« December 2006 | Main | February 2007 »

January 31, 2007

BLOGGER HIGHLIGHT: Genetically Modified Foods: More on GM foods

Gulf News
Bss & Brn in Al Ain
January 31, 2007

Dr Ameen Yousuf, food safety consultant at the General Secretariat of Municipalities addressed the bogus survey that Greenpeace conducted and the Gulf News hyped last weekend.

He said that he "could not say whether or not GMOs are dangerous to health as more studies are needed", though as I noted in my last post on this, "No major health hazards have come to light since GM food was introduced 13 years ago, and close to 150 studies are published to attest their safety". Still, at least his comments are much more balanced than the last report. No talk of "contamination" this time, instead urging "scientific research".

I could have done without his comment that "it could be discovered in 20 years that there are serious side effects". Obviously, that is true, more time might show some hidden danger right now. It could also be discovered that reading the Gulf News causes cancer, but there is also no evidence for that proposition either. The only difference is that anyone who went around trying to frighten people on that basis wouldn't be taken seriously.

January 30, 2007

Petition In Support of Indian Farmers' Right to Grow Biotech Crops and Scientific Field Testing

AgBioVWorld
January 30, 2007

As scientists who are familiar with plant biotechnology and the positive impacts biotech crops have delivered over the past decade, we are disappointed and concerned to read about the recent interim moratorium on field testing of biotech crops in India . We are equally concerned about the recent actions by activist groups who are advocating a complete ban of all field testing of biotech crops in India .

There are activists groups who are committed to opposing crop biotechnology and similar protests were demonstrated by them during its trial stage in 1998-2000 prior to the approval of Bt cotton in India . However, the regulatory authorities and judiciary set aside the protests and allowed the trials to be carried out. The authorities satisfied with the rigorous scientific studies conducted on Bt cotton granted commercial approval in 2002 and since then, Bt cotton in India has provided tremendous economic benefits and helped in bringing higher farm income to the Indian farmer.

Biotech crops were first commercialized in 1996, and since then they have been rapidly adopted by farmers around the world. Scientists have confirmed that the current commercial biotech crops have delivered significant economic and environmental returns to farmers. Higher yields, lower costs, reduced pesticide use and less tillage have been the benefits delivered by these first commercial biotech crops.

The next generation of biotech crops being developed includes crops with higher nutrition, lower fats and higher levels of heart healthy compounds. There are also crops under development with higher tolerance to drought and cold that will provide tremendous benefits to the agricultural sector as well as society in general.

Biotech crops are rigorously tested by scientific and regulatory organizations before they are allowed to be planted commercially. All of the commercial biotech crops have been tested and shown to be as safe as conventional crops. Field testing is an important part of this safety assessment process. All field trials should be done in full compliance of the regulatory system and approval conditions. Without field testing, none of these new biotech crops will be available for planting by Indian farmers. A ban on field testing is a de facto ban on biotechnology. It is irresponsible for activist groups to misrepresent the demonstrated benefits and potential risks of biotech crops and restrict Indian farmers their rights to choose the most efficient and most sustainable crops on their farm.

We urge you to consider the demonstrated benefits of biotech crops that farmers have realized for over 10 years globally, including the benefits from Bt cotton in India . We also urge you to consider the next generation of crops that will continue to help farmers increase the productivity and sustainability of their farming operations. It is imperative that a science based regulatory system continues to be implemented to ensure the safety of these new crops. Field testing is a critical component of a science based safety assessment program. We urge you to reject these campaigns in the name of science and on behalf of Indian farmers, who will benefit from the continued introduction of new technologies to help make them more productive.

January 28, 2007

NEWS: Biotech crops to help reduce poverty, says expert

Daily Times
ISLAMABAD: The sowing of biotech crops will formally be launched in March-April this year in the country, and this will help the government not only ensure food security, but to reduce poverty as well, said Dr Kauser A Malik, Secretary of the National Commission on Biotechnology and member of the Agriculture Planning Commission on Tuesday.

“Bt cotton is already sown in Pakistan. This technology will be extended to other crops too this year,” he said while concluding a lecture delivered by Dr Clive James, founder and chairman of the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Application (ISAAA). Kauser Abdullah lamented the bureaucratic hurdles being created in the way of implementation of new technologies. However, all the necessary arrangements are now well in place and the new Bt crops will be grown in Pakistan, he told a gathering, where no senior official was present from the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock (MINFAL). However, the lecture was attended by officials from the Pakistan Agriculture Research Council (PARC) and National Agriculture Research Council (NARC).

Earlier Dr Clive James released the ISAAA annual report and said that breaking the 100 million hectares marke for the first time and achieving the second highest growth in the past five years global biotech crop area jumped by 12 million hectares or 13 percent to reach 102 million hectares in 2006.

By 2015, ISAAA predicts, more than 20 million farmers will plant 200 million hectares of biotech crops in about 40 countries, he said. Growth during 1996 to 2006 is equivalent to an unprecedented 60-fold increase, the biggest adoption rate of any crop technology. Additionally, the number of farmers planting biotech crops surged to 10.3 million, from 8.5 million farmers in 2005, he added.

The report indicated that the growth of biotech crop adoption was substantially higher in the developing world at 21 percent versus the industrialised nations where adoption grew by 9 percent. The developing countries now account for 40 percent of the global biotech crop, the report said. The report said that Bt cotton has contributed significantly to the yield increase in cotton in India from 308 kg lint per hectare in 2001-02 to 450 kg lint per hectare in 2005-06. In turn in yield from Bt cotton has been a major contributor to increased exports from India, which soared from 0.9 million bales in 2005 to 4.7 million bales in 2006.

In Asia, according to the report, India is emerging as a key leader and the country tallied the most substantial percentage increase at 192 percent or 2.5 million hectares to total 3.8 million hectares, jumping two spots in the world ranking to become the fifth largest producer of biotech crops in the world, surpassing China for the first time.

BLOGGER HIGHLIGHT: GMO Foods

Bss & Brn in Al Ain

Greenpeace, the environmental group, has shown up in the Gulf and convinced the Gulf News to run an editorial disguised as an article.

In the article, the following phrases are used as statements of fact, not opinion:

The UAE lacks "proper labelling [sic] laws". Sorry, but it is not that easy. By what standard are the current laws improper? Because Greenpeace doesn't like them?

The UAE "has the highest incidence of genetically engineered (GE) contaminated food" (emphasis added). This is using loaded language completely inappropriate to a news article. Calling GM a contamination is begging the question. You haven't proven that it is bad. Would you call the milk that is sold in the stores "contaminated" by Vitamin D?

