a recently discovered way to turn off certain genes, which Monsanto plans to engineer into crops to kill certain insects. According to Monsanto's pipeline review, RNAi corn remains in the early "proof of concept" phase. In a recent piece, the New York Times' Andrew Pollack reports that the technology is showing promise—Monsanto hopes to have it on the market "late this decade." But it's also generating controversy even in normally Monsanto-friendly regulatory circles because researchers have suggested it may kill beneficial insects like ladybugs along with targeted pests. Pollack points to this 2013 paper by Environmental Protection Agency scientists, which warned that the unfamiliar technology presented "unique challenges for ecological risk assessment that have not yet been encountered in assessments for traditional chemical pesticides."

So RNAi corn may be coming—and could bring public relations and regulatory complications for Monsanto, not to mention unpredictable ecological consequences for the rest of us. But how much other GMO-based stuff does Monsanto have up its sleeve? According to the US Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the agency that oversees the rollout of new GM crops, not much. Of the 13 new GMOs APHIS is tracking, only 2 are from Monsanto: an alfalfa engineered to be more easily digestible as animal feed, and a soybean designed to withstand a harsh old herbicide called dicamba (a variation on the familiar Roundup Ready herbicide-tolerance theme).

Just two crops in the final stages of USDA deregulation, from the ballyhooed GMO seed giant? That makes me think of Monsanto's recent $1 billion purchase of Climate Corp., a company that proposes to use GPS-backed data analysis tools to help farmers make planting decisions, for a fee. The move reminds me of IBM's mid-2000s decision to transition out of the business that made it famous by ditching the personal computer and focusing on IT products and consulting.

I've called Monsanto's press office to ask about their plans, and I'll return to this topic if they get back to me. And in the meanwhile, to be sure, Monsanto still makes loads of money selling GMO seeds—along with their matching proprietary herbicide, and likely will for a long time. But the facts have me wondering if the company's quiet exit from genetically engineered vegetables and placement of a billion-dollar wager on data services signal that the GMO giant just might be hedging its bets on GM technology. MotherJones

MEPs support European Commission on GM honey

MEPs support European Commission on GM honey

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

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

GM food crops are poisonous: MLA

India

GM food crops are poisonous: MLA

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

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

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

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

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

PURCHASE OF AGRI LAND

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

FSG criticises Plant Breeders’ Bill

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

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

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

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

Clause 23: Measures regulating commerce.

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

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

Clause 20 (6):

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

(a) natural mutant or induced mutant,

(b) somaclonal variant, or

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A decision could be made within 90 days.

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

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

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

Ag leaders work to smooth over GMO corn issue with China

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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