Having problems with message search?
Agnet April 23/04 (resend)
Panel on GMOs was a useful one
Industry and government continue to work toward GM acceptance process
DFAIT moves forward with challenge of EU's GM policy
Guest Editorial - GM technology for a cleaner environment
What does the public really think about Gene Technology?
Ship target of anti-GM protest
Eco-Imperialism: Reflections on Earth Day
Modern genetics and societal dilemmas
GM crops could lessen impact of global warming
Q A on GMO regulations in EU
Russia and Belgium adopt stricter GM rules
EU publishes biotech progress report
A new impetus for European biotechnology: bringing coherence to EU biotechnology policies
Upcoming AAPCO/SFIREG working committee meeting on pesticides and water quality and disposal issues
Revocation of tolerance exemptions for certain biopesticides
Certification program for imported articles of Pelargonium spp. and Solanum spp. to prevent introduction of potato brown rot
how to subscribe
Panel on GMOs was a useful one
April 23, 2004
The Guardian (Charlottetown)
A7
Bethany Doyle, CSM, Charlottetown writes to offer congratulations to the Environmental Studies Program of UPEI for its recent hosting of a panel discussion on GMOs and the future of agriculture on P.E.I.
Doyle says that while panelists held widely divergent views about the safety of GMOs, a number of key interests were held in common by all. These include:
supporting economic prosperity and ecological sustainability on P.E.I.;
lowering pesticide use;
preserving the possibility of organic farming on P.E.I.
What adds most urgency to this discussion is the critical fact that should GM cross-contamination occur in this small, windy island, the door may well be closed on the possibility of both organic and GMO-free conventional farming in the future on P.E.I.
Industry and government continue to work toward GM acceptance process
April 22, 2004
Canola Ink, Vol. 35
The CBC stirred the pot again on GM wheat this week. The report implied the government has just come up with a requirement that GM wheat approval will be contingent on a market acceptance process being in place. The Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) was quoted as saying it had made a partial victory against GM wheat.
"An industry led market acceptance process for new GM commodities is nothing new," declares Cam Dahl, Executive Director of the Grain Growers of Canada (GGC) in Ottawa, ON. The GGC began the process to develop an industry led market acceptance program for GM crops at least three ago, he adds.
The GGC then helped develop an industry task force last fall, says Dahl. It's a committee of representatives from the GGC, Western Grain Elevators Association, Canadian Seed Trade Association, CropLife Canada, and the Canola Council of Canada. And it's charged with developing a proposal that can be taken to the broad industry for discussions on implementing a process to insure market acceptance of GM crops. The committee is working closely with the government as it develops the proposal.
Peter Pauker, Acting Chief, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Cross-Sectoral Policy Development, stresses the federal government does not see the need for guidelines or regulations to be created. It has been consulting with industry informally and plans to formalize it this spring. The government's hope is the industry will develop a policy framework, similar to the APF, for "responsible commercialization of novel agricultural products," he says.
What the government has in mind is "a process that industry develops to make sure the concerns of consumers and buyers of novel products are met. You could call it a set of best business practices," says Pauker.
If the industry fails to develop a set of best practices then the government needs some way to deal with this situation. Exactly what this will be is as yet unknown to the government. But whatever process is created, it will not be retroactive, he notes.
One important point to note about this discussion is that the government has not strayed from its commitment that the regulatory approval process for GM events will continue to be science based. The market acceptance process will not stop the registration of GM events that pass scientific scrutiny.
DFAIT moves forward with challenge of EU's GM policy
April 22, 2004
Canola Ink, Vol. 35
The federal Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade is moving forward with its challenge of the EU's moratorium on the approval of GM products.
A WTO panel will hear arguments from Canada that the failure to approve GM traits amounted to an import ban. Canada is expected to provide its submission to the WTO this week. Arguments will be heard by the panel and ultimately (and probably many months from now), a determination will be made, says Barb Isman, President of the Canola Council.
Meanwhile, there are rumblings from the U.S. that the new rules regarding labelling are so stringent they amount to a new version of the same trade barrier. "We may yet see another case brought before the WTO on the EU's GM policy," she says.
"For canola, we are an undetermined time away from having EU approval of all GM events," says Isman. Until all events are approved and/or receive positive scientific safety assessments, non-segregated bulk canola (or oil made from same) cannot move into the EU.
