What countries have banned GMO crops

June 18, 2011

These days in Southern Minnesota, it's hard to find any fields that aren't planted with genetically modified corn or soybeans. While GMO crops are quickly taking over the landscape in the United States and Canada, not all countries have embraced these questionable crops.

Here's a list of countries (and U.S. counties) that have banned genetically modified crops in one way or another.

In the United States: Only the California counties of Mendocino, Trinity and Marin have successfully banned GM crops. Voters in other Calilfornia counties have tried to pass similar measures but failed.

In Australia: Several Australian states had bans on GM crops but most of them have since lifted them. Only South Australia still has a ban on GM crops, though Tasmania has a moratorium on them until November of 2014.

In Japan: The Japanese people are staunchly opposed to genetically modified crops and no GM seeds are planted in the country. However, large quantities of canola are imported from Canada (which is one of the world's largest producers of GM canola) and there is now GM canola growing wild around Japanese ports and roads to major food oil companies. Genetically modified canola such as Monsanto's Roundup Ready canola have been found growing around 5 of the 6 ports that were tested for GM contamination.

In New Zealand: No GM foods are grown in the country.

In Germany: There is a ban on the cultivation or sale of GMO maize.

In Ireland: All GM crops were banned for cultivation in 2009, and there is a voluntary labeling system for foods containing GM foods to be identified as such.

In Austria, Hungary, Greece, Bulgaria and Luxembourg: There are bans on the cultivation and sale of GMOs.

In France: Monsanto's MON810 GM corn had been approved but its cultivation was forbidden in 2008. There is widespread public mistrust of GMOsthat has been successful in keeping GM crops out of the country.

In Madeira: This small autonomous Portugese island requested a country-wide ban on genetically modified crops last year and was permitted to do so by the EU.

In Switzerland: The country banned all GM crops, animals, and plants on its fields and farms in a public referendum in 2005, but the initial ban was for only five years. The ban has since been extended through 2013.

In India: The government placed a last-minute ban on GM eggplant just before it was scheduled to begin being planted in 2010. However, farmers were widely encouraged to plant Monsanto's GM cotton and it has led to devastating results. The UK's Daily Mail reports that an estimated 125,000 farmers have committed suicide because of crop failure and massive debt since planting GM seeds.

In Thailand: The country has zigzagged in its support and opposition of GM crops. The country had widespread trials of GM papayas from Hawaii but reversed its plans when the seeds got wild and began contaminating nearby crops. Several countries such as Japan moved to restrict the importation of Thailand's papayas as a result, not wanting to import any GM foods. Thailand is currently trying to embrace both sides -- producing organic foods for some countries at a high price while moving towards embracing more and more GM crops. The country has also tried declaring some areas GMO-free zones in order to encourage other countries to trust their foods.

What countries have embraced GM crops?

• The U.S. now grows mostly GM varieties of corn, canola and soy. Hawaii now grows GM papayas. Approvals have also been given for GM alfalfa, zucchinis, beet sugar and tomato varieties, though not all are currently being grown. A recent attempt to approve GM salmon was defeated.
• China is one of the largest producers of GM crops.
• Germany, Sweden and the Czech Republic are approved for growing GM potatoes.
• Finland's government and population is receptive to GM foods. None are currently grown in the country, however, because no approved GM crops are suitable for the country's growing conditions.
• The Zambian government has launched a campaign to get the public to support GM technology.
• Canada has widespread GM crop usage. Nearly all Canadian canola is GM, as is a large portion of the country's soy and corn. Prince Edward Island tried to pass a ban on GMO cultivation but failed, and GM crops in the region are currently increasing.
• Spain currently grows GMO maize (about 20% of the country's maize is GM).
• The Czech Republic, Slovakia, Portugal, Romania and Poland all grow some GMO maize.
• The Phillipines grow GM crops.
• The European Union (EU) has approved the cultivation of many GM crops (including potatoes and maize) but individual countries are able to opt out from growing them. However, most EU countries are not permitted to reject the sale of GM foods.
• South Africa is growing an increasing number of GM crops.
• Britain officially supports GM crops and has trials of GMOs like potatoes planted. However, there is widespread public distrust of the crops and Prince Charles has been a vocal opponent of GMOs.
• South America has widespread planting of GM crops.
• As mentioned above, Thailand is alternately embracing and rejecting GM crops.
• India also has widespread GM cotton use. Also mentioned above, the widespread planting of Monsanto's GM cotton has led to tragedy throughout India. The Indian government even banned conventional seeds from many government seed banks in an attempt to please Monsanto (in return, the country was given International Monetary Fund loans to help its economy) and slow the nation's poverty rates. An estimated 1,000 farmers commit suicide each month in the country as a result of the crop failure and debt caused by planting the GM seeds. Farmers were convinced to spend what was often 1,000 times the cost of conventional seed on the "magic seeds" after listening to Monsanto's promises of increased yields and resistence to pests. Despite the promises, the crops were often destroyed by bollworms. In addition, the farmers weren't warned that the crops would require twice as much water as conventional cotton, leading to many crops drying up and dying. The "terminator" seeds also must be purchased again every year. For farmers used to saving seed from year to year, this was often a final financial blow that led to insurmountable debt.

