Having problems with message search?
Agnet April 22/04
Consumers demand right to know about GE food
USDA says China has approved biotech corn, canola
GM wheat could have BSE effect: Wheat Board
Cultivation of genetically modified crops to be prohibited on Venezuelan soil
GM foods are safe
Biotech Bulletin - the Australian state of play
U.S. expertise helps thwart ticks in Scotland
Organic FAQs
Codex committee on pesticides residues
"No cost" agronomy tips for new canola growers
how to subscribe
Consumers demand right to know about GE food
April 22, 2004
People's Daily
A food brand which contains genetically engineered (GE) ingredients but is not labeled as such will, according to a recent survey cited in this story, create an unfavorable image among Chinese consumers,.
Seventy-one percent of the 600 respondents in the survey, commissioned by Greenpeace and a research institute in Guangzhou-based Zhongshan University, said they would trust a food brand less if it did not declare its GE ingredients. Only 20 percent said their loyalty would remain unchanged.
Carried out in February by Research International, the telephone survey polled 600 ordinary consumers in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou cities.
USDA says China has approved biotech corn, canola
April 21, 2004
USA Today
Via AgBioView at www.agbioworld.org
China has approved four corn and seven canola plant varieties that are genetically modified, sweeping away a potential barrier to trade, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman said Wednesday. Speaking to reporters after a series of meetings with Chinese officials on wide-ranging trade matters, Veneman added that China also was considering approving two additional biotech corn varieties.
"We have a commitment from the Chinese that these will be reviewed in May," Veneman said
GM wheat could have BSE effect: Wheat Board
April 22, 2004
CP Wire
Louise Waldman, a spokeswoman for the Canadian Wheat Board, was cited as saying they're encouraged that the federal government will consider economic concerns -- not just scientific ones -- before approving the use in Canada of genetically modified wheat, and that a majority of the board's customers, including in Japan, France, and here in Canada, don't want to buy genetically modified wheat.
An Agriculture Canada spokesman says that approval of genetically modified wheat will still depend on science, but the government is also prepared to look at other factors.
Cultivation of genetically modified crops to be prohibited on Venezuelan soil
April 21, 2004
Vheadline.com
Jason Tockman
http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=17960
Venezuelanalysis.com writes: President Hugo Chavez Frias has announced that the cultivation of genetically modified crops will be prohibited on Venezuelan soil, possibly establishing the most sweeping restrictions on transgenic crops in the Western Hemisphere. Though full details of the administration’s policy on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are still forthcoming, the statement by President Chavez will lead most immediately to the cancellation of a contract that Venezuela had negotiated with the US-based Monsanto Corporation.
Before a recent international gathering of supporters in Caracas, President Chavez admonished genetically engineered crops as contrary to interests and needs of the nation’s farmers and farm workers. He then zeroed in on Monsanto’s plans to plant up to 500,000 acres of transgenic soybeans in Venezuela. “I ordered an end to the project,” said President Chavez, upon learning that transgenic crops were involved. “This project is terminated.”
President Chavez emphasized the importance of food sovereignty and security -- required by the Venezuelan Constitution -- as the basis of his decision. Instead of allowing Monsanto to grow its transgenic crops, these fields will be used to plant yuca (an indigenous crop), Chavez explained. He also announced the creation of a large seed bank facility to maintain indigenous seeds for peasants’ movements around the world.
GM foods are safe
April 22, 2004
The East African Standard (Nairobi)
http://allafrica.com/stories/200404220117.html
The National Biosafety Committee yesterday dispelled fears that genetically modified foods pose any health risks to human beings.
It also announced that a genetically modified breed of maize will be available to farmers in five years time adding that safety trials are currently going on.
The committee's chairman Mr J K Ng'eno said the fear and resistance to genetically modified products is as a result of rumours and mis-information.
Ngeno was speaking at the Naromoru River Lodge during a workshop on biosafety systems opened by Education Permanent Secretary Mr Karega Mutahi.
