Saturday, April 23, 2011

America's whole foods market expands into UK

Translate Request has too much data
Parameter name: request
Translate Request has too much data
Parameter name: request
He made millions from selling organic food to well-heeled Americans. Now hippie entrepreneur John Mackey plans to bring his laid-back style to Britain's upmarket high streets.

A stone's throw from Hyde Park, hard-hatted construction workers are hard at it 24 hours a day to create the world's biggest organic department store. After 135 years, Barkers of Kensington, west London's oldest and grandest department store, is under new management. John Mackey, a scruffy-haired American vegan, has bought Barkers and is turning it into the first British branch of his store, Whole Foods Market.

Whole Foods may not yet be a household name in Britain but, if Mackey has his way, it soon will be. The supermarket chain is the food-retail phenomenon of the US. While most food giants are piling it high and selling it cheap, Whole Foods is focusing on quality at high prices - and reaping the profits. The firm sells organic and chemical-free food at prices far higher than its rivals, but the speed of its growth has made it America's fourth-largest chain and the world's biggest, and most profitable, organic grocer. Mackey is doing for US supermarkets what Pret A Manger's Julian Metcalfe did for British sandwich bars - mixing natural ingredients and customer service in a way that appeals to consumers who want something better for themselves and the environment and are willing to pay more to get it. Celebrities are regularly spotted browsing the aisles: Angelina Jolie was photographed recently in the New York store; Kirsten Dunst and Jake Gyllenhaal in the Hollywood outlet.

Last month, Mackey, 52, invited Observer Food Monthly to see meet him at the Whole Foods store in Union Square, New York. Whereas many US corporate bosses like to remind journalists how important they are - McDonald's chief executive Jim Skinner has been known to summon reporters to Chicago, only to conduct a telephone interview because he is too busy to leave his office; and it is impossible to get into Coca-Cola's Atlanta headquarters, let alone talk to anyone, without at least four PR minders - John Mackey is down-to-earth and accessible.

Mackey, who always books the cheapest hotel and rents bottom-of-the-range hire cars, is staying today at at the Marriott hotel in mid-town Manhattan. He answers the phone immediately: 'I'll see you in five minutes in the lobby grill.' He's wearing Montrail running shoes, khaki trousers, an out-of-shape polo shirt and a silver Patagonia anorak. He's got no mobile phone, no BlackBerry, not even a pen. His hair is grey, thinning and lank. 'I only got a few hours sleep last night,' he says. 'I was up late with a friend, having dinner, eating and drinking lots of wine.'

As he scans the menu in vain for a vegan muffin, Mackey asks: 'Are you familiar with Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs? His theory is that our first and most important needs are physical - food, water, sex. When those needs get met, other needs begin to assert themselves - safety, belonging, having a sense of love and friendship, then self-esteem. Beyond that it is self-actualisation.'

Whole Foods' journey to self-actualisation has taken time - some 25 years so far - and Britain is the company's first overseas investment. Mackey is anticipating a certain amount of scepticism. 'They said our first store in Austin would not work. Then they said it would not work outside Austin, that it would not work outside Texas, that we would never succeed in California or Chicago or New York. People dismissed us sort of a fad, just a bunch of weird food hippies. But we've proved them wrong everywhere we've gone, and we'll carry on.'

Over the last two-and-a-half decades, Mackey has proved almost everyone wrong and, in the process, has turned conventional business wisdom on its head. He has transformed 'hippy business' from a recipe for disaster to a prescription for world-beating - and, perhaps, world-changing - growth. Whole Foods is battling the industrialisation of farming. It sells natural food from reputable, small-scale suppliers. It is also overturning the convention that grocery jobs are 'McJobs'. Staff in Whole Foods' two New York superstores seem genuinely pleased to be working in a supermarket and are happy to show shoppers where to find transfat-free Oreos and to explain that Whole Foods' fresh fish comes from day boats, working out of the firm's own docks in Maine.

Sausages made from humanely treated animals, ice cream without artificial sweeteners and nitrate-free prosciutto do not come cheap, however, and Whole Foods' prices have lent the chain an unflattering nickname in the US: Whole Paycheck. Yet the store is offering more than just food; the 2004 annual report spoke of a 'virtuous circle entwining the food chain, human beings, and the earth; each reliant upon the others through a delicate symbiosis.'

All of which might have remained empty pieties had the young Mackey enjoyed more success sowing his own wild oats. In 1978, Mackey was a philosophy and religion student at Texas University in Austin. He had been single for months and was desperate for a girlfriend. So he gave up T-bone steaks and joined a university vegetarian co-op, thinking he might meet attractive women. 'I was in my early 20s and open to alternative lifestyles. I thought, "I bet you get a lot of attractive, interesting women in a vegetarian co-op".'

He was right. He met Renee Lawson Hardy. They started dating, both dropped out of university and borrowed $10,000 to launch SaferWay, the first vegetarian supermarket in Austin and, indeed, in the state of Texas. There was a store on the first floor, a health-food restaurant on the second, and a bed on the third. The pair had so little money they used a hosepipe at the back of the store for their morning shower. Floods and cash crises nearly finished them off but somehow, every morning, farmers in muddy boots turned up at their back door with tractor-loads of fresh fruit and veg.

After two years SaferWay merged with a local natural-food store to form Whole Foods. Educated consumers - Austin is a university town - flocked to the store. In 1992 the company went public on the Nasdaq, giving it the financial muscle to go on a buying spree. It picked up natural-food chains, including Freshfields and Bread & Circus. During the 1990s, sales grew at a massive 32 per cent a year and earnings by 20 per cent a year.

In the 1990s Whole Foods benefited from the consumer backlash against 'big food'. Exposés of food production and retailing, such as Eric Schlosser's Fast Food Nation and Greg Critser's Fat Land: How Americans became the fattest people in the world, sent consumers rushing to Mackey's stores. Retail analysts Datamonitor say the percentage of natural and organic-food consumers in the US doubled between 1995 and 2000.

'Twenty-five years ago we were very much on the fringe,' Mackey says. 'It has only been in the last few years that we have moved into the mainstream. We have not really changed. What has changed is that the world has begun to move closer to us.' Today, Whole Foods has 180 stores across America and annual sales of $4.7bn. The firm's stock trades at an average of $120 - 20 times its initial listing - valuing the company at almost $5bn. Sales are expected to top $12bn in the US by 2010.

There are dozens of socially responsible retailers around the world who dream of turning the normal rules of business on their head. Most, however, become victims of their own desire to do good, regardless of the cost. From the outset, Mackey has combined his 'yogurt-knitting' values with a ruthless control of production and profits. 'We are Whole Foods, not holy foods,' he says.

Hippy-style management rules mean that staff get to vote on company-wide initiatives; that no worker - not even Mackey - earns more than 14 times the salary of the lowest-paid staff member; and that senior management meetings end with executives 'saying something nice' about each other. Nonetheless, such is the strength of the firm's corporate drive that Whole Foods has earned the not-altogether-complimentary nickname, 'the Wal-Mart of wheatgerm'.

Unlike many ethical bosses, Mackey - in search of 'principles and profits' - is opposed to workers joining unions. Having unions, he once said, is 'like having herpes. It doesn't kill you but it's unpleasant and inconvenient and it stops a lot of people from becoming your lover.' Like its nemesis Wal-Mart, Whole Foods remain un-unionised. But Mackey claims he looks after his workers - and they, in turn, take care of the firm. Most shop-floor Whole Foods staff net around $30,000 a year, plus health insurance - a better package than the US average. Mackey himself earns $400,000 a year but declines to state his overall worth.