"The first GM crop was engineered in 1996 in the United States". No, this is just flat out wrong. It is so wrong that it demonstrates either stunning ignorance or a willingness to deceive. Humans have been genetically modifying plants for thousands of years through cross-breeding and domestication. It is only that we have begun doing it scientifically in the last few years.

This is whole story is anti-scientific scaremongering at its worst. The whole point is to make you afraid.

I hate argument by asseveration. If your position is so obviously right, how hard is it to produce some proof? Here let me show you how easy it is: "No major health hazards have come to light since GM food was introduced 13 years ago, and close to 150 studies are published to attest their safety". [citation]. If Greenpeace or the Gulf News has some proof, present it. Otherwise take your scary stories that aren't fit to frighten children and go.

January 26, 2007

NEWS: Why Organic Farming is Not Sustainable and GMOs Rock Agricultural Socks

Comrade Tortoise
January 24, 2007

I read a recent article in the State Press (my school newspaper at ASU) regarding the use of organically grown fibers in the fashion industry and how the increase in their use is due to environmental concerns among consumers and within the industry itself. The article also cites that 7 of the 15 leading pesticides are known human carcinogens and that the use of organic crops is one of the best ways to help the environment. This is wrong. This is wrong for a great many reasons and they have to do with the environment and human health. Let me explain why.

Organic farming uses up more space than non-organic farming. That’s right kids. The crop yields per acre are not the same. Organic farmers suffer higher losses from insects, which necessarily increases the amount of space they must use to get the same crop yield. They use crop rotation to keep the soil fertile for longer and to keep insect populations down. This also increases the amount of space they must use for the same yield. Organic farmers also use animal dung to fertilize their crops. In order to replenish the soil, they need to use a larger amount of dung in terms of biomass than they produced in actual crops. This means that the cows need to be fed more than the farm actually produces because nitrogen fixation in the soil is not at 100% efficiency and also when you feed the cows, there is a lot of waste material that contains previously fixed nitrogen and other nutrients that they do not consume. Those cows also require space. Additionally manure itself is a pollutant as excesses of certain nutrients are damaging to soil health and to replenish one nutrient with it, one would need to increase the concentrations of all nutrients contained within the manure. Moreover, manure is a source of potentially lethal E. coli, as it is contained in the gut of cattle. That is why ground beef is so dangerous if not cooked properly, it comes into contact with the cow's gut contents. That aside, organic farming requires so much space that if we used only organic farming methods we could only feed roughly 2/3rds of the worlds population with existing farmland, according to Nobel Prize winning agricultural scientists Dr. Norman Borlaug. Our current problems with hunger have to do with corrupt governments and distribution, not actual production.

So, what does all this space use have to do with the environment? Habitat destruction. Farming necessitates a large amount of land clearage. You may not think that in the midwest, where most of the biomes consist of grassland anyway, that replacing it with another type of grass (because corn and wheat are all grasses) will do much damage. However, this is incorrect. The ecosystem changes. Nesting sites for birds are destroyed, ponds are drained, the land is flattened. The ecosystem as it once was is now gone. A more efficient crop uses less space, and destroys less habitat per unit of production than a less space-efficient crop (like organics). An ecosystem can deal with an influx of nutrients, or a decrease in insect population from pesticides introduced through runoff. But it cannot survive being uprooted and replaced with corn and cotton. Do modern farming techniques pollute the environment and use carcinogens for pesticides? Sure. This is a necessity of farming in general.But there are ways around that. Using custom fertilizers tailored for the soil and the crops produced in it for example. And more importantly, the use of genetically modified crops to kill off pests and make the crop more efficient. Plants have been protecting themselves from insect pests using alkaline and protein based toxins for millions of years, and there are bacteria that produce species specific or otherwise narrow-range toxins that affect pest insects. To use an example, Bacillus thuringiensis is a bacteria RELATED TO ANTHRAX, which attacks insects, and many plants secrete toxins that cause premature pupation in predatory insects.

The genes that code for these products can be inserted into and expressed in the genomes of crops. They undergo extensive testing and are perfectly safe for humans because they are target specific. Many of them only work on one small group of related insects. And any dangers of cross contamination of native species of plants can be worked on and fixed using further genetic modification, or other controls. There is a risk of insects gaining resistance, but that can be curtailed using a mosaic of insect targeted toxins, or rotating the target specific toxins produced by the crops.

Genetically modified crops can be engineered to use less water than normal crops as well. Drought resistant plants are useful anywhere, even where water is plentiful. This is because most agriculture gains its water from subterranean aquifers. These aquifers are not being replenished as fast as water is being taken from them. They WILL dry up. Already overuse is starting to cause sink holes in some areas where the water pressure is no longer sufficient to hold up the ground. Drought resistant crops use less water. The benefit of this should be obvious. They can also be engineered to use less space per metric ton of food produced. Less habitat destruction per unit of production is an obvious benefit of this. They can also be modified to produce more and better nutrients. Two words. Golden Rice. All of this in addition to making their own natural pesticides with a narrow target range. Genetic Modification, not organic farming, is the sustainable solution to balancing the needs of people and the long-term future of our environment, and the resistance we have seen to it from Europe and environmentalists is absurd. So the next time you guys are at the grocery store, avoid organic crops like the plague. Look for genetically modified foods and remember, if it is not labeled organic, chances are unless it is produce, it has a genetically modified component.

January 24, 2007

NEWS:Global biotech crop cultivation continues to grow - Why is Europe so far behind?

EuropaBio
January 23, 2007

Prof. Dr. Marc Van Montagu, Chairman, International Plant Biotechnology Organisation (IPBO) Gent University and president of the European Federation of Biotechnology, told journalists in Brussels today that European farmers are lagging behind the rest of the world in terms of access to agricultural biotechnology.

Marc Van Montagu, one of the best known plant biotech pioneers in Europe, is convinced that technology transfer and plant biotechnology research oriented to the needs of the developing countries are important: “Fighting the vicious circle of hunger and poverty is the most urgent task that faces our society, and will require a reformulation of current models of agriculture,” he said. But he also believes that the technology has already demonstrated considerable benefits in Europe, despite systematic attempts to deny European farmers the right to use a technology widely used in the rest of the world.

Although new figures published last week by ISAAA, The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, show that in 2006 the number of hectares globally cultivated with GM crops increased by 12 million hectares most of this growth came from countries such as China and India. Most EU farmers continue to be held back by a dysfunctional regulatory system and by disproportionate co-existence rules.

