Tuesday, August 6, 2013

Anti-GMO Legislation Withdrawn; New Versions Forthcoming

HAWAII

Anti-GMO Legislation Withdrawn; New Versions Forthcoming


It was a full house for a County Council committee meeting today despite the fact that no further testimony was being taken on the measure under consideration. Photo by Dave Smith.

After four days of passionate public testimony and extensive internal deliberations, a Hawaii County Council bill that would have placed restrictions on genetically modified crops on the Big Island has been withdrawn.Councilwoman Margaret Wille, who had introduced Bill 79 in April, today made the motion to kill the bill during today’s meeting of the Committee on Public Safety and Mass Transit.
The measure would have placed banned new genetically modified crops on the Big Island and placed restrictions on the growing of an existing one, papayas engineered to resist the ringspot virus. 
Wille had already made substantial amendments to the bill and had indicated in recent weeks that more changes were to come.
Councilwoman Brenda Ford told her colleagues today that she also intends to introduce legislation dealing with genetically modified organisms or GMOs.
Hundreds of people have testified on Bill 79 over four days of meetings that concluded on July 3 in Kona.

While most of those testifying were in favor of the measure, there were also many who said the legislation would have a chilling effect on Big Island agriculture.
Although the testimony period was cut off after the July 3 meeting, the matter attracted an overflow crowd to the council’s Hilo chambers today in anticipation of a vote that would have sent the bill to the full council with either a favorable or negative recommendation.

The matter was previously scheduled for July 30 but was postponed until today out of concerns about the impact of a then-approaching Tropical Storm Flossie.BIGISLANDNOW

OPINION: LET THE CONSUMER MARKET DECIDE ON GMO LABELING

OPINION

Let the Consumer Market Decide on GMO Labeling


By Loren Israelsen



It’s the most contentious issue for industry since the passage of the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 or the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA). More than USD $50 million has already been spent defending it and decrying it—with much more to come.
Yet, most consumers don’t even know what it is. The fight over the mandatory labeling of foods, beverages and dietary supplements containing ingredients from genetically modified organisms (GMOs) will only escalate leading up to November, when voters in the state of Washington will determine the fate of a closely watched GMO-labeling bill, known as Initiative 522. This follows the narrow defeat of a similar bill in California last year. Agriculture is Washington state’s largest employer, and wheat, itself a GMO candidate, is the state’s number two export crop, ahead of the goods and services provided by Microsoft, which ranks third.
At issue isn’t so much whether GMO ingredients are or are not in food and supplement products, but whether consumers should have the right to know of their existence on labels. Supporters of labeling in the Washington initiative noted foods identified as produced without genetic engineering, including conventional foods, are the fastest growing label claim.
According to new research from the Natural Marketing Institute (NMI), consumers are becoming increasingly aware of the term "GMO," but still have little knowledge about GMOs, with only 6 percent reporting that they are “most knowledgeable." Currently, only 15 percent of shoppers look for GMO-content information on labels.
GMOs were in more than 88 percent of conventionally grown corn and close to 94 percent of commercially grown soy, based on 2011 data, in addition to its presence in other crops, such as canola, sugar beet and cotton. While GMO ingredients are prohibited in organic foods, no such regulations exist covering ingredients used in dietary supplements—unless they are certified organic or certified GMO-free.
At press time, an additional 25 states are considering labeling laws. in April, a national labeling bill was introduced in the U.S. Senate; earlier in July, a California judge created a six-month stay of action in the Elizabeth Cox vs. Gruma Corp. class action lawsuit over “natural" claims in Mission-brand snack chips containing GMO corn. The judge said, “deference to the FDA’s regulatory authority is the appropriate course." Observers said this isn’t likely at any time in the near future because the agency doesn’t consider GMO-based food to be different from non-GMO food, nor does the agency recognize any health or safety issues.
The United Natural Products Alliance (UNPA) and its membership are supportive of the labeling for foods, beverages and dietary supplements containing GMO ingredients and of the retailer-initiated Non-GMO Project. A UNPA symposium held in May in Salt Lake City created a forum for company executives and representatives from both sides to discuss the labeling issue and, more importantly, the sourcing of non-GMO ingredients in a post-label world—especially for dietary supplements.NP

Anti-GMO group challenges county clerk's ruling

USA


Anti-GMO group challenges county clerk's ruling


By LACEY JARRELL

EUGENE, Ore. -- An organization seeking to ban genetically modified crops is challenging Lane County officials' rejection of its initiative.

