Having problems with message search?
Agnet April 29/04 -- II
EU control over GMOs extends to new Member States
Alemanno says no change to Italian stance on GMOs
Altered corn ignites furor in Mexico
Appeals court sets aside 780K Monsanto award in Mississippi dispute
Greenpeace, McDonalds square up over chicken feed
New biotech discoveries applied in reckless rush
Alberta needs to realize that farmers support wheat board
Barrie bracing for beetle battle
EPA launches interactive mapping web site to help pesticide users better understand court-ordered buffer zones
Imported fire ant: Additions to quarantined areas
Importation of small lots of seed without phytosanitary certificates
how to subscribe
EU control over GMOs extends to new Member States
April 29, 2004
CORDIS
On April 29, 24 national enforcement laboratories from the accession countries became part of the European Network of Genetically Modified Organisms' Laboratories (ENGL).
The laboratories, which previously had the status of observers, have joined the network, coordinated by the European Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC), aimed at managing the detection, identification and quantification of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food and feed in Europe.
Under the new EU regulations on GM food and feed, the JRC has been given the role of managing the detection methods and their validation. This means that all applications for GM food or feed must go through the JRC, who will test the product, making sure the detection methods are accurate and effective.
'We are committed to ensuring the full respect of EU legislation when it comes to GM plants and their derived food and feed products,' explained Philippe Busquin, the European Research Commissioner. 'EU legislation requires a case-by-case assessment of all GM food or feed applications based on scientific evidence. Only products meeting these stringent requirements will be able to be sold in an enlarged EU. Providing a harmonised GMO detection system across Europe will provide consumers with greater choice and accuracy in selecting food products and boost the competitiveness of EU biotech companies.'
The aim of the ENGL, which with the new additions counts 71 control laboratories across Europe as its members, is to create a standardised detection system for GMOs through a platform of experts, who will be encouraged to exchange information and develop a common European strategy.
'An enlarged ENGL will greatly improve the network's ability to detect and screen GMOs and provide a sound scientific basis for enforcing biotechnology legislation,' explained the Commission in a statement.
Alemanno says no change to Italian stance on GMOs
April 29, 2004
ANSA
Italy remains opposed to genetically modified organisms (GMOs) despite voting in favor of a move that could pave the way for new biotech products in Europe, Agriculture Minister Giovanni Alemanno said today.
Italy surprised European Union partners during a meeting of agriculture ministers in Brussels yesterday, when it gave approval to the import of a kind of biotech sweetcorn.
But Alemanno claimed this did not mean Italy had altered its long-standing opposition to biotech products.
"There has been absolutely no change in our policy on GMOs," he told a farming conference today.
He stressed that any EU move would only allow the sweetcorn to be used in food products. This was a separate issue from cultivating biotech crops on European soil, he said.
"Health authorities in Italy are in charge of decisions concerning individual food products and they gave the go-ahead to BT11-maize," he said.
He recalled that the Higher Health Council had declared that the product was "compatible with food safety".
He also said that new EU requirements, which took effect on April 18, would require the sweetcorn to be clearly labeled.
In view of public opposition to GMOs, this could make it unmarketable in Italy, the minister noted.
Altered corn ignites furor in Mexico
April 29, 2004
Chicago Tribune
Hugh Dellios
According to this story, Mexico's recent confirmation that American-manufactured, laboratory-modified genes have somehow appeared in cornfields in Mexico's remote hills has fueled an impassioned debate over "transgenic" products and their potential impact on human health, the environment and the survival of Mexico's traditional corn varieties.
The government announcement in February gave credence to claims by a team of California scientists that they found lab-created genes in corn in Oaxaca three years ago. But it did not solve the mystery of how the genes got there despite a 5-year-old ban on planting transgenic crops in Mexico.
The findings have led environmentalists and others to call for a moratorium on Mexico's annual imports of more than 5 million tons of cheap feed corn from the United States. Those imports have been important for farmers in Illinois and Iowa while helping Mexico introduce more chicken, eggs and other protein into the national diet.
While the Mexican government insists the laboratory-produced genes pose no threat to humans or Mexico's corn, environmental groups, indigenous leaders and other critics say scientists cannot predict what harmful effects may crop up later. They also fear the modified corn could contaminate and displace native species.
In the next few weeks, the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, an international watchdog agency created in the wake of the North American Free Trade Agreement, will complete the first comprehensive study of the potential impact of modified genes on Mexican corn. Their findings will be presented in June with recommendations on how to proceed.
Appeals court sets aside 780K Monsanto award in Mississippi dispute
April 29, 2004
Associated Press
Jim Suhr
ST. LOUIS — An appeals court has thrown out the $780,000 in damages a Mississippi farmer was ordered to pay Monsanto in a seed-patent dispute, calling the agriculture biotechnology giant's formula for calculating such damages "unenforceable" under Missouri law.
