GMO Food for Thought

Reuters reported European Union regulators plan to take legal action against Poland soon if they continue their ban against the trading and planting of genetically modified seeds. The World Trade Organization ruled a couple years ago that this practice was against international trade practices, so hopefully the EU gets their act together soon.

C.S. Prakash

EU lawyers take action against Poland over GMO ban
Reuters
January 31, 2008

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - European Union regulators launched legal action against Poland at Europe's highest court on Thursday for the country's move to ban the trade in and planting of genetically modified seeds, the EU executive said.

Poland's plans for what amounts to a national GMO ban, announced last year, quickly drew criticism from European Commission lawyers who routinely scrutinise any such proposals.

Earlier this month, they said it had no scientific justification. But Poland's insistence in proceeding with the ban, despite several warning letters sent from Brussels, meant the Commission now had to resort to legal action, it said.

"On the basis of the information provided by the Polish authorities in their replies to these letters, the Commission has no alternative but to refer Poland to the ECJ," it said, referring to the Luxembourg-based European Court of Justice.

"In their reply, the Polish authorities confirm their intention to maintain the ban Polish authorities believe that the use of GM seeds encroaches on the sphere of public morality, an encroachment that would justify a total ban on GM seeds."

As tested on several previous occasions, the Commission takes the view that if a region wants to ban GMO crops or products, such restrictions must be scientifically justified and crop-specific to comply with EU law.

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 6:16 PM | Permalink

Reuters just posted an article reporting that U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab plans to crack down on the European Union. Schwab has pledged to “watch for proof” that the European Union is accelerating approval of new biotech products. While she is not saying when she plans to do it, she did say that she will ask the World Trade Organization to probe whether the EU is in violation if it’s ruling that the EU was “dragging its feet” on the approval of new genetically modified food and crops.

C.S. Prakash

USTR Schwab urges EU to hasten biotech approvals
Reuters
January 30, 2008

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab on Tuesday pledged to watch for proof that the European Union is accelerating approval of new biotech products and ending a delay that has been costly to U.S. exporters.

Schwab declined to specify how long she might be willing to wait before she would ask the World Trade Organization to probe whether the EU is in violation of its ruling that found the 27-member bloc dragged its feet for years in approving new genetically modified food and crops.

"We have been tremendously frustrated at the lack of progress on the biotechnology issue," Schwab, who discussed the issue last week with European officials, told reporters.

"We need to see some progress," she said.

Earlier this month, Schwab's office announced it would give the EU more time to speed up its approval process and comply with the ruling.

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 9:25 PM | Permalink

Agricultural biotechnology Web site Check Biotech posted a press release this week from Western Agricultural Insurance Company announcing it would begin offering farmers Biotech Yield Endorsement (BYE). The BYE program provides farmers with a lower crop insurance premium when they plant at least 75 percent of their insured acres with approved biotech corn. This sounds like a great program!

C.S. Prakash

Biotech yield endorsement is good for America's corn growers
Check Biotech
January 29, 2008

WEST DES MOINES, Iowa - Western Agricultural Insurance Company and its affiliate, Crop1 Insurance Direct, Inc., are among the first in the nation to offer farmers the new Biotech Yield Endorsement (BYE).

"The Biotech Yield Endorsement is really about innovation and doing what's right for America's farmers," said Bruce Trost, executive vice president of Western Agricultural Insurance Company. "BYE can help protect America's corn farmers against increasingly complex production risks, as well as reward them with a reduced crop insurance premium and higher yield. The BYE product is a significant improvement in crop insurance for corn growers because, given market conditions, there is unprecedented demand for higher and more stable corn production."

BYE is a pilot program available in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa and Minnesota. Those four states account for more than 50 percent of the corn acres harvested for grain in the United States.

