February headlines

Return to February article index

Australia: GM canola has an edge on 'purity premiums' - ABARE

February 28
Reuters

CANBERRA - Conventionally-produced canola would need to attract price premiums of about 10 percent over genetically modified (GM) canola to economically justify producers' decisions to remain GM-free, the government's commodities think tank said yesterday.

So far evidence was only patchy that non-GM oilseeds and grain attracted price premiums in world markets, said Max Foster, ABARE's principal food and agribusiness research officer.

Evidence of premiums being paid for non-GM grains and oilseeds indicated markets were still in a price-discovery phase.

Available evidence showed that grain elevators in the US were paying the equivalent of four percent to 15 percent more for non-GM corn than for the modified variety, he said.

A survey showed conventionally bred corn and soybeans in the US Midwest cash market were commanding premiums of US$9 a ton and US$5 a ton respectively over GM varieties, he said.

A non-GM soybean futures contract in Japan was averaging a five to eight percent premium over conventional contracts.

And Reuters had reported in August 2000 that European buyers had paid US$5 a ton premium on a 150,000 ton cargo of Australian non-GM canola, Foster said.

The adoption of a GM canola variety, with an assumed yield advantage of seven percent over varieties already in use, would lead Australian canola output to rise by 8.7 percent by 2010.

Australian exports would increase by 11.8 percent and Australia would gain world market share at the expense of Canada and the US, he said.

But modeling showed that for Australia to produce the same amount of GM-free canola, the premium would have to be around an estimated 10.4 percent.

"At this stage, premiums of this magnitude do not seem to be available on a wide scale on world canola markets," he said.

ECONOMICS REVERSED BY SEGREGATION

However, the economics of GM-versus-non-GM canola were reversed when identity preservation requirements were imposed.

Costs of segregation of GM and non-GM crops at the export point are assumed to add 10 percent to the cost of delivery in this model. This would reverse Australian gains in the world oilseed market, he said.

Estimates showed Australian canola production falling by 1.2 percent and Australian oilseeds exports falling by 2.3 percent in this case, he said.

"In a mixed production system, GM free canola would have to attract a premium of 10 percent to ensure non-GM canola producers were not affected by the introduction of GM canola," he said.

"The model results suggest that the introduction of herbicide tolerant canola to Australia is not justified if consumer acceptance problems require elaborate identity preservation arrangements," he said.

Consumer attitudes appeared to be hardening against GM products internationally, even in North America where the consumption of GM grains had been high, Foster said.

International plantings of GM crops increased rapidly until 1999, but with the exception of cotton, the rate of growth had been arrested and even reversed in the case of corn and canola.

Australia presently accounts for about 25 percent of the world canola trade, against Canada's 50 percent share and the European Union's five to 10 percent.

China: Government mulls labels for genetically modified food

February 26
Reuters

The Hong Kong government proposed on Monday that food containing five percent or more of genetically-modified (GM) material be clearly labeled.

But the government has not yet decided if such labeling should be voluntary or mandatory, Lily Yam, secretary of the Environment and Food Bureau told reporters.

While there is no evidence that GM food is unsafe for human consumption, some consumers might be allergic to the contents of a modified food product which incorporates genes from other plants or animals, she said.

"Some groups and members have called for the labeling of GM food to provide more information for consumers," said Yam.

The five percent threshold was selected because a government laboratory had concluded that accurate measurements of GM content could only obtained at that level or above, she said.

In the European Union, the threshold is one percent, she said.

Members of the food trade industry and the public can express their views on the options over the next three months, she said, adding that any implementation of such labeling requirements would be at least two years' down the road.

Greenpeace activists put up a banner outside a government office tower in Hong Kong on Monday demanding mandatory "Labeling Now" for GM food.

GM food is widely available in Hong Kong, said Lo Sze Ping, a Greenpeace campaigner, adding that nine in 10 respondents to a survey conducted by Greenpeace and Oxfam last October called for labeling.

Voluntary labeling for GM foods would not work, he said. "It's only a license to allow companies not to label their products," added Lo.

Greenpeace opposes GM food, saying it could be a possible threat to human health and the environment.

Hong Kong has had a number of food-related scares in recent years ranging from pesticide-laden vegetables to toxic fish.

In 1997, the outbreak of the deadly "bird flu" virus killed six people and led to the slaughter of a million chickens.

