Having problems with message search?
Agnet April 26/04
EU clears last hurdle to ending GM food ban
EU poised to allow sale of GM corn by Syngenta
Europe gripped by phantom fears over GM, business chief says
Guest Editorial – Fields of Choice
The Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee releases its fourth annual report
Media advisory - The public policy implications of genetically modified plants in the United Kingdom
China's rice guru shuffles genes for super strain
Unsafe until proven safe
World's peaches, plums preserved in unique collection
Earth Day
how to subscribe
EU clears last hurdle to ending GM food ban
April 26, 2004
Reuters
LUXEMBOURG - Beate Gminder, Commission spokeswoman for food safety is cited in this story as saying that the European Commission will most likely approve a GM maize variety known as Bt-11marketed by Swiss agrochemicals giant Syngenta in a matter of a few weeks, after more than five years of refusal to authorize new genetically modified food products.
The way is clear after the bloc's 15 farm ministers lost their last chance to break a longstanding deadlock.
The last approval for any GM product was in October 1998 for a type of carnation. The last food product, a type of maize, was backed in April that year.
EU poised to allow sale of GM corn by Syngenta
April 26, 2004
The Financial Times
Raphael Minder
In a related story, David Byrne, the commissioner in charge of consumer protection, was quoted in the Financial Times as saying: "Legislation should be about providing the maximum information and then letting consumers choose. The public in the EU must be confronted with the reality of the situation, which is that all the scientific evidence shows GM food is as safe as conventional food."
Syngenta's maize, which is insect and herbicide-resistant, is already available in the US as tinned sweetcorn or popcorn. However, European environmental organisations insist that scientific tests have not proved conclusive and note that surveys consistently show Europeans remain firmly opposed to GM products.
Geert Ritsema, GMO co-ordinator for Friends of the Earth Europe, is quoted as saying: "This decision could be the end of the moratorium, but we are confident supermarkets will take a precautionary approach and will see no point in having products that customers don't want."
The EU has maintained a de facto ban on imports of GM food since 1998, in response to criticism from consumer organisations and environmental lobby groups. The moratorium prompted the US to lodge a complaint with the World Trade Organisation, with the backing of Canada and Argentina, putting further pressure on the EU to review its position before a final ruling by the Geneva-based trade arbiter.
Monday's ministerial vote is expected to reflect the stalemate in a previous vote in a committee of representatives from the 15 member states. In the committee, six countries backed BT-11 while six opposed it and three abstained. Mr Byrne said: "The attitude of some member states has been verging on political cowardice. Some governments are clearly afraid to deal with this."
New EU labelling rules for food containing GM ingredients came into force earlier this month - an improvement welcomed by environmentalists but one most feel is not enough. Caroline Lucas, a Green member of the European parliament, said the EU should first introduce rules on producers' liability and co-existence between traditional and GM crops before approving products like BT-11.
Syngenta said the immediate impact for the company would be minimal, but approval of BT-11 "would give a clear signal Europe is opening up to innovation and new technologies".
Europe gripped by phantom fears over GM, business chief says
April 20, 2004
Irish Examiner
According to this story, Unilever boss Niall FitzGerald told the IBEC conference on US/EU regulation that there were compelling commercial and societal reasons to go after a balanced approach to regulation of GM foods and warned that Europe was in danger of being left behind if it failed to adopt the more pragmatic US approach.
In his address, the Unilever chairman and chief executive, said from a multinational perspective, effective regulation meant finding a balance between the cost and the benefit to society.
The US and the rest of the Americas testify to the safety of GM-based foods, he said, pointing out that “we have rejected the living laboratory of thousands of miles of crops and millions of consumers to look at, but we persist in labyrinthine approvals procedures here, as if no external evidence was available.”
As a result, Europe was falling behind in an important area of science and neglecting public benefit in favour of “phantom fears.”
Mr FitzGerald went on to say he found the reaction in Europe to GM foods “profoundly distressing.” As a result, Europe was suffering a brain drain as disillusioned scientists head for the US, where there was a more progressive attitude.
Their gain is Europe’s loss, he said.
Fitzgerald was cited as saying that it was vital that the differences between EU and US regulation were ironed out in the years ahead, adding that there was too much at stake for us not to address all the relevant issues that keep us from competing at the most efficient and effective level.