Competitiveness extends to the process of staff selection, in an attempt to ensure that Whole Foods retains the kind of workers who offer better customer service than other supermarkets. Mackey divides workers in each store into eight teams in different departments, ranging from cashier to sushi maker. When new employees join the company they are assigned to a team and put on two months' probation. Before they can become permanent staff, they have to be approved by a two-thirds majority of existing team members in a secret ballot. Pay is linked to the performance of the team as a whole.

The more you talk to Mackey the more you spot inconsistencies. He is pro-employee but anti-union; pro-consumer but charges eye-watering prices. He is a vegan but pokes fun at 'crunchy granola types', and celebrates the fact that 'Republicans shop in our stores, upsetting many of our core customers'. But, he argues, this is a strength. 'Why is it important to be monolithically consistent? Who is? Human beings are made up of many different values and sometimes those values are in tension with each other. We want to be loving and yet strong, successful and yet be generous. The trick is to balance them out.'

Mackey's own life is pretty much in balance. During the week, he lives in Austin, from where he runs his business, but on Friday nights he drives 40 miles out into the Texas bush to the 720-acre farm he owns with his wife, Deborah Morin, 45, whom he married 14 years ago after breaking up with his former love, Mary Kay Hagen. The couple do not have children - 'My wife did not really want to have kids, so we did not have them' - but Mackey is still close to Hagen's three daughters, who she had before she and Mackey got together. 'I'm very close to them. The youngest was two when I first got together with Mary Kay, so I helped to raise her up. I got some of the fatherhood stuff that way.'

Mackey is generous with his wealth, giving away up to $1m a year to animal-welfare groups, educational groups, relief-work charities and 'several spiritual movements'. He lectures at university 'on the horrors of factory farming'. Factory farms, he told a recent audience at Princeton University, will be declared illegal within 30 years. It sounds far-fetched. But 30 years ago, so did an organic supermarket in the home of rednecks and red meat.

Creating the world's first organic department store in London might also sound like an idea ahead of its time, but Mackey believes Britons will bite. 'Customers want high-quality food, good service and good store experience, and most retailers fail to deliver on those.' Which might be true in America, but Britain already has established high-quality chains selling organic food. What can a Whole Foods department store offer that a Waitrose or Marks & Spencer supermarket does not? Mackey believes the key will be customer service. 'We'll do things that people have not seen before. People will get excited.'

He has done his homework. In 2004, he spent £21m taking over the Fresh & Wild chain of upmarket organic grocery shops in London. He has spent a lot of time in London shopping in rival stores and eating at his favourite London restaurant, Alan Yau's modern Chinese, Hakkasan, which he describes as 'as good as, if not better than, anywhere I have eaten in the US'.

He won't give away any secrets of the Barkers development, but if the New York stores are anything to go by, we can look forward to the kind of stylish, high-quality in-store restaurants we actually want to eat in. Mackey loves British cheese so much that you can eat Neal's Yard cheddar in the cafe of his Union Square store. Stand by for the wonderful Humboldt Fog goat's cheese from northern California. There will be free cookery classes, a walk-in beer cooler and an organic baby-clothing section. The shelves will be well stocked in the evening, when most British supermarkets only have leftovers on sale.

With high ceilings, natural wood and well-lit, wide aisles, the design will be a cross between M&S Simply Food and Selfridges. Trolley escalators will take shoppers and their carts up and down the three-storey store. Customers will be given a choice of eco-friendly carrier bags. They will even be able to get a massage. Perhaps boldest of all, Mackey wants to teach us a new way to queue. Instead of lining up behind a single till and hoping the queue moves more quickly than the others, Whole Foods' shoppers form four parallel lines and wait for a real-life - not an electronic - queue caller to direct them to the one of a 30-strong bank of cashiers. He claims the new system will serve a shopper every four seconds.

Mackey arrives back in London next month to finalise plans for his organic invasion. He has bad news for Fresh & Wild, however. 'As we open Whole Foods, we want to fold Fresh & Wild into the new stores. There is not much point in having a Fresh & Wild near a Whole Foods.'

Fresh & Wild, though, is a popular chain, and closing it down is a risky way to start a retail revolution. But Mackey is not worried. 'Fresh & Wild is a London thing and we are looking across the UK, to open in Edinburgh, Bristol, Cambridge, Oxford. Whole Foods is unique. Fresh & Wild stores do phenomenally well for their size but when customers see what we are doing in Whole Foods, they won't think twice.' And with that, my time is up. The anti-establishment hero of the health-food movement picks up his anorak, pauses to ask me not to 'use that quote about unions being like herpes. It was a bad joke' - and runs out in his sneakers. Time waits for no entrepreneur, especially one spreading the gospel of peace, love and the bottom line.


View the original article here

Friday, April 22, 2011

Apples shell be (bio)

If you want to pick up the crop next season, start now to plan.

Apple season is generally considered to be around March and April, but many heritage varieties can be grown, that tire from the beginning of December until the end of July.

This years Apple season is pretty well over, so if you want to start a healthy crop next year on elimination pests and diseases, in particular, if you want an ecological approach on the growing fruit.

Organically growing apples with low loss of fruit by diseases or pests attack damage easily be achieved. Codling moth, is main pest in southern parts of Australia and to a lesser extent Brown Apple Motte.Die two fungal diseases, leaves and fruit can attack the light apple scab and powdery mildew.

Home gardeners can a few simple management techniques to prevent the development of pests and diseases in apples adopt. practice hygiene good Orchard by around trees clean up and remove all dead leaves and old apples autumn and winter is a good start.

Apple trees can by companion planting rights helped werden.Vogel production plants are ideal because the birds will eat the larvae. Similarly, plants such as Borage (Borago Officianalis) and Lavender (Lavandula spp.) in the vicinity of the trees will attract pollinated by bees.

Daisy flowers types are a pollen supply such as gray leafed Euryops (Euryops Pectinatus) and Paris Daisy (Argyranthemum Frutescens) close to gain native WaSP predators planted and you during the winter months.

Species such as wormwood (Artemisia arborescens) have proven for the aroma than you spend, useful for annoying pest insects.Plant directly under the Apple trees - preferably in pots, because you are vigorous grower.

Nasturtium (Tropaeolum majus), a soil cover climbing plant can be useful in this way.Build of a biologically active soil with organic methods, so that the soil contains worms and other soil microorganisms be sick leaves the decomposition of the fallen and reduce the risk of infection.

Also helps mulch around the base of the trees in the summer.Fresh grass clippings as seems a mulch around the base of the trees, for example, some affect codling moth numbers.Pruning ends from each split limbs and scratch isolated bark of the trees reduce the larvae cocoon spinning sites within the structure.

Codling moth larvae to dig into the development of the fruit, proper development, often prevents or can make holes and damage, damage the fruits mature., increase more than 80 percent of the crop if not controlled.

Codling moth moths slip during September to October, what if Apple trees blossom are.

A deterrent is tiny pheromone traps that are marked as tents.You are hung in the Apple trees when the first flowers begin to open the male codling moth moths stick to the glue that is smudged inside the tent.

During the winter or spring, cardboard or Hessischer wraps around the trunk or limbs can be placed to Apple.Click the larvae at the end of the cycle codling moth look for a Web site to a cocoon to pupate turn and packs are an ideal place for you.These packages should every five to six weeks and cocoons it destroyed hit is also a good idea, jam jars hang half with a little red wine or port plus water, in the trees gefüllt.Reife moths are attracted, the wine and finally to drown.

Remove and destroy damaged fruit during the season is also necessary moth has formed the fruits verringern.sobald figures, close to prevent it in bags, insect predation and to protect against diseases.

The light brown Apple moth is another major problem, this controlled organic be obtained.Member light brown Apple moth larvae turns a Web and causes the leaves to locken.Dies can be easily controlled to squeeze by hand or using Dipel, a natural bacterial preparation which is mixed with water and plants gesprüht.Die attack bacteria and kill the larvae of some moth and butterfly species.

