According to the USDA Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), Kenya's parliament voted overwhlemingly to embrace agricultural biotechnology. The vote established the Bio-Safety Bill which is the first step in the creation of regulations for the implementation of widespread use of genetically engineered seeds and plants. Kenya's president is expected to sign the bill before January 1, 2009.
The real bonus for American agribusiness is the bill will permit Kenya to import genetically modified products from US growers.
Once opened, this door can never be closed.
Showing posts with label Genetic Engineering. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Genetic Engineering. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Friday, November 21, 2008
Rapid Growth in Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops Continues, 92% of Planted Soybean Acres In US Are Genetically Engineered
According to the USDA’s Economic Research Service, U.S. farmers have rapidly taken to planting genetically engineered (GE) soybeans, cotton, and corn with herbicide tolerance and/or insect resistance traits.
In the U.S., Herbicide Tolerant (HT) soybean adoption has expanded more rapidly and widely than other GE crops, reaching 92 percent of planted soybean acreage in 2008. The second most adopted variety, HT cotton, was planted on 68 percent of cotton acreage. The level of HT corn adoption, has recently accelerated, reaching 63 percent of U.S. corn acreage.
Insect-resistant (Bt) crops contain a gene from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis that produces a protein toxic to specific insects. Bt cotton was planted on 63 percent of U.S. cotton acreage in 2008. Bt corn was planted on 57 percent of U.S. corn acreage in 2008.
The rapid increase in the adoption of crop varieties with more than one GE trait (stacked traits) continues. Corn varieties with both Bt and HT traits account for 40 percent of planted acres in 2008, while cotton varieties with stacked traits account for 45 percent of cotton-planted acres.
In the U.S., Herbicide Tolerant (HT) soybean adoption has expanded more rapidly and widely than other GE crops, reaching 92 percent of planted soybean acreage in 2008. The second most adopted variety, HT cotton, was planted on 68 percent of cotton acreage. The level of HT corn adoption, has recently accelerated, reaching 63 percent of U.S. corn acreage.
Insect-resistant (Bt) crops contain a gene from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis that produces a protein toxic to specific insects. Bt cotton was planted on 63 percent of U.S. cotton acreage in 2008. Bt corn was planted on 57 percent of U.S. corn acreage in 2008.
The rapid increase in the adoption of crop varieties with more than one GE trait (stacked traits) continues. Corn varieties with both Bt and HT traits account for 40 percent of planted acres in 2008, while cotton varieties with stacked traits account for 45 percent of cotton-planted acres.
In addition to corn, soybeans, and cotton, U.S. farmers have adopted HT canola and virus-resistant papaya and squash. Other GE crops are in various stages of development. As of May 2008, USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) had approved 1,311 field-testing applications for crops with resistance to virus, 842 for resistance to fungi, 2,200 for improved agronomic properties (such as resistance to cold, drought, and salinity), and 3,362 for higher product quality (including crops with increased protein and/or oil content, and crops with added vitamins and iron).
Worldwide, more than 280 million acres of GE crops with HT and/or Bt traits were planted in 23 countries in 2007, with the U.S. accounting for about 50 percent. Argentina, Brazil, Canada, India, China, Paraguay, and South Africa accounted for about 49 percent.
Despite the rapid expansion of GE crops, there is still no requirement that products made from GE crops be labeled as such. Given the prevalence of GE planted acres, the American consumer can more or less assume products bought commercially will contain GE crops or ingredients derived from GE crops.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Tom Vilsack May Not Be The Right Person to Lead the USDA
Tom Vilsack may not be the right person for head of the USDA.
He is a probably good man who has been on the right side of many issues. He served as the governor of Iowa from 1998 to 2006 and currently is of counsel in the Dorsey Trial group in Des Moines. As part of his bio at the firm, he boasts being a Distinguished Fellow of the Biosafety Institute for Genetically Modified Agricultural Products (aka BIGMAP) at Iowa State University. BIGMAP generally opposes laws and regulations what would trigger regulatory oversight for acts of genetic engineering, and believes that government regulation in and of itself may "close the door" on future innovations that might benefit society and the environment. In other words, BIGMAP prefers that the biotech and genetic engineering industries self-regulate. Vilsack is also widely thought of as a friend of Monsanto.