Guest Editorial – Fields of Choice
April 26, 2004
BioScience News Advocate
Dr. Murray McLaughlin
As I work in the field of Agriculture and see the tremendous benefits that science has created over the last 50 years in food production, I look to the future with wonder. I truly believe that the world is a better place today with less disease, better health, and greatly reduced malnutrition because of science. We need to continue to use the best science, including biotechnology to ensure the world is a safe place, a healthy place and a place with a future for all.
It amazes me that, even when the safety and the benefits have been so clearly demonstrated, some still hesitate to support biotechnology. Before they reach a farmer’s field or a family’s kitchen table, biotechnology-based crops, crop management products and livestock treatments and therapies undergo years of rigorous testing to ensure they are safe for people, animals and the environment.
A recent two-year study by the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee (CBAC) confirmed that biotech foods currently on the market are safe. The report concludes, “GM (genetically modified) foods currently in the marketplace have arguably undergone greater regulatory scrutiny than their conventional counterparts. We conclude that no scientific evidence exists to suggest that GM plants and foods currently in the marketplace pose any greater health or environmental risks than other foods.”
Being involved in the broad aspects of technology development allows us at Foragen to interact with regulatory systems nationally and globally.
Based on my experience, I can attest that there are a range of government directives on regulatory processes. I believe that Canada has a system that is very useful because most decisions are based on sound science – not personal opinion or political preferences.
Countries that use this approach tend to have higher quality of living, more jobs and a solid business climate. If the regulatory systems have sound policies and procedures in place to take products through registration, what is the criticism? Is it lack of knowledge; fear of change; feeling of no choice; or something else that causes criticism. Maybe it is media and their desire to sensationalize? Maybe it is lack of trust in our elected officials?
My view: it is a lack of balanced information, a lack of informed politicians.
It also distresses me that organizations claiming to support social justice and environmental protection prefer to support starvation, ill health and the extensive use of chemical products on the land.
The drawn-out registration effort for golden rice is an example of the high price paid for reticence among regulators. In developing countries, blindness resulting from malnutrition strikes 500,000 people a year. Golden rice was developed specifically to prevent this.
Sadly, it is now projected that there will be 5-year delay in growing the crop due to lobbying for extreme regulations. This delay will cost 2.5 million people their sight.
Patrick Moore, Chair of GreenSpirit Strategies and a co-founder of Greenpeace, recently stated, “The campaign of fear now waged against genetic modification is based largely on fantasy and a complete lack of respect for science and logic. In the balance, it is clear that the real benefits of genetic modification far outweigh the hypothetical and sometimes contrived risks claimed by its detractors.”
The Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee releases its fourth annual report
April 26, 2004
Canada NewsWire
OTTAWA - Advances in biotechnology continue to emerge at an accelerating pace, producing powerful new tools, particularly in human and animal health, agriculture and the environment. While technology moves ahead, policy-making and regulatory systems worldwide struggle to keep pace, according to the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee (CBAC) in its fourth Annual Report released today. The report summarizes the committee's work during the calendar year 2003.
"CBAC now enters its fifth year. Its activities to date provide a sound base of experience. We continue to build on this, assisting the Government of Canada in its response to the opportunities and challenges posed by biotechnology," says Dr. Arnold Naimark, CBAC's Chairman.
The report covers two major CBAC projects - the Dialogue Tool on Genetically Modified Foods and Feeds and Biotechnology and Health Innovation; CBAC's continued monitoring and reporting activities concerning genetic patents, genetically modified foods, privacy and genetic information; the incorporation of social and ethical considerations into policy making; CBAC communications and outreach activities; and an assessment of key biotechnology trends, developments and breakthroughs that provide the context for CBAC's ongoing deliberations.
A copy of the 2003 Annual Report can be obtained from www.cbac-cccb.ca
Media advisory - The public policy implications of genetically modified plants in the United Kingdom
April 26, 2004
Canada Newswire
OTTAWA
Presentation to the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee, Invited Guests and Media
DATE: Tuesday, April 27, 2004
SPEAKER: Lord Robert May, President, Royal Society(1) , U.K.
EVENT: Presentation to the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory
Committee (CBAC)(2), invited guests and media on "The
Public Policy Implications of GM Plants in the U.K."
LOCATION: Delta A Room, Ground Floor, Delta Ottawa Hotel and Suites, 361 Queen St.