Echter mildew has also Apfelbäumen.Es shows as a powdery flower on sheets or webbed, pattern on Apple russet skins let music.you can pruning from infected shoots and leaves and by applying lime sulphur on the tree control can organic preparation rights.the will apply, when bud burst Apple if the show green buds on trees, up to 10% of flowers fully open sind.Kalk sulfur that is applied at this time control also help scab, a fungal diseases as black spots and stains on leaves and cracked, blackened areas affecting Apple skins manifests.

Many of aid for the cultivation of apples organic nurseries accessible at work can, but some items are companies and specialist organizations only by specialized biological control available.

More about growing Apple and biological pest control and disease control methods Gilbert's book can be found in Allen all over Apple's (Hyland House 2001).


View the original article here

Thursday, April 21, 2011

Traditional rice varieties ideal for organic farming

The traditional variety responded well to organic food and indigenous cultivation practices.

TRADITIONAL rice varieties respond well to organic methods of agriculture and we make rice farming sustainable and rewarding n.g Anbalagan, an eco agricultural technologist and a strong advocate of organic farming have again practiced to the principles of organic farming as of our grandparents according to Mr.

"He grew up CER 24 diversity rice (also called Kichili Samba) successfully in his farm in Thottanaval village near Uthiramerur in the Coromandel Coast District of Tamil Nadu and good yields harvested."I lifted this crop in about 0.2 ha a demonstration plot, and it well to organic food responds. "I have harvested 800 kg paddy and 1.5 tonnes of high-quality straw", said Mr Anbalagan.

CER 24 is a fine-grained variety of 165 days. It is ideal for sowing in July-August, and the seedlings be done bed eingepflanzt.Topfen in the peloton after 45 days in kindergarten best in September, and the harvest will be ready in January for harvest.

This popular variety became grown isolated pockets in different parts of the State and a rare variety is extensively before the semi dwarf varieties grown, which on the application of chemical fertilizers is reagiert.Es now to his opinion.

About 30 kg seeds were from the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University (TNAU), Coimbatore, got, and the seeds have been treated cows with urine.A five cent nursery bed was raised and liberal amounts of green leaf fertilizer (mainly Neem and Pongamia pinnata Glyricidia) have been in the box along with ripe manure aufgenommen.Etwa kg each Azospirillum Phosphobacterium were added the nursery as basal dressing.

The roots of young seedlings were at the time of transplanting immersed in an aqueous solution of Psuedomonas and planted in the peloton. Large amounts of green leaf fertilizer and manure were recorded in the peloton before transplanting.

3 Kg of each Azospirillum and Phosphobacterium were about as basal dressing followed a strict irrigation schedule hinzugefügt.Er, suppress the weed.

A manual weeding was done when the harvest was 30 days old, in the peloton.

The crop grew well and there were no incidence of major pests or Krankheiten.Wohltuende insects and other natural enemies of rice pests gehalten.spinnen, frogs, dragonflies, multiply the harvest in absence of any chemical sprays and benefit dragonflies and insect devouring birds were seen actively engaged in harvesting in pest proofing.

The harvest was raised to a height of 1.2 m and it partially crop with heavy panicles was harvested gestellt.Die due to strong winds in November in January.

The cost of rice cultivation in 0.2 ha was RS.4500.Die gross income from paddy to the current market price is RS.8000, and the value RS of the straw.500.

"With a little more tweaking and application the return of the variety can be increased significantly the Vermi compost, Pancha Kavya and other plants growth promoters and beneficial bio-control agents and organic fertilizer."

"By mixing according to sustainable organic inputs and time honored agriculture knowledge our ancestors, we can introduce as economically rewarding for our farmers sustainable agriculture", said Mr Anbalagan


View the original article here

U.S. Agriculture Department rescinds changes to organic food standards

The Bush administration reversed itself Wednesday and moved four changes in organic food standards that threatened said critics had to undermine public confidence in the word organic.

Secretary of Agriculture Ann M. Veneman announced yesterday that it was acquiring title changes, made your Federal organic food standards Department last month.

Last month feed the departments, the agricultural marketing services what it called clarification of standards issued, so antibiotics in dairy cows, certain chemicals in pesticides and cattle, nonorganic fish meal contains the changes announced you created a firestorm in the organic community.

Mrs Veneman confirmed the response to a press conference yesterday.

"" It has been a tremendous amount of interest in this concern about what it does,"said Mrs Veneman.""This is a problem that has come in the media in the last couple days," she added, "We take to withdraw action what did A.M.S.."

Critics of the changes, officials with the said national organic standards Board, had consulted a consultative Panel of experts, when the law said verlangt.Frau Veneman to decide these officials now with the Executive Board, as the issues would work.

She said, however, the marketing services in good faith had acted.

The new guidelines would allow organic dairy for disease with any drug, including antibiotics and growth hormones treated and on an organic farm milk from animals remain producer 12 months long waited for sale.

She would have allowed the use of fish meal, like a feed for organic animal complement although fishmeal can contain synthetic preservatives and contaminants such as mercury and PCBs.

And the use of certain pesticides would have allowed the inert ingredients of these pesticides are prohibited.

Had explain guidelines, Department officials said but were not creating new rules laying down the boundaries of the existing rules.

Senator Patrick j. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, and father of the national organic program standards two years ago established, Mrs Veneman praised for your reply.

"" The Secretary of the law to follow and with the National Organic Standards Board, and is welcome to consult News decided has ", said Mr. Leahy."The organic standards and labeling program is still in its infancy, and this is a critical time for your Glaubwürdigkeit.Diese programs credibility has been built with full public and stakeholder participation, and we must remain so."

The withdrawal of the directives came on the same day, Mr Leahy a letter to Senate colleagues signature began, crowd the retraction of moves into circulation.


View the original article here

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

Toxic pesticides on safe levels in many US citizens

Many U.S. residents carry toxic pesticides in their bodies up government rated acceptable limits.

Many Americans carry toxic pesticides in their bodies Government rated "acceptable" level according to chemical trespass: pesticides in our body and corporate accountability one by pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) and partner groups in more than 20 cities today published Bericht.Analysieren pesticide-related data collected by the U.S. Centers for disease control and prevention (CDC) at levels of chemicals in nationwide 9,282 people report that Government and industry to protect of the public health of pesticide have failed exposures shows.

"" None of us select that dangerous pesticides in our bodies, "said Kristin Schafer PANNA and author of the report lead."Still CDC pesticides in 100% of those found both had tested blood and urine. "The average person in this group was a toxic cocktail of 13 of 23 pesticides we analyzed."

Many of the pesticides found in the test subjects were serious short - and long-term health effects, including infertility, birth defects and childhood and adult cancers combined. "While the Government of safety developed separately for each chemical, this study shows that in the real world we several chemicals exposed at the same time", said Margaret Reeves, the PANNA. "The synergistic effects of multiple exposures are unknown, but a growing body of research suggests that even at very low levels, the combination of these chemicals to our health may be harmful."

Chemical trespass found children, women and Mexican Americans shouldered the heaviest "pesticide body last." For example, children are-the population vulnerable to Pestizide--to the highest levels of nerves-damaging organophosphate (OP) pesticides ausgesetzt.Die CDC data show that the average sampled 6 to11 year old that OP pesticide is exposed at four times the level U.S. environmental long-term exposure considers "acceptable" Chlorpyrifos Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). Chlorpyrifos, primarily by Dow Chemical Corporation produced and found in many products such as Dursban ™, designed to kill insects by disorder of the nervous system.Although US EPA chlorpyrifos for most residential applications in 2000 limited to continue it far in agriculture and werden.Beim uses people of chlorpyrifos different settings is a nerve poison and has shown that disrupt hormones and interfere with normal development of the nervous system in laboratory animals.

