PHILIPPINES: Biotech group asks SC to reverse GM eggplant ruling

PHILIPPINES

Biotech group asks SC to reverse GM eggplant ruling

A BIOTECHNOLOGY agency has asked the Supreme Court to reverse a decision that stopped field trials for a genetically modified, pest-resistant eggplant.

In a 118-page petition for review, International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) sought to overturn a Court of Appeals (CA) ruling that issued a temporary environmental relief order (TEPO) against the testing of Bt talong (eggplant). ISAAA said that the appellate court erred when it granted the relief.

The CA’s former special 13th division ruled last Sept. 20 that issuing a “writ of kalikasan” against Bt talong is “justified and warranted” with the possible risk of violating the Filipino’s right to a “balanced and healthful ecology”.

The CA resolution upheld its May 17, 2013 decision ordering the respondents “to permanently cease and desist from further conducting Bt talong field trials; and protect, preserve, rehabilitate and restore the environment”.

ISAAA said the issue should have been considered “moot and academic” since field trials are no longer conducted for the genetically modified (GM) eggplant.

“Considering that there are no more Bt talong field trials being conducted anywhere in the Philippines, there is nothing more for the Court of Appeals to rule upon. There is nothing more the Court of Appeals to cancel and enjoin,” the petition stated.

ISAAA contended the issue raises “political questions” which are outside the jurisdiction of the judiciary but under the executive and legislative branches. The group also cited the failure to question the field trials with the Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI) before directly proceeding to the courts for relief.

The biotechnology agency further noted that the Philippine system in regulating genetically modified crops “is considered by the APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation) and the ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) as the model for developing countries”.

The petitioner also said current rules on GM crops “are already very stringent to prevent ... harm” and that the field trials of the GM eggplant complied with environmental laws.

“In sum, the evidence on record shows that stringent safeguards have been implemented during the conduct of the Bt talong field trials to ensure that the right to a balanced and healthful ecology will not be violated and to protect the environment,” the petition read.

The appellate court that ruled against the eggplant’s field trials was likewise accused of “bias and partiality” when it ruled based on the findings of a herbicide-tolerant corn, which ISAAA said is unrelated to the GM eggplant.

Named respondents are Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Philippines), Magsasaka at Siyentipiko sa Pagpapaunlad ng Agrikultura (Masipag) and several individuals.

The case stemmed from the multi-location field trials of the genetically engineered eggplant, which is purportedly resistant to fruit and shoot borer, a pest that infests the plant. Bworldonline

Can a hungry world say no to GM Crops & have food security?

Can a hungry world say no to GM Crops & have food security?


Rice provides up to 80 percent of food calories for poor societies, but lacks micronutrients such as Vitamin A. Worldwide, every year, hundreds of thousands of children die due to a lack of Vitamin A and multiples thereof become permanently blind. In the late ’90s, Golden Rice was developed because the inventors were concerned about food security and food quality. Through genetic engineering scientists were able to generate Golden Rice in which the intensity of colour is an indication for the level of Pro-Vitamin A. Forty gram of golden rice per day can save eyesight and the lives of more than 2 million people every year. The attempt by Greenpeace and other NGOs to block transfer and acceptance of Golden Rice is criminal because it has been proven to be completely safe. Furthermore, Golden Rice will be provided to farmers in developing countries free of costs for the trait.

In many countries GM crops are not accepted because they are thought to be unsafe for both human health and environment. However, more than 2,000 scientific papers over the last 10 years have evaluated the safety of GM crops on human health and all of them have concluded that they are as safe as crops obtained by conventional breeding. Furthermore, for the past 15 years, people in the United States have been eating GM crops and, until now, not one single negative health effect has been observed. Another argument posed by anti-GM organisations is that growing GM crops will lead to a decrease in biodiversity. But the contrary is true: In areas where insect-resistant crops are grown, the population of non-target insects — varieties other than the ones the crops are resistant to — is much larger than in areas where conventional crops were grown. Additionally, GM technology will allow us to go back to the old varieties that were used in agriculture, but this time with added trade value, resulting in crops with higher yields or drought-resistance and other such traits. Protestors against GM crop try to convince people that these crops are much more expensive for farmers. But if all expenses and yield gains of GM crops are taken into account, they are even less expensive than growing crops conventionally. As compared to conventional seeds, GM seeds are indeed more expensive, but their quality, as measured by their germination rate, is much higher, thus making them more cost-effective. And because GM seeds are herbicide and/or insecticide-resistant, less herbicide or insecticide is used to spray in the fields, effectively reducing the cost for the farmer; insect-resistant GM crops have proven to cut insecticide sprays by more than 25 percent. GM crops also require less tillage, which reduces carbon emissions and allows for the growth of a second crop in the same season, resulting in even more yield gain for the farmer. 