Prof. Marc Van Montagu is convinced that in Europe too often the GMO debate “centres on emotional arguments, rather than looking at scientific positives.” As a result he believes that EU countries are missing out on the benefits offered by biotech crops. For example the Hungarian government has refused to lift its ban on GMO maize. Mr. Gabor Balla, a Hungarian farmer, told journalists that “as long as Hungarian farmers are denied access to this beneficial and safe technology they are at a competitive disadvantage versus farmers from France, Czech Republic, Portugal, Germany, Spain and Slovakia who are already planting biotech crops. I’ve spoken with these farmers and they are happy with these new products, so why can’t I grow them? “

EuropaBio welcome the European Parliament’s own-initiative report Biotechnology: Prospects and Challenges for Agriculture in Europe”* and the debate it is creating regarding future prospects and challenges of this promising technology. The Biotech industry encourages the members of the Agriculture Committee of the European Parliament due to vote on 24th January 2007 to support Mr. Virrankoski’s report which highlights the benefits of agricultural biotechnologies in Europe.

The mission of the International Plant Biotechnology Organisation (IPBO) is training, technology transfer and plant biotechnology research oriented towards the needs of the developing countries.

The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) is a not-for-profit organization that delivers the benefits of new agricultural biotechnologies to the poor in developing countries. It aims to share these powerful technologies to those who stand to benefit from them and at the same time establish an enabling environment for their safe use.

EuropaBio, the European Association for Bioindustries, has 70 direct members operating Worldwide, 12 associate members and 5 bioregions as well as 24 national biotechnology associations representing some 1800 small and medium sized enterprises involved in research and development, testing, manufacturing and distribution of biotechnology products.

* “Biotechnology: Prospects and Challenges for Agriculture in Europe
Mr Virrankoski’s report describes well the current situation facing agricultural biotechnology in Europe and outlines important challenges that need to be tackled in order to reap the full benefits of the technology. The report is dealing with co-existence, adventitious presence of GMOs in seeds, and with the complexity of the approval system that are particularly important to highlight in the context of the further development and fruitful application of agricultural biotechnology.

NEWS: GM crops the `dawn of a new era' in farming

This letter is from one of the readers of Border Watch, an Australian newspaper, and discusses the issue of genetically modified foods.. It has been republished in the website of Truth About Trade and Technology, an organization that highlights the importance of technology in modern trade.

Sir,
The puritanical tone of the articles and editorials on GM crops in your paper recently deserves some balance and rational discussion.

Currently, cotton growers in Australia have the right to choose whether or not they grow conventional or GM cotton.

Over 90pc of them choose GM because it is better for the environment, their workers and their lifestyle, and because it is 10pc more water efficient.

And they rarely if ever spray grubs anymore.

Canadian canola growers have the same rights as our cotton growers, and they choose to grow over 85pc of their crop to GM varieties.

We have just imported 55,000 tonnes of GM canola through Newcastle for domestic use from Canada, and yearly we import 350,000 tonnes of GM soy meal to boost our paltry production of about 50,000 tonnes and it has just been announced that we will import tens of thousands of tonnes of GM soybean for crushing here also.

The naysayers are saying that the sky will fall in, but it will not and our livestock industries will be able to
continue.

So we already grow, import and use GM crops extensively with only good effects.

Despite intense scrutiny by all and sundry, 11 years of growing GM crops in 21 countries with 530 million hectares
grown, has produced only positive results with safety.

We are constantly bombarded with the "clean and green" and "premium" markets.

That we are claiming a premium for our dreaming has been proven false many times.

Max Foster from ABARE says so, and goes on to say that we will lose billions of dollars for our backward stance.

Peter Portman from CBH, Australia's largest canola exporter says so, and Andrew Broad from Victoria has just done a Nuffield Scholarship on this very subject and says so.

Japan, possibly the world's most discriminating market, imports annually about 300,000 tonnes of non-GM canola from Australia and 1,650,000 tonnes of GM canola from Canada at the same price, according to these people.

The EU has had a ban on GM canola because they have been a net exporter of canola in six of the last seven years, but they are now using bio-diesel extensively and will look to import every year.

Therefore, as of early this year they are lifting their ban, and are already importing large amounts of oil from
Canadian canola.

Our peak farming group, the National Farmers Federation, has a strong policy position for the immediate introduction
of GM crops, and every state farming organisation has a positive policy to GM crop introduction.

Peter Corish's Report, "Creating Our Future: Agriculture and Food Policy for the Next Generation" was very clear on the importance of immediate adoption of GM crops.

So why do we listen to these people with no interest in our health or welfare, no understanding of history or science, and no acceptance of the reality that GM crops have already been accepted worldwide (even in Australia) and are already proven clean and green?

And we are just at the dawn of this exciting new era with frost tolerance, drought tolerance and disease tolerance
already about to become a reality to our competitors.

The greenhouse benefits with less fuel, insecticides and fertiliser producing more crops off less area will prove overwhelming in this debate, and rightly so.

Australia has a choice whether to be part of the solution, or part of the problem.

It is critical that we break the link between economic growth and environmental damage, and GM crops will be a primary tool in that. The Australian situation makes Monty Python look sane.

NEWS:Future state growth of biotech crops expected

By Robert Pore
The Independent.com
January 23, 2007

The use of genetically modified, or GM, crops in Nebraska could continue to increase if the predictions of a new independent report are realized.

The report, published earlier this month by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), said use of GM crops is likely to increase even faster in the next decade than the double-digit annual rate of the past 10 years.

Last year, 76 percent of the 8.1 million acres of corn planted in Nebraska were of genetically modified varieties. That was up from 69 percent in 2005.

Of the 5.05 million acres of soybeans planted in Nebraska last year, 90 percent were of genetically modified varieties. That was down 1 percent from 2005.

In 2000, 34 percent of Nebraska's corn crop was genetically modified, as was 72 percent of the state's soybean crop.

The report, titled "Global Status of Biotech/Genetically Modified Crops in 2005," predicted with "cautious optimism" that GM planting will continue to grow as GMs' benefits become more recognized and accepted.

GM crop benefits include improved resistance to destructive insects and increased tolerance of herbicides. GM crops are also touted to be more cost effective and environmentally friendly because fewer applications of crop chemicals are needed. Also, GM crops produce greater yields than traditional crops.

With the state's ethanol industry expected to increase to nearly 1 billion gallons by the end of this year, corn acres are expected to expand to meet its needs.