The variation in each country's laws and views regarding GMOs has led to complications when it comes to exporting foods. For example, Thailand has been working to reassure other countries about the safety of its food but recently had its canned tuna rejected by Greece and the Netherlands after testing showed GM ingredients. The tuna was packed in soybean oil imported by the United States, where most soy is genetically modified.

Some Americans are now looking for foods like canola oil and soy products that are not grown in the United States, thinking that it's a way to avoid GM foods. This is obviously not a good idea. It's important not to assume that just because a food was not produced in the United States, it's not genetically modified.

Until consumers have the right to labeling informing us of which foods contain GM ingredients, it's important to be aware of which countries are now growing GM foods and which foods are produced.

Source: http://www.examiner.com/article/what-countries-have-banned-gmo-crops

Monsanto officials beaten up by Cotton farmers as Bt.cotton seed failed: Bogus Bt.cotton seed creates havoc in vidarbha

 Nagpur- July 11, 2011

American cotton seed MNC giant Monsanto of having international monopoly of notorious killer BT. cotton seed has never even dreamed in 2005 when he was first commercial cultivation permission of it’s controversial Bt.cotton seed that it sale will jump from 1million hector to record 15 million hector in India that too more than 5 million hector in agrarian crisis hit Maharashtra itself that has crossed the turn over of Rs.15,000 crore as farmers are buying 11 packets of 450 gm per hector as per company’s guide for recommended “population method” but the sudden demand and ill-managed Indian sub agents have brought company in big trouble as 50% of the Bt.cotton seed failed to germinate even after it’s second sowing and now cry has been started in other part of India too ,hence Vidarbha Janandolan Samiti farmers advocacy group has approached local state Govt. of Maharashtra to arrange high level probe in to all complaints received from farmers of west vidarbha where more than 10,000 cotton farmers have committed suicide since june 2005 after the introduction killer BT. cotton seed in this region and around Rs.10,000 crore has been pumped by Indian and state Govt .to bailout cotton farmers from the agrarian crisis which is likely to be get more fuel if corrective action are taken immediately ,Kishore Tiwari of Vidarbha Janandolan Samiti informed today.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Monsanto Bt.cotton seed crisis early June when all bt.cotton seed ordered by Maharashtra dealers sold out it to the adjourning Andhra farmers and there was no seed available to cater to local market and Monsanto sub-agents were failed to respond to state Govt. request suddenly Bt.cotton seed were freely available in market in third week of June but source supply has discovered immediately by Yavatmal police when the raided house of Nerendra Indurkar in the very small village Munjala and caught raid handed packing local cotton seed in the pocket of branded Bt.cotton .police have sealed the very advance imported pocket packing machines and thousands of packets of all popular brands BT. cotton seed being sold on the premium but culprit Nerendra Indurkar were allowed to go with out any interrogation but officials of American BT. cotton seed giant in India were called and facts were told but they denied any link with such bogus BT. cotton seed supply racket.

Monsanto officials beaten up by Cotton farmers as Bt.cotton seed failed

When news of arrival Monsanto senior official from Mumbai are in near village munjala cotton farmers of village karanji 140 K.m. from Nagpur has taken him to their field where complete failure of ‘Paras Sudarshan’ BT. cotton seed was shown to him when he failed to admit the lapse he was severely beaten up even local agriculture officer has not came to his rescue as per reports published in regional news papers .daily all regional papers in vidarbha and marathwada region of Maharashtra where more than 4 million hector are in under bt.cotton cultivation are reporting the flood of bogus seed supplied local agents of American cotton seed MNC giant Monsanto giant is being reported but administration has failed to take any action of this serious issue hence Vidarbha Janandolan Samiti has written to Maharashtra Chief Minister Prathiraj Chavan to order judicial enquiry in the supply racket of bogus BT. cotton seed in Maharashtra and arrange to start criminal action against culprit,Tiwari added.