Approved by the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation and administered by the Risk Management Agency, BYE provides eligible farmers an opportunity to pay lower crop insurance premiums when they plant at least 75 percent of their insured acres within each insured unit to non-irrigated corn for grain qualifying hybrids that contain YieldGard VT Triple(TM) and/or YieldGard Plus(R) with Roundup Ready(R) Corn 2. Research, backed by three years of comprehensive data from thousands of field trials, confirms that Monsanto's YieldGard(R) Triple Technology reduces annual production risk and increases yield. Only YieldGard VT Triple(TM) and YieldGard Plus(R) with Roundup Ready(R) Corn 2 are eligible for a crop insurance premium discount offered to qualified producers who purchase the Biotech Yield Endorsement.

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 6:13 PM | Permalink

Members Discuss California Raw Milk Lawsuit

Abstract: A member posted an article from Cheese Market News titled “Lawsuit filed over new raw milk standards in California,” which discusses a lawsuit filed by Organic Pastures and Claravale Farms, two raw milk bottlers, over a new legislation that could essentially shut them down. The article states, “In October, the state assembly approved AB1735, which established new standards for coliform bacteria in raw milk sold to consumers. Effective Jan. 1, raw milk sold at the retail level may have a count of no more than 10 coliform bacteria per milliliter in the final product, the same as pasteurized milk.” The raw milk producers are asking that this law be declared “unconstitutional.” The member suggested that those in California consider writing opinion pieces for California newspapers in response to this lawsuit.

French Scientists Argue that the Government is “Misrepresenting” Findings in GM Corn Debate

Abstract: Members discussed an article that appeared in the French press on the “doubts” France’s Provisional High Authority had for the safety of Monsanto’s genetically engineered corn Mon 810. The article that started the discussion reported that, “12 of the 15 scientists who compiled the authority's report issued a statement complaining that Le Grand had misrepresented their findings.” Another member pointed out that much of the French press appeared to be behind the 12 scientists, disagreeing that Mon 810 is dangerous. Finally a member translated a statement from the French Association for Scientific Information (AFIS) on their stance concerning the misrepresentation.

Sources:
AFP article
AFIS statement (In French)

AgBioWorld is comprised of ag-biotech experts who take a keen interest in the latest news and events important to ag-biotech. This blog aims to be a reflection of those events and news stories that have captured our attention. Please share your comments and feelings on the current climate for biotech with us as well.

Best regards,

C.S. Prakash

Posted by CS Prakash at 11:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Honolulu Star Bulletin published an editorial this week by Alika Napier, an agronomist for Pioneer Hi-Bred International in Waialua and secretary for the Hawaii Crop Improvement Association on the resistance to biotechnology in Hawaii. Napier uses the editorial to show residents the positive aspects of biotechnology. Read more below.

C.S. Prakash

Biotechnology moratoriums push an extreme agenda
Star-Bulletin
January 27, 2008

Jimmy Carter said, "Responsible biotechnology is not the enemy; starvation is." Although he made the statement more than 10 years ago, this former president and Nobel Peace Prize winner recognized the zealousness of "extremist groups" whose thinking was "dangerously misguided." Still today, they refuse to accept the incredible potential for biotechnology to increase crop yields (to feed the world's growing population), resist diseases and insects (to reduce the need for chemical pesticides) and help crops withstand drought conditions (due to global warming). Instead, they confuse and paralyze communities with fear of the unknown.
Hawaii has now found itself awkwardly positioned as the center of the international biotechnology debate with the introduction of bills mandating moratoriums on the testing, propagating, cultivating, growing and raising of genetically engineered taro, as well as coffee. It's evident that this legislation is simply an attempt to hijack legitimate cultural concerns by people with a broader philosophical and anti-scientific agenda. Proponents have said: "Hopefully this moratorium will lead to not only a ban on GMO taro, but all GMOs in Hawaii and elsewhere."