Support Local Food Rights filed the challenge on July 25 in Lane County Circuit Court in response to the county clerk's rejection of its initiative.

The initiative was rejected for failing to meet the requirement that an initiative can address only one issue or subject.

As an initial step in the circuit court review, Ann Kneeland, attorney and spokesperson for SLFR, is preparing a brief, due Aug. 9, that will explain how the initiative does comply with the single subject rule.

The county clerk will also file a brief before oral arguments are heard before Judge Karsten H. Rasmussen.

"Our position is that the ordinance in its entirety addresses the single subject," Kneeland said.

According to Kneeland, the ordinance's single subject is to "create and protect a local food system" in Lane County. Kneeland said each of the ordinance's provisions works toward meeting that goal, including stripping corporations that violate the ordinance of "legal rights, privileges, powers and protections" and forbidding corporate claims to "future lost profits" to be considered as property interests.

"Unless we take rights away from corporations that violate the ordinance, we couldn't be successful in protecting what we care about, including our local food system," Kneeland said.

In a letter sent to Kneeland and chief petitioner Lynn Bowers, County Clerk Cheryl Betschart identified four subjects that violated the single-subject rule: the creation of rights of natural communities; the creation of rights to self-government and sovereign citizenship; the elimination or curtailment of corporate rights; and limited immunity to federal patent law.

While SLFR is waiting for court proceedings to move forward, the group plans to increase community engagement by hosting events and speakers, fundraising and rallying supporters around the issue, Bowers said.

"We're to the point where we are ready to fill executive positions in terms of running a campaign," she said.

Scott Dahlman, executive director of Oregonians for Food and Shelter, said farmers, foresters and other members of OFS would be negatively impacted if the initiative passes. He pointed out that pesticides, fertilizers, and biotechnology are used by industries ranging from nurseries to golf courses.

"Many farmers use this technology right now and see this initiative as a threat," Dahlman said. Capital Press

FRANCE: GM MAIZE

FRANCE

French court overturns ban on Monsanto GMO maize


France's highest administrative court rejected on Thursday a government ban on growing Monsanto's MON810 genetically modified maize (corn).
In its ruling, the Conseil d'Etat said under European Union law such a measure could only be imposed in an emergency or if there was a serious health or environmental risk.
This marks the second time in two years that the State Council has overturned a government ban on growing MON810. France, which is the EU's largest grain producer and a vocal opponent of GMO crops, has argued the technology poses environmental risks.
The ruling was expected after a preliminary hearing earlier this month found there was no scientific justification for the ban. The government has said it remains opposed to the cultivation of Monsanto's GMO maize. REUTERS