 

SOURCE: Posted by vidarbha times at 11:28 PM

PRESS RELEASE: “STOP ALL FIELD TRIALS OF GMOs IMMEDIATELY”: CIVIL SOCIETY"

New Delhi, May 11, 2011: Representatives of five organizations and networks made a strong presentation to the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) in its 109^th meeting here today demanding that all field trials of GMOs in the country be suspended immediately, given the intrinsic uncontrollable nature of GM technology in addition to the amply-demonstrated incapability of our regulatory system to address issues of biosafety and beyond when it comes to GMOs.

 

Sridhar Radhakrishnan, Convenor, Coalition for a GM-Free India; Dr Ramanjaneyulu, Executive Director of Centre for Sustainable Agriculture; Aruna Rodrigues, SC PIL lead petitioner; Rajesh Krishnan, Manager, Sustainable Agriculture Campaign, Greenpeace India and Kavitha Kuruganti, Convenor, Alliance for Sustainable & Holistic Agriculture (ASHA) made presentations on various issues pertaining to regulation of GMOs in India. They touched upon Bt cotton experience in the country over the past ten years, Bt brinjal risk assessment and issues therewith, open air deliberate releases of GMOs in the form of field trials and concerns therewith and countering industry’s lobbying effort around “delays in product development and commercialization”.

 

GEAC assured the civil society representatives that the issues raised would be discussed in detail in one of the subsequent meetings and that these would be addressed as appropriate.

 

Civil society was prompted to make these presentations to the GEAC in response to some latest developments on the Bt brinjal front and some proposals made by the industry associations in January 2011.

 

In today’s GEAC meeting, groups showcased repeated regulatory failures, incapability, apathy and lack of independence of the regulators as reflected in the case of GM cotton, Bt brinjal and field trials of nearly 14 crops in India and made the following immediate demands:

 

1. Industry proposals for faster-track approvals of GMOs in our food and farming to be rejected in toto; GEAC not to entertain such proposals since it is not a clearing house for GMOs but has been created to protect our environment, Nature and health.
2. A comprehensive, participatory review of GM cotton experience in this country to be taken up before proceeding any further with GMO approvals in this country, to glean lessons collectively as a nation and to revamp the regulatory regime.
3. In the case of Bt brinjal, given the evidence from independent analyses of the problems with various tests that have been done as part of the biosafety dossier, it is time to reject the Bt brinjal dossier; any further assessment on the subject should begin with a need assessment and like mentioned above, should be governed by policy directives in place. Any further assessments should be independent without drawing in the same set of people representing conflicting interests time and again.
4. Given the fact that field trials are right now riddled with numerous problems which are amply demonstrated by regular violations and malpractices, all field trials to be immediately suspended until all fundamental issues with regard to GMOs and such open air field trials are resolved.

 

For more information, contact:

1. Sridhar Radhakrishnan: 09995358205
2. Dr Ramanjaneyulu: 09000699602
3. Kavitha Kuruganti: 09393001550
4. Aruna Rodrigues: 09826396033
5. Rajesh Krishnan: 09845650032

Red Rice Mela

Saturday and Sunday, 14th -15th May 2011,10 am- 6 pm

Gandhi Bhavan, Near Shivananda Circle,Bangalore 

Ever heard of Diabetic Rice? Not happy eating polished rice? Here is a solution to all your problems. Consume only traditional land races and keep your family healthy and hearty. So are you interested?

Many in the present generation are not aware of diversity of rice that we have. India had two lakh varieties of rice before Green Revolution. Now only 30,000 varieties are there in our gene banks.

Karnataka is also blessed with a rich culinary heritage that each variety of rice is characterised by its distinct textures, flavours, and tastes. It has a diversity of rice cuisines based on regional specialties and traditional dishes of each rice variety. Besides rice having nutritional and medicinal benefits, the by-products of rice are equally important and beneficial.

Despite its importance as a staple food, interest in its health benefits has only recently attracted attention. Laboratory studies have shown that rice products have anti-cancer properties and the potential to treat other conditions such as diabetes, kidney stones and heart disease. Karibatha is used for curing herpes andKarikalave is a special variety among the medicinal diversity and is usually served to feeding mothers, as it is high in calcium content.Navara, a variety of Kerala, has anti-carcinogenic property, especially against breast cancer.

 ‘Sahaja Samrudha’ in collaboration with NABARD,Save Our Rice campaign and Pristine organics has organised 'Red Rice Mela' on 14-15th May 2011 at Gandhi Bhavan,Bangalore.

‘Red Rice Mela’ is celebration of  rice diversity that is grown with care for your health and environment by our Farmers, who preserve diversity by conserving different varieties of rice. The astounding varieties of Red Rice, from different regions of the state would be exhibited.

 Hope to see you all on 14th May at Gandhi Bhavan,Bangalore!