He showed courage several years back when as governor or Iowa he vetoed a law passed by Iowa’s legislature that would have prohibited Iowa’s Department of Natural Resources (DNR) from establishing air quality standards for CAFOs stricter than the federal government’s standard. That law would have also precluded the Iowa DNR from establishing standards for airborne substances for which the federal government had left a legal void.
Vilsack did the right thing. He vetoed the law, but then he recommended a weak 30 part per billion (ppb) one-hour standard for hydrogen sulfide as a compromise; a standard weaker than states surrounding Iowa. Although Minnesota also had a 30 part per billion standard, it was for a 30-minute exposure time, not an hour.
Also, in 2001,when the EPA proposed changing the definition of a CAFO by decreasing the number of animal units that triggers an NPDES permit, Vilsack (writing for the National Governor’s Association) opposed that re-definition because of the burden on states in issuing, monitoring and enforcing NPDES permits. He gave no concern for health or environmental issues.
Vilsack also challenged the EPA’s authority to regulate CAFOs in areas that “might not” discharge into waters of the United States, in effect permitting CAFOs in arid parts of the country to avoid EPA regulations.
Vilsack also opposed other common sense changes proposed by the EPA. See Vilsack’s CAFO defense letter (National Governors Association).
He also has a history of supporting other CAFO-related laws, and has not always been on the right side of the issue. As a corn-state governor, he may have a pre-disposition toward continuing corn state subsidies, and may be less than zealous in slowing the growth of the corn-based food economy.
Finally, Vilsack needs to disclose where he stands on GMO foods and genetically engineered plants and seeds. Does he support mandatory labeling of GM foods? Will he support pending legislation to ban Terminator Seed (GURT) technology where plants yield sterile seed so that they can not be replanted for future harvests? Will he support legislation that voids retrictions on seed saving by farmers? Will his relationship with Monsanto color his judgment on these issues?
David Axelrod helped run Vilsack’s gubernatorial campaign in 1998, and was Vilsack’s long-time media consultant. Perhaps he is not the right person to screen the candidate? Perhaps food activists can play more of a role in Vilsack’s vetting? Perhaps Obama can avoid making his first big blunder?
He is a probably good man who has been on the right side of many issues. He served as the governor of Iowa from 1998 to 2006 and currently is of counsel in the Dorsey Trial group in Des Moines. As part of his bio at the firm, he boasts being a Distinguished Fellow of the Biosafety Institute for Genetically Modified Agricultural Products (aka BIGMAP) at Iowa State University. BIGMAP generally opposes laws and regulations what would trigger regulatory oversight for acts of genetic engineering, and believes that government regulation in and of itself may "close the door" on future innovations that might benefit society and the environment. In other words, BIGMAP prefers that the biotech and genetic engineering industries self-regulate. Vilsack is also widely thought of as a friend of Monsanto.
He showed courage several years back when as governor or Iowa he vetoed a law passed by Iowa’s legislature that would have prohibited Iowa’s Department of Natural Resources (DNR) from establishing air quality standards for CAFOs stricter than the federal government’s standard. That law would have also precluded the Iowa DNR from establishing standards for airborne substances for which the federal government had left a legal void.
Vilsack did the right thing. He vetoed the law, but then he recommended a weak 30 part per billion (ppb) one-hour standard for hydrogen sulfide as a compromise; a standard weaker than states surrounding Iowa. Although Minnesota also had a 30 part per billion standard, it was for a 30-minute exposure time, not an hour.
Also, in 2001,when the EPA proposed changing the definition of a CAFO by decreasing the number of animal units that triggers an NPDES permit, Vilsack (writing for the National Governor’s Association) opposed that re-definition because of the burden on states in issuing, monitoring and enforcing NPDES permits. He gave no concern for health or environmental issues.
Vilsack also challenged the EPA’s authority to regulate CAFOs in areas that “might not” discharge into waters of the United States, in effect permitting CAFOs in arid parts of the country to avoid EPA regulations.
Vilsack also opposed other common sense changes proposed by the EPA. See Vilsack’s CAFO defense letter (National Governors Association).
