Having problems with message search?
Agnet April 16/04 -- II
EU's new rules will shake up: market for bioengineered food
EU biotech labeling and traceability requirements `will be a serious barrier to international trade,' says NFPA
Food firms reject GM ingredients
Australian state governments stomp biotech industry: Traditional PR fails
Brazil labels GM food
Voluntary standard for labelling of genetically engineered foods becomes national standard
Proposed biotech wheat initiative ready for circulation
SCID helps crops stay pure
No-till farming offers a quick fix to help ward off host of global problems
Canola Watch gears up for another season
how to subscribe
EU's new rules will shake up: market for bioengineered food
April 16, 2004
The Wall Street Journal/AP
BRUSSELS -- The European Union, one of the major holdouts against genetically modified foods, will, according to this story, start opening the door wider next week, with huge implications for farmers and agricultural companies around the globe as well as European consumers.
The stories say that the new rules will present an opportunity for producers of bioengineered food to battle for consumers in one of the world's biggest, albeit toughest, markets. And those millions of shoppers, who have largely shunned genetically modified foods, may be forced to swallow the notion that unmodified foods are becoming increasingly rare. Starting Sunday, new regulations will require labels that alert European consumers when a product contains as little as 0.9% genetically modified ingredients. Farmers and food packagers everywhere will have to maintain paper trails on genetically altered food products -- tracking ingredients from field to store shelf -- if they are destined to end up in Europe. Europe also is expected to soon lift a six-year government ban on testing new bioengineered crops for cultivation on European soil. But companies targeting Europe with genetically modified foods will find it a tough nut to crack. In a world that increasingly cultivates and consumes foods made from bioengineered seeds, Europe has remained stubbornly resistant -- a legacy of its green traditions and its strong doubts about the safety of such food for diners and the environment. The European Union currently allows genetically modified food to be sold in member states, but under pressure from organizations such as Greenpeace, food companies and grocery stores have kept such products to a minimum. The EU also has approved 18 different crops for cultivation, but only Spanish corn farmers grow any on a commercial scale. Greenpeace has already mobilized volunteers to fight off incursions under the new rules.
Francois Perroud, spokesman at Swiss food giant Nestle, which uses approved genetically engineered ingredients "without any hesitation" in the United States and elsewhere but keeps them out of Europe, was quoted as saying, "In the interest of commercial success, we must respect consumer preference."
Europe's biggest retailer, Paris-based Carrefour Group, was cited as saying its own research shows more than 75 percent of European consumers do not want genetically modified foods.
Its own-brand products have been guaranteed biotech-free since 1999 and other companies are "doing whatever's necessary to make sure their products don't need to be labeled," a Carrefour spokeswoman said.
EU biotech labeling and traceability requirements `will be a serious barrier to international trade,' says NFPA
April 16, 2004
From a press release
WASHINGTON -- Commenting on the European Union's new requirements for labeling and traceability of foods and feeds that contain genetically modified ingredients, which become effective on April 18, John R. Cady, President and CEO of the National Food Processors Association (NFPA), made the following statement:
"These new requirements establish a serious trade barrier that will keep many U.S. food products out of the European market. European consumers will see such labels on food products as `warning labels.' However, there is no safety or nutrition issue associated with the products of agricultural biotechnology on the market, and there is no scientific basis for requiring the labeling of biotech foods.
"Mandatory labeling should be based on the composition, intended use, and health and safety characteristics of a food product, not on the `genetic process' from which it was derived. Moreover, the traceability requirements are a classic case of regulatory overkill, putting complex and detailed new requirements on food companies, with no benefit - but with added expense - for consumers.
"NFPA has long opposed these labeling and traceability requirements by the EU. We strongly urge the World Trade Organization to address this issue, and take action to block these new, unnecessary barriers to trade.
NFPA is the voice of the food processing industry on scientific and public policy issues involving food safety, food security, nutrition, technical and regulatory matters and consumer affairs.
Visit NFPA's Website at www.nfpa-food.org.