Contact for more details :

                             Manjunatha,  - 9986453324

                            Shantha Kuamr - 9731275656

                            Seema  -             9900851163

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sahaja Samrudha
'Nandana', No-7, 2nd Cross, 7th Main, Sulthanpalya, Bangalore-560 037
Phone: 080-23655302 / 9880862058  www.sahajasamrudha.org

In 2011 the dacha gardens of Russia produced 40% of the nation's food.

While many in the world are completely dependent on large scale agriculture, the Russian people feed themselves. Their agricultural economy is small scale, predominantly organic and in the capable hands of the nation's people. Russians have something built into their DNA that creates the desire to grow their own food. It's a habit that has fed the Russian nation for centuries. It's not just a hobby but a massive contribution to Russia's agriculture.

Sisto-Palkino, Lomonosovsky, Russia		40% of Russia's Food is from Dacha Gardens In 2011, 51% of Russia's food was grown either by dacha communities (40%), like those pictured left in Sisto-Palkino, or peasant farmers (11%) leaving the rest (49%) of production to the large agricultural enterprises. But when you dig down into the earthy data from the Russian Statistics Service you discover some impressive details. Again in 2011, dacha gardens produced over 80% of the countries fruit and berries, over 66% of the vegetables, almost 80% of the potatoes and nearly 50% of the nations milk, much of it consumed raw. While many European governments make living on a small-holding very difficult, in Russia the opposite is the case. In the UK one councillor's opinion regarding living on the land was, "Nobody would subject themselves to that way of life. You might as well be in prison"; tell that to a nation of gardeners living off the land.
During the communist period school children were obliged to visit their local farms to get hands-on experience harvesting food (below left) at a time when about 90% of the nation's food came from dacha gardens. During the same period every child would be expected to play their part in growing the family's food from their small patch of Russia. While the percentage of food grown by Russia's dacha has fallen since then it is still a massive contribution to the nation's food and forms an important part of their rural heritage. Take a walk through the street's of Russia's cities, like St. Petersburg, and you will find people selling herbs, fruit, berries and vegetables from their dacha gardens. Unlike many cities in Europe and the USA, Russian cities are peppered with small corner shops (below right) selling locally grown food in all shapes, colours and sizes still carrying their native Russian soil. If you were to visit a typical Russian dacha you're likely to be greeted with a welcoming dish called okroshka (below centre), a refreshing cold soup made from home grown cucumber, radish, spring onion, fresh dill and parsley all swimming in kvas (a home made rye bread drink) with sour cream or kefir. More insight: Food Gardening in the Vladimir Region of Russia by Sharashkin, University of Missouri–Columbia, MO, USA.
Omsk, Russia         Russian children on a school outing helping with the harvest some time in the 70s.		Making okroshka, a typical dish made to welcome visitors to the dacha.		St. Petersburg, Russia           One of the many small city shops selling home grown food.
Food sovereignty... Food sovereignty puts the people who produce, distribute and eat food at the centre of decisions about food production and policy rather than corporations and market institutions that have come to dominate the global food system. In Havana, Cuba 90% of the city's fresh produce comes from local urban farms and gardens. In 2003, the Russian government signed the Private Garden Plot Act into law, entitling citizens to private plots of land for free. These plots range from 0.89 hectares to 2.75 hectares. Industrial agricultural practices tend to be extremely resource intensive and can damage the environment. 70% of global water use goes to farming, and soil is eroded 10 to 40 times faster. The allotments of central Havana, Cuba         Havana has about 200 urban farms known as organoponicos.

Source: http://www.naturalhomes.org/naturalliving/russian-dacha.htm

A Problem of Plenty: India's Wheat Surplus - Forbes India

UPFRONT/BRIEFING | Apr 18, 2011 | by Jasodhara Banerjee India needs to fix its procurement policy and its granaries infrastructure to really make use of its bumper wheat harvest

Image: Amit Gupta/ REUTERS

GROWTH PANGS With Stagnant prices farmers could move away from sowing wheat

I

ndia is growing more wheat than it ever has. That may sound like very good news given the fact that India (along with China) is the largest consumer of wheat, but the fact is, it does not quite know what to do with it.

India doesn’t have policies that will allow the country to use the wheat efficiently. It doesn’t even have enough place to store it. There is also no surety that wheat production will be equally robust in the coming years.

The current state of plenty is just two seasons old. Following the bumper harvest (80.17 million tonnes) of 2010, the country is now looking at another 81.74 million tonnes in a harvest season that has just begun.

“The last couple of years, we have had a good monsoon and hence the production was good. But if we have even one bad monsoon, we will have a shortage,” says Anjani Sinha, MD and CEO of the National Spot Exchange.