TIME: 4:00 PM. Light refreshments
4:30 PM Lord May's presentation
(1) The Royal Society is the independent scientific academy of the U.K. dedicated to promoting excellence in science. www.royalsoc.ac.uk
(2) The Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee
(CBAC): www.cbac-cccb.ic.gc.ca\
For further information: Eileen Inrig, Communications, CBAC, (613) 954-7059. Lord May and CBAC spokesperson available for interviews following the presentation.
China's rice guru shuffles genes for super strain
April 26, 2004
Reuters
Lee Chyen Yee
SHANGHAI - To help solve a looming rice shortage now worrying the country's leaders, according to this story, Yuan Longping, China's Father of Hybrid Rice, is now looking to genetic engineering to create a super-strain with vastly augmented yields.
Endorsed by Premier Wen Jiabao, his research revolves around splicing genes from corn and wild rice, aimed at raising yields to 13.5 tonnes per hectare, or several times higher than ordinary strains.
If successful, Yuan's transgenic rice could offer a solution to years of dwindling grain output as farmers switch to more lucrative cash crops, such as vegetables and fruit.
China's grain harvest hit a 13-year low in 2003, falling nearly six percent to 430.6 million tonnes. Rice output hit 165 million tonnes that same year -- far short of the 190 million tonnes that the nation consumes annually.
Yuan has managed to raise yields to 10.5 tonnes in 2000, versus six tonnes per hectare for normal rice. He lifted it further to 12 tonnes this year by cross-breeding strains.
So far, hybrid rice covers half of China's 31 million hectares of paddy fields. But true "super" strains -- capable of producing more than nine tonnes of rice per hectare -- are expected to be sown across just three million hectares this year.
Researchers concede it would take some time before super rice is bred on a larger scale, partly because farmers will have to alter long-accustomed growing techniques.
"Growing super rice is quite different from growing ordinary strains. Farmers would have to be educated on irrigation, weeding and fertilising techniques," said Xin Yeyun, who works with Yuan at the Hybrid Rice Research Centre in Hunan.
Unsafe until proven safe
April 26, 2004
Globe and Mail
Page A12
Pamela Patchet Hamilton
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040426/LETTERS26-10/TPComment/Letters
Beaconsfield, Que. – In this letter, Hamilton asks who to believe when it comes to the health effects of pesticide use: a spokesperson for multinational companies that manufacture pesticides and stand to lose millions of dollars in revenue, or the not-for-profit Ontario College of Family Physicians?
Lorne Hepworth, president of CropLife Canada, argues that pesticides are "highly regulated in Canada by federal health staff . . . to see if the products cause cancer before they are approved for use." Nonsense. The label "government approved products" does not, in fact, mean "safe." According to Environment Canada, it only means that these products have not yet been proven unsafe.
We must weigh the benefit of a weed-free lawn against the risk of cancer in our children and ask ourselves "is this worth it?"
World's peaches, plums preserved in unique collection
April 26, 2004
ARS News Service
Agricultural Research Service, USDA
Exotic peaches and plums from around the globe are safeguarded in greenhouses and orchards at the ARS National Clonal Germplasm Repository for Fruit and Nut Crops, referred to in this story as a living treasury of both common and uncommon peaches and plums.
About 750 peach trees and about 700 plums flourish in research orchards at Winter, a short drive from the repository's offices, laboratories and greenhouses at Davis, California. Most of the peaches are varieties of Prunus persica, such as the historically important "Shanghai" and "J.H. Hale," two varieties that are in the parentage of nearly all of today's U.S.-grown peaches. Other distinctive peaches include a white-fleshed cling peach from Korea named "Yumyeong," and the red-fleshed "Sanguine de Tardiff " from France.
Predominant in the plum collection are the European plum, Prunus domestica, produced as a fresh fruit or dried into prunes; and the Japanese plum, P. salicina, typically sold in this country as a dessert plum.
Among the most unusual: the squat, green-apple-flavored P. simonii from Asia; Europe's P. spinosa, of sloe gin fame; and the North American P. hortulana, a stately ornamental tree. Also distinctive: South Africa's "Laetitia," a P. salicina variety that bears large fruit, and "Sans Noay," a pit-free French P. domestica plum commonly dried into prunes.