News on the bio-terrorism border measures
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is giving countries/companies that export to the U.S. until May 14, 2004 to comment on the impact of its Bio-Terrorism Border Measures with specific emphasis on:
1. The impact of the requirement to have a U.S. agent. 2. Potential integration of FDA and U.S. customs border document requirements.
3. Functioning of the prior notice requirements.
The Canadian government has indicated an interest in hearing from Canadian companies prior to April 30th so that a national position paper can be sent to the U.S. government. The Canadian government is also reminding Canadian companies that the U.S. will start seriously enforcement of the regulations in May 2004. Monetary penalties for non-compliance will start then, followed by refusal of shipments August 2004.
Finally, the U.S. has started tracking compliance by transportation mode.
Truck shipments to the U.S. have by far the most problem.
If you would like to comment to the Canadian government, please contact:
Linda Robbins at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada by email at:
robbinsl@...
Guest Editorial - GM technology for a cleaner environment
April 23, 2004
BioScience News Advocate
Gerry Eckhoff
New Zealand agriculture faces a major problem – the higher it raises our standard of living, the greater the environmental demands placed on farmers by the wider community.
This creates a Catch-22 situation for New Zealand, which is the only first world country reliant on land-based industries. Farmers face the dilemma of having to increase production, due to increased costs, while knowing that environmental controls are a likely result.
Recent publicity over the eutrophication of Lake Rotoiti, and the “dirty dairying” campaign led by Fish and Game, graphically illustrates the problem that farmers grapple with - public perception. It is much easier to photograph a cow lifting her tail in a stream, than it is to photograph a nitrogen molecule working its way through the soil structure. However, there are answers to this issue that is perplexing councils, Government and the public.
The focus should be on the significance of a simple little plant called White Clover. White Clover is the powerhouse that drives New Zealand’s economic and competitive advantage.
The ability to fix nitrogen in the soil, naturally by a process called rhizobia, allows New Zealand to maintain its image as a clean and natural country. This process places approximately two million tonnes of nitrogen annually into the soil to enable rye grasses and other introduced grasses to grow to their potential.
To place the equivalent amount of artificial nitrogen on the land would amount to 4.5 million tonnes of urea at $400 per tonne. White Clover’s significance should be obvious to all.
Our problem is this: pests such as Porina moth, grass grub and, most importantly, the White Clover mosaic virus, are bringing White Clover – a nitrogen-fixing machine in the soil – to a halt.
The mosaic virus cannot be seen with the naked eye. Porina and grass grub are reasonably obvious. The continued effect of these pests is forcing farmers to turn increasingly to artificial nitrogen and higher fertiliser use, such as super phosphate.
The result, in some cases, is a very gradual build up of nitrates in our rivers and lakes. Run off from other sources also contribute, but appear to be ignored.
It is farming - dairying especially - which is being blamed for the enrichment of rivers. This enrichment is resulting in the loss of water quality in lakes likeTaupö. The potential answer to this problem, genetic modification, is available now, but is being ignored.
In 1996, New Zealand’s first GM White Clover field trial took place, which showed a 30 percent dry matter loss due to the mosaic virus. Those GM seeds sit on a shelf, unable to be used to further study the potential answer to New Zealand’s water quality problem.
The twin constraints of costly regulation, and potential environmental terrorism, have completely negated any opportunity to help give Taupö – and countless other rivers and lakes – a chance to return to their former glory.
The choice, therefore, belongs to us all – do we embrace the chance for a cleaner environment through gene technology, or will society throw away the chance to have our cake and eat it?
Gerry Eckhoff, MP
gerrard.eckhoff@...
What does the public really think about Gene Technology?
April 22, 2004
Canberra Times
Craig Cormick
Which of these two statements is true?
Genetically modified foods are dangerous and the Australian public will not eat them!
Genetically modified foods are perfectly safe and more and more people are willing to eat them!
The answer is – both are true, depending on whose argument you are listening to.
There are few scientific debates that are so polarised as that relating to gene technology. On the one hand, we have advocates of the technology over-promising its benefits: this technology will feed the world and solve most diseases. And on the other hand we have opponents of the technology demonising it: GM crops will lead to superweeds that cannot be controlled and GM foods are dangerous.