Finally, fewer patents are valid for farmers in  developing countries. All this together will result in an increase in global farm income of nearly 51 percent in developing countries and 49 percent in developed countries. Ironically, the extreme opposition to genetic modification has led to hyper-regulation, which has raised the cost of bringing GM crops to market. Currently, only multinationals and large entities, public or private, can afford to comply with these rules. Small enterprises in developing countries are ultimately hurt much more than the conglomerates. Everyone knows that climate instability will lead to storms, global warming and extreme climate variations. For the moment, we have no plants ready to survive under such extreme conditions and it is therefore important that researchers all over the world, and also in India, work on the development of stress-tolerant plants. Activists claim that western Europe — which has shunned GM crops — is better off as compared to the US when it comes to productivity and pesticide use, but this is not true. If you consider the global pesticide and herbicide use of the past years, indeed more of it was used but this is not due to the growth of GM crops but to the overall increase in the amount of arable land. It is proven that GM crops result in much higher yields per hectare and less pesticides and herbicide use. In order to obtain the same kind of yields for conventionally bred maize or soybean, even more land and pesticides will be needed. The effect of the refusal to grow GM crops is dramatic. Because of the absolute ban in Europe, many scientists are leaving, and with them they are taking their knowledge and technology. Europe will end up far behind on agriculture knowledge and it will find it difficult to reach the frontline again.
We are facing an enormous shortage of food. Today, out of around 7 billion people on this planet, almost 2 billion people are hungry. By 2050, the world’s population will be 9 billion. That’s another 2 billion mouths to feed. To do so, the amount of food we produce between 2014 and 2050 must be equal to the amount grown in the last 2,013 years. To obtain this enormous quantity of food, agricultural production as we know it today will not be enough. More arable land and water will be needed, climate changes will have an enormous impact on agriculture and changing diets of people in the western world will demand even more food. Genetically modified crops can, however, be an answer to these increased food requirements. And society should look at the product and not at the process that made the product. More than 2,000 scientific papers over the last 10 years have evaluated the safety of GM crops on human health and all of them have concluded that they are safe. The writer is a professor at Ghent University and co-winner of the 2013 World Food Prize. He was the first to develop the technology that allowed transfer of foreign genes into plants  Money Control

EU to cut carbon emissions by 40% by 2030

UK overruled in landmark climate deal that requires bloc to produce 27% of its energy from renewable sources

Europe will cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by 2030, compared with 1990 levels, the toughest climate change target of any region in the world, and will produce 27% of its energy from renewable sources by the same date.

The landmark deal was reached after grinding negotiations dragged onto the deadline of 11am on Wednesday, as warring factions within theEuropean commission and member states fought over whether to water down the proposals.

The EU is now the first to set out emissions reduction targets ahead of a crunch meeting of world governments in Paris in 2015 that will decide a global framework for avoiding dangerous levels of global warming. Every other major developed and developing economy is expected to set out its own binding national emissions target within the next year, for the United Nations talks to go ahead.

Ed Davey, the UK's energy and climate change secretary, bitterly opposed the renewable energy target, but was overruled as big member states including Germany, France and Italy backed it.

Davey said: "Today's proposals are a step in the right direction towards an ambitious emissions reduction target for Europe. They provide the flexibility to tackle climate change in the most cost-effective way, so that British consumers aren't paying over the odds to go green." But he added that "the UK remains concerned about any renewables target."