These bumper harvests are the outcome of a two-pronged government approach of banning exports, and raising the minimum support price (MSP) as an incentive to bring more land under wheat cultivation.

The gains at the height of the Green Revolution in the 1970s and 80s — riding on the back of high-yield seeds and pesticide use — have been slowing down. Between 2000 and 2010, the land under wheat cultivation grew by just 1.21 percent and there was a drop in yield (compared to the 1980s). Wheat production had fallen to 9.23 million tonnes in 2006-07 and export was banned in October 2007.

However, such an approach doesn’t provide sustained support for wheat farming.

One part of the problem, says Madan Sabnavis, chief economist at CARE Ratings, “lies with the procurement system. Any farmer can sell any amount of wheat to the government and the government has to buy it. The MSP too has been raised to an unreasonable level as it is a political issue.” 

With exports being banned, that means the government ends up being the only buyer from whom farmers get a good price. With domestic prices stagnant for the last six to eight months, and no export options, farmers will soon move away from growing wheat, fears Kunal Shah, a commodity analyst.

Agriculture is a politically sensitive issue and that makes this problem more complex. “The government wants to be seen to be doing something to counter food inflation and therefore takes steps like banning export of wheat and raising the MSP. But, in reality, it is the price of oilseeds, pulses and milk, and not wheat, which is pushing food inflation up,” says Shah.

The other part of the problem is that the government is not equipped to efficiently store and use bumper crops for future consumption, thanks to the pathetic conditions of the warehouses run by the Food Corporation of India (FCI). Enormous volumes of grains rot every year.

The total capacity of government granaries run by the FCI stands at 28.86 million tonnes, a large portion of which is already full with earlier stock. For instance, granaries in Haryana are 78 percent full while those in Punjab are 72 percent full. The two states are among the largest wheat producers in the country. Many other wheat-producing states do not have a good network of granaries.

But there are ways out of this problem of excess.

#1: Encourage Private Players: Shah and Sabnavis both believe that encouraging private players in the procurement and storage process will enable the government to absorb the production from states where FCI infrastructure is inadequate.

In its attempts at increasing storage capacity, last year the FCI started a scheme to invite private participation in building more warehouses. The plan invites private players to build granaries and the FCI guarantees at least 10 years of rent for them. So far, deals to build 10 million tonnes of storage have been signed but these granaries will be completed only by next year.

#2. Limited Procurement: Sabnavis says the government should set a quota for how much wheat it will buy from farmers, and let them export the rest or sell in the domestic market itself.

Sinha, though, is cautious: “We should first see what the total production is at the end of the harvest season and only if we have enough for our buffer stocks should we take a call on whether to allow export of wheat or not.”

This, he says, would be prudent, given the global wheat scenario. “Countries such as Russia and China, which are large producers of wheat, have had a poor harvest and are not exporting their produce. If we start exporting now, and then realise we will be falling short later, we will face a problem where availability and price of wheat in the import market is concerned.”

#3: Build Strategic Reserves: For safety from fluctuations in supply, globally as well as domestically, maintain a constant stock of wheat by creating long-term storage facilities. This will ensure food security. It will also give clarity on the possibilities of exporting wheat when international demand is high.

The global wheat scenario is already raising concerns in many countries. Russia, the world’s third largest exporter, stopped wheat exports after it lost a quarter of its crop last year to its worst drought in 50 years. China, the world’s largest producer, too may lose about two-thirds of its crop after an exceptionally dry winter in its wheat growing region. The impending shortage in the import market has pushed global prices close to their all-time high of 2008.

Countries in West Asia and North Africa are stocking up with orders being placed for several thousand tonnes. This points to fears of an impending crisis of availability and price.

Russia had announced its intent to build strategic wheat reserves along with China and India and even give out 20 million hectares in joint ventures for wheat farming in early 2010. This would protect Russia’s wheat prices and be a counter to the US’ wheat diplomacy (the US is sitting on a stockpile of 30 million tonnes). But that, of course, was in the months following Russia’s 100 million tonne production and before drought brought that figure down to 60-65 million tonnes. 