PHILIPPINE: GE GOLDEN RICE PLANTING SOON

PHILIPPINE

Engineered Golden Rice May Be Planted Soon In Philippines

The genetically engineered rice has had a long journey to from lab to bowl


Nearly 15 years after its invention, farmers in the Philippines could start growing golden rice within a year, the BBC reports.
But much depends on what national regulators will say after Filipino scientists submit their rice samples for approval in a few weeks. Golden rice, which is genetically modified to produce vitamin A, has had a tortuous journey from lab to field. Soon after its invention, media reports billed it as a savior for kids in developing countries suffering from vitamin A deficiency, the number-one cause of preventable blindness in children worldwide. At the same time, however, genetic engineering opponents such as Greenpeace launched campaigns against the technology. Consistent opposition against genetically modified crops has delayed every step of golden rice's development, as Science magazine reported in 2008. Golden rice continues to see opposition in the Philippines.
Opponents worry that the rice will cross-pollinate with non-modified plants, which they say has unknown consequences. (The BBC report cites worries that the modified rice will threaten "the nation's food security," but it's unclear if that means cross-pollination may cause non-modified rice to die or what.)
Opponents also say there are better ways of relieving vitamin A deficiency, such as encouraging farmers to grow and eat other vegetables.
The Philippine government's campaigns to fortify flour, instant noodles and other staples have already dramatically reduced vitamin A deficiency in the country. Field Tests: Antonio Alfonso, project leader for the Philippine Rice Research Institute, harvests some golden rice. Photo taken in 2011. International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) Philippine governmental authorities will evaluate the rice's "food safety, feed safety, environmental safety, safety to humans, safety to animals, all these are considered," Antonio Alfonso, the lead scientist for the Philippine Rice Research Institute, told the BBC.
The Philippine Rice Research Institute is a branch of the International Rice Research Institute, which studies golden rice. The government has no official position on the high-tech grain, the BBC reports. BBC

China approves first Argentine GMO corn cargo

ARGENTINA

China approves first Argentine GMO corn cargo

China has approved its first shipment of genetically modified Argentine corn, Buenos Aires-based trade sources said, signaling that the Asian country may eventually import GMO crops from other producers like the United States.
The sources said Chinese health authorities cleared 60,000-tonnes of genetically modified (GMO) Argentine corn. The cargo was already headed inland to be used as hog and chicken feed.
Benchmark Chicago corn futures fell briefly after the market learned about the shipment. Argentina competes for market share with the United States, the No. 1 world corn exporter. But CBOT corn futures, which were already depressed due to good US crop weather, ended the session mixed.
US farmers could eventually benefit from China finally opening the door to GMO corn imports.
Demand for corn-fed pork and poultry has boomed in China as a growing middle class can afford a higher-protein diet.
The Argentine corn was imported by China's state-owned trading house COFCO and left Argentina about a month ago, said three Buenos Aires-based grains trading sources with knowledge of the situation.
The market knew since May that Argentine corn was headed to China. But questions lingered as to whether it would be approved for entry by the AQSIQ, China's General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine.
"The cargo has now been approved by the AQSIQ and the vessel has been discharged in China. The corn is officially imported and on its way to end customers," said a source at a major trading company in Buenos Aires, asking not to be named.
Chicago corn prices have fallen sharply from record highs last summer, and many analysts and traders expected prices to fall further on prospects for a US bumper crop this season.
In contrast to last year, the world is expected to be awash with corn for the foreseeable future, keeping prices in check. Argentina's 2012/13 crop is nearly all harvested.
China is seen by corn futures traders as a wild card in their attempt to pencil in specific price projections.
Most Argentine corn is genetically modified. A small amount was allowed into China late last year as a test case under a China-Argentina GMO deal signed in February 2012.
There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from genetically modified crops pose no greater risk than conventional food. However, advocacy groups argue the risks of GMO food have not been adequately identified. The Buenos Aires Herald







Genetically Engineered Bt Cotton In Ghana

GHANA

Genetically Engineered Bt Cotton In Ghana


The Hidden Agenda Exposed

After several years of apparent short term success in Burkina Faso of Bt cotton in increasing yields, and improving profits of small scale cotton farmers, authorities in Ghana have decided to go down the same road. Ghana’s National Biosafety Committee (NBC) has just approved field tests of GE rice in the Ashanti Region, and GE cotton field tests at 6 different locations in the Northern Region. Bt is bacillus thuringiensis, a pesticide used to control bollworms in cotton, and stem borers in rice.