We have a predominantly science-based lobby group on one side, arguing scientific facts, and anti-GM lobbyists on the other side arguing emotions. For the public they are two different languages that rarely meet, whether it’s about stem cells or GM foods and crops or xenotransplantation.
So what is your average member of the public meant to think when confronted with these contrasting claims and counter claims? Most simply revert to an attitude driven by their strongest emotive drivers, such as trust in governments, or mistrust of multinationals, or trust in science, or mistrust of modern food technologies.
That’s unfortunate because we are not having the quality of public debate we should be having about gene technology. There are many aspects of the science that researchers should be better communicating to the public, and there are many aspects of public concerns that should be better communicated to researchers. Yet while we have a strongly polarised debate, too often focussed on winning political points and running sensationalist stories in the mass media, it is the public who are losing out.
It is also doing the public a disservice to simplify public attitudes into easily digestible percentages of for and against, such as 50% of people will not eat GM foods and 45% will – as these do not reveal the actual drivers of attitude change and causes of concern.
Biotechnology Australia has been undertaking major surveys of the Australian public’s attitudes to gene technology since 1999, and we now know quite a lot. This includes the fact that perceptions about GMOs being more risky have risen in the past two years – but concerns have not. This is largely because the concept of risk has changed enormously in society in the last three years, fuelled by global insecurities such as September 11, and the Bali and Madrid bombings. Not just GMOs, but everything in life is seen as more risky than it was three years ago.
Also looking at the relativity of concerns, pollution, the greenhouse effect and nuclear waste all rate as higher concerns than do GM foods.
And we know that attitudes towards GM foods are driven more by attitudes towards food and food safety than attitudes towards the technology. So a health food buyer, who is very concerned about what is in their food, will tend to be more concerned about and avoid GM foods. However, someone who doesn’t care too much about what they eat will have much less concern about GM foods and won’t care so much if they eat them.
No surprise then to find that GM doughnuts, which are labelled as containing GM soy, aren’t suffering major loss of sales in supermarkets. However, if a GM soy milk came out I suspect the reaction would be very different.
Also very significant is that there is high trust in food regulators and despite all the mischievous scare stories, the biggest factor in consumer rejection of GM foods is now that consumers see no benefits in them. Contrast this with farmer attitudes that are becoming more supportive of GM crops – as many of their benefits are agronomic. But, it needs to be added, farmers still want to know that somebody is willing to buy their crop.
We also know that regardless of increased risk perception, a majority of people (56%) feel that Australia should accept some degree of risk if it would enhance our economic competitiveness. And 73 per cent of people disagree with the statement that the risks of gene technology outweigh the benefits to the point that all research and development should be stopped.
So what does it all mean? Put simply, public attitudes towards gene technology are not simple, and are driven by many things as well as being situation dependent - so while a person might be against GM canola they could well support GM cotton. And one person who uses genetically modified insulin might not want to eat GM products, but another doesn’t mind having a little bit of GM soy in their doughnuts or chicken nuggets.
So next time you read a media article about what the public think about gene technology, look closely and see if it tells you more about the ideology of the person being quoted than it actually tells about public attitudes.
Craig Cormick is the Manager of Public Awareness for the government agency Biotechnology Australia. www.biotechnology.gov.au
Ship target of anti-GM protest
April 19, 2004
ABC News
A cargo ship has been attacked by Greenpeace protesters in Brisbane.
About 10 people in two small boats have painted in large letters "Stop GE imports" on the side of the cargo ship, the Rhein.
Greenpeace campaigner Jeremy Tager says the ship is carrying unwanted and unlabelled genetically modified soy products from the United States.
"Up to about 300,000 tonnes of genetically engineered soy are imported into Australia each year," he said.
"Most of that goes into chicken feed and most of that ends up on our dinner plates.
"Unfortunately consumers aren't made aware of that, there are no requirements that any of this is labelled."
Police have interviewed the protesters but no one has been arrested.
Eco-Imperialism: Reflections on Earth Day
April 22, 2004
From a press release
WASHINGTON -- "Safeguarding environmental values is essential," Niger Innis, national spokesman for the Congress of Racial Equality, told journalists and others attending an Earth Day discussion today at the National Press Club. "But we must stop trying to protect our planet from every imaginable, exaggerated or imaginary risk. And we must stop trying to protect it on the backs, and the graves, of the nation's and world's most powerless and impoverished people."