This article appeared in the Forbes India magazine issue of 22 April, 2011

SOURCE: http://forbesindia.com/article/briefing/a-problem-of-plenty-indias-wheat-surplus/24052/1

BJP Kisan Cell, scientists for compulsory registration of foreign seed companies

Express News Service

Posted: Apr 21, 2011 at 0212 hrs IST

Ahmedabad The BJP Kisan Cell as also agricultural scientists have said that the proposed Seeds Bill to be presented in the Monsoon Session of Parliament should incorporate provisions regarding mandatory registration of foreign seed companies in Indian territory if they are allowed to do business in the country.
At present, foreign seed companies operating in India are registered in foreign countries. The issue has become a point of debate as the Centre now plans to allow foreign companies to operate in India on a much larger scale.
Bhupendrasinh Chudasama, National Secretary General of Kisan Cell said the Bill is not acceptable in its present form unless the provisions for compulsory registration of the foreign seeds companies in India are incorporated. He had discussed the matter at length with state Agriculture Minister Dileep Sanghani on Tuesday.
Chudasama said it was necessary to have control and regulation over the companies in case of any sub-standard supply of seeds as also the arbitrary hike in prices beyond the paying capacity of farmers. He said the Centre needs to ensure three things: the compulsory registration of foreign seed companies; provisions for a fair compensation to farmers in case they did not get yield as promised by the seed suppliers; and thirdly stringent punishment for companies in case of substandard supply of seeds. The punishment should not be mere three months of imprisonment as the provisions exists now.
Chudasama said his party had given these suggestions to the UPA government and hoped the Centre would accept them. He said his party will strongly oppose the Bill in case these suggestions are not incorporated.
A R Pathak, Vice-Chancellor of Navsari Agriculture University (NAU) said the state government had consulted him on the issue, and he had verbally advised the government to push for changes in the Bill with regard to registration of multi-national seed companies in India. This would ensure a quality standard of the seeds, reasonable prices, and adequate compensation to farmers in case of low yield or failure of crops due to poor standard of seeds.
Pathak and Anand Agriculture University Vice-Chancellor A M Sheikh said the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) or some agriculture universities could be authorised as agencies for registration because of their expertise in farm issues.

SOURCE: http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/bjp-kisan-cell-scientists-for-compulsory-registration-of-foreign-seed-companies/779042/

Brussels Expands Grounds for Potential GM Crop Bans

Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest • Volume 15 • Number 14 • 20th April 2011

The European Parliament’s environment committee has voted to include “general environmental policy objectives” onto a list of grounds for legal justification for member states to independently outlaw the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops. The 12 April vote amended a European Commission draft policy proposal that, if approved, would grant member states the right to ban GM crop cultivation within their borders if such bans are based on certain criteria.


Last February, the European Commission (EC) approved a list of possible grounds based on the premise that such a ban would help “maintain public order.” According to the initial draft, bans could be enacted in the face of popular opposition or on grounds of public morality, such as religious or philosophical concerns (see Bridges Trade BioRes, 7 February 2011).


The public order and environmental policies additions are designed to address concerns that biotechnology policies enacted independently by European member states would leave those countries open to legal challenges at the WTO.


According to the environment Members of European Parliament (MEPs), the addition of environmental grounds to the proposal is expected to give member states better legal protection to such challenges.


“Our proposal offers states a solid, legal basis,” said the French MEP Corinne Lepage, who drafted the amendment.
According to the draft proposal, as long as all restrictions are justified, proportionate, and non-discriminatory, they would be permitted within the EU. But there are currently no plans to add the list to the GM cultivation proposals currently under consideration which some experts say calls into question the strength of any legislation derived from the draft.


GM puzzle a difficult one for Brussels
Last year, the Commission proposed that the decision-making process on GM crop cultivation be partially decentralised in response to a deadlock in the crop approval process (see Bridges Trade BioRes, 23 July 2010). Only two genetically modified seeds have been approved for cultivation in Europe: a strain of maize produced by biotech giant Monsanto and a type of starch potato from Amflora, which was approved in March 2010, but only for industrial uses (see Bridges Trade BioRes and 19 March 2010).


Brussels has also been struggling with how to deal with several member states that had defied the centralised policy on the issue and unilaterally implemented GM crop bans. Member states Austria, Bulgaria, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland and Luxembourg have all issued bans on the cultivation of GM seeds, citing health and environmental concerns under a safeguard clause contained in the 2001 directive (see Bridges Trade BioRes, 3 April 2009). Other countries, however - including the Czech Republic, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom - appear more open to allowing their farmers to grow the altered crops.


Some member states and environmentalists have raised concerns over the push toward more liberal GM policies, arguing that it could open the floodgates for new genetically modified crops in the EU. Others, such as Italy and Spain, have said that the proposal undermines the spirit of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The Council of the European Union - a body of twenty-seven national ministers - also challenged the Commission’s proposal last November (see Bridges Trade BioRes, 22 November 2010).