Why is Ghana looking only to the short term gains of Burkina? Why not also look at the much longer term experience of Bt cotton in India, China, the USA, and Indonesia? In all of these countries, there is evidence of huge problems arising from Bt crops after the first few years. There is an alarming record of growing dependency on agribusiness corporations, reduced profits, increasing debt of small scale farmers, and major environmental safety hazards. Is Ghana naively following bad advice from agribusiness corporations and their NGO and diplomatic agents?

Currently, West Africa has the enviable record of producing some of the best cotton in the world with the least use of pesticides and without genetic engineering. Introducing Bt cotton will put this at risk. Cotton and rice farmers in Ghana can easily recount the constraints limiting their production and profits. But none of these priority problems can be solved by introducing highly controversial GE hybrid seeds.

Potential demand by farmers is not driving this recent action by the Biosafety Committee. There is another, quite hidden, agenda pushing Ghana down the GE road. The so-called success of Bt cotton in Burkina is only being used as a pretext for this agenda.

The start of field trials for Bt crops in Ghana is highly alarming because there is no scientific evidence supporting the long term safety of genetically engineered (GE) crops. “Closed” field trials on research stations are no guarantee of preventing Bt contamination when wind and birds spread pollen laced with insecticide genes. What seems likely as a major factor pushing this highly risky venture is that the Biosafety Committee has been influenced by outside forces.

The risks Ghana is taking by starting down the GE road are many. Bt cotton and Bt rice have the pesticide Bt in every cell of the plant, including the pollen. There is some evidence suggesting that inhaling Bt pollen can sicken people and livestock, and in some cases even cause death, as happened in Mindanao in the Philippines. There are reports that thousands of sheep in India were killed after grazing on the fields of Bt cotton after harvest. And in both Germany and India, cows eating Bt crops have died. Bt infected pollen can drift far and wide, pollinating normal crops, contaminating them with the Bt altered genes. Transgenic proteins, the proteins transferred from one species to another by GE technology, can potentially cause serious immune reactions including allergies. This is a serious public health issue; and warrants an immediate ban on GM crops, including field trials, until proper assessment on the immune potential of all the transgenic proteins has been carried out.

Bt cotton also has a devastating effect on the soil, because the insecticide gene destroys vital microbial organisms, bacteria, and enzymes. A decade of planting with GM cotton, or any GM crop with Bt genes in it, could lead to total destruction of soil organisms, leaving dead soil unable to produce food. Bt enters our soil, our air, and our water.

In light of all these reports, the question we Ghanaians need to ask ourselves is: “Do we want to eat, breath, and drink Bt? Do we want to eat animals that have been eating, breathing, and drinking Bt?”

It is highly unfortunate that key scientists involved do not seem concerned by these issues. Dr. Emmanuel Chamba, Plant Breeder and Principal Investigator for Bt Cotton research at the CSIR-Savanna Agric. Research Institute (SARI), Nyankpala, Tamale, seems preoccupied only by finding ways to control cotton’s two main insect pests, Bollworm complex and Sucking pests. And these, he indicated can be well taken care of by the Bt cotton.

But even on this narrow basis, the record of other countries is a savage contradiction to his words. Burkina Faso’s example only shows that the first few years of Bt cotton crops may be a success. But longer term experience in India, China and the US provide strong evidence that the insects soon develop resistance. Also, secondary pests, that before caused little or no damage, soon become major problems. The agrochemical companies then genetically engineer plants with stronger toxins. After the first few years the cotton farmers find they have to treat their fields more frequently with more and stronger chemicals. They enter a cycle of more expensive seeds, more pesticides, and more debt. They are required by contract to buy new seed each year along with the accompanying chemical fertilizers and pesticides. In the US and India this has led to a cycle of debt in which the agrochemical company eventually seizes the farmer's land to pay the debt, leaving the farmer with nothing.