American corn growers reach out to European Union on GMOs

February 26
American Corn Growers Association press release

Speaking to the 9th annual AGROGENE Seminar on Genetic Traceability in Paris, France on February 22, American Corn Grower Association (ACGA) Program Director Dan McGuire praised the European Union as a multi-billion market for U.S. farmers and told seminar participants that European concerns, not governments, will have the final say on genetically modified crops (GMOs).

``The ACGA certainly does not take the European Union for granted,'' McGuire told the seminar participants, including food industry and processor representatives. ``We appreciate the E.U. for importing bulk, intermediate, processed and consumer-oriented U.S. farm products rendered at $6.4 billion in 1999 including about 5 million tons of corn gluten feed and meal.'' McGuire expressed concern that U.S. agriculture product value to the E.U. had dropped in the year 2000, partly because GMOs being produced in the U.S.

McGuire acknowledged that U.S. farmers have intense and growing competitions from both South America and China. He cited the recent role of 150,000 MT of Non-GMO corn that Brazil exported to Spain at a $6/MT premium and a February 2001 USDA report that increases China's corn export forecast to 6 million metric tons while reducing the 2000-2001 U.S. corn export quantity by 2.5 million metric tons. McGuire said U.S. farmers had been told for years to rely on exports to strengthen commodity prices, but that strategy has failed with 5-year average export levels flat for the past 25 years.

Speaking to the seminar on the potential of the identity preserved U.S. commodity marketing and genetic traceability through the U.S. system, he reviewed U.S. inspection testing, sampling, grading and certifying. ``I commend the Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS) for the fine job they're doing to ensure buyers that the U.S. commodities they purchase meet contract specifications.'' Mr. McGuire provided information on the new USDA/GIPSA inspection services offered on biotech lab accreditation and GMO test kit evaluation.

Regarding recent new rules in the E.U. for GMO licensing and approval procedures, McGuire said, ``Ultimately the consensus on GMOs will be that consumer dollars will call the final shot. The ACGA stands ready to respond to those consumer demands. We want Europe and the rest of the world to know we're listening to your concerns. We believe we must respond in a market-oriented way. In other words, respect the customer's right to choose or risk losing the opportunity to be the supplier.''

Perhaps the GMO concern for U.S. farmers was best summarized by a representative of the largest wheat miller in France who told the seminar attendees that in 2003 GMO spring wheat will be introduced in the U.S. and in 2004 France will stop buying Dark Northern Spring (DNS) wheat from the U.S.

``That clearly sums up the marketing concerns with GMOs'', concluded McGuire.

The American Corn Growers Association (ACGA) is one of the country's most respected voices exclusively for corn growers. Its focus is on the farmer. The ACGA Board Directors are corn growers. Its producer members approve all policy decisions. ACGA is active across the country.

For more information use ACGA's website at www.acga.org or call (202) 835-0330.

Up with weeds

February 24
Washington Times editorial

Individuals who believe that the movie, "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" is a documentary for what will happen if genetically modified foods are ever allowed to run wild, in well, the wild, should be relieved by the findings of a study recently published in the prestigious scientific journal Nature, which convincingly demonstrates exactly the opposite.

In what some have called the "longest-term ever" study of its sort, researchers examined the ability of genetically modified foods to spread out from their agrarian habitat and persist in the wild, while controlling for the ability of non-genetically modified foods to do the same thing. They studied crops of potatoes, maize, sugar beet and rape seed which had been modified to be resistant to insects and/or herbicides in 12 disparate habitats for a full decade.

Their conclusion? "In no case were the genetically modified plants found to be more invasive or more persistent than their conventional counterparts." In other words, no super weeds, no killer tomatoes, no little shop of horrors.

Moreover, "increased competition from native perennial plants" (read "crabgrass") caused decreases in the numbers of genetically modified plants. In some cases, the genetically modified strains were actually wiped out.

This study is simply the latest study in an unremitting stream of evidence that has all demonstrated the same thing: Genetically engineered foods are almost certainly not harmful, and they are almost certainly beneficial.

Unfortunately, the seeds of evidence contained in the study appear to have little potential for growth in the hard heads of environmental extremists who made up their minds long ago. Julie Miles, "co-coordinator" of the Genetically Engineered Food Alert, suggested that despite this new evidence, her organization would be unlikely to change its stance on such foods. This shouldn't come as a surprise, since the organization proclaims "Genetically engineered food ingredients or crops should not be allowed on the market unless: Independent safety testing demonstrates they have no harmful effects on human health or the environment." Of course, evidence from this latest study suggests that the opposite might be true, that the environment might be harmful to genetically modified foods, but no matter.