Innis led off a stimulating and informative briefing about the negative implications of "eco-imperialism" -- policies that seek to protect the environment, but deny impoverished people the chance for better lives and the ability to rid their countries of diseases that were vanquished long ago in the United States and Europe. "We intend to make this Earth Day a clarion call for human rights and more responsible environmentalism," he said.
Dr. CS Prakash, professor of plant genetics at Tuskegee Institute and a native of Bangalore, India agreed. "We need to put humanity back into the environmental picture," he said, "and promote policies that demonstrate as much concern about people, as about the environment." All over the world, nations are trying to emerge from poverty, he pointed out, by generating more electrical energy, increasing their agricultural output, and eradicating the diseases that have plagued them for centuries.
However, they are often prevented from doing so by developed countries and activist groups that claim such activities might impact wildlife and environmental values.
Environmental pressure groups, wealthy foundations and even the United Nations and World Health Organization oppose the use of DDT and other pesticides to control malaria. This killer disease afflicts 300 million people every year, and kills 2 million -- mostly women and children, and mostly in sub-Saharan Africa -- leaving this region one of the most destitute on Earth. These activists deprive poor countries of electricity, denying them lights, refrigeration, better jobs, and modern schools, clinics and hospitals. As a result, millions more die from tuberculosis, dysentery and other diseases. Opposition to biotechnology perpetuates malnutrition, prevents Third World farmers from replacing crops that have been devastated by disease and drought, and results in extensive erosion and habitat loss.
DDT's critical role was conclusively demonstrated by South Africa, which reintroduced the chemical in 2000 -- and slashed malaria disease and death rates by over 90 percent in just three years, noted American Enterprise Institute fellow Dr. Roger Bate. "DDT has never harmed a single human being," he emphasized, "and any damage to wildlife occurred when massive amounts were employed in farming, not when small doses were employed for disease control."
"The world's poor don't need sustainable development. They need sustained development, so that they can take their rightful places among the Earth's prosperous people," argued Paul Driessen, author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power - Black Death. "They don't need a precautionary principle that protects healthy, affluent Americans and Europeans from global warming or trace chemicals. They need a one that safeguards them from the real, immediate, life-threatening risks that confront them every day."
"Eco-imperialism is clearly a pervasive problem in the United States, too," Project 21's John Meredith emphasized. "It imposes policies that drive up housing prices, prevent the cleanup of polluted brownfields, stifle job creation in minority neighborhoods, and keep poor people impoverished. The policies promote a narrow political agenda, and fail to give the poor a voice in these decisions."
These activists practice "eco-segregation," added Norris McDonald, President of the African American Environmentalist Association. "Ninety percent of elitist environmental groups do not hire African Americans in professional policy positions, and they promote numerous policies that are detrimental to the African American community."
"Ineffective actions taken to prevent climate change will significantly increase energy prices for poor Americans and Europeans, making it even more difficult for many to afford heating and air conditioning," noted Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and TechCentralStation.com science host. "Unfounded fears about global warming are also used to justify policies that prevent poor Africans, Indians, Asians and Peruvians from using fossil fuels to generate electricity, thus forcing them to keep using wood and animal dung for fuel."
While these experts met with the press in Washington, Greenpeace co- founder and coalition member Dr. Patrick Moore promoted his message of "sensible environmentalism" in New York City's Central Park. "I helped start the environmental movement to protect people, as well as our planet," he said. "Unfortunately, too many policies today ignore the needs of the Earth's poorest people. That's not just unnecessary. It's eco-imperialism. It's counter-productive, and morally wrong."
Following their Press Club event, the panelists also briefed congressional staffers. In both venues, they underscored the need to hold environmental pressure groups to the same standards of honesty, integrity, transparency and accountability that we demand for for-profit corporations and their officers. "No one should be above the law, or free to ignore basic ethical principles," Driessen and Meredith agreed.
Basic standards of ethics, corporate social responsibility and environmental justice require that we no longer ignore the "horrendous toll" exacted on poor people by these well-intended but ill-considered policies, the policy experts emphasized.
"If people of conscience join us, we will challenge and end this scourge of eco-imperialism," Innis concluded, "and ensure that Dr. Martin Luther King's dream will become a reality for poor people throughout the United States and world."