A wide variety of diseases and pests as well as the choice by growers to cultivate certain varieties over others have caused the decline of Hawaiian taro from more than 400 varieties in the early 1900s to fewer than 60 today. Invasive species and diseases such as the taro leaf blight and the alomae and bobone viruses have wiped out taro production in Samoa and the Solomon Islands. Because Hawaii is an international port and imports 20 percent of the taro, invasive species and diseases have a high probability of finding their way here and severely affecting the taro industry. The destruction to the native wiliwili trees is an example of what could happen to the taro plants in Hawaii.

Taro could benefit from the use of all plant-breeding technologies, including biotechnology, if that is acceptable to the Hawaiian community. Individual farmers should have the right to choose the crops they prefer to grow, using the production methods that best fit their farming needs -- whether that's organic, conventional or genetic engineering practices. The tools of biotechnology have been chosen by farmers in the United States and around the world, and have been proven safe and compatible with other farming methods.

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 6:07 PM | Permalink

CBC News in Canada reported this week that there has been an increase in the number of genetically modified crops being grown on Prince Edward Island. Biotech sugar beats and corn have seen the largest increases.

C.S. Prakash

GMO crop use expanding on P.E.I.
CBC News
January 24, 2008

Hundreds more hectares of genetically modified crops will be grown on P.E.I. this year, a trend that could soon end any plan to make the province a GMO-free zone.

Daniel Martens of Lyndale in eastern P.E.I. is growing sugar beets: not for people to eat, but to create ethanol to replace gasoline in vehicles. Sugar beets are one of the fastest growing areas of GMO crop production on the Island.

Last summer there were about 16 hectares of genetically modified sugar beets grown on P.E.I. This spring, Martens said farmers hope to plant 1,400 hectares of GMO sugar beets. That could double in 2009. Martens argues it is the environmentally responsible thing to do, because it will mean less pesticide sprayed on the field.

"We're looking at about three to four applications of any kind of sprays," he said.

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 6:38 AM | Permalink

The Competitive Enterprise Institute published an op-ed co-authored by Gregory Conko and Henry I. Miller on the continued resistance by the European Union to force member countries to lift bans on genetically modified products. This resistance comes despite the fact that the World Trade Organization ruled in November 2005 that some European countries were breaking international trade rules by prohibiting the import of GM crops and food. Thanks for bringing this to people’s attention gentlemen! Europe needs to realize the value of biotechnology. Read the beginning of the op-ed below and follow the link to read the rest.

C.S. Prakash

Europe's Continued Hostility to GM Crops Runs Afoul of Science, WTO
Competitive Enterprise Institute
January 23, 2008

France, Germany, and the United Kingdom may have new leaders who bring the promise overall of better trans-Atlantic relations, but when it comes to the politics of global trade, some things never change. This month, the European Union missed yet another deadline for correcting its illegal regulation of gene-spliced, or "genetically modified" (GM), crop varieties, following a World Trade Organization decision in November 2005 that some European countries were breaking international trade rules by prohibiting the import of GM foods and crops.

Although the WTO bluntly scolded the EU for imposing a moratorium on gene-spliced crop approvals from 1998 to 2004, that finding was a foregone conclusion. European politicians, including then-EU Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstrцm, had acknowledged that the moratorium was "an illegal, illogical, and otherwise arbitrary line in the sand."

The WTO also made clear that national bans on certain gene-spliced foods in Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, and Luxembourg were blatant violations both of those countries' treaty obligations and EU rules, but the European Commission has been impotent in persuading its rogue members to conform to EU policies. Not only are most of those national bans still in place but, in October 2007, French President Nicolas Sarkozy implemented a new moratorium on the commercial cultivation of gene-spliced corn.

The most important victory for the United States and its partners was the WTO's judgment that the European Commission failed to abide by its own regulations by "undue delaying" of approvals for 25 gene-spliced food products. The culprit here was (and is) the European Commission's highly politicized, sclerotic, two-stage approval process: Each application first must be cleared for marketing by various scientific panels, and then voted on by politicians, who routinely undo the scientific decisions.

As the WTO pointed out, the relevant EC scientific committees had recommended approval of all 25 product applications. But, for transparently political reasons rather than concerns about consumer health or environmental protection, EU politicians repeatedly refused to sign off on the final approvals.