He said use of GMOs may translate to a 30 per cent increase in harvest because they are both pest and drought resistant. Mutahi said the committee has spent close to US$ 6 million on the maize trials.
Biotech Bulletin - the Australian state of play
April 21, 2004
Biotech Bulletin 7, Agrifood Awareness Australia
INTRODUCTION
Is GM canola the subject of Australia's tall poppy syndrome? Despite a stringent, world-best, gene technology regulatory system, GM food labelling laws to allow consumer choice, and industry coexistence protocols, genetically modified (GM) canola has been prevented from commercial planting in all canola-growing states of Australia. Australia has taken a world leadership role in responsible and stringent regulation and industry management protocols and still no crop can be grown - GM canola, as the test case for future GM crops, has been cut down. Agrifood Awareness Australia Limited was established to support the generation of information to allow for informed decision making. Sadly, the current moratoria prevent anyone from meeting this basic need. Forget GM free zones, welcome to Australia's new data free zone! Without larger scale trials no data will be generated. Farmers will not have the opportunity to see the products and make informed business decisions. Industry will be unable to demonstrate coexistence. City based consumers will continue to have the opportunity to make informed purchasing decisions in supermarkets but our farmers will be denied a crop production choice. Genetically modified cotton is another very tall poppy we seem happy to disregard. Australian state governments have justified moratoria on the basis of protecting a "clean green" image. Surely our GM cotton - delivering a pesticide reduction of 50 per cent per annum in the areas it is grown - enhances, rather than detracts from such an image. Is this not something we should embrace and promote? Do the GM canola varieties currently under scrutiny not provide a "cleaner greener" alternative to some of the existing canola varieties under production? Every Australian state and territory government (apart from the Northern Territory and Queensland) has implemented, or is in the process of implementing, its own GM legislation. Each state is unique - on timing, product and process. (See below). State governments are encouraging biotechnology investment, but fail to announce that research outcomes cannot be deployed and marketed. There is no clear path to commercialisation for organisations involved in gene technology research, and it must be kept in mind that the majority of this research in Australia is undertaken by public research agencies such as CSIRO, not by private, international corporations. Two weeks ago in Perth, Australia's grain industry launched its "Single Vision". The new strategy will bring together Australia's leading grain bodies - ABB, AusBulk, AWB Ltd, CBH, Graincorp, Grains Council of Australia, and the Grains Research and Development Corporation - to address issues of common interest. One of the top four topics identified is gene technology. As the grains industry strives to move forward on gene technology, let's hope other agricultural industries (most of which invest in gene technology research) and governments can come together and unite in a single vision. Next month I am speaking at a conference in Saskatoon entitled "Coexistence: the challenges and opportunities". I hope to be able to report that coexistence, aside from the challenges and opportunities, is an Australian reality. Executive Director AUSTRALIA - STATE BY STATE Australian Capital Territory State of Play - Legislated moratorium on GM food crops until 2006 (tabled). Background - In June 2003 the Minister for Health announced a three-year moratorium on the commercial release of genetically modified (GM) food crops in the ACT to 2006. The moratorium will be reviewed annually. The Minister indicated that the Territory will continue to support gene technology scientific research, such as research undertaken at CSIRO overseen by the Gene Technology Regulator. Under the Bill, the Minister has the power to impose an order prohibiting the cultivation in the ACT of a specified GM food plant or class of GM food plants. The Minister could also specifically exempt from prohibition any field trial or contained research of GM crops that have been approved by the Gene Technology Regulator. For a copy of the Gene Technology (GM Crop Moratorium) Bill 2004 see http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/b/db_10630/default.asp Also tabled in the ACT is a Bill introduced by the Greens - The GMO (Environment Protection) Bill. This Bill calls for a blanket ban of all environmental releases of GMOs, including field trials, until more is known on their environmental impact. For a copy of the Greens Bill tabled in November 2003 see http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/b/db_8618/default.asp New South Wales