Food firms reject GM ingredients
April 15, 2004
Friends of the Earth – Press Release
The UK's biggest food companies will continue to reject GM ingredients in their products when tougher GM labeling laws are introduced on Sunday 18th April, a survey by Friends of the Earth has revealed. The news will be welcomed by consumers across the UK who made it clear that they do not want to eat GM food. Meanwhile the UK Government, which opposed plans for tougher GM labeling rules to "minimise the risks" of alienating the US [1], is backing applications for GM rice and sweetcorn to be imported into Europe.
Under existing EU regulations, food containing one per cent or more of genetically modified DNA must be labeled so that consumers can opt to avoid it. But on Sunday 18th April tougher GM labeling rules come in to effect which:
Cover `derivatives' from GM crops including oils and lecithin, both mainly found in processed food;
Tighten the labeling threshold from one per cent to 0.9 per cent;
Include `feed' fed to animals.
Friends of the Earth contacted the UK's leading supermarkets and food manufacturers [see below] to question their policy on the new GM labeling laws. Most indicated that they do not expect to be required to label any of their own-brand products when the new regulations come into force. The continuing GM ban is a result of clear anti-GM pressure from consumers. Last year the Government embarked on a major public consultation on GM which found that most people said no to GM. Only eight per cent said they were happy to eat GM food - 86 per cent were not.
News that food companies are continuing to boycott GM ingredients will come as a further blow to biotech firms. Last month it became clear that GM crops would not be grown in the UK for the foreseeable future when Bayer ditched plans to commercialise GM maize, despite qualified Government backing for the crop. The move means that the UK is likely to remain free from commercial GM crops for the foreseeable future.
Despite consumer hostility toward GM food, the UK Government continues to support it at a European level, backing applications for GM rice and sweetcorn to be imported into the UK. If these crops are allowed to be imported into the UK, it will be harder for companies to avoid GM contamination, and undermine consumer efforts to choose GM-free food.
Friends of the Earth's GM campaigner Clare Oxborrow said:
"Food companies are rightly continuing to listen to UK consumers and saying no to GM ingredients. This is good news for everyone who wants GM-free food. But the UK Government continues to undermine efforts to keep Britain GM-free by backing plans for GM rice and sweetcorn to be imported in to Britain. If this happens it will be harder for companies and consumers to avoid GM. It's time Mr. Blair abandoned the dangerous and unpopular GM experiment and backed healthy and sustainable food and farming instead."
The United States Government has threatened to challenge the European GM labeling scheme under World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules. The USA and a handful of other countries have already launched a WTO case over Europe's de facto moratorium on the granting of new GM licenses on GM food and crops.
Notes
1. The UK Government opposed the labeling of GM derivatives, and the tightening of the GM threshold to below 1 per cent. See: http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=610962003
Responses
Supermarkets
J Sainsbury:
"Based on the informal guidance received to date from the Food Standards Agency (FSA) we see no reason for any changes that will be required to be made to the labeling of our own label foods." - Letter 31 April 2004
M&S
"as a 100 % own brand retailer we are able to offer our customers a very clear proposition that all Marks Spencer food is produced using non GM ingredients and derivatives" - Letter 12 March 2004
Waitrose:
"I can confirm that Waitrose continues to obtain food and food ingredients for Waitrose brand from conventional (rather than GM) sources and to transport and process them in a way designed to prevent accidental mixing with GM material. Therefore there will be no changes to the labeling of Waitrose brand products as far as genetically modified ingredients are concerned." - Letter 10 March 2004
Co-op:
"With regard to our current product range and the impact of the impending EU regulations, none of our range will require labeling as containing GM ingredients"
Budgens
"..it will remain our policy to ensure that no own brand products contain GM ingredients"
Tesco:
"Tesco does not…have any own-label GM foods on its shelves, and this will not change as a result of the new EU legislation in April… the new legislation will mean that branded products on our shelves which have GM ingredients will have to be labeled, enabling the customer to make an informed choice."
Morrisons/ Safeway:
"We have removed GM ingredients and GM derivatives from all our own label products. In accordance with current legislation we expect branded goods that contain GM ingredients to be clearly labelled to enable our shoppers to make their own informed choice about what they are buying.
Regarding GM animal feed, we are working with our suppliers to come up with a solution that will support our existing policy."