SOURCE Paul Driessen, author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power - Black Death
Modern genetics and societal dilemmas
April 23, 2004
Crop Biotech Update
www.isaaa.org/kc
Science is a creative enterprise where ethics and values of individuals and societies play an important role in determining what are publicly acceptable in the use of science and the knowledge it generates. Hence, it is important that science contributes to an understanding of issues to enable people to make informed decisions. This is the gist of a review by Dr. Gabrielle J. Persley of the Doyle Foundation for the International Council for Science (ICS).
The study entitled ‘New Genetics, Food and Agriculture: Scientific Discoveries- Societal Dilemmas’ analyzed the findings of a selection of about 50 science-based reviews on modern genetics and its application in food and agriculture and the environment.
Persley noted that ‘the science underpinning developments in modern genetics is not informing the public in a manner that adequately reflects the volume and quality of scientific data and analysis available.’ She called on the scientific community to play a more active and organized role in raising public awareness about emerging genetics and what these mean for society.
The complete documentation of the study is available at the ICSU website http://www.iscu.org. A CD is also available for those without access to the internet. For further information, see also http://www.doylefoundation.org.
GM crops could lessen impact of global warming
April 23, 2004
Crop Biotech Update
www.isaaa.org/kc
The genetic modification of crops offers a solution on how to lessen the impact of global warming on indigenous species of plants and trees. Thru this technology, plant species could be modified to adapt to the steady rise in temperatures. This was according to Simon Thornton-Wood, head of science, Royal Horticultural Society (RHS) in the United Kingdom. Adds Thornton-Wood, as quoted by Reuters, "there are solutions to all the sorts of problems like climate change, and all the pest and disease problems that we have today...and the answer might in large part be GM."
Scientists predict that average temperatures could rise by around two degrees centigrade over the next half-century, and these could have a serious effect on plants that are accustomed to a particular weather condition.
Thornton-Wood said that while such an environmental impact is a minor concern at the moment, it would actually have a significant impact on growing conditions for all types of plants from fruits to flowers.
"It is certainly true that scientists can foresee ways in which GM could help. It is a question of whether public opinion is going to allow scientists to make those explorations. This is more than a debate about food safety. It is no longer a matter of what you are buying in your supermarket. It is the very environment in which you live," concludes Thornton-Wood.
Read the news release from the MABIC website at http://www.bic.org.my/FMPro?-db3Dnews.fp5-format3Dnews%5fbody%5fdetail.html-lay3Dlayout%20%23
1&body3DGM&category3Dscience-max3D10-recid3D33526-find
Q A on GMO regulations in EU
April 23, 2004
Crop Biotech Update
www.isaaa.org/kc
The European Union legislation on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) set in place since the early 1990s has the following regulations:
Directive 2001/18 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms is a 'horizontal' Directive, which regulates experimental releases and the placing on the market of genetically modified organisms.
Regulation 1829/2003 on GM food and feed which regulates the placing on the market of food and feed products containing or consisting of GMOs and also provides for the labeling of such products to the final consumer.
Regulation 1830/2003 on traceability and labeling of GMOs and the traceability of food and feed products from GMOs that introduces a harmonized EU system to trace and label GMOs and to trace food and feed products produced from GMOs.
Regulation 641/2004 on the detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation 1829/2003
Directive 90/219/EEC on the contained use of genetically modified microorganisms (GMMs), regulates research and industrial work activities involving GMMs under conditions of containment. This includes work activitie sin laboratories.
These information are some of the facts contained in a question and answer module which was developed the European Union on its website. To see this resource, visit: http://europa.eu.int/rapid/start/cgi/guesten.ksh?p_ac
tion.gettxt3Dgt&doc3DMEMO/04/85|0|RAPID&lg3Den&display3D
Russia and Belgium adopt stricter GM rules
April 23, 2004
Crop Biotech Update
www.isaaa.org/kc)
All foods containing 0.9% or more genetically modified (GM) material must
be clearly labeled, says Gennady Onischenko, Russia’s Chief Sanitary Inspector. The Inspector also added that this rule also applies to foods made of GM products that do not contain protein or DNA. In the past, the Russian regulation permitted foods with GM content below 5% to go unlabeled. This new legislation is said to be in line with the current European Union (EU) standards. Currently, 14.8% of Russia’s meat products and 20.4% flour and grain-derived foods are made from GM material, while several agricultural crops (tomatoes, squash, papaya and melons) are yet to be approved by Russian authorities.