Under the ruling from a three-judge federal court panel in Washington, a judge or jury in Missouri must decide what Homan McFarling actually owes the company for saving and replanting genetically altered seeds in violation of an agreement with Monsanto.
The 30-page ruling, issued April 9, affirmed that McFarling, a soybean grower, infringed on St. Louis-based Monsanto's patent and breached his contract with the company.
"This ruling once again confirms that Monsanto's market approach to selling patented seed and traits is legal and enforceable," the company said Wednesday. "We now turn our attention to the jury trial to determine patent-infringement damages independent of the contract provision."
In November 2002, the St. Louis-based U.S. District Court for Missouri's eastern district ruled that McFarling violated a Monsanto-held seed patent and ordered him to pay the company $780,000 in damages, given his admission that he saved seeds after harvesting crops grown from Monsanto's patented Roundup Ready soybean seed.
In agreeing in writing to the prohibition when he first bought the seeds from Monsanto, McFarling also agreed that if he breached the deal he would have to pay damages of 120 times the $6.50-per-bag technology fee the company gets from each bag of soybeans sold.
Monsanto has filed more than 70 lawsuits against farmers in recent years over the issue. Monsanto first sued McFarling in 2000.
In its ruling this month, the federal appeals court declared the 120 multiplier "not a reasonable estimate of the harm that would be anticipated to flow from breach of the prohibition prohibiting replanting seed."
In a similar case a year ago, a Tennessee farmer opposed to Monsanto's genetic seed licensing practices was sentenced in a St. Louis federal court to eight months in prison for lying about a truckload of cotton seed he hid for a friend.
Kem Ralph's prison term for conspiracy to commit fraud was believed to be the first criminal prosecution linked to Monsanto's crackdown on farmers it claims have been violating agreements on using genetically modified seeds.
Ralph has been ordered to pay Monsanto more than $1.7 million.
Greenpeace, McDonalds square up over chicken feed
April 29, 2004
New Zealand Press Association
Anti GE demonstrations were planned at McDonalds stores in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch today, as Greenpeace stepped up a campaign against the fast food chain's use of chicken fed on genetically engineered soy meal.
Greenpeace GE campaigner Steve Abel said McDonalds stores in Europe had a policy of not using chicken fed on engineered soy meal, and New Zealand should follow suit.
Greenpeace members staged a protest in a McDonalds in Auckland last week, and today's rallies were part of an escalating campaign leading up to a visit to New Zealand by Greenpeace flagship vessel Rainbow Warrior, Mr Abel said.
McDonalds Director of Corporate Relations, Liam Jeory, told NZPA Greenpeace's real target was Australian company Inghams, which supplied chicken to McDonalds.
Mr Jeory acknowleged Inghams "from time to time" fed its chickens GE soy meal.
"We've asked Greenpeace for evidence that a chicken fed on genetically modified soy is any different from a chicken that hasn't been, and they're unable to furnish us with that. All we can say is we know you've got a beef with Inghams, but they're trying to make it a beef with McDonalds so they can get more publicity."
McDonalds has a no GE policy in New Zealand, and Greenpeace had been made aware of that, Mr Jeory said.
"Greenpeace know full well our food is not genetically modified, and they seem to have no bones at all about trying to imply to the public that it is."
New biotech discoveries applied in reckless rush
April 29, 2004
The Vancouver Sun
B5
Nicholas Read
BURNABY – New biotechnological discoveries are being hurried recklessly into the real world without proper understanding of their long-term consequences, geneticist and environmentalist David Suzuki warned Wednesday.
"So what the hell is the rush?" he asked during a Simon Fraser University conference on Conscience and Science at the Wosk Centre for Dialogue.
"Don't you think it's dangerous to rush off and apply it as if we knew what we were doing?" He believes that until science has a far better understanding of the long-term consequences of genetic engineering, it's foolhardy to apply it to industry and re-organizing nature.
Speaking of genetically modified foods and the refusal of the Canadian government to allow them to be identified on commercial food labels, Suzuki said: "We're part of a massive experiment in Canada and we've had no say in it whatsoever."
He said because of the pressure put on scientists by industry and business to realize quick and potentially huge profits, biotechnology is being applied to real-life situations too soon and with too little regard to long-term effects.
"We're so puffed up now that we think we know what we're doing."
Instead, Suzuki said, science should be allowed more time to get a better understanding of the risks involved in that application.
"We need to build up a better knowledge base before we go on to the next stage."
Suzuki invoked the examples of DDT and CFCs, both touted by industry as having great benefits to humankind before it was realized that DDT harms more than just the insects it was invented to kill and CFCs destroy the ozone layer.
Alberta needs to realize that farmers support wheat board
April 29, 2004
The Leader-Post (Regina)
B8
Ken Ritter, chair of the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) writes Alberta's Agriculture Minister Shirley McClellan’s announcement that her government is launching a public relations campaign to convince farmers to take away the Canadian Wheat Board's (CWB) ability to sell grain on behalf of all Prairie farmers is both surprising and disappointing.