ASDA:
"…we do not at this stage anticipate private label products requiring GM labeling."
Somerfield/ Kwiksave
"Our position with regards to Genetic Modification remains unchanged. The changes in the EU regulations will not affect our own label products or the way that we continue to produce them."
Iceland:
"Iceland own brand products have been made without GM ingredients since 1998 and we can confirm our commitment to this policy remains…The new regulations will not lead to any change in this position." Letter 14 March 2004
Others
Unilever:
"We do not expect there will be labelled products…" Dick Toot, Unilever - phone conversation 6/4/04
Associated British foods -
All ABF brands are GM free - phone conversation.
Nestle
Nestlé recognises consumer concerns about different aspects of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and therefore continues to provide non-GM products.
Cadbury Schweppes:
"from 18th April 2004 the date the regulation occurs our products will not require GM labeling." - e-mail 5 April 2004
Australian state governments stomp biotech industry: Traditional PR fails
April 16/04
BioScience Guest Editorial
Australiaˆs agricultural biotechnology industry did everything right, according to traditional public relations practices. And, it did so successfully. It obtained editorial support from major newspapers; governments anointed biotechnology as a vital key to the future; credible scientific research proclaimed the safety of biotech crops and foods; leading farm groups staunchly explained and defended the need for biotechnology; and, an independent report documented that international marketing of Australia farm products would not be harmed by growing biotech crops.
By 20th century PR standards the Australian agricultural had done its work.
There was only one problem. This is the 21st century. By sticking to outdated PR approaches, the Australian biotech industry recently suffered an intense and quick series of defeats. In a matter of days last month, four Australian states imposed bans, moratoria or other restrictions on agricultural biotechnology. AusBiotech, Australiaˆs biotechnology industry group, was ¯stunned˜ and ¯amazed˜ by the rapid sequence of events.
The biotech stomp
Hereˆs a brief summary of the rapid fire, anti-biotechnology announcements made by Australian state governments over 10 days:
March 22: Western Australia Premier Geoff Gallop announces the state will be ¯GM (genetically modified) -free.˜ March 26: Australian Broadcasting Corporation reports South Australia passes a GM moratorium bill that ¯prevents GM crops being grown for three years, except under strict conditions.˜ March 26: Australian Broadcasting Corporation reports the Victoria government ¯has extended a (GM) moratorium until 2008.˜ April 1: Australian Broadcasting Corporation reports the New South Wales government ¯rejects GM trial proposal.˜ A proposal for 3,000-hectare trial of GM canola is cut back significantly. The Sydney Morning Herald reports the next day three trials totaling only 420 hectares will go ahead.
Powerless editorial support
During these 10 days, politicians stomped on biotechnology, even though several traditional opinion leaders supported the industry. For example, leading editorial departments, which are prime targets for folks, backed the biotech industry and encouraged politicians to make bold decisions. Hereˆs what some wrote:
¯·The Age believes the Government should allow the GM canola to be grown despite the discontent this will cause among green lobbyists and its own backbench· ¯·Those who oppose GM crops on political, environmental or health grounds remain free to exercise their power of choice in the marketplace. But in order to do this, information about the extent of GM products should be freely available·.Advocates of GM food insist consumers have nothing to fear from their products: logically this means that they should not oppose full disclosure of the extent of GM products in the foods we eat.˜ The Age, March 22, 2004 ¯The Australian understands cabinet made the decision (to ban genetically modified crops in Victoria for the next four yeas) a month ago and that Mr. Bracks (Premier of Victoria) took responsibility for the timing of the announcement. The decision, taken mainly for political reasons, overrode the arguments of Mr. Brumby and the other economic ministers Theo Theophanous and Export Minister Tim Holding, that there was no scientific, health or marketing rationale for extending the existing ban. Cabinet also ignored two reports commissioned by the Government which recommended trials go ahead.˜
The Australian, March 26, 2004
¯State governments continue to capitulate to green hysteria over genetically modified crops·
¯The arguments against GM have been falling over rapidly. No one takes seriously the human safety concerns implicit in the anti-GM lobbyˆs
ŒFrankenfoodˆ label. And the economic concerns were obliterated by a report prepared for the Victorian government·
¯A country with a large grains industry canˆt afford to ignore promising new crop technologies like GM. Governments should embrace it cautiously, but purposefully. Blocking it in obedience to green hysteria sacrifices the public interest.˜
Australian Financial Review, April 1, 2004
Australiaˆs biotech industry had worked closely with government and media. It won favour in both courts. Yet, in just a few days, it became a political pariah. This makes it a fascinating PR study.