He also has a history of supporting other CAFO-related laws, and has not always been on the right side of the issue. As a corn-state governor, he may have a pre-disposition toward continuing corn state subsidies, and may be less than zealous in slowing the growth of the corn-based food economy.
Finally, Vilsack needs to disclose where he stands on GMO foods and genetically engineered plants and seeds. Does he support mandatory labeling of GM foods? Will he support pending legislation to ban Terminator Seed (GURT) technology where plants yield sterile seed so that they can not be replanted for future harvests? Will he support legislation that voids retrictions on seed saving by farmers? Will his relationship with Monsanto color his judgment on these issues?
David Axelrod helped run Vilsack’s gubernatorial campaign in 1998, and was Vilsack’s long-time media consultant. Perhaps he is not the right person to screen the candidate? Perhaps food activists can play more of a role in Vilsack’s vetting? Perhaps Obama can avoid making his first big blunder?
Friday, November 7, 2008
Deflating the Power of Genetically Engineered Seed Companies, and Restoring the Balance of Power to Farmers
Agribusiness and biotechnology companies have rapidly consolidated their market power through: (1) government complacency, and (2) overwhelming market clout as compared to farmers and growers. Historically, seed buyers purchased not only seeds, but also the future means of production -- saved seeds from a successful crop for replanting the following year. Different rules apply to genetically engineered seeds, and contracts for the sale of genetically engineered (GE) seeds contain provisions contrary to sound public policy.
Powerful seed companies often impose onerous conditions on growers, including a prohibition on saving seeds from current crops for future use. Growers must grant access to seed companies to their land at any time to enable the seed companies to test for unauthorized planting of GE crops. Farmers must agree to punitive measures and fees for contract violations, and agree in advance to mandatory arbitration of disputes and mandatory jurisdiction in courts far from home.
Seed companies already have and continue to work on technology to render plants infertile, known as Genetic Use Restriction Technology (GURT) or colloquially as “terminator technology.” By modifying seed with certain genes, companies ensure that the next generation of seeds self-destructs and are unable to reproduce. Essentially, the plants make sterile seeds, making seed saving impossible and mandating that growers purchase new seeds every year, year after year.
Consolidation of Seed Companies and Market Power
Dow AgroSciences has acquired or is acquiring Brodbeck Seed, Triumph Seed, and Dairyland Seed Company. It is also making acquisitons overseas, including Sudwestsaat GbR (SWS), MTI and Duo Maize.
Monsanto acquired Seminis, Inc., DeRuiter Seeds, and Semillas Cristiani Burkard.
Bayer CropScience acquired South Korean vegetable seed company SeedEx. These are but a few examples of recent consolidation. Consolidation continues and governments stand idly by.
US Legislation to the Level The Playing Field
While most public advocacy groups focus on legislation to mandate labeling of GM foods, a resolution was introduced recently in Congress by Dennis Kucinich (D-OH). HR 6637, also known as the Genetically Engineered Technology Farmer Protection Act, seeks to define genetically engineered animals, plants and seeds and level the playing field for farmers. The Act recognized both the rapid consolidation of agribusiness and biotechnology companies, and the detrimental effects it has on farming and sustainability.
The Act specifically makes void and unenforceable any provision in a genetically engineered seed contract that prohibits the grower from retaining seeds from the crops for future use, or that imposes a fee on the grower to retain seeds for future use. This restores the natural order where farmers have saved seeds for centuries to replant in future years.
The Act also renders void any contract provision that requires the grower to grant access to his land to the seller of the seeds or their testing agents. It does away with mandatory arbitration clauses and enables growers to sue biotech companies in the grower’s local courts. It also does away with contract clauses imposing arbitrary and punitive fees on growers for reusing seeds. To further level the playing field, the Act enables courts to void “unfair conditions” set by seed sellers in their contracts.
This proposed law is sweeping and necessary to contain the power of seed companies and the control they’ve acquired over the means of food production. It makes the acquisition of seeds an arms-length transaction and precludes inclusion of adhesive contract provisions in GE seed contracts.
Ban on Terminator Technology
In a separate provision, the law would also prohibit the manufacture, distribution, planting or other use of any seed that is genetically engineered to produce plants whose seeds are infertile. It also bans genetically engineered plants whose seeds become infertile by the application of an external chemical inducer – that is a plant genetically programmed to become sterile upon the application of another chemical.