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 6:59 AM | Permalink

The European Commission (EC) just ruled that Poland would not be allowed to continue to ban genetically modified crops already approved in the European Union. Poland had submitted a draft law that would restrict the planting of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to designated zones and place additional requirements on the use of GMO seeds. The article points out that the EC ruled this way because Poland did not present any new scientific evidence that would justify such a ban.

C.S. Prakash

Poland may not ban genetically modified plants
GMO Compass
January 23, 2008

Poland must allow the cultivation of genetically modified plants approved in the EU. The European Commission has rejected a draft law on genetically modified organisms (GMO) that would have restricted any plantings to designated zones and placed additional requirements on the use of GMO seeds. According to the Commission, Poland did not provide any new scientific evidence to justify the national measure in reference to the protection of the environment or the working environment. Consequently, the ban cannot be based on the "safeguard clause" foreseen in the EU law. Reports from Polish media indicate the willingness of the newly elected centre-right government to ease its stance over biotechnology.

In April 2007, Poland had notified the Commission of its plan to prohibit the planting of genetically modified plants by law. Any cultivation would be obliged to take place within designated zones. After application and the subsequent solicitation of the responsible municipal council, such zones could have been established by governmental decision. Comprehensive obligations also were foreseen in the case of a deliberate release for experimental purposes. The draft act foresaw a risk assessment and technical documentation, as well as written declarations of consent from neighbouring farmers. In rationalising such measures, the government made reference to the small structured agricultural land-use in Poland. The country has almost two million farms and the average area of a single farm is less than 8 hectares. Given this level of fragmentation, the isolation of GM from conventional and organic crops was assessed by the government as impossible.

Comparing the Polish act with the EU Directive on the deliberate release, the Commission concluded that the national measures are more restrictive. In accordance with EU law, experimental releases are not subject to the consent of any third party such as neighbouring farmers. Furthermore, without entitling any Member State to adopt a general ban of the cultivation or any other use of a genetically modified organism, the provisions of the EU Directive indicate that the cultivation of a GMO can be prohibited only on a case-by-case basis. Poland did not refer to new scientific studies, literature or other possible findings indicating new evidence concerning the protection of the environment or the working environment. The Commission's decision was dated as October 12th, 2007 but was not published in the Official Journal until Monday, 21th January, 2008.

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 6:46 AM | Permalink

The University of Queensland Australia ethicist Dr Lucy Carter jus released a new study which advises Australian states that they should not ban the commercial production of genetically modified crops. She writes that the benefits far outweigh the risks. GM crop field trials have taken place throughout Australia in every state except South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia, with the first two states re-examining their moratoriums currently. Read more about this below.

C.S. Prakash

Benefits outweigh risks from genetically modified plants
The University of Queensland Australia
January 23, 2008

Australian states should not ban commercial production of genetically modified (GM) plants and food as the risks are alarmist and exaggerated, according to a new study.

The UQ PhD study found the benefits of GM plants and food outweighed the risks, finding no compelling evidence of harm to humans from GM plants.

GM plants have been trialled in most states with South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia the only states to ban GM plants. South Australia and Tasmania are reviewing their moratoriums.

The study author, ethicist Dr Lucy Carter, spent three-and-a-half years examining arguments and evidence for and against the development and use of GM plants and food in Australia and in the developing world.

Dr Carter said there was no evidence to justify continuing moratoriums on commercial GM planting so long as thorough risk assessments were done.

Opponents say GM products are unnatural, potentially harmful to humans and capable of environmental injury and creating 'superweeds'.

She said the risks of GM plants transferring allergenic proteins to novel foods or creating superweeds were very low.

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 6:41 AM | Permalink

Beverage Daily published this article on the use of genetically modified products in beer. The article quotes fellow biotech supporter Dr. Val Giddings throughout the article on his views on the subject. He believes that it will become a much more common practice in the near future. Read more below.