The report also found that women have scored significantly higher levels of three of the six Organochlorine (OC)-Pestizide. These pesticides are known to cross the placenta during pregnancy with several harmful effects, including interruption of the development of the brain to learning difficulties and other neurobehavioral can cause problems, as young children birth weight reduced. Seriously threatened future generations passed this ability of chlororganic pesticides from mother to child.

Pans analysis showed that Mexican Americans dramatically higher body burdens of five of the 17 evaluated pesticides in urine samples, including a breakdown product of methyl parathion, a neurotoxic, endocrine insecticide tragen.Mexican Americans had also significantly higher body burdens the breakdown products of insecticides lindane and DDT as those in other ethnic groups.

Chemical trespass argues that pesticide manufacturers primarily responsible for the problem of pesticide body burden."Pesticides we carry in our bodies are made and aggressive sponsored by agrochemical companies," said skip Spitzer at PANNA."These companies spend millions on political influence, block or undermine regulatory measures to protect of public health and the environment."The report provides the pesticide trespass index (PTI), a new tool for quantifying responsibility of each pesticide manufacturer for your "pesticide of trespass."The PTI use estimates report that Dow Chemical for at least 80% of breakdown products of chlorpyrifos is found responsible in the bodies of those in the United States

Chemical trespass provides Empfehlungen.Der Congress should investigate, responsibility and liability for pesticides body burdens and financial mechanisms to move should health and environmental costs of pesticides on the companies produce to entwickeln.US EPA pesticides, the known to be dangerous in the environment and our bodies, including immediate phase outs of all uses of Chlorpyriphos and lindane pervasive verbieten.US EPA should also require that the manufacturer shall US EPA should the burden of proof to demonstrate that a pesticide harm not human health before it be registered kann.Arbeiten with the U.S. Department of agriculture, least toxic pest control methods promote. individuals should government officials and businesses, to implement these changes, while searching for alternatives to pesticides and buy organic products pressure as possible.


View the original article here

Sunday, April 17, 2011

The European Union stance on GMOs and the WTO

Translate Request has too much data
Parameter name: request
Translate Request has too much data
Parameter name: request
The EU dismisses the USAs decision to take the GMO (Genetically Modified Organisms) issue to World Trade Organisation dispute settlement as legally misguided, economically unfounded and politically unhelpful.

GENERAL LINE

The EU dismisses the decision to take the GMO issue to WTO dispute settlement as legally misguided, economically unfounded and politically unhelpful.

The treatment of genetically-modified material is a multi-faceted matter of high social, economic and political concern all throughout the world. Trying to depict this issue as a mere commercial matter is clearly a reduction of a complex situation to a single question.

Each WTO Member has the legitimate right to strike the right balance between the different interests at stake. The US and the other complainants must not seek to influence the sovereign decisions of other countries the way they do. The EU will decide on the approval and regulation of GMOs in a free and responsible manner. Through its actions in the GMO field, the EU will always aim at responding to the legitimate interests of its citizens, not to narrow economic interests.

There are ongoing efforts at the international level to lay down common principles on GMOs. The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety is, at present, the most significant international response to this challenge. This Protocol establishes the international principles that will govern the transfer, handling and use of GMOs with a particular focus on transboundary movements and creates an enabling environment for the environmentally sound application of biotechnology. International co-operation is certainly more appropriate than a trade dispute as a means to build a sound international framework for addressing the GMO issue. The countries that have requested WTO consultations should rather seek to promote international co-operation, instead of taking WTO action as a means to seek to impose a certain approach to GMO regulation on the EU and other countries.

The EU is engaged in a substantial review of its legislation on GMOs in order to set up a more rigorous framework for the assessment, handling and use of those products. New rules, in place since October 2002, have enabled companies to submit revised applications for authorisations, which are currently being processed with a view to deciding on more approvals. Food containing GMOs or produced from GMOs can also be authorised and marketed pursuant to existing EU procedures.

Even though we are puzzled by the motives for requesting WTO consultations at this stage, the EU will participate constructively in the consultations with Argentina, Canada and the US. But this will not distract the EU from the implementation of its current legislation on GMOs and the completion of its regulatory framework with the adoption of new legislation on genetically-modified food, traceability and labelling of GMOs.

Main issues

1. The challenges posed by modern technologies of genetic modification require an integrated co-operative approach, not a trade dispute.

The issues raised in the public debate about the new technologies of genetic modification range across a wide spectrum of concerns:

Human and animal health (e.g. impacts resulting from allergenic substances in GM food products, from the susceptibility of GMOs to toxin-producing microbes, from the introduction of antibiotic-resistant genes in new plant varieties, etc.)
Impact on the environment (e.g. impact on agricultural soil, possible proliferation of transgenic genes in wild plants and animals, impact on genetic diversity of species and on biodiversity, etc.)
Socio-economic aspects (e.g. impact of the new technology on the survival of traditional and biological agricultural models, impact on indigenous and local communities, concerns about intellectual property and the dependency of farmers on corporations, etc.)
Ethical issues (e.g. concerns about human manipulation of the constituents of living matter, freedom of choice, etc.)
The new technologies of genetic modification are therefore a multifaceted reality. Public authorities must respond to all the challenges posed by the new technology both at the national and the international level.

There are ongoing efforts at the international level to lay down common principles on the use of GMOs. The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety is, at present, the most significant international response to this challenge.

The EU has always tried to favour co-operative solutions whenever third countries have expressed concerns about the impact of different national approaches to GMOs on international trade on agricultural products. In particular, the EU has tried to establish a dialogue with the US on biotechnology, but the US have showed little interest in addressing the GMO issue in a co-operative manner:

At the initiative of Presidents Prodi and Clinton, an EU-US consultative forum on biotechnology was established in 2000. The Forum presented a report in December 2000 including a set of recommendations. Since the publication of the Forum’s recommendation, the US has not been prepared to engage in any follow-up work with the EU. The US has also stalled any technical co-operation in the biotech group of TEP (Transatlantic Economic Partnership).
The US has expressed concerns that the different pace of GMO approvals in the EU and the US affects US corn exports. In the US, ~35% of the maize is GM maize but only 1-2% of the production is segregated. Therefore, ~98% of the US maize may contain GM maize varieties, some of which have not been approved in other countries. However, the US has consistently refused to implement any measures to segregate and control the spread of different GM maize varieties and, consequently, its exports are affected.
The EU considers the decision to take the GMO issue to the WTO as a wrong step. Trying to depict this issue as a mere WTO matter is a reduction of a complex situation to a single commercial question. The EU considers that international co-operation is certainly more appropriate than a trade dispute as a means to build a sound international framework for addressing the GMO issue. That is essential to build public confidence on GMOs and achieve the full potential of biotechnology.

2. Potential and risks of the new technologies of genetic modification. Need for a rigorous regulatory framework.

The new technologies of genetic modification have a great potential to improve the agricultural performance of plants and animal species, and eventually their value for consumers. The first GMO varieties on the market have typically been modified for two characteristics of significant value for farmers: insect resistance and herbicide resistance. However, current research and development also aims at enhancing characteristics of direct value to consumers. In the future, it may be possible to obtain food products with improved nutritional quality, such as higher vitamin content.