State of Play - Legislated moratorium on GM food crops until 2006. Background - In June 2003, legislation was passed banning the commercial release of GM food crops for three years to 2006. The legislation, Gene Technology (GM Crop Moratorium) Bill provides for the Agriculture Minister to issue exemption orders. A NSW Agricultural Advisory Council on Gene Technology was also established to provide advice to the Minister. A joint submission was provided to the Agriculture Minister by Bayer Crop Science, Monsanto and the Australian Oilseeds Federation seeking permission to conduct coexistence trials in NSW in 2004. On 1 April, the Minister announced that the coexistence trials had not been approved, but approval had been granted to allow three small scale GM canola research trials, covering no more than 420 hectares in total. The Minister has suggested that if the small scale trials show benefits, he would consider coexistence trials at a later date. For further information see http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/web/phweb.nsf/frames/bills South Australia State of Play - Legislated moratorium on GM crops until 2006. Background - On 31 March, the South Australian GM Crops Management Bill passed through both the Upper and Lower Houses of State Parliament imposing a ban on GM crops for three years. The Bill does provide for exemptions to allow field trials to continue under specific conditions. It also establishes two dedicated GM free zones - Eyre Peninsula and Kangaroo Island. For a copy of the Minister for Agriculture's media release see http://www.ministers.sa.gov.au/Minister/MediaFrame.asp?article=2751=15
Background - In May 2003, the Victorian Government announced a one-year moratorium on the commercial production of GM canola. On 25 March 2004, 10 months following the first announcement, the Premier, announced the moratorium would continue for a further four years until 2008. The
Government introduced the Control of Genetically Modified Crops 2004 Bill at the end of March, to give the state legislative control over the planting of
GM crops in Victoria generally, specifically prohibiting the commercial planting of GM canola until 2008. For further information on the Bill see
http://dms003.dpc.vic.gov.au/pdocs/bills/B01891/index.html The Victorian
State Government also released an independent report by Melbourne University
Professor Peter Lloyd. The report entitled "Review of market impacts of genetically modified canola and industry preparedness" was part of the review process the Government set in place to determine whether GM canola should be released in Victoria for commercial production. For a copy of the report see
http://www.vic.gov.au/VictoriaOnline?action=content=328=Latest=Latest
In May 2003, the Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Bill 2003 was introduced into Parliament. The Bill provided for the State Government to declare areas of the state, as areas where GM crops could not be grown. On 22 March 2004, the Premier of Western Australia declared the entire State of Western Australia a GM free area for five years. He indicated that contained laboratory research and small scale field trials will be allowed to continue. He indicated that the legislation allows for possible exemptions to be granted in the future. For further information see
http://www.slp.wa.gov.au/statutes/swans.nsf/Current%20Legislation%20Version2?OpenView=1=600=8=G#8
U.S. expertise helps thwart ticks in Scotland
April 22, 2004
ARS News Service
Agricultural Research Service, USDA
Members of the Game Conservancy Trust (GCT) in central Scotland have been tapping the expertise of Agricultural Research Service scientists in Kerrville, Texas. Why? Because disease-carrying ticks have been plaguing the Scottish red grouse, the most popular game bird in a nation where hunting on large estates is both economically important and a cherished tradition.
Entomologist Mat Pound and agricultural engineer Allen Miller, at the ARS Knipling-Bushland U.S. Livestock Insects Research Laboratory in Kerrville, are well known for their research to control ticks that feed on white-tailed deer and other wild, hoofed mammals. The scientists have developed several control methods, including an automatic pesticide-dispensing device and a safe and efficient deer capture handling system. These offer potential solutions to the problem of controlling the blacklegged and lone star ticks that transmit the viruses that cause Lyme disease, human ehrlichioses, human babesiosis and other diseases.
In Scotland, disease-carrying ticks have become an increasing problem on large estates, where red deer populations are thriving. The ticks feed on the deer, as well as on mountain hares, usually entering the estates on the deer. Some drop off and eventually feed on hares, becoming infected with a virus harbored by the hares. Later, if infected ticks feed on chicks of the Scottish red grouse, they transmit the virus to them.