The National Corn Growers Association has estimated a 10 percent increase in corn acres planted this spring in the United States.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported that corn growers last year harvested the third-largest corn crop at 10.5 billion bushels. The 2006 crop had the second-highest yield on record at 149.1 bushels per acre.

Corn has a heavy water demand. But drought and state-imposed water restrictions that limit the expansion of irrigated acres could pose a challenge.

In 2005, Nebraska farmers planted 5.04 million acres of irrigated corn out of a total of 8.5 million acres, or a little less than 60 percent of total corn acres.

But farmers harvested 953.6 million bushels of corn, of which more than 70 percent were from irrigated acres.

Nebraska is poised to become the nation's second-leading ethanol-producing state in the nation. But of all the corn grown in the nation, 8 percent comes from irrigated land, of which 70 percent is grown in Nebraska.

As corn acres expand in Nebraska to meet the growing demand of ethanol plants, GM varieties of corn could increase as varieties are developed to use less water, produce traits desirable for ethanol production and increase yields.

According to the report, the expansion of acreage designated for GM crops also will be driven by China's expected adoption of genetically modified rice in the near future, demand for more nutritional GM food and feed and the anticipated introduction of novel crops with qualities desirable in the production of medicines and biofuels.

In 2005, 8.5 million farmers grew GM crops on 222 million acres, according to the report.

Clive James, ISAAA chairman and founder, said as more developing countries express interest in growing GM crops, that could expand GM acreage almost five times faster than industrialized nations.

James said GM crops have helped to lift 7.7 million subsistence farmers in 11 developing countries out of poverty by increasing their incomes.

"The broader commercialization of biotech rice, the most important food crop of the world's 1.3 billion poor and the 850 million hungry and malnourished, can further this effort," he said.

ISAAA said GM acreage growth of 11 percent in 2005 was down from 20 percent in 2004 and 15 percent in 2003.

But James said the continued increase in the number of countries growing GM crops -- from six in 1996 to 17 in 2004 and 21 in 2005 -- indicates that the substantial benefits associated with these crops are becoming more obvious.

The United States leads the top GM crop producers, followed by Argentina, Brazil, Canada and China.

January 23, 2007

NEWS:ENVIRONMENTAL BIOLOGY;Genetically modified spuds to be commercialized in 2007

Biotech Week
December 27, 2006

The first commercial crop of genetically modified potatoes will be planted in 2007. Industry bods and green campaigners alike agree that E.U. approval of BASF's Amflora potatoes will come in time for spring launch and cultivation, reports Marina Murphy in Chemistry & Industry, the magazine of the Society of Chemical Industry.

Amflora potatoes, which have been modified to be particularly suited for the production of papers and adhesive, are not intended for human consumption. In contrast to conventional potatoes, they contain only amylopectin, as opposed to both amylopectin and amylose starches.

"This is the first potato of its kind," according to Thorston Storck, global project manager at BASF Plant Sciences. "We have tested these potatoes over 10 years...And at this stage, we are optimistic of getting permission to grow and sell these potatoes in time for planting next year," he said.

Claire Oxborrow, GM campaigner for Friends of the Earth, agreed that approval in time for spring planting was likely. Even without a qualified majority by the regulatory committee, she said the potatoes would ultimately be approved. But Oxborrow also expressed concerns that Amflora potatoes could find their way into the food supply, especially given that a separate application by BASF for food and feeding is not far behind this one. She said that safety should be a concern because rat feeding studies showed statistically significant differences in white blood cells and spleen weight between female animals fed the transgenic potato and those given a diet containing the parental cultivar.

"These differences should be thoroughly investigated to ensure that they will not lead to human health impacts," she said.

Currently there are six countries in the E.U. where GM crops are grown commercially: Romania, Germany, France, Spain, Portugal and the Czech Republic. They all grow GM maize except Romania, which grows GM soya.

This article was prepared by Biotech Week editors from staff and other reports. Copyright 2006, Biotech Week via NewsRx.com.

January 22, 2007

NEWS RELEASE: Biotech Crops Bringing Benefits to Health and the Environment - Private Sector Dialogue

APEC High Level Policy Dialogue for Agricultural Biotechnology –CANBERRA, AUSTRALIA, JANUARY 21, 2007 - A unique mix of small farmers, corporate farmers, biotechnologists and policy makers from around the Asia Pacific region met on Friday to share information on the potential for biotechnology to address some important challenges facing agriculture.

The Private Sector Day, that preceded the sixth meeting of the APEC High Level Policy Dialogue on Agricultural Biotechnology, offered key stakeholders an insight into how biotechnology can help farmers deal with impacts of climate change and increase yields with fewer pesticides.

The gains from biotech crops were demonstrated by small farmers in Asia through to large corporate farmers in Australia and North America. This is why 10 million of the worlds' farmers now choose to grow over 100 million hectares of biotech crops. More than half the worlds' population now live in countries growing biotech crops.

One of the speakers at the dialogue, the General Manager for Biotechnology at Croplife Australia, Mr. Nicholas Woods, said the benefits of biotech crops are of increasing interest in the Asia-Pacific region.

"The expanded use of safe agricultural biotechnology products is helping to enhance human health, improve environmental safety and feed a growing global population," Mr. Woods said.

"For example, 10 billion kilograms of carbon dioxide emissions have been eliminated because farmers using biotech crops do not have to till their land or use pesticide as much as in conventional farming."

The Private Sector Day was the first day of the sixth meeting of the APEC High Level Policy Dialogue on Agricultural Biotechnology (Policy Dialogue).

The HLPDAB is being held over three days in association with the APEC Senior Officials related meetings in Canberra between January 15-26.

For further information or to arrange an interview contact:

Christopher Hawkins on +61 (0)433 810 844 or E-mail: ch@apec.org

Anita Douglas on +61 (0)420 945 613 or E-mail: ad@apec.org

January 19, 2007

NEWS: Adoption of Bt cotton in Pakistan

Checkbiotech
Saying that “Cotton is an important cash crop for Pakistan” would be an understatement. It accounts for 8.2 per cent of the value added in the agriculture sector and about 2% to GDP, adds over $2.8 billion to the national economy.


Livelihood of the millions of farmers and of those employed along the entire cotton value chain is dependent on this single crop. Their entire lifestyle and socioeconomic parameters are shaped by the performance of cotton sector - meaning, it is “The life line of the national economy”.

Textile industry in the country has undergone an ambitious expansion plan making room for incremental 3 M bales in year 2008. The country needs to bulk up its cotton production to meet that demand. According to an estimate “increase of one million bales in cotton production interprets into half a percent increase into GDP”.