These are the grave risks that the Biosafety Committee decision is bringing to Ghana. Are the potential short term benefits of Bt crops worth these multiple risks? What are the lessons we need to learn from what happened in other countries? Even leaving aside the biosafety hazards, and regarding only production, in India, there is a striking correlation in the areas where Bt cotton is widely grown, and a dramatic increase in the rate of farmer suicides, many thousands per month. In most cases the farmers committing suicide have lost their farms due to a cycle of debt they incurred to buy new seed and pesticides, and negative income due to crop failures. Many attribute the huge price increase of cotton seed, which has gone up 8000% in India since Bt seed was introduced, as a contributing factor to farmer suicides.

In many countries, Bt cotton has proven subject to other crop diseases, particularly virus wilt. Farmers in the US and China have found whole fields wilting and when they pull up the plant there are almost no roots. Nothing can be done but destroy the entire field. Even in Burkina Faso, touted as a success story, farmers have been unhappy with the short fibers produced by Bt cotton. Most West African cotton has the highly desirable long fibers. In 2012 there was talk of stopping Bt cotton production completely in Burkina Faso. For now there are reports of a resort to the use of traditional seeds again, and a sharp decline from 70% to 40% of the land surface previously occupied by Bt cotton. So much for the so-called Burkina success story!

Dr. Margaret Ottah Atikpo, of the CSIR Crop Research Institute, stated that if the trials being conducted for genetically modified rice at Fumesua proves successful it will enable Ghana to grow rice that is nitrogen and water efficient as well as salt tolerant. “So that where the soils are poor, it doesn’t matter, it is supposed to thrive. You can grow it where you don’t have swamps and even where there is salt in the soil you can grow it,” she stressed.

However, Bt rice is supposed to help kill insect pests. But in Ghana, insect damage in rice is not a major problem faced by rice farmers. Moreover, Bt rice has nothing to do with what Dr Atikpo is saying about drought tolerance, and nitrogen efficiency. She is reciting the mantra the GE interests have promoted for over 20 years. But there is not yet any widespread example of success of GE crops being more drought resistant, much less significant increases in nitrogen efficiency.

To the contrary, all evidence to date indicates that GE crops need to be coddled with the special chemicals the agrochemical companies have designed for them. Most need more water rather than less. And most need steady and reliable irrigation and are unable to depend on rainwater. They are less likely to tolerate floods or drought, or secondary pests and diseases, than conventional varieties.

GE crops engineered with Bt are seldom used to feed people. They are mostly used for animal feed at present. A recent Australian study shows pigs fed a Bt corn and soy diet have inflamed stomachs and the females have enlarged uteruses. Rats fed GE corn over their lifespan develop enormous tumors. Do Ghanaians want to be human guinea pigs for Bt crops in humans?

Dr. Stephen Amoah, a research scientist at CSIR, Kumasi, says Ghana's agricultural production is beset with a myriad of constraints. “These include declining soil fertility, pests, diseases, low yields of crops, drought, floods, post-harvest losses among others" He neglects to mention that over time all of these become greater problems with GE crops. Even though Ghana has increased food production in recent years, this has been by expanding land under cultivation. He worries about inadequate land to feed Ghana's people.

There are many proven techniques that multiply productivity on very small areas of land, as the recent trend in urban agriculture, and work with agroecology science and farming systems research is demonstrating. These have nothing to do with genetic engineering. Seeds alone do not determine crop productivity. They are a contributing factor, but there are many more factors involved. This is why it is highly beneficial to ensure farmers have access to many varieties of seed, and grow a diversity of crops.

Farmers’ choice among the most appropriate varieties of seed is something the genetic engineers are trying to stamp out with their patented seeds and exclusive contracts. The giant agrochemical companies promoting their GMO varieties in Ghana are using their influence, and money, to divert Ghanaian scientists and politicians away from much more relevant approaches to agricultural science and food security, in their pursuit of profits.

The priority need of Ghanaian farmers is not GE seeds. The only people who need genetically engineered crops are the foreign agrochemical companies and their stockholders who profit from the monopoly sales of these products, with no regard for the human misery and bio-contamination they will cause. GHANAWEB