A similar scenario also took place in Belgium with the introduction of a new law which stated that any food containing 0.9% or more of GM substances must display details of the amount on the product’s packaging.
The same law also applies to non-packaged foods, such as bread sold in bakeries. Records of the destinations of sales of GM crops will also be kept for five years. This latest decree by the Belgian government is perceived to be a necessary step in lifting the European moratorium on GM foods
Read the news articles from MosNews and Expatica News at http://www.mosnews.com/news/2004/04/08/gmfoods.shtml and http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id3D48&story_id3D6661
EU publishes biotech progress report
April 23, 2004
Euopa Bio Press Release
http://www.europabio.org/
Today, the EU Commission announced the publication of its second progress report on the EU’s life sciences and biotechnology strategy, tracking developments since the Commission put in place a comprehensive strategy in January 2002 to reap the social and economic benefits from biotechnology. The strategy was subsequently adopted by the Prime Ministers and Heads of State as part the Lisbon plan to become the most competitive knowledge based economy in the world by 2010. “Sadly, this year’s progress report is not reporting much progress,” says Feike Sijbesma, Chairman of EuropaBio – the European association for bioindustries. “It is repeating yet again that Member States have to implement rules they agreed a long time ago.”
Still seven Member States have not implemented the biotech patent’s directive (98/44), eight Member States have not implemented the directive on GMOs (2001/18), the target of 15% of biotech SMEs in the EU research framework programme has not been met, and still there is no progress on the Community Patent. “We acknowledge the EU Commission’s efforts in trying to strengthen the scientific and technological basis of Europe and to improve its global competitiveness,” says Johan Vanhemelrijck, EuropaBio Secretary General. “The institution has played an important role in concluding the recent major review of the pharmaceutical rules, which has given the world the first framework legislation for biosimilar medical products. The € 500 million venture capital transfer from the EIB to finance innovative biotechnology firms is a concrete support measure also piloted through by the Commission. But Member States need to give more support to the Commission’s efforts.”
Europe needs real progress in the field of the Community Patent, the moratorium, the patents directive, and the fostering of young enterprises. According to Johan Vanhemelrijck “This will help national biotech communities across Europe to prosper throughout the new Europe and not only limit its development to confined regions.”
Because some Member States are not adopting EU wide rules, EU wide measures are losing out to certain national policies. More and more Member States are not waiting for Europe, fiscal measures to promote the “brain-gain” like the French Innovative Company status and the most recent Belgian initiative to lure the private sector to spend more on research are good examples of concrete measures that really make a difference. “The lack of an EU wide approach will put Member States in competition. While this could result in a two speed Europe, it may also help create leading economies to lift the overall competitiveness of Europe.”
The Competitiveness in Biotechnology Advisory Group (CBAG) advising the Commission on the EU life’s science strategy calls for an EU wide stock market to improve the access of private biotech companies to finance. “This is another topic of crucial importance to innovative, yet fragile industries and policy makers need to have the courage to tackle it urgently,” says Johan Vanhemelrijck.
A new impetus for European biotechnology: bringing coherence to EU biotechnology policies
April 23, 2004
European Commission - Press Release
http://europa.eu.int/rapid/start/cgi/guesten.ksh?p_action.getmex=gc
Today the European Commission presented a report on the implementation of the "Life Sciences Biotechnology Strategy" adopted in 2002. The report highlights that progress has been made, in regards to biotechnology sector players as well as the public and business stakeholders, on the EU action plan's recommendations. Highlights over the last 12 months include the launch of a high level advisory group on "Competitiveness in Biotechnology", the completion of an EU regulatory framework for Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and initiatives to boost research and increase the number of scientists in the biotech sector. The progress report identifies upcoming issues, including genetic testing and animal biotechnology. Biotechnology covers a wide range of powerful, but also sometimes controversial, technologies. It can make a vital contribution towards the long-term future of industries such as pharmaceuticals, food, agriculture, energy, textiles and chemicals. But success in developing biotechnology also depends on finding solutions to the significant ethical, societal, economic and environmental issues it throws up. The EU strategy provides a consistent approach to these challenges.