Biotechˆs fall from grace is interesting for another reason. Biotechnology has an outstanding record of environmental achievement in Australian cotton fields. Conventional cotton is one of the most pesticide-intensive crops in the world, requiring numerous applications throughout the growing season. Even a small percentage reduction in pesticide provides enormous environmental benefits.
A genetically modified cotton introduced in Australia a few years ago uses 50 per cent less pesticide than conventional. A new GM cotton thatˆs in the works could reduce pesticide usage by up to 75 per cent. Much of the research and development into GM cotton was conducted by Australiaˆs own Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO).
Activists conduct modern and successful PR effort
So, what happened? What went wrong? Why did Australiaˆs biotech suddenly find itself under a cloud and struggling for its future? To find the answers one must look at the vastly different PR approaches taken by industry and its opponents. The two sides shared little, if anything, in the line of PR strategy. One side, however, was the clear victor.
The biotech industry followed a traditional, command-and-control, centralized PR approach. Opinion leaders were targeted and brought onside. Significant stakeholder organizations and spokesmen were made available to the media. Great efforts were made to enhance understanding of the science and technology of biotechnology. Specialists were appointed to deal with specific issues. Scientists and academics brought authority and credibility to the industryˆs position. The biotechnology focused on explaining its position and its technology.
The anti-biotech forces ? the activists ? took a different approach. They conducted a decentralized, networked campaign. There was no command-and-control centre for their campaign. Individuals and groups were bound together by a common vision ? the destruction of biotech industry. Their common goal was to incite grassroots, community opposition to biotechnology. They were free to speak out and take action where and when they pleased. This created more ¯voices˜ for the media to cover. Some were more aggressive than others. They wanted news coverage, not editorial support.
Activists talked about human reaction to biotechnology, not scientific assessment of a technology. They expanded the discussion of biotechnology to include environmental contamination, world trade, free trade, corporate power, business domination of the food supply, consumersˆ right-to-know, labeling, food quality, and a variety of other issues. They talked about simple, common, shared visions and values, such as Australiaˆs ¯clean, green˜ image.
While itˆs possible to criticize the activist tactics from a scientific, rational perspective, one canˆt argue with their success. They raised public concerns about biotechnology. Sensing mounting public opposition to biotechnology ? whether justified or not ? Western Australia politicians came down hard on the industry. When one state government took decisive action and received public praise for it, politicians in other jurisdictions quickly followed suit. Thatˆs politics! Itˆs grassroots politics, a form the biotech industry has yet to appreciate and master.
Other industries ignore biotech situation at their peril
Perhaps the biggest PR mistake was made not by the Australiaˆs biotech industry but by other industries. Other businesses failed to see that anti-biotech activism is used to promote a wide range of anti-business values. Anti-biotech and other activists are anti-corporation, anti-growth, anti-development, anti-progress, anti-profit, anti-trade, anti-choice, anti-freedom, and even anti-democratic.
By staying out of the biotech battle, other industries and trade associations ? such chambers of commerce ? silently endorsed the anti-business values of the activists. They ignored an important opportunity to discuss the capitalist values that have brought wealth, prosperity, better living standards, higher education, and ever improving health care to the world.
They stood outside the arena, taking comfort in the thought ¯Weˆre glad itˆs them and not us.˜ Their inaction contributed to the growing anti-business sentiment. The result will be ever increasing, and often senseless, regulation of business. Biotech is the proverbial tip of the iceberg.
The events in Australia illustrate a clear choice for the biotech industry and other businesses. Either adopt 21st century PR strategies or continue to be victims of activists. Come to think of it, there really isnˆt a choice.