In the end, a 10-year, a 20-year, or even a 1,000-year safety study of every genetically modified food under all possible conditions seems unlikely to quash the qualms of such matrons of the nanny state, who insist that everything be safe, or at least not sound frightening or icky.

U.S. looks to bio-based products to help farmers

February 23
Reuters

Bio-based fuels and products will undoubtedly shape the future of American agriculture, but for the young market to enter the mainstream will require significant promotion and funding efforts, industry leaders said Friday.

Within the agriculture industry, converting corn, soybeans and other bio-based goods into products that reduce consumption of natural resources and lessen emissions of greenhouse gases is slowly gaining steam. 

But a panel of new age bio-product and environmental market experts at the U.S. Department of Agriculture's annual outlook conference near Washington admit that what becomes of the futuristic industry is largely uncertain. 

"We are simply at the beginning of a new era that could be extremely important to American agriculture," said Marvin Duncan, an economist at the USDA.

The evolution of bio-based products and fuels "is like being at the front end of when America learned to fly. But like all major developments, it comes slowly and has many participants," he said.

Indeed, early developments hint that bio-based products have a  promising future. There are several successful examples already on the market including ethanol blends of gasoline from corn and soybean lubricants used in hydraulic fluids and motor boat engines.

Increasing U.S. dependence on alternative fuels and products made  from food crops and other agricultural and forest resources was an initiative trumpeted by the Clinton administration. In August 1999, former president Clinton signed an executive order with a goal of tripling the use of bio-based products and bio-energy by 2010.

Farmers are being called upon to play a prominent role in the future of American agriculture. One potentially lucrative market for some farmers is the removal of carbon from the atmosphere.

The process, called carbon sequestration, occurs when grassy crops and fast-growing trees remove carbon from the air and store it in soil or use it to grow roots, stems and leaves. Farming practices such as not tilling the land before planting can improve the soil and help it retain more carbon, yielding more productive crops.

The USDA estimates that the U.S. carbon sequestration market could swell to $5 billion per year by 2035.

But for carbon removal to be an option for farmers, they need financial incentives and public acceptance, said Bruce Babcock, carbon sequestration expert at Iowa State University.

He urged Congress to create legislation that would pay farmers for setting aside land for carbon sequestration.

"There is a lot of uncertainty over carbon sequestration. What we need is what all new technologies need, a poster child to drive it," Babcock said. "We need ways to stimulate demand, otherwise it could be slow going." 

He added that despite extensive media attention given toward environmental issues such as global warming and greenhouse gases, wooing the public into reducing its carbon dioxide emissions has been largely unsuccessful.

To drum up support, and to promote the use of bio-based lubricants, fuels and plastics, research will be necessary to discover new ways of processing and converting these products into materials that are more cost-effective and as efficient as fossil fuels.

But with questions swirling over the future of bio-based products, few companies in the agriculture industry are willing to pump millions of dollars into research and development.

Barbara Miller, technical director with Dow Chemical Co. , says that "biotech is going to be a player" and could be a "disruptive force" in the industry.

Unlike its competitors, the Michigan-based chemicals and plastics manufacturer has not sat idle. They have already begun developing products such as polymers -- made in part from corn -- that are used to construct cast films, rigid containers and paperboard coatings.

"We've had some successful experiences with biotechnology already and that gives us a lot of hope. It's opened up market opportunities that could not have been anticipated," Miller said.

"It will be disruptive (to the industry), but we want to be a part of the new markets and opportunities that we can't even foresee," she said.

US farmers may have to live with EU crop rules

February 23
Reuters

U.S. grain farmers and exporters could lose in the World Trade Organization -- and the court of public opinion -- if they challenge new European Union "traceability" requirements for genetically modified crops, a pair of academic experts said on Friday.

"I don't think the WTO is going to be a promising venue for challenging such things because it only brings greater attention to the fact that animal feeds from the United States are genetically modified," Dr. Robert Paarlberg, a Harvard University political science professor, said at the U.S. Agriculture Department's annual Outlook Forum.

Last week, the European Parliament and Council of Ministers approved a new directive to end a moratorium on the approval of GM crops in the EU. 

But the new rules also would require the U.S. industry to closely track the movement of GM crops through the commercial marketing chain in order to sell in the 15 EU members states.

Because the U.S. industry currently does not separate GM crops from conventional varieties, the new EU rules could require massive industry investment if U.S. exporters want to sell in the European market.