Europe's emissions trading system will also be reformed as part of the 2030 energy and climate package, with a more flexible mechanism to allow the surplus of carbon permits to be curbed, and member states will have an "indicative" target - that is, not legally binding – of improving energy efficiency by 25% by 2030.

Disputes behind the scenes meant that the unveiling of the blueprint, the biggest climate initiative delivered by Brussels since 2008, was delayed by 40 minutes.

The targets are weaker than many green campaigners had called for, but stronger than the alternatives that some member states and commissioners were championing right to the final stages of the negotiations. The Guardian understands that some commissioners were calling for an emissions target of only 35%, compared with 1990 levels, while the UK failed to gather support for its own opposition to a bindingrenewable energy target. Studies show that the EU's emissions are likely to be 25% below 1990 levels by 2020, making the targets easier to meet.

Jose Manuel Barroso, president of the European commission, told a press conference on Wednesday: "We want this package to be owned by all Europeans. We believe that this package is ambitious but realistic." He said Europe had shown it was a leader on tackling climate change.

The measures will be debated by member state governments and the European parliament, before they can be fully accepted. The European council, made up of the heads of state or government of the EU member states, will discuss the proposals in March.

Connie Hedegaard, the EU's climate chief, hailed the compromise. She said: "If all other big economies in the world do a relatively ambitious effort equal to what we are now proposing, the world will be in a better state when it comes to combating climate change."

However, reaction to the deal was mixed. The European Wind Energy Association said that the renewables target included in the deal, which had been in doubt until the final moments, was too weak and would cost potential jobs as a result. Thomas Becker, chief executive of the industry body, cited a study from the European commission that found a 30% target on renewables could have created more than 560,000 jobs and boosted economic growth by saving on expensive fuel imports.

The 27% renewables target may be easily achieved by 2030 not least because Germany, the world leader on renewable power and the EU's biggest economy, is implementing a radical energy shift away from nuclear into renewables.

Barbara Hendricks, the German environment minister, strongly supported both the renewable energy and emissions targets. Unlike the UK, she said Berlin was keen to have binding renewable targets and added that the 40% carbon cut was the minimum acceptable to Germany. At the UN climate talks in Paris next year, she said, it was entirely conceivable that Europe would move beyond the 40% carbon reduction target.

Harry Verhaar, head of global public and government affairs at Philips, said: "Today's proposal falls short of expectations of European companies looking for a strong framework to invest and innovate in Europe. The omission of a binding energy efficiency target is particularly disappointing. European policy-makers must realise that Europe will never lead on cheap energy and must lead on least consumed energy - energy efficiency is a key driver in making Europe more competitive and energy-independent."

Mahi Sideridou, managing director of Greenpeace, said the deal was not strong enough: "The January sales are on and it looks like Europe's dirty energy companies have bagged a bargain. The commission's plan for 2030 is a sell-out that would knock the wind out of a booming renewables industry. European citizens will pay the price [in] fewer green jobs, more imports of expensive fossil fuels and shorter lives because of pollution."

Monica Frassoni, president of the European Alliance to Save Energy, said: "This is a depressing day for Europe. We currently have an energy paradigm where we send billions of euros out of Europe rather than employing people in Europe to save energy. Today's communication was a chance to fix this - instead the commission has given in to the intense lobbying efforts of the large energy providers and energy intensive industries, and what we have is a disaster both for Europe's climate and our competitiveness." The Guardian