Note/disclaimer/background
Detailed and timely media monitoring of events in Australia was not possible. As a result, there may be some discrepancies in dates, etc. A list of some the media and other reports used in preparing this article is available via the epublicrelations website.
Ross S. Irvine, President ePublic Relations Ltd, Guelph, ON, Canada
Brazil labels GM food
April 16, 2004
SciDev.Net
Luisa Massarani
http://www.checkbiotech.org/root/index.cfm?fuseaction=news&doc_id=7576&start=1&control=220&page_start=1&page_nr=101&pg=1
RIO DE JANEIRO - All human and animal food sold in Brazil that contains more than one per cent genetically modified (GM) ingredients must now be labelled under a law that came into force this month.
The law states that the packaging of GM products should be labelled with a 'T' — for 'transgenic' — no smaller than about 1 centimetre squared. It also imposes fines of between US$65 and US$1 million on producers that flout the new regulations.
Three organisations will be responsible for enforcing the law: the Ministry of Agriculture and the National Health Surveillance Agency will take care of agricultural and industry matters, respectively;
PROCONs, the state consumer-protection organisation will control commerce of GM products.
At present, it is illegal to grow GM crops for commercial purposes in Brazil. The only exception is GM soya illegally grown in 2003, which was granted special permission to be sold for both animal and human consumption.
Paradoxically, however, the new law does not require products containing the 2003 GM soya be labelled. Rather, the law states that the labels of such products should include the information: "this may contain ingredients produced by GM soya" or "this may contain GM soya".
The law has received a mixed reaction in the scientific community. Silvio Valle, a biosafety expert at Oswaldo Cruz Foundation in Rio de Janeiro, questions why the legislation is stricter for products that are unlikely to be found on the Brazilian market, such as GM maize, than it is for illegally grown GM soya, "which is a reality in our country".
He says that the law does not make clear whether imported GM products must also be labelled. And he adds that it very unlikely that any labelled GM products will appear in Brazilian supermarkets this year.
This is not the first time that Brazil has legislated on labelling GM food. The government of ex-president Fernando Henrique Cardoso introduced a law that products with more than 4 per cent GM ingredients should be labelled, a limit that was reduced to one per cent in April 2003 by president Luiz Inácio 'Lula' da Silva. However, neither of these laws was ever put into practice.
Voluntary standard for labelling of genetically engineered foods becomes national standard
April 16, 2004
Canadian General Standards Board
OTTAWA -- The Government of Canada today announced the official adoption by the Standards Council of Canada, of the Standard for Voluntary Labelling and Advertising of Foods That Are and Are Not Products of Genetic Engineering, as a National Standard of Canada. This means that consumers could start to see more labels on some food ingredients and food items indicating whether or not they are a product of genetic engineering.
Adoption of the voluntary standard is the result of a thorough development and approval process - via a multi-stakeholder committee - facilitated by the Canadian General Standards Board (CGSB) and started in 1999. The process was reviewed by the Standards Council of Canada, the body that administers Canada's National Standards System.
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency,
Public Works and Government Services Canada and Health Canada were among the six federal departments that participated in the process for the development of the voluntary standard.
"The CGSB and the consumer groups and industry groups that participated in the Committee should be commended for doing an excellent job and working through a number of challenging issues. This is an important step and I believe that this standard will help respond to consumer demand by developing meaningful criteria for the labelling of foods derived through biotechnology," said Agriculture and Agri-food Minister Bob Speller.
"I commend the Committee members - the numerous producer, consumer and other organizations, as well as representatives of six federal departments - for committing a tremendous amount of time and effort into the development of a workable voluntary labelling standard," said Doryne Peace, Chair of the
Committee on Voluntary Labelling of Foods Obtained or Not Obtained Through
Genetic Modification.
"No solution will please everyone, but this standard represents a broad consensus on the part of consumer groups, farmers, industry and government. It sets a framework for meaningful claims about the presence or absence of genetically engineered food ingredients. As a voluntary standard, the speed at which labelling appears in the marketplace will ultimately be driven by the importance of the issue to consumers," said Jeanne Cruikshank, Vice-President,
Atlantic Region, Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors, whose organization sponsored the initiative.