David Victor, senior fellow in science and technology at the Council on Foreign Relations, said the EU provision was probably consistent with the WTO's "sanitary-phytosanitary agreement" (SPS), which requires food safety and plant health import restrictions be based on a scientific risk assessment.

"I think it's quite possible we would lose in the WTO" if the United States challenged the traceability rule, Victor said. "We're not dealing with a straight ban."

Paarlberg said he was generally pessimistic about the outlook for GM crops, which account for more than half of U.S. corn and soybean production.

"Consumer anxieties about feed safety are now on the rise and are placing markets for U.S. GM-corn, mixed feeds and soybean products at risk," he said.

In both Europe and Japan, consumers are increasingly calling for meat products from animal raised with GM crops to be labeled, Paarlberg said.

Aventis asks Japan to approve StarLink for feed

February 23
Reuters

The Japanese unit of Franco-German life sciences company Aventis SA has applied to sell its StarLink biotech corn to Japan for use in animal feed, the Agriculture Ministry said on Friday.

StarLink is not approved for either human or animal consumption in Japan.

The gene-spliced corn has become a hot topic in Japan, where consumers have been vocal in their opposition against genetically modified foods.

The discovery of StarLink traces in food and animal feed by a domestic consumer group in late October prompted Japan to sharply cut its purchases of U.S. corn.

Ministry officials declined to comment on whether or when the approval would be made.

The ministry, which overseas feed products, said earlier this month that its test results showed no genetic problems in poultry raised on feed containing StarLink corn.

It is also conducting similar tests on chicken eggs, dairy cattle and pork, it said.

Japan imports four million tons of corn per year for food and another 12 million tons for animal feed, mostly from the United States.

In the United States, StarLink was approved for animal feed but not for human consumption due to concerns about potential allergic reactions.

Jews for 'GE-less'

Ethical concerns are prompting some local members of the Jewish community to go against the genetically engineered grain

February 
Metro, Silicon Valley's weekly

IN ANCIENT ISRAEL, farmers brought offerings of wheat, barley, figs, pomegranates and olives to the Temple in Jerusalem. "Food is a source of connection provided by God," says Ramona Rubin, a soft-spoken environmental educator. "It's the manna that sustains; in that sense, the table is the altar."

Rubin, speaking at an informal gathering at the Santa Cruz chapter of Hillel, a national Jewish organization, is trying to educate Jewish consumers on what she considers to be a serious recent threat to their  health and to their faith: the dangers of consuming genetically  engineered food. The former UC-Santa Cruz cultural ecology student, who co-founded the Santa Cruz chapter of the Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life, represents a growing number of people within the Jewish community who have religious objections to genetically engineered food. Their concerns are driving a national debate over what stance Jews should take. "GE contradicts the spirit of creation--there are definite reasons for concern," she says.

Gene Genies

GENETIC ENGINEERING, commonly known as GE, is the practice of altering the genetic blueprints of plants and animals to create new varieties of foods and seeds. In the United States, over 60 million acres of GE crops are being cultivated, including 40 percent of the nation's soybean crop and 25 percent of its corn. As much as 70 percent of the processed food currently found in American supermarkets--including infant formula, corn chips, margarine, ice cream and ready-made meals--contains genetically engineered ingredients. (In Europe, government officials have largely rejected biotechnology's introduction into their nation's food supply.)

Genetic engineering works like this: Genes from nonrelated species, such as insect, fish or human genes, are inserted into those of plants to enhance growth rates or reduce the susceptibility of crops to damage from frost or pests. GE producers have stressed its incredible potential for improving crop yields by making plants more resistant to pests and disease. In 1992, the Food and Drug Administration declared that genetically engineered foods would not be treated differently from naturally produced foods--no additional safety tests, no regulatory restraints and no labeling requirements.

Multinational corporations such as Monsanto and Novartis have since invested billions of dollars in creating and marketing new crops. Swiss-based Novartis has poured $25 million into UC-Berkeley alone for plant research. 

While those concerned with biotech's ethical and environmental implications--such as environmentalists and those within the religious community--have begun to question its safety, professor Andrew Jackson, chair of the university's department of plant and microbial biology, feels the public lacks the scientific background to understand biotech. 

"Scientists haven't been able to educate the public as well as they would like," he says. "There are risks and benefits in everything you choose to do. When it comes to food technology, I think it has been difficult for [scientists] to get their point across."

Genetically Kosher? 