In the spring of 2003, Scottish scientists trapped and treated adult red grouse with pesticide-impregnated wing-tags and leg-bands developed at the ARS Kerrville lab. The scientists hoped that the treatments developed by ARS would prevent ticks from biting newly hatched nestlings. In August, data were collected that showed red grouse numbers had increased significantly from the previous year. Read more about this research in the April 2004 issue of Agricultural Research magazine, available online at:
http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/apr04/tick0404.htm ARS is the U.S. Department of Agriculture's chief scientific research agency.
Organic FAQs
April 22, 2004
Nature Vol.428 No. 6985
Virginia Gewin
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v428/n6985/full/428796a_fs.html
In the developed world, sales of organic produce are growing rapidly, but, asks this story, how far can this trend extend? That depends on how strictly you define organic farming ... and the answers to three other pivotal questions.
What is organic farming?
The story says that at the core of the organic philosophy lies a ban on the use of synthetic fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides. That means adopting other techniques to nourish crops and protect the soil, such as growing 'cover' crops between seasons to prevent erosion and to restore organic matter.
The organic movement also encompasses such tenets as animal welfare, energy efficiency, social justice and the simple agrarian ideal of small farms growing produce for local communities. It is on this last point that the success of organic farming is starting to divert the movement from its pure vision.
Organic standards also differ in their details from country to country. Most rules governing organic farming, including those laid down in the European Union, Japan and the United States, are based on standards set by the non-profit International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements in Bonn, Germany.
The story says that because organic products fetch premium prices, there are concerns about the possibility of cheating. Francis Blake, standards director of the Soil Association and a former inspector, was cited as saying that organic rules are enforced by farm inspections, but the logistics can be difficult, particularly in remoter parts of exporting countries, adding, "The inspection process is not completely foolproof. It relies on trust."
As a result, some researchers have begun to look for ways to test organic products for authenticity. Alison Bateman of the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK, is developing a test based on the higher proportion of the isotope nitrogen-15 in organically farmed soil. This is because nitrogen-fixing plants accumulate more of this heavy isotope than is present in synthetic fertilizers. Other researchers are investigating whether concentrations of trace elements such as calcium, boron, magnesium and selenium differ between organic and conventional produce.
Is organic food better for us?
This is the claim that attracts many of the consumers who buy organic, so it's no surprise that the movement's advocates answer with an unequivocal 'yes'. In 2001, for instance, the Soil Association concluded unambiguously that organic food contains less of the bad stuff, such as pesticides, and more of the good stuff, such as vitamins and minerals2.
But independent scientists are less convinced. They say that many comparisons between organic and conventional produce are let down by poor methodology. For example, some studies fail to take into account the fact that organic farmers prefer crop varieties that are resistant to disease, whereas conventional farmers focus on high-yielding strains. Such studies confuse the effect of production system with variety.
Is organic farming better for the environment?
Although few large, long-term studies directly comparing the systems exist, several literature surveys have brought together smaller studies to build overall comparisons10, 11. The story says there is general agreement on some benefits. For example, organic farms do better than conventional farms at nurturing abundant and diverse populations of plants, insects and other animals. And organic farms release no synthetic pesticides or herbicides, some of which have the potential to harm wildlife.
Organic farms also score points for using less energy — both per unit area and per unit of yield — and producing less extraneous waste, such as packaging materials for chemicals and feed.
However, the story adds, organic methods have a greater environmental impact in some small ways, studies show. Methane emissions from organic farms are likely to be higher per unit of food production, for example. At least in the United States, where dairy cows receive growth hormone, organically raised cattle yield considerably less milk than their hormone-assisted peers — requiring more cows, which collectively pass more methane.