Notwithstanding the positive potential of the new technology, there are also issues of concern that must be appropriately addressed by public authorities (see above). The experience acquired so far through the handling and use of GMOs also shows the need for a rigorous regulatory framework based on pre-marketing approval, subsequent controls and periodic re-assessments. Two examples:

According to a 2001 report of the Royal Society of Canada, herbicide-resistant GM oil seed rape plants are beginning to develop into a major weed problem in some parts of the Prairie Provinces of Canada. Some weed scientists have predicted that volunteer GM oil seed rape could become one of Canada’s most serious weed problems because of the large areas of the Prairie Provinces that are devoted to this crop. Furthermore, recent evidence indicates that crosses between different kinds of herbicide-resistant oil seed rape (each kind resistant to a different herbicide) have resulted in the unintentional origin of plants with multiple resistance to two, and in some cases three, herbicides.

In October 2000, GM corn (“StarLink”) not approved for human consumption was found to have entered in large amounts the US food supply chain. More than 300 product brands had to be recalled from supermarkets by US authorities. The incident prompted a review of the potential effects on health of the gene inserted in the corn, resulting in a finding that the gene was likely to be a potential allergen. At the strong urging of US authorities, StarLink corn has been withdrawn also from non-food, agricultural uses.

The EU wants to address the challenges posed by modern technologies of genetic modification. Its regulatory system provides a reliable framework for GMOs, meeting demands for human and animal health and the environment in the EU. Under the EU system, the prospective effects of GMOs on human, animal and plant health and the environment have to be scientifically assessed before being approved for marketing. Companies intended to market GMOs in the EU must first submit an application to a Member State including a full environmental risk assessment. The assessment is sent to the European Commission who circulates it to all other Member States. In case of objections the European Commission seeks an opinion from the Scientific Committee (and the European Food Safety Authority in the future) and takes then a decision. A total of 18 GMOs have already been authorised in the EU, and more applications are currently being examined.

The EU is also finalising the adoption of rules on labelling and traceability, which aim at ensuring appropriate post-approval controls, responding to citizens’ demands for more and better information on GMOs, and the need to facilitate the freedom of choice between new and more traditional agricultural products.

3. Third Countries' allegations about a so-called "moratorium" on GMO approvals

EC legislation does not provide for a "moratorium" on GMO approvals. The relevant EU legislation does not foresee a suspension of the approvals of GMOs and GM food. The EU has authorised GM varieties in the past and is currently processing applications under its new legislation on the deliberate release of GMOs into the environment (Directive 2001/18/EC). GM food applications are also being considered for approval under the ‘Novel Foods’ Regulation (Regulation 258/97/EC).

The allegations on the existence of a ‘moratorium’ on GMO approvals refer to the fact that from 1998, the pace of GMO approvals has been affected by the review (at the EU level and internationally) of risk assessment procedures in the light of scientific developments and the experience gained in the management of GMOs. Any statements about the existence of a ‘moratorium’ in the EU are no more than the reflection of individual positions and concerns on GMO approvals. At no point in time the EU has enacted a ‘moratorium’. On the contrary, the EU has made a significant effort to review its regulatory framework in order to ensure that new authorisations are granted following a rigorous examination of the potential impact of specific GMO varieties on human health and the environment.

Several third countries (some of which have paradoxically declared their intention to be third parties in the WTO case against the EU) have implemented ‘moratoria’ within their respective territories:

For several years, New Zealand has implemented a full ‘moratorium’ on the commercial release of genetically modified organisms while further research on their potential impact is undertaken. The ‘moratorium’ is still in place (Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act).
Some Australian states have put in place ‘moratoria’ on the approval and use of GMOs. Most notably, Tasmania has just extended its ‘moratorium’ on commercially-grown GM food crops for another five years (until 2008).
According to a letter from Peru's Ministry of Trade to the European Commission, "[under] the "Law on Transgenic Foods and Genetically Modified Organisms", it is strictly prohibited in Peru to import, by any means, produce, sell and/or market transgenic foods and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) for human or animal consumption or for sowing" (letter from Mr. Juan Carlos Gamarra, dated 30 September 2002).


4. National safeguard measures

EU legislation on GMOs has set up a single European approval system for GMO varieties. However, the legislation also foresees a ‘safeguard’ mechanism for cases in which new information on the health or environmental risks of approved varieties becomes available. In those cases, EU Member States may limit or ban the use and sale of GMOs on a temporary basis within their respective territories.

Some individual EU Member States have adopted ‘safeguard’ measures with regard to specific varieties of GMOs on health and environment grounds.

EU Member States’ decisions on this issue can be reviewed through an EU examination procedure in order to ensure that the legislative requirements have been met.

5. GMOs and developing countries: the food-aid issue

The EU believes that every country has the sovereign right to make decisions on GMOs in accordance with the values prevailing in its society. This principle obviously applies to both developed and developing countries. It is the legitimate right of developing countries’ governments to fix their own level of protection and to take the decision they deem appropriate to prevent unintentional dissemination of GM seeds.

A number of developing countries have chosen to use GMOs for agricultural purposes. A developing country -Argentina- is the second largest producer of agricultural GMOs in the world. It should be noted that, since GM maize seeds were introduced in Argentina, Argentinean maize exports to the EU have considerably increased.

However, GM crops of interest to most developing countries, such a drought tolerant, acid soil tolerant crops are still in laboratories. Commercially available GM crops are largely dominated by herbicide tolerant crops (75%) and insect resistant crops (17%). These varieties can be useful for big farmers in developing countries, but they are not likely to improve the situation of smaller farmers. Indeed, the use of herbicides by small farmers in the developing world is very limited while insecticides are generally used on commercial crops such as cotton but not on staple crops. In addition, biotechnology alone will not be able to address all the underlying causes of food insecurity. Low income, poor infrastructures, lack of access to credit, etc., are all aspects at the roots of food crisis and can only be addressed by long term sustainable development.

Some developing countries, including a large number African countries suffering a shortage of food, have requested main donors of food aid to avoid providing GMO food, for a combination of reasons (human health concerns, environmental consideration, the risk of spread of transgenes into their own maize production, and the repercussion such a spread could have on regional and international trade and Intellectual Property Rights concerns). The EU finds it unacceptable that the legitimate concerns of those countries are used by the US as a means of propaganda against the EU policy on GMOs.

Food aid to starving populations should be about meeting the urgent humanitarian needs of those who are in need. It should not be about trying to advance the case for GM food abroad, or planting GM crops for export, or indeed finding outlets for domestic surplus, which is a regrettable aspect of the US food aid policy. In the Southern African food crisis, the US has even refused to fund milling costs (20 to 25 US$ per ton of grain), as requested by Zimbabwe and Mozambique in order to avoid any possible concern about the spread of transgenes in those countries.

The EU policy is to source food aid for emergency situation as much as possible in the region, thus contributing to the development of local markets, providing additional incentives for producers and ensuring that products distributed closely match local consumption habits. In the Southern African crisis so far preliminary figures indicate that of the 277,000 MT that the EC has committed roughly 174,000 MT (63%) have been purchased and of these at least 97% have been purchased in the Eastern or Southern Africa region.


View the original article here

Saturday, April 16, 2011

The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety becomes law

The Cartagena Protocol sets the first international legal framework for the cross-border movement of GMOs on the basis of the precautionary principle.

Secure management of GMOs: the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety law is

Today, force the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. The Protocol was developed to protect biodiversity and human health from the potential risks arising from genetically modified organisms (GMOs) by providing a clear legal framework for cross-border shipment.The advanced informed agreement (AIA) process, the protocol used ensures that countries informed decisions whether GMOs which determines import for the introduction into the environment afford. movements of GMOs raw materials have certain documentation requirements. Entry into force of the Protocol should be an incentive for more countries ensure the attending the first meeting of the parties for February 2004 in Malaysia planned will ratify.