INITIALLY, within the Jewish community, GE and the issue of kashrut--whether or not something is kosher--was a great concern. Would something such as a vegetable spliced with pig genes remain kosher? Although a number of mainstream groups, including the Commission on Social Action of Reform Judaism and the Cornell Kosher Food Initiative, have since ruled that GE foods are, indeed, kosher--due to the genes being so small as to be "trivial" by kosher law, religious objections still persist.

"In the Torah, there's the idea of the sanctity of boundaries between species," Rubin says, referring to the passage in Leviticus 19:19 that states, "You shall not let your cattle mate with a different kind; you  shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed." Rubin explains that the difference between breeding--a natural selection process between like species--and genetic engineering--the deliberate insertion of genes between dissimilar species and one that would never occur in nature--is great. "We are supposed to protect these different types of creatures that have evolved," she says, "not dilute their genetic materials through random interaction."

Other theological objections lie in the Torah's commandments--or mitzvot--to take care of the natural world, respect its integrity and ultimately, to refrain from playing God. "The injunction at the beginning of Genesis where the world is given to Adam and he is told to subdue it--in that sense it is our obligation to make the world a better place," says orthodox Rabbi Jacob Traub, of Adath Israel in San Francisco. "The people involved in bioengineering probably feel they are making the world better--they are taking corn that normally feeds four and feeding 400. Who's to say they're not doing God's work? On the other hand, we're possibly fooling around with Frankenstein."

As Rubin sees it, genetic engineering is a monster still in its infancy, and current splicing techniques are both inexact and unpredictable, making them potentially dangerous. "There's this misconception that GE is something we understand, but it's not," she says. "When we insert a new genetic sequence, it's haphazard; we have no control where it goes."

Haphazards

CRITICS BELIEVE THAT genetically engineered crops could potentially harm the environment by allowing random genetic pollution between GE and non-GE crops.

Recently, genetically engineered corn named StarLink, which has not been approved for human consumption, showed up in batches of Western  Family Foods taco shells, which had to be pulled from store shelves. Western Family Foods Inc. sells its products under six labels to over 3,500 stores based in 23 states, including Oakland's United Grocers International. StarLink was also found in taco shells produced by Kraft, sold under the Taco Bell name, and those made by Mission Foods in Texas and distributed under several brand names, including Safeway. The farmers who planted the corn said they weren't told it must be grown and stored separately from other crops, and in one case a farmer mixed StarLink corn with that of other varieties--about 50,000  bushels in all--which now must be sold as animal feed.

Because federal law does not require labeling of genetically engineered products, Rubin wants to develop an eco-kosher label based on the idea of shmirat haguf, or safeguarding one's health, to help Jews and other consumers identify non-GE food. "Labels would make a phenomenal difference in increasing consciousness," says David Kupfer, an environmental consultant and organic farmer who is also a member of the Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life. "It's important to give people the option to consider [GE's] implications. When people are educated about the issue, I'm sure they'll choose organic." 

Kupfer also thinks the StarLink scare helped underline how widespread genetically engineered food already is and how crucial the need is for labels. "What StarLink brings home is that there is no accountability by government agencies, and the food companies we trust do not deserve that trust," he says.

But Scott Thenell, director of regulatory affairs at DNA Plant Technology in Oakland, believes the StarLink episode did not pose a great public risk. Thenell, whose company is developing genetically engineered strawberries, says he fed Starlink taco shells to his family because he has confidence in the industry. "We've been consuming biotech foods [in the United States] for several years without dire consequences," he says. "Biotech is a powerful technology with tremendous benefits. I have a strong sense that the technology will be well accepted--the market will decide."

Food For Thought

THE TORAH IS NEARLY 6,000 years old. While there is no direct mandate on genetic engineering within its pages, many in the Jewish community feel that its basic teachings are straightforward: Safeguard the Earth. "Ethically, the balance lies between developing genetically engineered food and genetics as a science to help save the planet and knowing how this will individually impact our health," says reform Rabbi Sydney Mintz, of Temple Emanuel in San Francisco. Mintz, a representative from the Central Conference of American Rabbis, has actively pursued the discussion of GE with other rabbis. "It is a Jewish mandate to save our brothers and sisters and heal the world. But we don't have enough information on how this will impact us."

This is something mirrored by Rabbi Marc Israel, of the Religious  Action Center of Reformed Judaism in Washington, D.C., which works on Jewish interests in public policy. "We recognize the fundamental partnership between human beings and God, which is that God provides us with the ability to use our resources to benefit humanity," he says. "We recognize the potential benefits [of GE food] but have some grave environmental concerns that need to be weighed. Therefore," he says, "we encourage proceeding with great caution."