This ban is essential, forward-thinking legislation. It strives to stall a future where food is grown only with the consent of seed manufacturers and at prices imposed by them for viable plants and seeds.
Status of the Resolution
HR 6637 has five co-sponsors and last month was referred to the House Subcommittee on Livestock Dairy & Poultry. Dennis Kucinich’s remarks about the HR 6637 appear in the Congressional Record.
This legislation will be opposed by agribusiness and biotechnology and their lobbyists with every resource at their disposal. Urge your representatives to support this bill and to add their names as co-sponsors. Tell them not to let it die in committee.
Powerful seed companies often impose onerous conditions on growers, including a prohibition on saving seeds from current crops for future use. Growers must grant access to seed companies to their land at any time to enable the seed companies to test for unauthorized planting of GE crops. Farmers must agree to punitive measures and fees for contract violations, and agree in advance to mandatory arbitration of disputes and mandatory jurisdiction in courts far from home.
Seed companies already have and continue to work on technology to render plants infertile, known as Genetic Use Restriction Technology (GURT) or colloquially as “terminator technology.” By modifying seed with certain genes, companies ensure that the next generation of seeds self-destructs and are unable to reproduce. Essentially, the plants make sterile seeds, making seed saving impossible and mandating that growers purchase new seeds every year, year after year.
Consolidation of Seed Companies and Market Power
Dow AgroSciences has acquired or is acquiring Brodbeck Seed, Triumph Seed, and Dairyland Seed Company. It is also making acquisitons overseas, including Sudwestsaat GbR (SWS), MTI and Duo Maize.
Monsanto acquired Seminis, Inc., DeRuiter Seeds, and Semillas Cristiani Burkard.
Bayer CropScience acquired South Korean vegetable seed company SeedEx. These are but a few examples of recent consolidation. Consolidation continues and governments stand idly by.
US Legislation to the Level The Playing Field
While most public advocacy groups focus on legislation to mandate labeling of GM foods, a resolution was introduced recently in Congress by Dennis Kucinich (D-OH). HR 6637, also known as the Genetically Engineered Technology Farmer Protection Act, seeks to define genetically engineered animals, plants and seeds and level the playing field for farmers. The Act recognized both the rapid consolidation of agribusiness and biotechnology companies, and the detrimental effects it has on farming and sustainability.
The Act specifically makes void and unenforceable any provision in a genetically engineered seed contract that prohibits the grower from retaining seeds from the crops for future use, or that imposes a fee on the grower to retain seeds for future use. This restores the natural order where farmers have saved seeds for centuries to replant in future years.
The Act also renders void any contract provision that requires the grower to grant access to his land to the seller of the seeds or their testing agents. It does away with mandatory arbitration clauses and enables growers to sue biotech companies in the grower’s local courts. It also does away with contract clauses imposing arbitrary and punitive fees on growers for reusing seeds. To further level the playing field, the Act enables courts to void “unfair conditions” set by seed sellers in their contracts.
This proposed law is sweeping and necessary to contain the power of seed companies and the control they’ve acquired over the means of food production. It makes the acquisition of seeds an arms-length transaction and precludes inclusion of adhesive contract provisions in GE seed contracts.
Ban on Terminator Technology
In a separate provision, the law would also prohibit the manufacture, distribution, planting or other use of any seed that is genetically engineered to produce plants whose seeds are infertile. It also bans genetically engineered plants whose seeds become infertile by the application of an external chemical inducer – that is a plant genetically programmed to become sterile upon the application of another chemical.
This ban is essential, forward-thinking legislation. It strives to stall a future where food is grown only with the consent of seed manufacturers and at prices imposed by them for viable plants and seeds.
Status of the Resolution
HR 6637 has five co-sponsors and last month was referred to the House Subcommittee on Livestock Dairy & Poultry. Dennis Kucinich’s remarks about the HR 6637 appear in the Congressional Record.
This legislation will be opposed by agribusiness and biotechnology and their lobbyists with every resource at their disposal. Urge your representatives to support this bill and to add their names as co-sponsors. Tell them not to let it die in committee.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