Although the area under cultivation of cotton has been increasing in the last few years - around 7.65 million acres in 2005-06 as compared to 7.25 million acres in 2002-03; but cotton production remains still below the target. The country being the world’s fourth largest cotton producer, third largest exporter of raw cotton and a leading exporter of yarn we need to improve in many areas to meet not only the export demand but also domestic requirements. One would like to list down some of the predicaments our cotton crop is faced with, which is really a perturbing situation:
• Pakistan’s yield per acre ranks 10th in the world
• High price of agriculture inputs (seeds, fertilizers, pesticides etc)
• Higher intensity of insects and pests attack
• Shortage of good quality and varieties of seeds
• Deficiency of water for irrigation
• Lack of advance technologies
• Awareness and agro-professionalism
• And, adulterations in pesticides, fertilizers and seeds
• Moreover, natural factors like unexpected rain, drought, and floods especially in southern Punjab and Sindh
All of this have added unbearable burden on the cotton growers. Additionally, the absence of a proper cotton crop insurance system or any support system in the shape of subsidies by the government is resulting in frustration and lack of motivation in cotton growers to spend resource in their fields in order to improve cotton yields.

According to our Economic Survey 2005-06 measuring from a high base of last year, cotton crops registered a decline primarily on account of a 13.0 percent less production of 12.4 million bales as against 14.3 million bales last year whereas the area under cotton crop since last two decades has been hovering on an average between 7.12 and 7.42 millions acres; as a result Pakistan annually has to import 1.5 - 2.00 million bales of cotton to meet growing demand from local textile mills. In this backdrop one would be deluding if one does not believe that the country urgently needs to increase its cotton production. Government seems to recognize the significance of this and is now looking into number of concrete options to materialize “Cotton Vision 2015” - production of 20.70 million bales; which is only possible by continuous endeavors in research and by increasing the lint yield per acre.

One option government may consider is to increase area under cotton cultivation but presently no sizeable area under cotton farming can further be brought in the two major cotton growing provinces of Punjab and Sindh as they are already at their maximum level. However, in Balochistan particularly in Sibi, Nasirabad, Kalat divisions and D.I. Khan districts in NWFP do provide a window of opportunity where cotton crop could be promoted. In these areas it is likely that yields and the quality of cotton would be also better due to most suitable climatic condition; however, main obstacle is the shortage of water beside lack of agro infrastructure and geopolitical uncertainty in these areas.

So what is the 2nd option? Pakistan presents a compelling case to adopt modern cotton technologies. The technologies, that have successfully been adopted in many developed and developing countries to improve crop yields with better pests and weeds resistance crop varieties like cotton, soybean, canola, and corn etc. Today, 8.2 million farmers in 17 countries of whom 90% belong to the developing countries choose to plant biotech crops. The use of biotech crops has significantly reduced pesticide usage while increasing yields. The impact of economic benefits can be gauged from the fact that their farm incomes have increased to the tune of US$ 27 B in crops such as cotton, corn and soybean.

Many Asian countries including China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, Pakistan and Vietnam are giving high priority to plant biotechnology research in the hope of addressing the pressing challenges related to improving productivity, farmers livelihoods, driving rural development, and meeting food security demands. Many of these countries focus their biotechnology research on food crops and non food crops and crops of high commercial value in the hope of meeting increasing food requirements and reducing use of pesticides and poverty alleviation in rural area.

In Pakistan, there are two major types of pests that are damaging our cotton crops - sucking and chewing; to certain extent it is easier to control sucking pest by strong pesticides but is very challenging to control chewing pests - American bollworms, Army, Pink and Spotted - causing major devastations in the cotton crop fields.

Bt Cotton first introduced in 1996 in the United States and Australia has since then proved to be an important tool to control chewing pests. Pakistan after surpassing the major obstacle to adopting biotechnology by enacting the Biosafety Rules in April 2005 has paved the way for producing plant biotech crops; however, none have been commercialized unto now. In global scenario, private sector led by multinational companies has invested heavily in the field of agricultural biotechnology. Due to their sizeable investments they are bound to ensure that they get a fair return on their investments, and the only way they can protect their interests on a sustainable basis is through protection of their intellectual property rights.

In a market with inadequate intellectual property protection and untried biosafety rules multinational companies are shying away from committing resources. It is therefore imperative for government to guarantee effective enforcement of IP laws especially when it has already done that in case of software, entertainment, and to some degree for pharma industries. The national biosafety rules which are still at an infancy stage need to be enforced in a transparent and a scientific manner to safeguard against environmental and health hazards. The process of scientific based assessment of any agricultural biotechnology before commercialization ensures that the technology is as safe as its conventional counterpart and provides confidence to users and consumers of the technology. Pakistan has a good opportunity to set the appropriate standards early in the process of biotech adoption.

In my previous articles I have repeatedly discussed (now) widespread cultivation of illegal Bt Cotton. As Illegal seed is not subject to regulatory assessment, it can damage confidence and the long term adoption of agricultural biotechnology. Illegal seed can be of variable quality. This can reduce the effectiveness of the technology and limit the benefits that farmers receive, which can further erode confidence in the technology. Illegal seed also reduces the attractiveness of a particular market for investment by private sector particularly multinational companies. Without effective control of illegal seed, a country is less likely to benefit from new technologies that result from R&D spending. With national biosafety regulatory framework in place, so far public sector R&D centers, such as, NIBGE (National Institute of Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering) Faisalabad, and CEMB (Center of Excellence in Molecular Biology) University of the Punjab Lahore, have come forward and submitted applications to the National Biosafety Committee (NBC) - a directorate being established in the Ministry of Environment for commercialization and field trial approvals of their versions of Bt Cotton respectively.

NIBGE applied for commercialization of their Bt Cotton variety “IR-FH-901”. It is worth to know that NIBGE had sought special permission in 1997 from the Ministry of Environment under “Voluntary Code of Conduct for release of GMO into the environment” to conduct field trials to check and analyze many safety tests on various cotton varieties which contain genetically modified Bt gene “cry1Ac”, that is deadly to the Bollworms known as “Sundies”; its results have been documented as desirable.

Similarly CEMB has also submitted an application to NBC for the permission of GM cotton variety “MNH-93” and “CIM 482” with bacterial pesticidal Bt genes e.g. ‘cry1Ab’ and ‘cry1Ac & cry2A’ respectively to conduct field trials with the collaboration of a local and a multinational company.