European Parliament says no to GMO

The Members of European Parliament (MEPs) called on the European Commission (EC) not to allow the genetically modified maize crop Pioneer 1507 on the EU market. This insect-resistant crop could be dangerous to harmless butterflies and moths, said a resolution approved on Thursday 16 January 2014. “Based on this proposal, we are clearly lacking evidence on the safety of this new GMO strain to have it on the EU markets" said Dagmar Roth-Behrendt, a German member of the S&D group, who opposed approval along with other members of the environment committee.
Since the non-renewal of a couple of other authorisations in the mid-1990s, there is only one variety of maize - the MON 810 from Monsanto - which is currently authorised to be cultivated for commercial use in the EU. This one would be the second one.
In the case of maize 1507 from Pioneer, MEPs have decided to object to this proposal for an authorisation because they were very surprised by the Commission attitude to take a positive decision which had been opposed by 12 member states (with only six Member States voting in favour of the authorisation).
The risk assessments from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) show that highly sensitive butterflies and moths may be at risk when exposed to maize 1507 pollen. Yet, Pioneer refused to present additional documents regarding monitoring and risk mitigating measures for these non-target species.
Lastly, the Commission took this decision of authorisation arguing that it had been condemned by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) last September. However, the ECJ has only ruled that the Commission had failed to act. It has not prevented the Commission from presenting a new proposal recommending not to authorise maize 1507.
MEPs cannot know when the decision of the Council will come. Yet, what I can say is that any new authorisation for GMO cultivation is an issue, as it is always a challenge for the Council to find a majority either in favour or against such a decision. This is the reason why requests for authorisation can remain a very long time without a final decision.
Last July, Monsanto announced it will withdraw pending approval requests to grow new types of genetically modified crops in the EU, explaining that there was a lack of commercial prospects for cultivation. It is true that the regulatory environment is made difficult due to the fact that several member states are not in favour of new authorisation for cultivation. It must also been said that the lack of evidence provided by the industry on the safety of new GM crops does not help to dispel EU citizens’ recurring doubts on GMOs. This is why for the time being the majority (61%), of Europeans are opposed to the development of GM food in Europe (Eurobarometer of November 2010). They consider GMOs as not offering benefits, as unsafe, as inequitable and as worrying. Source: European Parliament

Comprehensive GM test developed

In response to increased demand for monitoring and labelling of genetically modified (GM) foods, scientists have developed a comprehensive method for detecting GM ingredients. It is claimed to be the first of its kind in the world.

Policymakers, particularly in Europe, have instituted regulations to monitor GM products. Although researchers have designed a number of methods to detect genetic modification in crops, no single test existed to conduct a comprehensive scan.

Li-Tao Yang and Sheng-Ce Tao and colleagues have developed a test they call MACRO, which stands for multiplex amplification on a chip with readout on an oligo microarray. It combines two well-known genetic methods that flag about 97% of the known commercialised genetic modifications - almost twice as many as other tests.

The researchers say the test can easily be expanded to include future genetically modified crops. foodprocessing.com.au

Farmer launches GM petition

A WESTERN Victorian farmer has launched a petition on popular social activism website change.org, calling for the government to introduce checks to prevent unwanted contamination from genetically modified (GM) crops.

Farmer Bob Mackley from Duchembegarra, near Natimuk, said he was motivated to create the petition for several reasons.

He said he had directly suffered as a result of GM material being washed onto his property in January 2011 and had to wear the cost of spraying the GM canola volunteers out.

“There have been many GM contamination cases like mine around the country but there is no system in place to protect us from GM crops,” he said.

Chief executive at biotechnology peak body CropLife, Matthew Cossey, said the issue of "contamination" was not unique to GM.

“Every farmer has a responsibility to take reasonable steps to stop what they do on their farm from affecting their neighbours or public land," Mr Cossey said.

"That applies across the board, none of these issues are unique to GM."

Because these issues are not unique to GM the same common law rules can compensate for damage caused by the unwanted and unreasonable presence of GM crops as for damage caused by any other crop.

But Mr Mackley said the mantra used by the biotechnology regarding growing GM food crops, ‘the right to choose’ applied both ways.

“We should have the right to choose not to grow GM and to be able to market it as such.

“That’s the difference, other weed seeds within the crop don’t incur the cost penalty GM contamination does.”

His message appears to have won over many people, with the petition now signed by over 30,000 people.

“It comes down to not having the proper steps in place when the technology was introduced.

“We were told how wonderful it all would be and a whole bunch of issues were railroaded out the way.

“Whether you believe GM crops are safe to eat or not, the fact of the matter is that some people don’t want to eat GM and they should have the right not to.

“I want to be able to market my grain as non-GM.”