The current system for marketing wheat and barley in Western Canada includes an open domestic market for feed grains and a single-desk approach to selling grain in the export and human consumption markets.
Ritter argues that the majority of farmers voted in three consecutive CWB elections for directors who support this single-desk approach because they believe that the best way for Prairie farmers to thrive is to band together. Companies are merging, expanding and integrating, both vertically and horizontally. Prairie farmers, in the face of this, have consistently chosen to maintain the marketing power and clout that single-desk selling gives them.
Ritter says that farmers themselves should choose how their grain is marketed.
No government, especially during the difficult times that we're facing right now, should be trying to take away our freedom to choose, especially not in the name of "marketing choice."
Barrie bracing for beetle battle
April 29, 2004
The Barrie Examiner
A3
Chris Simon
Kevin Rankin, a Barrie urban forester, knows the damage that can be caused by the Asian long-horned beetle.
Although the bug has not reached Barrie, it has left about 15,000 trees to be chopped and destroyed in its path in Vaughn. If left untreated, the bug could destroy up to 70 per cent of Ontario's hardwood species.
"Unlike other species they look to control, this species they want to eradicate. Control doesn't seem to be an option because there are no known ways to control it," he said.
The bugs were brought in wood packing material from Asia between four and six years ago. The bug had no natural predators and trees had no natural defence against it, said Rankin.
The Asian long-horned beetle has a 400-metre flight capability, and can spread further when people intervene. Infected firewood taken to the cottage, or infected lumber can transport the bugs.
The 1.5-inch-long beetle infests a tree, living out the majority of its life inside.
"Generally it just attacks a host tree," said Rankin, adding, "It lives out its cycle until the tree's nearly dead, and then it'll move on to another tree, so it doesn't spread really quickly."
EPA launches interactive mapping web site to help pesticide users better understand court-ordered buffer zones
April 28, 2004
EPA Office of Pesticide Programs
http://cfpub.epa.gov/pesticides/news.cfm
On April 28, 2004, EPA made available on its Web site an interactive map to help pesticide users better understand specific buffers and the waters to which they apply, as ordered by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington in its January 22, 2004, order in Washington Toxics Coalition et al. (WTC) v. EPA. Pesticide users in California, Oregon, and Washington are encouraged to check the Web site close to the time of application of any of the pesticides subject to court-ordered buffers since the extent of the buffers required may change as EPA and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) continue to review the potential effects of these active ingredients on Pacific salmon and steelhead. The court-ordered buffers are in response to a citizen suit filed under the Endangered Species Act against EPA by a group of environmental organizations. The order establishes pesticide no-use buffer zones in areas adjacent to certain streams, rivers, lakes, estuaries, and other water bodies, that support federally listed threatened and endangered Pacific salmon and steelhead. Generally, the buffers established by the court are 20 yards for ground application and 100 yards for aerial application, adjacent to certain “salmon-supporting waters” in Washington, Oregon, and California. However, there are variations and exceptions to this general buffer, which EPA has explained on its Web site at http://www.epa.gov/espp.
The court order, which became effective on February 5, 2004, defines salmon-supporting waters as certain water bodies below the “normal high water mark” and thus, any buffer should be measured from that normal high water mark. Additionally, the buffers apply both to the waters indicated on the interactive map and to estuaries related to each of the salmon and steelhead.
The mapping site and more information on EPA's Endangered Species Protection Program are available at:
http://www.epa.gov/espp/
Imported fire ant: Additions to quarantined areas
April 29, 2004
Federal Register: (Volume 69, Number 83)
[Page 23415-23417]
[DOCID:fr29ap04-1]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
[Docket No. 03-109-1]
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Interim rule and request for comments.
SUMMARY: We are amending the imported fire ant regulations by designating as quarantined areas all or portions of 20 counties in North Carolina. As a result of this action, the interstate movement of regulated articles from those areas will be restricted. This action is necessary to prevent the artificial spread of the imported fire ant to noninfested areas of the United States.
DATES: This interim rule is effective April 29, 2004. We will consider all comments that we receive on or before June 28, 2004.
Importation of small lots of seed without phytosanitary certificates
April 29, 2004
Federal Register: (Volume 69, Number 83)
[Page 23451-23456]
[DOCID:fr29ap04-10]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
[Docket No. 02-119-1]
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend the nursery stock regulations to allow the importation of small lots of seed under an import permit with specific conditions, as an alternative to the current phytosanitary certificate requirement. This proposed change is necessary because several entities that import small lots of seed-individual importers, horticultural societies, arboreta, and small businesses--have had difficulty obtaining the necessary certificates and have been adversely affected by the phytosanitary certificate requirement. The proposed change would make it feasible for those entities to import small lots of seed and would ensure prompt and consistent service for such importers while continuing to protect against the introduction of plant pests into the United States and providing the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service with necessary information about the quality, quantity, and diversity of the imported material. DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before June 28, 2004.
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