From spring through fall, plant breeders inspect the collection to choose varieties they can incorporate into their own fruit-breeding programs. Researchers who are studying the genetic makeup of the world's plums use leaf samples from the repository to extract DNA for their research. ARS scientists at the repository conduct analyses of plum DNA as well, to be sure all the plums in the collection are correctly identified and catalogued.
Read more about the research in the April 2004 issue of Agricultural Research magazine, available online at:
http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/apr04/fruit0404.htm
Earth Day
April 24, 2004
Globe and Mail
Rex Murphy
We had Earth Day this week. This is an annual thing now, celebrated in dozens of countries, a very uplifting spectacle of the people who care, who worry a lot about our poor old spinning planet.
Earth Day websites promote the first Earth Day as the very birth of the modern environmental movement — a kind of Christmas for the ecologically devout.
There is something religious about environmentalism, so there's no surprise it has a founding holy day.
We are told with an almost tired sense of conviction that ours is a secular age. Superficially, I don't think there can be any doubt but that it is. But the religious impulse is powerful and tenacious. If diverted from its respectable or traditional channels, or deliberately denied in a self-consciously progressive time, it will find new ways of expression, and new modes of doctrine.
Environmentalism — the cause, the science, the movement, the doctrine — answers many needs, other than those of its ostensible charter of saving the Earth and warding off the forces of pollution. But any movement whose goal is, quite literally, to Save the Earth is evangelical to its green and etymological roots.
We see repeated in environmentalism the great dualisms of good and evil — the modern twin being, say, sustainability versus pollution.
We see, too, in some aspects of the environmental movement that almost irresistible instinct to proselytize and "convert" that is the watermark of all the great faiths, the ferocity to persuade that only comes with the possession of an exclusive and undeniable truth.
The environmental movement also shares the unfortunate history of some mainline faiths in its eagerness to impugn those who have been of the faith and then lapsed. It has its apostates and heretics.
A founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore eventually became disillusioned by the famous organization, and set out on a second career to moderate the greater frenzies of environmentalism. He has been declared an anathema with all the force, and everything but the ceremony, that was the lot of dissenters from the church in the Middle Ages.
An even more recent and telling example is that of the Danish author and statistician Bjorn Lomborg, who offered a critique of the doctrine of global warming. The fury of the environmental establishment toward Mr. Lomborg was prodigious, and the coarseness of some of the attacks on him and his well-tempered book, The Skeptical Environmentalist, exceptional, except by the unhappy example of the Inquisition. But in one sense this wasn't surprising.
All doxologies rebuke dissent ferociously, because to depart from the faith is to put at risk salvation. It wasn't Mr. Lomborg's analysis that was being attacked: It was his heresy. Time magazine called him a potential "Martin Luther" of the environmental movement.
On the one hand, environmentalism is a revenant or a reinvigorated version of the primitive paganism that found its deities and idols in "stocks and stones" wrapped up in the new mantras of Save the Planet and Be Environmentally Conscious. There is a lot of that mushy New-Ageism in certain aspects of pious environmentalism, and not a little in the twitter about Gaia and Mother Earth suggestive of the wild enthusiasms of mysticism, California-style.
Of course, like all serious religions, environmentalism takes much of its energy and appeal on the prospect of an apocalypse. Nuclear winter, the freezing or flooding of the planet, the exhaustion of the natural cycle — these are the perennial alarms of the serious environmentalist. No religion without its doomsday.
On balance, I think the environmental movement of modern times much more of a faith than a science, much more a confused reaching for a kind of salvation through good works than a disinterested study into the ways and workings of physical nature. Environmentalism is more need than inquiry.
Its practices are sometimes delightful, though. The blue box with its arcane rituals of separating the plastic from the paper, and the garden or in-house compost heap/altar, are clearly more prayers gone wrong than real actions. They are propitiatory gestures. The herdsmen on the ancient plains had equally elaborate and futile practices to mollify an earlier set of threatening powers.
Unfortunately, environmentalism is not frequently recognized as the complex mixture of belief, enthusiasm, politics and science that it is, and more emphatically, its religious character is too little explored — with the result that it is propagated in our schools as a science of necessity and a practice of care, which screens its true character.
And on days like Earth Day, to explore its complex nature would be like denying the Trinity in the very precincts of the Vatican.
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, National Cattlemen's Beef Association/Cattlemen's Beef Board, 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