The standard for voluntary labelling is intended to provide further guidance for food companies and manufacturers, which could help consumers make food choices.
The standard may be accessed free of charge over the Internet at Canadian
General Standards Board Web site located at http://www.cgsb.gc.ca.
General information and Frequently Asked Questions on the process followed by the Canadian General Standards Board leading up to the adoption of the national standard, is available at http://www.pwgsc.gc.ca/cgsb.
For more information on food labelling and food safety in Canada please see the respective Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Health Canada websites at www.inspection.gc.ca and
www.hc-sc.gc.ca/english/protection/novel_foods.html
Media backgrounder:
Highlights from the National Standard
National Standard of Canada -- Voluntary Labelling and Advertising of Foods That Are, and Are Not, Products of Genetic Engineering
Highlights
The Standard is voluntary and is intended to provide consumers with consistent information for making informed food choices while providing labelling and advertising guidance for food companies, manufacturers and importers.
The application of the Standard relates to claims about foods that have been "genetically engineered," that is foods obtained through the use of specific techniques that allow moving genes from one species to another.
Applies to the advertising and labelling of food (pre-packaged, bulk, and food prepared at the point of sale) to distinguish whether or not such foods, or food ingredients, have been genetically engineered.
Defines terms, and sets out various criteria for making claims about whether or not a food contains ingredients that are products of genetic engineering.
Limits to less than 5 per cent the amount of accidental co-mingling of genetically-engineered and non genetically-engineered food when a labelling claim is made.
Provides examples of acceptable and non-acceptable labelling statements.
All labelling claims must be understandable, informative, not false or misleading, verifiable and compliant with all current Canadian regulations.
The Standard does not apply to processing aids, enzymes used in small quantities, substrates for micro-organisms, veterinary biologics and animal feeds.
As with all Canadian standards, both industry and governments will benefit from a clear understanding of the acceptable framework surrounding the making of food claims.
All Canadians will likewise benefit from knowing that a Standard exists to help them make informed food choices.
Proposed biotech wheat initiative ready for circulation
April 15, 2004
Associated Press
Dale Wetzel
Secretary of State Al Jaeger was cited as saying that a ballot measure that would restrict biotech wheat plantings in North Dakota is ready for circulation, and that supporters of the initiative must gather petition signatures from at least 12,844 North Dakota voters to put the measure to a statewide vote. They have a year to do so. To qualify for the November ballot, petitions must be turned in by Aug. 4.
The measure would give North Dakota's agriculture commissioner authority to decide whether farmers could plant genetically modified wheat. The commissioner would have to appoint a six-member review panel to study the question, and hold at least one public hearing.
SCID helps crops stay pure
April 16, 2004
Stuff.co.nz
Tim Cronshaw
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,2877008a3600,00.html
An internet-based mapping system developed in Christchurch is helping farmers prevent crops from being contaminated through cross-pollination.
About 120 autumn-sown seed crops have been logged into the system, Seed Crop Isolation Distance (SCID), since it went live on the internet in February.
SCID was trialled in Canterbury before being released nationwide. It is administered by the state-owned enterprise AgriQuality.
All the major Canterbury seed companies and most merchant-listed growers are in the system, which can tell, for example, if brassica and vegetable seed crops are planted so close to each other that they are in danger of cross-pollination from wind and insects.
Commercial clients looking for genetic purity are increasingly insisting that conflicting seed crops be planted at least one to two kilometres apart to prevent wind-borne contamination.
AgriQuality's SCID administrator, Evan Johnston, said the system can identify a site and tell the user how far that site is from potentially cross-pollinating crops.
"It gives the merchants and growers a warning that there could be the potential of conflicting crops near their crops," he said. "They only have to lose one crop and potentially $100,000, and that is a huge loss. SCID minimises the risk of this happening."
By accessing SCID maps, users can also look back at a site's history to see what had been grown on it, thus enabling him or her to deal with the risk of past crops rising again.
By fine-tuning distances between crops, better use of the land can be made, said Johnston.
He said other countries have elements of the system, but SCID is the most advanced and extensive one.
The live system replaces manual crop mapping, which needed to be updated every fortnight.