Mr Mackley also said he wanted to see more information in labelling laws.

“I believe not having labelling could hurt entire industries, if people can’t be sure their canola isn’t GM free because there are no labelling restrictions then they might just not buy canola oil at all.”

queenslandcountrylife

Genetically modified crops hold the key to food security

In the debate over whether India should go for transgenic or genetically modified (GM) crops or not, there is a viewpoint that supports its ability to enhance production and increase food security, while against the motion there's a word of caution on the grounds that it will encourage monoculture and end diversity of traditional crops. Besides, biotech crops are still not perceived as fully safe for consumption, although nothing is proven scientifically.

The issue is significant as India's economic security depends heavily on agriculture, sustaining 58% of the population, as against 75% at the time of Independence. But since the onset of green revolution in the late 1960s, the country has made impressive strides in agriculture with better use of chemicals, high-yielding cereals and other plant varieties. The green revolution has boosted agricultural output substantially, increasing it 2.85 times to 235 million tones helping feed the country's population that has swollen from 440 million to 1.2 billion.

Saving millions from starvation, self-sufficiency is a driver for poverty reduction and economic transformation in rural areas. The mid-'90s marked a shift in which agricultural slowed down causing stagnation or even decline in farmers' income and agrarian distress turned serious with passing time. Agriculture is no more productive for small or marginal farmers, many of whom have committed suicide because of debt burden.

Studies show 40% farmers would switch over to another job. Sudhir Panwar, president of the Kisan Jagriti Manch, says "farmers are in agriculture by compulsion, not by choice. The impact is most visible in UP, which has seen net decline of 49 lakh agriculture workers in the last five years. The NSS report shows number of total agriculture workers went down from 4.03 crore in 2004-05 to 3.69 crore in 2009-10 and 3.54 crore in 2011-12," said Panwar.

Reason is not far to seek. In spite of the success of green revolution, contribution of agriculture and allied sector to the gross domestic product (GDP) has fallen from 61% to 19% in the last five decades. Presently, India sustains 16.8% of world's population on 4.2% of world's water resources and 2.3% of global land. Per capita availability of resources is four to six times less compared to the world average which will decrease further with increasing demographic pressure and consequent diversion of the land for non-agricultural uses.

While sparing virtually negligible land from agricultural use, around 51% of India's geographical area is already under cultivation compared to 11% of the world average. The present cropping intensity of 136% has registered increase of only 25% since Independence. Rain-fed dryland constitutes 65% of the total net sown area. There is also an unprecedented degradation of land (107 million hectare) and groundwater resource, and also fall in growth rate of total factor productivity.

Experts at the UN Food & Agricultural Organization (FAO) say by 2050 global population is expected to increase by 40% while associated global food production needs will expand by more than 70% with a rapidly growing middle-class in developing countries. India's population will grow to 1.3 billion by 2017, which means fresh demand for foodgrain in terms of quantity, quality and affordability, so current agricultural output needs to be doubled against odds like changing climatic conditions, declining ratio of arable land to population and water getting scarcer.

Agriculture intersects toughest challenges arising mainly from grim competition for supplies of fresh water, with its share dropping to 75% from the present 83% in the near future, in the wake of growing industrial and domestic sectors. Presently, excess exploitation of groundwater has caused sharp depletion of water table in central Punjab, Haryana, west Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal. In UP, over 260 out of total 800 blocks are already declared 'dark zones'. Yet, government has not taken water conservation measures for political reasons.

Overuse of canal water in south-west Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan is leading to water logging and development of secondary salinity. Conjunctive use of water and diversification of rice-wheat is required. The problem is compounded by water wastage, around 18.4 million m3/day. Utilising waste water after treatment for irrigation is yet to be made part of water conservation policy. Micro-irrigation and resource conservation technologies (RCTs), economising on water and nutrients need to be promoted in a big way.

Poor soil fertility is another challenge. Around 25 million hectares of land in the country has low productivity of less than 1 tonne/hectare due to deficiencies and toxicities of nutrients. Adoption of cost-effective technology to improve this mass of land could add 25 million tonnes of food grains to the national food basket per annum. TOI