Currently National Biosafety Committee (NBC) is considering the two applications under the Biosafety Rules 2005, whatever transpires, the potential benefits of biotech crops to the agriculture in Pakistan are unquestionable. However, how we go about obtaining these will determine our success factor. We will have to act responsibly and ethically. If we choose to ignore regulatory frameworks that govern the safe introduction of biotech crops in an attempt to provide a speedy access of technology to the farmers, one feels that we could end up losing the benefits from the technology in the long run by undermining it. We ought to ensure effective, stringent, and transparent enforcement of Biosafety Rules 2005, Seed Act 1976, and Punjab Cotton Control Ordinance, to encourage the introduction of technology through legal means with its complete package of benefits.

NEWS: And Why Is It Again That You Plant Biotech Seed?

By Stu Ellis
Farm Gate Blog
January 16,2006

Why do you use Roundup Ready soybeans? Lower production cost? Better yields? Time savings? How about Bt corn, or Roundup Ready corn? Lower production costs? Better yields? Time savings? Are your reasons the same for each crop or different? The farm gate has an idea what the real reason may be. See if you agree on this issue, and you may end up with an entirely different approach to genetically modified crops and the way you incorporate them in your operation.

The background for this comes from ag economists Dr. Carl Nelson and Dr. (to be) Justin Gardner at the University of Illinois. They looked at Genetically Modified Crops and Labor Savings in US Crop Production, in an attempt to find out why 90% of US soybean acreage is glyphosate resistant, yet there is no significant profit advantage to using Roundup Ready soybeans, which of course are glyphosate resistant. Another study theorized the use of genetically modified crops allowed farmers to save on management time. But do all of them allow a time savings? Some of us have spent a lot of time walking beans, but cornfields haven’t been walked since Grandpa was farming.
A 2002 study found:
1) Bt cotton is likely to be profitable in the cotton belt and reduces pesticide use.
2) Adopting Bt corn should provide a small yield increase, and in some cases adopting causes significant increases in profit.
3) For herbicide tolerant soybeans cost savings should offset any revenue loss due to yield drag.
A 2001 study found:
1) Herbicide tolerant technology leads the farmer to substitute relatively less-expensive glyphosate for other herbicides.
2) Farmers realize a change in the shadow price of labor and management.
3) Due to glyphosate’s effectiveness at killing larger weeds, weather induced spraying delays do not significantly affect weed control.
4) When farmers switch to herbicide tolerant technology substitution effects lead to a decrease in the price of alternative herbicides.

In 2005 herbicide tolerant crops made up 87% and 60%, of U.S. soybean and cotton acreage respectively, while 35% of the corn acreage and 60% of cotton acres were insect resistant.

Gardner and Nelson believe that there either has to be a profit motive or a labor savings reasons for the adoption of a biotech crop. If it is not profit related, they say, "Farmers can then reallocate household labor to off-farm work or leisure thus increasing household welfare and maintaining the same on-farm profit.” And they add, “If the household exhibits a preference for on-farm work there will be important implications in how the household allocates labor. If the preference is strong enough then all available labor will be allocated to on-farm work, constrained by the number of hours in the day or off-farm obligations.”

What Gardner and Nelson found in their analysis was:
1) Adopting herbicide tolerant soybeans, under conventional tillage, reduces household labor by 23 percent. Consequently, “It appears that farmers are substituting HT soybeans for household labor, freeing up the resource for off-farm employment and leisure.
2) Neither Bt corn nor HT corn has a statistically significant impact on household labor. This result can easily be explained, in the absence of Bt technology many corn farmers simply do not attempt to control for corn borers.
3) Unlike Bt corn, adopting Bt cotton saves household labor. Bt cotton requires less spraying. This difference amounts to a 29% decrease in household labor.
4) With the exception of corn, we find that GM crops save labor.

Summary:
Farmers have adopted biotechnology for a wide variety of crops, but for different reasons. Weed control in soybeans can be labor intensive, so herbicide tolerant soybeans have become quite popular. Pest control in cotton requires many field operations, so insect resistant cotton has become quite popular. While corn yields can suffer from both insects and weeds, their control has not been labor intensive. However, biotech corn has become popular because of its positive impact on farm financial welfare.

January 18, 2007

More See Sense in Going GM

Truth About Trade & Development
January 16,2006
Let us hope that the new year brings with it a refreshing change in the quality of the debate on the introduction of GM crops.

Recently, the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications reported that, globally, GM crop
area grew 11 per cent in 2005.

The report shows Spain, France, Germany and the Czech Republic growing increasing areas of biotech crops.
They are among 21 countries in the world growing 90 million hectares last year. The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Rural Economics shows Australia importing 450.000 tonnes of soy meal a year (from GM countries) to complement our meagre non-GM crop of about 50,000 tonnes.

We recently imported 55.000 tonnes of GM canola from Canada. and expect more to be imported. But we are not allowed
to grow GM grain or oilseed crops here.

ABARE's report last month GM Grains in Australia Report states that identity preservation is already widely carried out in the grains industry.

This clearly says segregation is already working well in Australia and there will be no price reduction for GM canola
or non-GM canola.

We must move ahead and be allowed the choice to join our global competitors and farming counterparts.

NEWS: Genetically Modified Crops May Boost African Agriculture

World Resources Institute
Tuesday, January 16,2007

Nearly one-third of people in Sub-Saharan Africa suffer from chronic hunger--the highest proportion found in any region in the world. Fighting African hunger is largely dependent upon the success of the agricultural sector, especially among the small-scale farmers that comprise a vast majority of Africa's rural poor. Although the "green revolution" of the mid-twentieth century introduced technologies that doubled and tripled crop yields all over the world, African farmers did not experience similar gains. A recent article in Science, GM Technology Develops in the Developing World, discusses the potential for genetically modified (GM) crops to bring belated success to Africa's agricultural sector.

The Challenge of Agriculture in Africa
Small-scale farms account for over 90 percent of agricultural production in Africa and are dominated by the rural poor. African farmers face numerous obstacles including ongoing civil conflict, HIV/AIDS, vulnerability to natural disasters, and insufficient investment in agricultural research and rural infrastructure. For these and other reasons, the technology of the green revolution did not transfer well into African soil. Maize is a staple food in Africa, accounting for over 50 percent of calories in local diets and up to 90 percent of cropland in some countries. It is subject to drought and disease including the maize streak virus, which destroyed between 5 to 100 percent of African farmers' crops in 2006.

Genetically Modified Maize
After over a decade of work, a team of scientists in South Africa will soon test a crop of maize plants that have been genetically modified to resist infection from the maize streak virus. The tests, scheduled to begin in late 2007, will be the first field trial of GM agriculture in South Africa (one of only a few African countries that currently allows the planting of GM crops). If successful, this project could help alleviate grain shortages, thereby reducing hunger and poverty.