"The advantage is that you can go on this system at any time of the day, access a crop site and find out straight away whether there is potential for conflict," said Johnston.
Information such as crop species, sowing and flowering times, and the isolation distance required is fed into the system by the merchants.
After a site is booked, the system checks for conflicting crops up to a 10km radius.
The system automatically emails merchants and growers information on possible crop conflicts and crop sites being booked.
To protect the interest of other users, a seed company can only access crop sites of their listed growers.
Registered growers can only view crop sites on their property.
The project is funded by MAF's Sustainable Farming Fund and co-ordinated by the Foundation for Arable Research.
The maps were developed from AgriQuality's AgriBase database.
Johnston said SCID is a useful tool for growers, but it should not be seen as a replacement for neighbourly discussions, which have always taken place.
The system may have wider use if the commercial release of genetically engineered crops is allowed in New Zealand under compulsory isolation zones, said Johnston.
No-till farming offers a quick fix to help ward off host of global problems
April 16, 2004
Ohio State Research News
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/notill.htm
COLUMBUS, Ohio – Increase no-till farming practices across the planet or face serious climate, soil quality and food production problems in the next 20 to 50 years. That warning from scientists appeared in the journal Science this week.
No-till farming helps soil retain carbon. Healthy topsoil contains carbon-enriched humus – decaying organic matter that provides nutrients to plants. Soils low in humus can't maintain the carbon-dependent nutrients essential to healthy crop production, resulting in the need to use more fertilizers.
A lack of carbon in soil may promote erosion, as topsoil and fertilizers are often washed or blown away from farm fields and into waterways, said Rattan Lal, the paper's lead author and the director of the carbon management and sequestration center at Ohio State University.
In no-till agriculture, farmers plant seeds without using a plow to turn the soil. Soil loses most of it carbon content during plowing, which releases carbon dioxide gas into the atmosphere. Increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have been associated with global climate change.
Traditional plowing, or tilling, turns over the top layer of soil. Farmers use it for, among other reasons, to get rid of weeds, make it easier to use fertilizers and pesticides and to plant crops. Tilling also enriches the soil as it hastens the decomposition of crop residue, weeds and other organic matter.
Still, the benefits of switching to no-till farming practices outweigh those of traditional planting.
Since the mechanization of agriculture began a few hundred years ago, scientists estimate that some 78 billion metric tons – more than 171 trillion pounds – of carbon once trapped in the soil have been lost to the atmosphere in the form of CO2.
Lal and his colleagues estimate that no-till farming is practiced on only 5 percent of all the world's cultivated cropland. Farmers in the United States use no-till methods on 37 percent of the nation's cropland, which results in saving an estimated 60 million metric tons of soil CO2 annually.
"If every farmer who grows crops in the United States would use no-till and adopt management practices such as crop rotation and planting cover crops, we could sequester about 300 million tons of soil carbon each year," said Lal, who is also a professor of soil science at Ohio State.
"Each year, 6 billion tons of carbon is released into the planet's atmosphere as fossil fuels are burned, and plants can absorb 20 times that amount in that period of time," he said. "The problem is that as organisms decompose and plants breathe, CO2 returns to the atmosphere. None of it accumulates in the soil."
Lal admits that full-scale no-till farming practices are a short-term fix, but it's one that will give researchers enough time to find alternatives to fossil fuels.
"There needs to be a global effort to adopt no-till farming practices soon. Governments need to mandate these practices or to provide financial incentives to farmers to adopt them," said Lal, adding no-till methods may reduce a farmer's annual crop yield by 5 to 10 percent, at least for the first few years.
It's also tough to ask farmers who lack the necessary financial resources to switch to no-till methods, especially in African and Asian countries where no-till levels are the lowest, Lal said.
"No-till isn't readily practiced in most of these areas due to the lack of available financial resources and government support," he said. "Farmers often lack the seeding equipment necessary to drill through crop residue. And many farmers use leftover residue from the previous year's crops for fuel or animal fodder. So the cultivated soil gets compacted or eroded by water and wind."
Topsoil is also a lucrative commodity – an acre of it can bring in $1,300 for a farmer in India, where the first few feet of soil are often removed for brick making.