Environment Commissioner Margot Wallström said: "The Cartagena Protocol sets a number of basic international rules for the use of GMOs."It is a fundamental step towards better global governance in the field GVO.Dies is urgently needed to derive benefits from biotechnology to maximize and minimize the risks for the environment and the human Gesundheit.Es will contribute to improving confidence in the safe use of GMOs.This Protocol will help in particular developing countries, which often lack the resources to assess the risks of biotechnology and informed decisions about it.

If we want to promote free trade at the global level, we must also ensure that the environment and human health account by multilateral solutions to global problems.

"We are calling for more countries to ratify and implement the Cartagena Protocol and we ask that those who demand unable to achieve their objectives on a voluntary basis to ratifizieren.Wir complete on time parties at the first Conference of the parties, the other Member States and acceding countries your ratification process be in February 2004 in Malaysia".

The Cartagena Protocol

The Cartagena Protocol sets the first international legal framework for the cross-border movement of GMOs on the basis of the precautionary principle.

Countries, shipping costs for intentional introduction into the environment of GMOs must give prior notification, which is a party to the Protocol in accordance with the advance informed agreement (AIA) the importing country.The notification is so that the importing country to make informed decisions required information.

The Protocol contains documentation requirements for movements of GMOs and is intended to facilitate the exchange of information on GMOs a Biosafety Clearing House (BCH) and to assist countries in implementing the Protocol.

103 Parties have that Cartagena Protocol signed and ratified 57, including the EU and seven Member States(1).

Background

The Conference of the parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity under the United Nations a supplementary agreement to the Convention known as the Protocol of Cartagena on Biosafety, on 29 January 2000, after more than five years of complex negotiations angenommen.Das Protocol is legally binding and ended the first multilateral agreement (MEA) environmental in the new millennium.

The protocols force was by the Intergovernmental Committee of the Cartagena Protocol (ICCP), created by the Conference of the parties to the Convention on biological diversity has an action plan vorbereitet.Die ICCP for building angenommen.Es has established a roster of experts, advice for developing countries, including on risk assessment, capacity for effective implementation of the Protocol and a compliance mechanism.

The first meeting of the parties to the Protocol is scheduled for 23-27 February 2004.

Relevant EU legislation

The EU has already a comprehensive legal framework for GVO.Dieser framework regulation on the transboundary movement of GMOs, addresses exports of GMOs, in particular to the EU legislation with the provisions of the Protocol on Biosafety was auszurichten.Die regulation authorised by the Council June, on 13 and will enter into force 20 days following its publication in the official journal, should take place end of September 2003 added recently.


View the original article here

Saturday, March 26, 2011

Uganda biggest exporter of organic products in Africa

Uganda biggest exporter of organic products in Africa

Author: Jennifer Austin, John Kasozi
All Africa. (Source)

Uganda has the largest number of organic farmers in Africa, a report published by advocates Coalition for development and environment, said.According has risen to the report, the number of organic farmers by 38% from 28,000 in 2002 to 39,600 – until the end of 2004. The report says Uganda the largest area under organic land, approximately 122,000 acres in Africa and the fourth largest in the world has therefore the top exporter of organic products in Africa. Organic farming involves all agricultural systems, promoting ecological, social and economically sound production of food and fiber. Moses Muwanga which Coordinator of national organic agricultural says movement of Uganda (NOGAMU), the worldwide demand for organic products. "Uganda is a major player in international trade of organic products and is among the countries with the highest potential to dominate the market." Muwanga says average annual growth in global demand and the marketing of organic products is estimated at 30% per year, but varies between 10% and 50% in different markets. A report published by the Ministry of finance and economic planning in 2001 says Uganda has the highest comparative advantages for the production of organic products because of its climatic conditions and that much of the land is still pristine. "It has the lowest use of artificial fertilisers in Africa of less than 2%." "On one kilogram fertiliser per hectare, 9 kilograms per hectare compared with the average of sub-Saharan or 5% in other East African countries and 20% in Latin America, use estimated", says the report. Muwanga says to the current demand organic products of Uganda far from care is second to none."With about 60 companies NOGAMU each year was registration buy organic products from Uganda." "Organic products price premiums between 18% and 42% get", he says. "Muwanga says due to the increased demand for organic products worldwide, Uganda exports have increased steadily, both in quality and quantity."Between 2001 and 2003, the number of companies that export organic products rose from 5% to 15%, while increasing the value of organic exports of $4.6 m to $7."7 m."In order for the products to higher prices need to bring werden.NOGAMU certified and others in a local certificate company Uganda organic standards established provides credible certification services.

View the original article here

Friday, March 25, 2011

USWTO case against EU on GM is wrong

Translate Request has too much data
Parameter name: request
Error in deserializing body of reply message for operation 'Translate'. The maximum string content length quota (8192) has been exceeded while reading XML data. This quota may be increased by changing the MaxStringContentLength property on the XmlDictionaryReaderQuotas object used when creating the XML reader. Line 1, position 9117.
The US announced this week their intention to request WTO consultations on the EUs authorisation system for genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The European Commission regrets this move as legally unwarranted, economically unfounded and politically unhelpful.

EU Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy said: "The EU's regulatory system for GMO 's authorisation is in line with WTO rules: it is clear, transparent and non-discriminatory. There is therefore no issue that the WTO needs to examine. The US claim that there is a so-called "moratorium " but the fact is that the EU has authorised GM varieties in the past and is currently processing applications. So what is the real US motive in bringing a case?

"David Byrne, EU Commissioner for Health and Consumer protection stated: "We have been working hard in Europe to complete our regulatory system in line with the latest scientific and international developments. The finalisation process is imminent. This is essential to restore consumer confidence in GMO's in Europe." Mr. Byrne recalled that it is the lack of consumer demand for GM-products that accounts for the low sales of GMOs in the EU market. "Unless consumers see that the authorisation process is up to date and takes into account all legitimate concerns, consumers will continue to remain sceptical of GM products."

EU Commissioner for the Environment Margot Wallstrom added: "This US move is unhelpful. It can only make an already difficult debate in Europe more difficult. But in the meantime, the Commission strongly believes that we in Europe should move ahead with completing our legislation on traceability and labelling and on food and feed, currently before the European Parliament. We should not be deflected or distracted from pursuing the right policy for the EU."

The EU stance on GMOs is in line with WTO rules
The EU wants to address the challenges posed by modern technologies of genetic modification. Its regulatory system provides a reliable framework for GMOs in the EU, meeting demands for human and animal health and the environment in the EU. Under the EU system, the prospective effects of GMOs on human, animal and plant health and the environment have to be scientifically assessed before being approved for marketing. Under the EU system, companies intended to market GMOs in the EU must first submit an application to a Member State including a full environmental risk assessment. The assessment is sent to the European Commission who circulates it to all other Member States. In case of objections the European Commission seeks an opinion from the Scientific Committee (and the European Food Safety Authority in the future) and takes then a decision. A total of 18 GMOs have already been authorised in the EU.

Reference is often made to a so-called "moratorium" in the EU on approval of new GM varieties. This relates to the fact that since October 1998, no new GMOs have been authorised for release into the environment due to the fact that the EU's regulatory regime was incomplete to address the challenges posed by modern technology of genetic modification. This new regulatory framework was adopted in March 2001 and entered into force in October 2002.

The entry into force of these improved rules on approval procedures has enabled biotech companies to submit revised applications for approval of their innovative products. Recently two cotton seed oils for food use have been placed on the market in the EU following authorisation. A number of new applications for marketing of GMOs are at an advanced stage of examination and may therefore be granted over the next months in line with EU legislation.

The EU is also finalising the adoption of rules on labelling and traceability, which aim at responding to citizens' demands for more and better information on GMOs, and the need to facilitate the freedom of choice between new and more traditional agricultural products. Therefore, the EU system is and will be science-based, not driven by economic considerations.