Upcoming AAPCO/SFIREG working committee meeting on pesticides and water quality and disposal issues
April 22, 2004
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/cb/csb_page/updates/sfireg-mtg.htm
The Association of American Pesticide Control Officials (AAPCO)/State FIFRA Issues Research and Evaluation Group (SFIREG) Working Committee on Water Quality and Pesticide Disposal (WC/WQPD) will hold a 2-day meeting on Monday, April 26, 2004, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., and on Tuesday, April 27, 2004, from 8:30 a.m. to noon. The meeting will be held at the Doubletree Hotel, 300 Army Navy Drive, Arlington, VA. To view the agenda, visit: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2004/April/Day-07/p7477.htm
Revocation of tolerance exemptions for certain biopesticides
April 23, 2004
Federal Register: (Volume 69, Number 79)
[Page 21959-21962]
[DOCID:fr23ap04-10]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[OPP-2003-0416;FRL-7353-5]
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This document revokes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance, as expressed in 40 CFR part 180, for residues of the following pesticide active ingredients because of non-payment of maintenance fees and because there are no active FIFRA product registrations applicable to these exemptions: Dihydroazadirachtin;
Kontrol HV; Metarhizium anisopliae strain ESF1 in attractant stations; polyhedral occlusion bodies of Autographa californica NPV; Pseudomonas fluorescens EG-1053; Pseudomonas fluorescens NCIB 12089; and Puccinia canaliculata (ATCC 40199). In addition, this document revokes the tolerance exemption for Bacillus thuringiensis CryIA(b) delta-endotoxin and the genetic material necessary for its production in corn because that tolerance exemption has been replaced by a tolerance exemption that applies to all plants. The regulatory actions in this document contribute toward the Agency's tolerance reassessment requirements of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) section 408(q), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996. By law, EPA is required by August 2006 to reassess tolerances in existence on August 2, 1996. For counting purposes, the revocations in this document count as nine (9) FQPA tolerance/exemption reassessments. DATES: This regulation is effective July 22, 2004. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before June 22, 2004. ADDRESSES: To submit a written objection or hearing request following the detailed instructions as provided in Unit IV. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID number OPP-2003-0416. All documents in the docket are listed in the EDOCKET index at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in EDOCKET or in hard copy at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is (703) 305-5805.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Mandula, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (MC 7511C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-7378; e-mail address: mandula.barbara@....
Certification program for imported articles of Pelargonium spp. and Solanum spp. to prevent introduction of potato brown rot
April 23, 2004
Federal Register: (Volume 69, Number 79)
[Page 21941-21947]
[DOCID:fr23ap04-1]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
[Docket No. 03-019-2]
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Interim rule and request for comments.
SUMMARY: We are amending the regulations to establish a certification program for articles of Pelargonium spp. and Solanum spp. imported from countries where the bacterium Ralstonia solanacearum race 3 biovar 2 is known to occur. The requirements of the certification program are designed to ensure that Ralstonia solanacearum race 3 biovar 2 will not be introduced into the United States through the importation of articles of Pelargonium spp. and Solanum spp. We have determined that the restrictions presently in place do not adequately mitigate the risk that imported articles of Pelargonium spp. and Solanum spp. could introduce this bacterial strain, which causes potato brown rot, into the United States. This action is necessary to prevent the introduction of this bacterial strain into the United States.
DATES: This interim rule is effective May 24, 2004. We will consider all comments that we receive on or before June 22, 2004.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to Docket No. 03-019-2, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3C71, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. 03-019-2. E-mail: Address your comment to regulations@.... Your comment must be contained in the body of your message; do not send attached files. Please include your name and address in your message and ``Docket No. 03-019-2'' on the subject line.
Agency Web site: Go to http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/rad/cominst.html for a form you can use to submit an e-mail comment through the APHIS Web site. Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for locating this docket and submitting comments.
Reading Room: You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 690-2817 before coming. Other Information: You may view APHIS documents published in the Federal Register and related information, including the names of groups and individuals who have commented on APHIS dockets, on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/rad/webrepor.html.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Wayne Burnett, Senior Import Specialist, Phytosanitary Issues Management Team, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 140, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 734-6799.
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