Codex committee on pesticides residues
April 22, 2004
European Commission- Health and Consumer Protection
The complete document of the following can be viewed from:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/ifsi/eupositions/ccpr/ccpr_36_en.pdf
CCPR - European Community Position for the 36th Session of the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues, New Delhi, 19-24 April 2004
"No cost" agronomy tips for new canola growers
April 22, 2004
Canola Council of Canada press release
"We expect to see many first time canola growers this year. To help first time growers, the Canola Council has developed five key agronomic tips on how to grow and manage canola to ensure maximum profitability," says David Vanthuyne, Canola Council of Canada agronomist for eastern Saskatchewan.
Tip 1: Ideal time to seed
Plant canola at the beginning of the seeding operation rather than the middle or end to improve the chance of maximizing yield potential. Soil temperature should be above 6 to 7º C at a depth of 2" to ensure good germination, Vanthuyne stresses.
On average, canola sets two-thirds of its yield potential during the first 14 to 16 days of flowering. If the plan is to seed in the third week of May or later, moving the seeding date forward seven to 10 days will allow the crop to start flowering earlier. This reduces the risk of heat damage or "flower blast" during early flowering.
Tip 2: Ideal seedbed preparation and seeding depth
Creating a good seedbed and a uniform, shallow seeding depth are a must for profitable canola. Light spring tillage may help prepare a good seedbed and control weeds. But excessive or untimely tillage will deplete valuable seedbed moisture. Therefore, minimize spring tillage if possible, and keep the depth shallow--2.5 to 5 cm (1 to 2") for canola. "Canola is not like cereals-you can't seed to moisture if the top 5 to 7.6 cm (2 to 3") of soil has dried out. Ideal canola seed placement is 1/2 to 3/4" deep," says Vanthuyne.
Tip 3: Ideal fertility
Provide the soil test lab with each field's estimated stored soil moisture to help fine tune fertility requirements. A soil moisture probe is an excellent way to estimate stored soil moisture, he says. For details on building a probe and on how to calculate target yields from stored soil moisture values, visit:
http://www.canola-council.org/events/pr_19apr04.html
"Avoid placing too much fertilizer with the seed if soil moisture conditions are low," adds Vanthuyne. Seed placed nitrogen (N) above 10 lbs/ac of actual product will cause seed damage when using a narrow (3/4") opener on lighter textured soils. The common methods of achieving good seed to N separation are side banding, paired-row and mid-row systems, and pre-banding fertilizer prior to seeding. N to sulphur (S) ratios must also be maintained to ensure the plant can make maximum use of the available N. If the ratio of total available N:S is greater than 5:1, then add sufficient S to balance the ratio.
Tip 4: Ideal time to control weeds
"Canola is a poor competitor with weeds during early plant development, especially if the weeds emerge first," says Vanthuyne. Research shows that controlling weeds in crop at the one- to four-leaf stage will provide the best yield and economic return. Fewer weeds tend to emerge after the crop nears canopy closure at the five- to six-leaf stage.
Consider using a pre-seed burn-off treatment like glyphosate to control early emerging and hard-to-kill weeds. Canola Council Canola Production Centre trials found significantly higher yields for a pre-seed burn-off compared to no burn-off, he notes
Tip 5: Ideal time to swath
Under normal conditions of 20 to 25º C, expect about 3 to 5% seed colour change per day, beginning about 10 to 14 days after flowering. As canola cures, the key component is moisture. A canola plant draws moisture out of the stems to fill seeds. Swath too early and many seeds on secondary branches will not have enough moisture to finish filling, resulting in small, immature seeds. Most seeds will either be sent out the back of the combine or end up as dockage, explains Vanthuyne "Expect at least a 2 to 4 bu/ac yield boost by swathing at 30 to 40% seed colour change compared to less than 10%. Add on as much as another 4 bu/ac by swathing at 50 to 60% seed colour change. In addition, growers have about an extra week to swath, and seed size and quality will be improved, compared to early swathing," says Vanthuyne. And waiting longer also locks in more oil-about a 1% increase in seed oil content.
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