C.S. Prakash

Euro GM reluctance could hit beer innovation
Beverage Daily
January 22, 2008

As the EU debates retaining national bans on genetically modified (GM) crops, one industry expert believes that failure to adapt could grant foreign rivals using the technology an upper hand, not least in terms of brewing a good beer.

Dr Val Giddings, a leading independent US GM consultant, told BeverageDaily.com that the current use of biotech crops in global beer making was miniscule, mainly in the addition of rice.

He was keen to add though, that in his opinion, there could be no doubt that GM crop use in beer - even if still some way from practical application - is set to increase in the coming years.

One key issue expected to affect brewers in the coming year is the increasing costs of raw materials needed in making a variety of ales and lagers.

According to figures supplied by the UK-based cereal board HGCA, in England alone, the average price for brewers grain was up to £31 per tonne this month from £28 per tonne in January 2007.

Many experts say that this trend is likely to continue over the coming year.

While potentially helping to offset these cost, Giddings says that there could be numerous ways that GM crops could improve brewing, regardless of the current commodity price spikes.

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 6:32 AM | Permalink

I found this entry on fellow biotech blogger Dr. C Kameswara Rao’s blog the FBAE blog. In the post, he discusses the disappearance of bee colonies supposedly due to Bt crops. Take a look at it below, and also click on the link and read other entries in the blog.

C.S. Prakash

Bee Colony Collapse Disaster Was Not Caused by Bt Proteins
FBAE Blog
January 10, 2008

C Kameswara Rao
Foundation for Biotechnology Awareness and Education, Bangalore, India
krao@vsnl.com, www.fbae.org, www.fbaeblog.org

http://www.fbae.org/Channels/Views/bee_colony_collapse_disaster_was.htm

Colony Collapse Disaster (CCD), the desertion and death of almost all the bees in a colony, occurs now and then, sometimes in epidemic proportions, in all countries resulting in 50 to 90 per cent losses. While several causes for CCD were identified, no specific reason or reliable remedies are known.

There was a collapse of Honey Bee colonies in the US and Europe in the middle of last year, causing enormous losses. The anti-Genetic Engineering (GE) activists were quick to attribute the CCD to the pollen of Bt crops, and used it vigorously in their campaign.

As there are several Bt transgenics in cultivation in the US, it is not odd to consider them as one of probable causes of the CCD. But in the case of the EU countries and elsewhere that argument is absurd, as there is a distinct lack of Bt pollen in the environment.

Poisoning by agricultural chemicals, unusually higher than normal winter damage and natural age dependent colony degeneration, are often confused with CCD.

A detailed write up by Christian Evans in News Target (March 2007) analyzed the various possible causes for last year’s bee colony disaster and considered that the heavy chemical inputs in modern agricultural practices as responsible for the problem.

Read more…

Posted by CS Prakash at 5:29 PM | Permalink

Biotechnology is starting to gain more acceptance throughout the world according to the following London Times article. This is great news! Read more below.

C.S. Prakash

Frankenstein foods are not monsters
The London Times
January 09, 2008

All hail Doctor Frankenstein, maker of monsters. God is in retreat, skulking outside the laboratory while modern imitators of Mary Shelley’s mad boffin brew potions, splice genes and bring more new life forms into profitable being.

Ten years after the Prince of Wales accused genetic engineers of taking us into “realms that belong to God and God alone”, those who trespassed into the Kingdom of Heaven have emerged triumphant with a bag full of swag. Monsanto, the American corporation that brought us maize that makes its own pesticide, is thriving, rolling in cash, its stock price ascendant.