In another controversial move, the EC has recently adopted a measure that allows trace amounts - up to 0.1 percent of unapproved GM crops - to be imported into the EU for animal feed. Some countries have called for the Commission to allow the unapproved GM crops to be permitted for human consumption as well, pointing out that it would be nearly impossible to distinguish the world’s crop supplies between food and feed.


Reducing or igniting internal tensions?


For its part, the Commission says its proposed policy on GM crops aims to reduce tensions surrounding the lack of compliance on GM issues by establishing clear parameters for countries’ national policies on biotech cultivation that would lessen uncertainty for farmers and agri-business across Europe.


However, opposition continues to mount against the proposal, with the UK most recently joining the faction spearheaded by France, Germany and Spain (see Bridges Trade BioRes, 21 March 2011).  The apprehensions stem from concern arising from the legal uncertainties internal fragmentation of biotechnology policy could create for the European agriculture industry and the unexpected trade barriers that could result.
In her statement at the EU environment ministers’ meeting on 17 March, Caroline Spelman - Britain’s farm minister - also cautioned that GM bans under the proposal would be in direct violation of the EU’s WTO commitments.


The MEP and European green groups in favour of the position maintain that the decentralisation proposal is necessary to help avert the negative consequences that GM contamination could have on more traditional forms of agriculture.


“Environmental impacts are a major danger of GM crops,” said Stefanie Hundsdorfer, Greenpeace EU’s agricultural policy advisor. “Including these into law will help governments ban them from Europe’s fields.  Without these grounds, national bans would be in danger of being overturned by biotech companies in court.”


ICTSD reporting; “MEPs back national freedom to ban GM crops,” EURACTIV, 13 April 2011; “Britain adds voice to criticism of EU GM crop plans”, REUTERS, 14 March 2011; “EU moves to allow traces of GMO in feed” ASSOCIATED PRESS 26 February 2011; “EU draft: States can ban GM crops for public order,” REUTERS, 4 February 2011.

 

SOURCE : http://ictsd.org/i/news/bridgesweekly/104887/

 

NEWS: Paradigm shift in food security - from deficit to surplus nation - BusinessLine

RANA KAPOOR

April 17, 2011:  

The Hindu Business Line – YES Bank ‘Food and Agribusiness Conclave' discussed the opportunities and bottlenecks faced by the agriculture sector.

Amongst many key issues that were discussed by leaders in the Food and Agribusiness domain, the deliberations on the role of private sector in enhancing food security and the need for building an efficient agri-supply chain provided considerable food-for-thought for all stakeholders.

India has witnessed a paradigm shift in food security, moving from a food deficit to a food surplus nation. The country has seen foodgrain production growth from 51 million tonnes (mt) on 97 million hectares (1947-48) to 232 mt on 120 mha (2010-11), a growth of 355 per cent in production with 24 per cent increase in area.

As of March 1, 2011, Food Corporation of India (FCI) was holding 45.8 million tonnes of rice and wheat — more than twice the prescribed buffer stock norm, which includes a food security reserve of five million tonnes. Still nutritional “food” is out of reach for many Indians, and is getting unaffordable largely due to the ineffective handling. With restrictions on food grain exports and large stocks being pooled with FCI, Government is left with huge stocks of food grains without adequate infrastructure facilities. Instances of rotting food grains in FCI warehouses have even prompted the Supreme Court to instruct the Government to distribute it free-of-cost if they cannot maintain its quality. This is further aggravated by a weak public distribution system (PDS). While we have been focusing on strengthening the procurement side of the agri-food value chain, there is little progress towards efficient release of produce at affordable prices. On the other side, a lot of PDS stock is sold in the open market aided by an inefficient system. In the coming years, managing the impact of climate change will also determine our preparedness to handle food security.

CHANGES IN WEATHER PATTERN

Changes in rainfall pattern/distribution, timing/duration of winter and summer seasons etc. have been observed. India needs to spend a lot on its R&D for better seeds and cultivation techniques to ensure successfully meeting the changing trends. India ranks 64th out of the 85 countries in the Global Hunger Index, and shelters approximately 210 million starving people. The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) estimates that global food production needs to increase more than 40 per cent by 2030 and 70 per cent by 2050 compared to average 2005-07 levels.