"No-till farming isn't a substitute for finding alternatives to fossil fuels," Lal said.
"No-till is definitely a short-term fix, but it may buy us up to 50 years to find alternatives to fossil fuels. If we don't heed this warning, our planet may change drastically. There's no other choice."
Lal co-authored the paper with Michael Griffin, Jay Apt, Lester Lave and M. Granger Morgan, all with Carnegie Mellon University.
Canola Watch gears up for another season
April 16, 2004
Canola Watch Press Release
The Canola Agronomy Network is gearing up to launch the very successful Canola Watch reports for the 2004 growing season. "Last year's inaugural reports were very successful in relaying key agronomic issues to all facets of the canola industry," says David Vanthuyne, Canola Council of Canada agronomist for Eastern Saskatchewan. "This proactive approach of providing just-in-time information has helped many growers and industry agronomists stay on top of crop management. The reports provide details on not only what is occurring down on the farm, but also give tips and information (often with illustrations or images) on how to identify and deal with pending issues, such as insect and disease outbreaks," he says.
The Canola Agronomy Network is a program of the Canola Council's Crop Production department. The network includes more than 20 agronomists and extension specialists, plus growers and industry retailers who will participate in weekly conference calls from April 27 to September 8 this year. The weekly Canola Watch reports are crafted based on discussions during each conference call. The reports are e-mailed to a list of over 1,500 industry people each week.
"Our number one job is to continue to provide canola growers and the people who advise them with in-season just-in-time information," says John Mayko, Chair of the network and the Canola Council of Canada's Agronomic Research and Extension Manager.
"We are very pleased with the response and the enthusiasm of the people who have come on board. People have told us they want us to continue this type of canola extension process," says Mayko. He adds that the network is always very keen to hear comments and suggestions on how to improve the reports.
Recipients of Canola Watch 2004 who have new grower customers are encouraged to contact the Council's Winnipeg office to obtain an information package on key tips for growing canola. "This package includes several important agronomic publications new growers will find very useful when growing canola. It will allow growers to make better management decisions, which is crucial to a profitable farming operation," says Vanthuyne. To subscribe to the Canola Watch reports, send an e-mail message to admin@... and in the subject box enter "Subscribe canola crop watch report."
The reports are also available on-line at:
http://www.canola-council.org/production/agronomy_net.html
Agnet is produced by the Food Safety Network at the University of Guelph and is sponsored by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Plants Program at the University of Guelph, Agricultural Adaptation Council (CanAdapt Program), AGCare, Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors, ConAgra Foods Inc., Meat Livestock Australia, Pioneer Hi-Bred Limited (Canada), Monsanto Canada, National Pork Board, Syngenta Seeds, Inc. USA, JIFSAN, CropLife Canada, Canadian Animal Health Institute, Burger King Corporation, Southern Crop Protection Association, Ag-West Biotech Inc., Ontario Agri-Food Technologies, Syngenta Crop Protection, Feedlot Health Management Services, Institute of Environmental Science Research Limited , National Food Processors Association, Tactix Government Consulting, Inc., CanAmera Foods, Global Public Affairs, and Agri Business Group, Inc.
To subscribe to the html version of Agnet (subscription is free), send mail to:
listserv@...
leave subject line blank
in the body of the message type:
subscribe agnet-L firstname lastname
i.e. subscribe agnet-L Doug Powell
(replace agnet-L with agnettext to subscribe to the text version of agnet)
To unsubscribe to the html version of Agnet, send mail to:
listserv@...
leave subject line blank
in the body of the message type:
signoff agnet-L
(replace agnet-L with agnettext to unsubscribe to the text version of agnet)
For more information about the Agnet research program, please contact:
Dr. Douglas Powell
Associate Professor
dept. of plant agriculture
University of Guelph
Guelph, Ont.
N1G 2W1
tel: 519-824-4120 x54280
cell: 519-835-3015
fax: 519-763-8933
dpowell@...
http://www.foodsafetynetwork.ca
The Food Safety Network's bilingual toll-free line for obtaining food safety
information: 1-866-50-FSNET (1-866-503-7638)
archived at "http://131.104.232.9/agnet-archives.htm
Send Email