It must be recalled that the US has so far opposed the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, which has been signed by over 100 countries and is intended to ensure through agreed international rules that countries, exporters and importers have the necessary information to make informed choices about GMOs.

The case for appropriate approval mechanisms and marketing regulations has been reinforced by the problems experienced in the US. The "Starlink" case is a clear example of the need for appropriate rules for authorisation and traceability of GMOs. In 2000, GM corn not approved for human consumption was found to have entered in large amounts the US food supply chain; More than 300 product brands had to be recalled from supermarkets by US authorities. In a study of February 2002, the American National Academy of Sciences concluded that there are a number of inadequacies in the way GM plants are regulated in the US

The development argument ignores legitimate concerns of developing countries
A number of developing countries, including a large number African countries suffering a shortage of food have requested main donors of food aid to avoid providing GMO food. The European Commission finds it unacceptable that such legitimate concerns are used by the US against the EU policy on GMOs. The European Commission believes that it is the legitimate right of developing countries' governments to fix their own level of protection and to take the decision they deem appropriate to prevent unintentional dissemination of GM seeds.

Food aid to starving populations should be about meeting the urgent humanitarian needs of those who are in need. It should not be about trying to advance the case for GM food abroad (while staying away from the international consensus such as the Cartagena Protocol), or planting GM crops for export, or indeed finding outlets for domestic surplus, which is a regrettable of the US food aid policy.

The European Commission policy is to source food aid for emergency situation as much as possible in the region, thus contributing to the development of local markets, providing additional incentives for producers and ensuring that products distributed closely match local consumption habits.

GM crops of interest to developing countries, such a drought tolerant, acid soil tolerant crops are still in laboratories. Commercially available GM crops are largely dominated by herbicide tolerant crops (75%) and insect resistant crops (17%). However, the use of herbicides on small farmers in poor countries is very limited while insecticides are generally used on commercial crops such as cotton but not on staple crops.

Some key figures related to commodities market
The US is by far the main maize producer in the world and exports ~20% of its production. However, emerging countries such as Argentina and China have started to compete with the US maize export.< /p>

Production trade flow of maize (1997 2001 average) Million tonnes

(source USDA ERS)

The rejection of GM maize by a growing number of importing countries creates a serious threat to US maize export. In the US, ~35% of the maize is GM maize but only 1-2% of the production is segregated. Therefore, ~98% of the US maize may contain GM maize varieties, many of which have not been approved in other countries. Since the US refuses to implement measures to segregate and control the spread of different GM maize varieties, its exports are affected.

Main source of maize main import in the EU 1995-2002 (in tonnes)

Since 1997, imports of US maize in the EU have largely been replaced with Argentine maize, as some GM maize varieties cultivated in the US are not authorised for cultivation or in the EU. On the other hand, Argentine GM maize producers grow and export approved GM maize varieties and now have a competitive advantage against US producers.

Origin of soybean import in the EU 1995-2002 (tonnes)


In the US, soybean grower cultivates only the GM soybean authorised in the EU. Therefore, they do not have problems of access to the EU market. The decrease of the share of US soybeans reflects, therefore, a lost of competitiveness of US soybean on the international markets.

WTO consultation and dispute settlement procedures:

The first step in a WTO dispute settlement is a request for consultation from the complaining member. The defendant has 10 days to reply to the request and shall enter into consultation within a period of no more than 30 days (unless otherwise agreed by the 2 parties). The consultation should aim at finding a positive solution to the issue at stake.

If the consultations fail to settle the dispute within 60 days after the date of receipt of theconsultation request, the complaining party may request the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) to establish of a Panel (however, the complaining party may request a panel during the 60 day period if the 2 parties considers that the consultations have failed to settle the dispute).

Once the panelists are nominated, the complaining party has normally between 3 and 6 weeks to file its first written submission and the party complained against another 2/3 weeks to respond. Two oral hearings and a second written submission follow. On average a panel procedure lasts 12 months. This can be followed by an appeal that should not last longer than 90 days. In a case such as the one at stake here, the necessity of hearing scientific experts may prolong the timetable.

Time table (with the shortest possible deadlines taken into consideration)
Filing of request by US Mid May
Consultation 60 days Mid July
Request for establishment of Panels immediate
Establishment of Panel +/-45 days End August
Appointment of Panelists 20 days End September
US 1st written submission 3 weeks Mid October
EC first written submission 2 weeks Early November


View the original article here

Turkey is organic farming rules with the European Union

The organic rules apply to a range of activities from the production of organic farm inputs for storage and marketing.

Turkey Ministry of agriculture updated its organic farming regulations with the relevant EU standards to harmonise and released it on Friday.

The regulations cover a range of activities from organic farm inputs for storage and marketing.

The regulations have included more comprehensive descriptions on organic farming and a definition of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Accordingly, a GMO is a substance with GMO content consisting of GMOs or a GMO derivative.

The new rules create also fines and other sanctions for violations.

A prior condition for organic farming has been stopped. Provision structures are found at least one to three kilometres of motorways, heavy industrial equipment, reactors, hydraulic and thermal power plants, mines and public dump bodies.

From now on taxes and/or certification will agencies decide whether organic farming at a specific location can be done where contamination can exist.Such agencies to monitor agricultural activities in accordance with a contract with the farmer.

Buildings, equipment and tools used in conventional production may have washed and cleaned with materials that are specified by the regulations before they are used for farming purposes.Farmers are not for the creation or former organic farming experience erforderlich.Eine single farm can produce similar organic and inorganic crops.The use of GMOs reproduction materials is prohibited.

Further, industrial and urban waste water and sewer water can be used in organic farming and irrigation water should be of a quality cause no contamination or deterioration in soil quality or contributing, Erosion.Hand picking tools must be hygienic.

The regulations include bred for organic, inside poultry houses and feed and other issues on poultry including, such as limits on the number of animals live in a single specific size and the amount of time chickens to natural and artificial light will be suspended on a day.

There are rules, that poultry and cattle werden.LKW drivers are conducted without the stress on animals quickly and transfers breaks requires every eight hours to feed and water of your animal freight.

See the other parameters the flight radius which organic bee farms should not more than three kilometres from your hives and beekeepers may not, in conventional bee-keeping in the same area to engagieren.Alle nectar and pollen sources in the bee house consists of organic plants or natural flora.

Farmers are responsible for the registration of all kinds of inputs and materials in their organic production.

The new rules prohibiting label use of such prefixes as "Organic", "Eco" and "Org" or other connotative or produce package design on inorganic.

Furthermore, ionic radiation can not used to process organic products and the packages must bear the title, code number, certificate number and logo of the authorized agency.

Organic products will be stored in a way, where you identify and produce with other inorganic or substances mix.

Sanctions against those who violate the terms of the regulations to bring up to a five-year ban from organic farming.

The regulations define the forms and types of logos, to be printed on the packages of organic products.


View the original article here

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

USDA in legal trouble on industrial scale dairies

The Cornucopia Institute informed the USDA of its intention to file suit accusing the Agency ignore the organic rules, and the intention of the Congress, by their failure enforce the laws.

"The threatened lawsuit is the latest salvo in a seven-year-long dispute between family organic farmers and the USDA.""A broad cross-section of the organic industry repeated petition the USDA on an increasing number of industrial scale factory farms has down on, the 'organic' milk, produce", said Mark Kastel, senior analyst at the Wisconsin-based Cornucopia Institute farm policy.

In the center of controversy are two large agribusiness companies, Dean Foods and Aurora Dairy. Dean's horizon produced by Aurora (marketed by Safeway, wild oats, Trader Joe's and Wal - Mart, among others) have estimated a commanding market share as high as 70%, brand and private label milk by ramp to feedlot dairies, which more than 2000 to 10,000 cows milk won.