The implications of a failed field trial extend to the reputation of GM technology as a whole. GM crops are highly controversial due to speculated environmental and human health risks and suspicion that western biotechnology companies and industrial agriculture stand to gain far more than small-scale farmers. Conscious of these concerns, the producers of the disease resistant GM maize are carefully assessing environmental and health risks and expect seeds to cost no more than 15 percent higher than traditional varieties.

January 16, 2007

NEWS:Vietnamese scientists favor genetic engineering: report

People's Daily Online
Some leading Vietnamese scientists support genetic engineering, saying it is necessary for their country's socioeconomic progress, local newspaper Vietnam News reported Thursday.

Comparing application of genetic engineering to traveling by plane, Le Tran Binh, director of Vietnam's Biotechnology Institute, said though people knew that accidents might occur, they had little choice if they did not want to be left behind.

Another leading scientist, Professor Vu Tuyen Hoang, said he supported the application in production of cotton and forest products. He called for careful consideration before applying genetic engineering on food crops like rice, maize, coffee and soybean.

Though hybridization and genetic engineering can both help increase crop productivity, the former is safer, Hoang said, noting that Vietnam's hybrid rice and maize have the highest productivity in Asia.

Genetically modified crops usually produce certain toxins to protect themselves from harmful pests, though the effects of such toxins on humans remain uncertain, he said.

Vietnam issued a decree on biotechnology in 1994, and an instruction on conducting biotechnology research and application, including genetic engineering in 1995.

Many countries in the world have accepted the application of genetic engineering, including China, India and the United States, said the newspaper.

By 2020, nearly 100 percent of maize, barley, cotton and soybean areas in the world are forecast to use genetic engineering for production, the newspaper said.

NEWS: Support for biotechnology consistently high among Canadians

Vancouver, BC (Sept. 21) – BIOTECanada released the results today from its second annual national poll conducted by POLLARA during the first week of September. Once again, the majority of Canadians, almost 80 percent, support the use of products and processes that involve biotechnology.

While Canadians generally feel good about biotechnology, more than one-third of them do not regard Canada as a biotechnology leader, or able to keep pace with the rest of the world. The results of the poll conducted this month indicate Canadians want to see the biotechnology industry grow and produce results.

“Canadians see the benefits biotechnology offers in agriculture, health and to the environment. However, our industry is not regarded, by Canadians, as a world leader. The potential is certainly here, and action by our federal government can help in the development of a more successful industry,” said Peter Brenders, President & CEO, BIOTECanada, the national association for the biotechnology industry.

When over 50 senior industry leaders go to Ottawa on Sept. 26 for over 60 meetings on National Advocacy Day, their main asks to Parliament will be in reference to financing. Changes to the federal Scientific Research and Experimental Development (SR&ED) program are essential to providing increased tax benefits to small Canadian companies.

“The poll results clearly indicate the federal government has an increasingly important role to play in the development of Canada’s biotech industry,” said Rainer Engelhardt, Chair of BIOTECanada’s Board of Directors. Over 80 percent of Canadians agree the federal government should find ways to help support Canadian biotechnology companies develop new products. Almost 90 percent say Canada’s health care system should be willing to pay more for advances in new health biotechnologies.

The complete results of this poll are available at http://www.biotech.ca and http://www.imagenenation.ca - the official website for National Biotechnology Week.

Today’s launch event in Vancouver also features a panel of renowned researchers who will discuss Canada’s role in the convergence of biotechnology. The week promises to showcase and introduce Canadians to the outstanding capacity Canada has for biotech research, discovery and development. From student bus tours, new awards and programs, to keynote speakers, all these events will have people buzzing about biotech this week.

Visit www.imagenenation.ca for complete event listings in your region.


About National Biotechnology Week
BIOTECanada and a variety of partners from the Canadian research and innovation community will host a series of events designed to increase public awareness and showcase Canadian biotechnology innovation, its potential and its people. Join in the celebration.

National partners include the National Biotechnology Accord—regional and provincial biotech associations—and BIOTECanada partners: AMGEN, AstraZeneca, Council for Biotechnology Information, Genzyme, Novo Nordisk Canada, Ortho Biotech, Pioneer Hi-Bred, Roche, and Sanofi Pasteur Limited. www.imagenenation.ca

About BIOTECanada
BIOTECanada is the national association representing the broad spectrum of biotech constituents including emerging and established companies in the health, agricultural, and industrial sectors, as well as academic and research institutions and other organizations dedicated to the long term and sustainable development of biotechnology, its practices and products. www.biotech.ca

About POLLARA
POLLARA, the largest Canadian public opinion and marketing research firm, helps its clients improve their performance through strategic research designed and analyzed by consultants who are experts in their fields. Drawing on the talents of more than 650 employees located in 6 cities across Canada, POLLARA provides a full range of research services to leading global, national, and local companies and to public and non-profit sector organizations. www.pollara.ca

For further information
Rhowan Sivel
BIOTECanada
613-858-4721
rhowan.sivel@biotech.ca

Roland Merbis
POLLARA
rmer@pollara.ca
416-921-0090 ext. 2218

January 14, 2007

NEWS:GM hens lay eggs to fight cancer

By Jonathan Leake
The Sunday Times, Science Editor

SCIENTISTS have created the world’s first breed of designer chickens, genetically modified to lay eggs capable of producing drugs that fight cancer and other life-threatening diseases.

Researchers at the Roslin Institute near Edinburgh, which created Dolly the cloned sheep, have bred a 500-strong flock of the birds.

The breakthrough offers the prospect of mass-producing drugs that currently cost the NHS thousands of pounds a year per patient, at a fraction of the price.

The ISA Browns, a common breed of egg-laying hen, have each had human genes added to their DNA to enable them to produce complex medicinal proteins. These human proteins are secreted into the whites of the birds’ eggs, from which they can be easily extracted to produce drugs.

The Roslin scientists have achieved a world first in creating birds that “breed true”, meaning the added human genes are passed on from generation to generation. This opens the way for the creation of industrial-scale flocks and offers a potentially unlimited cheap source of medicinal proteins.

One of the chicken lines produces human interferon of a kind closely resembling a drug widely used to treat multiple sclerosis. Such drugs have a potential worldwide market worth hundreds of millions.

Another line could be useful in treating skin cancer, by producing miR24, an antibody that could also potentially treat arthritis, which afflicts 7m people in Britain.