CULTIVABLE LAND

Clearly, a large part of the consumption will happen in India and China. This would require an additional 1.6 billion hectares of land to be brought into cultivation compared to the current 1.4 billion hectares being cultivated now. This increase in cultivable land looks improbable. In India, increasing population, land distribution and demographic changes are driving demand on the one hand, while low farm productivity, in-efficient pre and post-harvest infrastructure and climatic vagaries are resulting in a stagnant supply scenario on the other hand. Therefore, the nations' need to recognise this increasing demand and to proactively ensure adequate availability of food for its citizens. The larger solution theme is to reduce the demand-supply gap through increased productivity and reduced post-harvest wastage. A well developed pre-harvest and post-harvest infrastructure would be a key driver to plug this gap. The onus of providing food to the citizens is believed to vest with the Government, which through its policies, attempts to influence, and control the food supply scenario in the country. Given that agriculture is recognised as central to India's inclusive growth strategy, it is critical to review measures planned to boost agricultural development in the Union Budget, and look for game changers that would allow us to set ourselves a target of 10 per cent agricultural growth in the future Budgets and planning.

FOOD AND NUTRITION

The Government of India has undertaken multiple initiatives to help improve access to food and nutrition for a massive target group. These initiatives include public distribution system (PDS), mid-day meal (MDM) scheme, national food for work program (NFWP), antyodaya anna yojana (AAY), integrated child development scheme (ICDS), essential commodities act (ECA), National Food Security Mission (NFSM), Targeted PDS and National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA). However, the private sector has also played a pivotal role in securing the nation's need for food.

These include:

• Development and marketing of high yielding seed varietals, thereby, increasing productivity.

• Development and marketing of pest, weed, disease and crop-specific pesticides, thereby, reducing crop loss.

•Development and marketing of soil and nutrient specific fertilisers and micro-nutrients, thereby, ensuring crop nutrition.

•Development of warehousing and collateral management services, thereby, ensuring crop security.

•Development of better farm equipments, thereby, reducing crop wastage.

Despite 60 plus years since independence, we find that the farming constituency today is grappling with numerous challenges.

Some of these include:

•Use of traditional and outdated methods of production hence resulting in low productivity.

•Inadequate research and outdated extension systems and methods.

•Inefficient agri-supply chain management and aggregation of produce.

•Inadequate post harvest infrastructural facilities

•Lack of adequate market information and access

•Insufficient and high rate of credit

Clearly, well co-coordinated action on multiple fronts by the Government as well as the private sector on development of the pre and post-harvest infrastructure is the key solution theme to increase productivity and reduce post harvest wastage. A well coordinated action will lead to adequately addressing the nation's need for food in years to come. Some of these actions should include: Developing linkages between research extension and training facilities to ensure a speedy delivery of yield enhancing and crop protecting products, concepts and actions.

Developing terrain and crop-specific farm equipments which are available at modest prices, so as to enhance the level of mechanisation.

Investment in providing well demonstrated, water conserving and yield enhancing drip irrigation facilities.

Early adaptation of well proven and ably demonstrated agricultural inputs, which have led to better economic returns in western geographies.

Encouraging entrepreneurs and businessmen to set up integrated dairy plants. Milk is considered as a perfect food in many aspects given its fair blend of nutritional components. A growing and more affluent population will have a growing demand for more nutrition.

Investment in infrastructure for storing, aggregating, cleaning, sorting, grading and packaging of crops.

Speeding up the APMC reform process to enable private companies to participate in the farm economy, will result in better returns to the farmers due to a better price discovery mechanism. It will also help in establishing farmer's direct linkage with retailers through development of terminal markets and direct access to wholesale markets, and bring in efficiencies in the agri-supply chain.

Development of large scale and modern logistics facilities and better quality of rural roads for timely movement of produce from point of production to markets and processors without value erosion and weight loss.

Development of innovative models such as agro food parks to directly link farmers to processors, reduce wastage and increase processing capacity.

(The writer is Founder, Managing Director and CEO, YES Bank.)

(This article was published on April 17, 2011)

Genetically modified cows produce 'human' milk

By Richard Gray, Science Correspondent 9:00PM BST 02 Apr 2011
262 Comments

Scientists have created genetically modified cattle that produce "human" milk in a bid to make cows' milk more nutritious.

Researchers say they are able to create cows that produce milk containing a human protein called lysozyme Photo: PA

 The scientists have successfully introduced human genes into 300 dairy cows to produce milk with the same properties as human breast milk. 

Human milk contains high quantities of key nutrients that can help to boost the immune system of babies and reduce the risk of infections.

The scientists behind the research believe milk from herds of genetically modified cows could provide an alternative to human breast milk and formula milk for babies, which is often criticised as being an inferior substitute.

They hope genetically modified dairy products from herds of similar cows could be sold in supermarkets. The research has the backing of a major biotechnology company.

The work is likely to inflame opposition to GM foods. Critics of the technology and animal welfare groups reacted angrily to the research, questioning the safety of milk from genetically modified animals and its effect on the cattle's health.

SOURCE :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/agriculture/geneticmodification/8423536/Genetically-modified-cows-produce-human-milk.html