A decade ago, Europeans could sneer at genetically modified crops, deriding them as a US-food industry phenomenon, invented to service the food needs of America’s burger-chomping fatties and as attractive as mechanically recovered meat. While we sniffed in our bunkers, the seed barons were winning hearts, minds and stomachs in Asia and Latin America. By 2006, genetically modified crops were grown on more than 100 million hectares in 22 countries, with farmers in China and India clamouring for the seed. The driver is demographics, economics and plain old commerce. Food prices have soared, prompting government agencies to engage in panic buying of wheat. Land is becoming scarce as cities advance and companies such as Monsanto and Syngenta, its Swiss rival, make plants that repel predatory bugs and that use less herbicide. The promise for farmers is bigger yields at lower cost and, in a world that needs to feed an extra three billion people by 2050, the need is powerful.

These companies have won the commercial argument, making the right products at the right time, and have profited hugely. Syngenta’s share price surged by 50 per cent last year, while Monsanto’s grew by 140 per cent and the American company last week revealed that its net income in the first quarter had almost tripled to $256 million (£128 million). Its sales of seeds had risen by 23 per cent from the previous year because of soaring demand in Latin America, an astonishing achievement for a business that was almost on its knees in 2002, accused of poisoning the world for profit. So successful was the ideological assault against GM food that Zambia was persuaded to reject American food aid on the ground that it contained GM ingredients that might pollute Zambia’s biosphere.

Read more

Posted by CS Prakash at 6:56 AM | Permalink

The Guardian reported this week that Arcadia Biosciences will soon begin offering Chinese companies rewards for planting genetically modified crops. Arcadia plans to sell companies carbon credits, which can then be resold from cash, in exchange for plant GM crops. Read more about it below…

C.S. Prakash

Biotech Firm Plans To Fund GM Rice Crops With Carbon Credits
The London Times
January 08, 2007

Money paid by green consumers to offset their flights and by companies that go carbon-neutral will be used to fund the planting of genetically modified (GM) crops under plans drawn up by a US biotechnology company.

Arcadia Biosciences is working with the Chinese government to reward farmers in China that grow the firm's genetically modified (GM) rice, with carbon credits that they can sell for cash.

The credits would be sold on the global carbon trading market set up under the Kyoto protocol, the international agreement to cut greenhouse gas emissions, which is used by governments, companies and individuals to offset their pollution. Arcadia plans to expand the Chinese scheme to more crops in other countries, including Britain.

Arcadia says its GM rice requires less nitrogen fertiliser, and so farmers that grow it will lower their emissions of nitrous oxide - a greenhouse gas some 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide. Swapping global rice supply to the GM version, the company says, would save the equivalent of 50m tonnes of carbon dioxide each year, and generate 750m in carbon credits for farmers.

Eric Rey, the president and chief executive of the California-based Arcadia, told the Guardian: "A technology that allows farmers to participate in carbon credit markets will give agriculture a clear incentive to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. It's a way for farmers, and us, to make money, while doing something positive to help the environment."

World agriculture accounts for 17% of industrial greenhouse gas emissions, more than the transport sector. Rey aims to have the Chinese scheme running by 2012, in time to take advantage of new carbon markets expected to be created by a successor treaty to Kyoto. The first steps towards such a treaty were taken at the UN climate meeting in Bali last month.

Read more

Posted by CS Prakash at 6:41 AM | Permalink

Cattle Network, a livestock industry new site, posted the following article by Dan Murphy on the goals of the agriculture community for 2008. The article includes an extensive list of agriculture organizations and their goals for the New Year. It’s quite long, but worth the read.

C.S. Prakash

New Year’s Goals For The Ag Community Focused On A Strong, Prosperous 2008
Cattle Network
7 January, 2008

As 2008 begins a critical year for all of agriculture, AgNetwork.com reviews the goals and priorities from a select group of advocacy groups and trade associations. Some of those are entirely predictable – such as lobbying for the most favorable version of the farm bill. Others center on policy, marketing of even educational goals.

All of the organizations below work hard at a variety of initiatives all aimed at strengthening various segments of agriculture, All deserve the support – monetary, as well as political – of their members and constituents.

But can we pause for a brief editorial comment? In contacting the organizations profiled here, too many had “designated spokespeople” solely empowered to discuss the group’s priorities. And if they were unavailable, media inquiries (of any sort) get shelved until such time as the spokesperson resurfaces.