The institute is understood to have created at least two other lines of genetically modified chicken, whose eggs could produce drugs with the potential to fight cancer.

The research is a triumph for Dr Helen Sang, the leader of the Roslin team who, since 1997, has sought to make the technique work without new genes being lost as they are transmitted down the generations. Ian Wilmut, the Edinburgh University professor who created Dolly at Roslin, was an adviser on the project.

“This is potentially a very powerful new way to produce specialised drugs,” said Dr Karen Jervis of Viragen Scotland, a biotech company that is working closely with Roslin. “We have bred five generations of chickens so far and they all keep producing high concentrations of pharmaceuticals.”

Other researchers have already produced transgenic chickens — with artificially altered DNA — but the ability to make desirable proteins has generally vanished in a generation or two.

At present, therapeutic proteins are mainly made in bio-reactors, vats of bacteria or other cells that have been genetically modified. However, extracting the relevant proteins is expensive and difficult.

In Roslin’s research — to be published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences tomorrow — the scientists will describe how they extracted embryonic cockerels from hens, before the eggs had formed.

The embryos, just small clusters of cells, were then each injected into surrogate eggs and “infected” with a virus genetically modified to contain human genes. These genes contained the blueprint for the human proteins that the researchers were trying to produce.

The virus carried those human genes into the cells of the embryonic cockerels where they became incorporated into the bird’s DNA.

When the so-called “founder cockerels” hatched, they were mated with ordinary female hens. Their progeny were found to contain the same human genes and, to the delight of the researchers, the females all produced the desired protein in their eggs.

“In theory, this technique could be used with a wide range of genes, so that hens could be used to make many different proteins,” said Andrew Wood of Oxford BioMedica, whose researchers collaborated on the project. “Potentially, this could lead to treatments for ill-nesses including Parkinson’s Disease, diabetes and a range of cancers.”

The ISA Brown, a French breed that is a cross between Rhode Island Red and Rhode Island White chickens, produces about 300 eggs, per hen, a year.

Some scientists are cautious about the advance, pointing out that biotechnol-ogy firms have been promising a new generation of drugs from transgenic animals for nearly two decades.

So far, however, perhaps the world’s most successful transgenic animal is the glofish — a tropical fish modified with DNA from a sea anemone and a jelly fish to give it a fluorescent skin. It is used as a pet.

Last year saw a breakthrough for such technologies when European regulators approved the world’s first medicine derived from transgenic animals. ATryn, an anticlotting agent for people with a rare inherited disease, is made from the milk of goats whose DNA has been modified to incorporate human genes.

Dr Barbara Glenn of Bio, which represents the American biotech industry, said the Roslin research was likely to be the first of many similar breakthroughs. “This technique is simply a way of producing human proteins, which is why it is applicable to so many different diseases,” she said.

For the NHS, the hope is that such technologies will help to minimise its annual bill for prescription drugs which was £8 billion last year; an increase of 46% since 2000.

Andrew Tyler, the director of Animal Aid, which campaigns to improve animal welfare, said genetically manipulating farm animals was a reckless and dangerous procedure. “The fallout for the animals of creating GM individuals in enormous. The modification process produces many casualties, with young animals being born with defects and females suffering miscarriages and other problems,” he said.

January 13, 2007

NEWS: Working group supports genetic manipulation of grain crops

HELSINGIN SANOMAT
A working group examining options in Finnish agricultural policy says that Finland needs to start producing genetically modified crop plants. The working group, headed by top Finance Ministry official Raimo Sailas, submitted its final report on Thursday to Minister of Agriculture Juha Korkeaoja (Centre).

Sailas said that the working group takes a positive view of technology and biotechnology. He says that new methods are needed to keep Finnish agriculture competitive.

The working group favours genetically-modified plants because gene technology is seen to offer new, more productive strains of agricultural plants for food production.

In the group’s view, without gene technology, the European Union and Finland will be overtaken by the United States, China, and Brazil in agricultural productivity.

"Gene technology is used to find researched, productive agricultural plants to balance out the disadvantages caused by northern natural conditions", the report states.

The view is at odds with present European Union policy, which opposes genetically modified foods. In the view of the working group, the risk with the EU’s attitude is that the question could become politicised, resulting in decisions that are not based on objective information.

The basic concern of the working group is competitiveness in agriculture. "The position of the food industry hangs in the balance if raw materials from domestic sources are not made available at competitive prices", Sailas says.

The working group would boost competitiveness by raising efficiency in agricultural production. "Productivity has not improved in the 21st century. On the contrary, it has actually declined on farms where grain is produced", the report states.

To improve productivity, the working group wants larger farms. To increase the size of farms, the group proposes that inheritance tax should not be collected when a family farm is handed down from one generation to the next. In addition, the law on leasing land is to be changed so that long-term leasing of land is made possible.

Growth in the size of farms will mean that the number of farmers will deline. Now there are about 70,000 active farming families.

Agriculture Minister Korkeaoja welcomed the working group’s proposals as fairly realistic.
Michael Hornborg, chairman of the Finnish Union of Agricultural Producers and Forest Owners, said that the report is good, although he finds a few shortcomings. For instance, he feels that the idea that basic agricultural subsidies would ever be distributed equally on a per hectare basis throughout the EU is wishful thinking.

Currently, for instance, French farmers get more subsidies per hectare than Finnish farmers do, while on the other hand, Finnish farmers get more support than farmers in Estonia. The differences stem from the fact that the basic supports are compensation for lower producer prices.

In France, crop yields are higher than in Finland, so lower prices lead to larger declines in income. Therefore, when producer prices go down, the loss of income is greater for farms in France than those in Finland. This is why French farmers collect more subsidies than those in Finland. "Finland produces one per cent of the foods in all of the EU. We do not have the power to influence such a great change in policy", Hornborg says.

Hornborg disagrees with the working group on the issue of genetic modification. He says that not having GM crops could be beneficial for Finland.

"If one of these crops were to be harmful for consumers in some way, who would be responsible? These kinds of questions remain open, for which reason I would not wave the flag on behalf of genetic modification", the farmers’ union leader says.

About

prakash_tmb.jpgAgBioWorld founder Professor C.S. Prakash of Tuskegee University offers a weekly synopsis of topics of concern to the agricultural biotech community covering the latest news, innovation and commentary from AgBioWorld members. The AgBioWorld GMO Food For Thought blog will also offer guest blog posts and the latest industry news.

Contact:
prakash@gmofoodforthought.com

Categories

Powered by Movable Type 3.35