That’s a missed opportunity, but more importantly it speaks to one of the most neglected aspects of running an organization that interfaces with the media: internal communications. When the folks answering the phones or responding to emails are unwilling or unable – doesn’t matter which – to verbalize the group’s mission, or its key goals, that’s a red flag.

Should receptionists be able to articulate a group’s top priorities? Yes. They’re your de facto spokespeople. Should office managers, entry-level staff, even temporary interns be aware of what they’re working for and to what mission their efforts are supposed to contribute? Absolutely.

Unfortunately, the mindset among some advocacy groups and trade associations – and I can say this because I’ve been there – is that we have spokespeople, and we have staff. The former are tasked with articulating the group’s goals; the rest of the organization is on a need-to-know basis.

And too often, it’s presumed that they don’t need to know.

Read more…

Posted by CS Prakash at 5:26 PM | Permalink

Speaking at the Oxford Farming Conference last week, the Chairman of the European Parliament agriculture committee, Neil Parish, encouraged farmers to embrace GM crops to help mitigate the effects of climate change, feed price and food security issues. Read the article below.

C.S. Prakash

Europe must ditch GM hang-up
Farmers Guardian
4 January, 2008

GENETICALLY modified crops must be encouraged into European agriculture if tough climate change, feed price and food security issues are to be mitigated.

That was the message from the Chairman of the European Parliament agriculture committee Neil Parish MEP when speaking at the Oxford Farming Conference this week.

“One of the problems Europe has got is its hang up over GM crops,” said Mr Parish.

“We need to wake up and smell the coffee. I think Monsanto now claim to have developed wheat and oil seed rape that needs around a third of the amount of nitrogen input than conventional crops.

“If these crops take off can you imagine Europe not taking advantage? When you think about the amount of energy needed to make artificial nitrogen, GM does seem to be one solution to our problem,” he said, adding that feed and food prices will be pushed up if the EU fails to take advantage of the new feed source.

During his address to delegates Mr Parish said that the 2008 ‘Health Check’ on the CAP will move agriculture closer to a market orientated system of agriculture. The Commission’s proposal on scrapping set-aside, abolishing milk quotas and compulsory modulation are all welcome as long as they fully maintain a level playing field for all farmers across the EU, he said.

Mr Parish praised the Commission for reducing the number of Brazilian holdings permitted to export beef to the EU but called for a complete ban on Brazilian beef imports over traceability and quality assurance concerns.

Read more…

Posted by CS Prakash at 5:16 PM | Permalink

Great News! Australia’s agriculture minister, Tony Burke, is encouraging farmers to combat climate change with genetically modified crops. Australia endured a devastating drought last year, and while the government cannot force farmers to grow gm crops, they did say they may start encouraging it’s use. Read more about this below.

C.S Prakash

Australia looks to GM crops after scorching 2007
Check biotech
January 3, 2008

SYDNEY - Australia's agriculture minister on Thursday hailed genetically modified crops as a means to help farmers combat climate change, as data showed 2007 was the country's sixth hottest year on record.

Agriculture Minister Tony Burke said Australia's farmers needed to face up to climate change, foreshadowing major changes to drought relief payments worth billions of dollars.

Burke said Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's recently-elected government wanted to improve farmers' ability to deal with climate change, rather than simply propping them up as they struggled through the worst drought in a century.

'What I don't want to see is situations where some people can go onto the system of relief and have no incentive during that time to actually improve the property to better deal with climate change,' Burke told commercial radio.

Questioned later on public radio about what farmers could do to help make their properties more drought-resistant, Burke said the center-left Labor government was considering genetically modified crops as a possible solution.

'There's some answers that may well be provided through genetically modified crops in different parts of the country,' he said.

'There'll be some places where there'll be specific water strategies, where there can be changes in ploughing methods.'

Read more…

Posted by CS Prakash at 4:57 PM | Permalink