"Organic consumers if you pay premium prices, believe that you support a different kind of environmental responsibility, humane animal husbandry promotion and economic justice for family-owned businesses," said attorney David G. Cox, the cornucopia on other matters which is represented using the USDA and organic certifiers Columbus, Ohio."If consumers find out that their milk is factory farms in desert States, whose Ausmaß operations threaten livelihoods of hard-working families come and milk delivered then all around the country feel betrayed you."

The huge farms have their animals instead of pastures limit, as the rules which said Cox, is a violation of the law been accused.

"" There are five sections in the federal environmental standards on pasture and grazing beziehen.zusammen taken leave little doubt what the organic animal producers is expected"," said Jim Riddle of the University of Minnesota and former Chairman of the National Organic Standards Board."It is no coincidence that except for the handful of mega farms, all organic dairy farmers of the nation, and most of you understand the certifiers that you examine that grazing is required and operate their farms in accordance with the law."

"It seems the other way searches the USDA by providing this confinement dairies not pasture for your lactating cows," added Riddle.

Visit the full version and more http://www.cornucopia.org.

Contact: Mark Kastel of the Cornucopia Institute, + 1-608-625-2042


View the original article here

USDA appoints Oregonian National Organic Standards Board

Tracy Miedema begins her appointment to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Organic Standards Board.

The National Executive Board responsible for advising the Minister of Agriculture regarding organic food standards in the United States today added a new representative from Oregon, a State-recognised for its organic and sustainable agriculture management.

Tracy Miedema, food and agriculture support with deep roots in organic topics and education, their appointment to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) .Miedema begins an organic is a five-year term, 2012 serve 24 representatives January as consumers and public interest today.You will be taken responsible for advocating on behalf of the consumers on organic program issues before the Board.

"" Consumer demand for organics only over the next five years drive significant transformation of the organic food industry, increase,"said Miedema.""My goals as a representative of public interest are to endeavour to provide to consumers with the knowledge and tools buyers, educated and access to strengthen organic and confidence in the organic product market."

Miedema is national sales and marketing manager at Stahlbush Iceland of farms, an organic family farm which grows and processes certified organic and certified sustainable fruit and vegetables Miedema leads new product development and sales for the company.

New Board member brings strong consumer connection

Miedema instructed as an adjunct faculty member at Western Washington University students in marketing principals and consumer behavior classes.Consider also led classes in green marketing and helped students better understand the impact of their decisions as consumers on the environment.Their own graduate Centers work on knowledge management in the organic food industry.

As a project manager for small planet foods, manufacturer of Cascadian Farm(R) and Muir Glen, created "small planet foods University," an organic Learning Center for retailers and players in the Industrie.Das project included detailed interviews with the pioneers of the organic food industry that the development of six courses taught by leading organic industry consultant inspired.The program, created in 2002, is still used to inform retailers and consumers about the organic industry.

"" Tracy and I worked together first, while you a centre industry Organics educate building war.Ihr broad understanding of the certification process, industry issues and need better retail and consumer understanding left a very positive impression on me, "John Foster, Inspector for Oregon Tilth certified organic testified of the State leading non-profit, organic and socially just agriculture devoted.""The National Organic Standards Board is strongly influenced by your know benefit perspective and insight."

Represents the National Organic Standards Board, the different sectors and interests of the organic industry including production, processing and Verbrauch.Es comprises 15 members, represented by four manufacturers, two handlers, a retailer, three environmentalist, three consumers, a scientist and a certifying agent.

The Management Board is authorized by the organic foods production Act of 1990 and makes recommendations on the national list of allowed and organic beraten.USDA can unauthorized substances for organic Vorgänge.Die NOSB to other aspects of the programme agricultural marketing service monitors the national organic program and the work of the NOSB.


View the original article here

Sunday, February 13, 2011

Requiem Agent Orange

Decades after the USA Viet Nam with herbicides, scientists and civilians pollinate the damage tally.

Tran Ngoc van went to school for the first time, he saw that the aircraft, the subsequent clouds, white fog. The 16-year-old stopped to see how the American planes village and the fog be circled retired to Earth."It smelled sweet and ripe guava," he recalls sich.Es was repeated a routine of every morning for a year and soon the village at it accustomed - just as you got accustomed to a barren landscape, with tree leaves turn black and branches of ruin.

More than 30 years later, Ngoc thinks these trees as he shrunk his two-year-old daughter wines on a straw mat, her crippled limbs waving watches. Able to sit one's born bien Hoa, where three to four times more frequently than in other parts of the country defects birth, after leading Vietnamese researchers themselves, Trang of dozens of malformed babies. The prime suspect is Agent Orange, the chemical defoliant sprayed for nine years by U.S. fighters over Southern Viet Nam.The nickname for the Orange stripes on its storage barrels, dioxin, now includes agent orange with cancer and a variety of other diseases, including birth defects linked. "" Doctors of my daughter is because of this chemical to told me,"says Ngoc."I am so sad when I look at it. "What future can you have?"

There is no doubt in Ngoc's mind that caused his daughter deformity by Agent Orange wurde.Wissenschaftler are less secure. A groundbreaking Conference could help this week that change and may open the door for billions of dollars in aid for Vietnamese victims. Dozens of researchers and medical experts, the Assembly in Hanoi will work study Agent Orange's aftermath, finding hard evidence for a link between the chemical and disease among Vietnamese citizens.

The official cooperation between the USA and Viet Nam is one erste.Bis now was the debate by the science policy as defined. Estimates Viet Nam Agent Orange for more than 150,000 cases of birth defects and about a million cases of other diseases is responsible. Washington denies circuit coherent link between the herbicide and disease; Officials have accused of bloat the statistics Hanoi.

Introduces a disturbing new number in Hanoi: bien Hoa inhabitants have up to 200 times the normal rate of dioxin in your blood, even among the years born after stopped spraying. Dr. Arnold Schechter from the University of Texas estimates that Southern Viet Nam can have up to 30 dioxin "Hot spots" such as bien Hoa site of a large U.S. air base has spilled where spread some 7,000 gallons of Agent Orange and was. Vietnamese officials say Schechter's study adds evidence that a massive environmental disaster caused the United States and victims owes compensation. "I think the figure should be very, very large," says Nguyen trong Nhan, President of the Red Cross Viet Nam. "We have more than one million victims so there should be many billions of dollars."

So far, nothing has offered the United States. The US veterans are Administration $1,000 per month to former American soldiers over, suspended the dioxin."It's so arrogant," laments Chuck Searcy, humanitarian aid workers in Saigon in 1967 and 1968 as U.S. Army intelligence specialist served."Why not use the same standard support to the Vietnamese to?"U.S. Veterans sued for compensation; Nhan which says Red Cross President, a group of Vietnamese by legal action of its own filing a class action lawsuit against the U.S. Government are prepared.

The scientific community, however, shared remains on how much damage - did Agent Orange and Hanoi of may be compelling to blame for the lack of evidence.Crippled children make compelling anecdotes, but the Communist regime in the past has blocked scientific studies from outside researchers."The Government says routinely birth rates are high in sprayed areas, but it refuses release verifiable statistics.""" You can just say not there is a bunch of malformed babies, Agent Orange must "," says Schechter."There are a lot hard scientific work to be done."

"This work can dynamics with this week Conference gewinnen.Klarere data could within a year or two with two countries kommen.Wenn scientists who confirm wartime defoliation program made millions sick, that could USA finally shamed grant in compensation."America this problem caused so moral responsibility should take ", says Ngoc his Tochter.Leider weighs morality - science - often poorly mixed up with policy.


View the original article here

Report shows that organic farming is better for wildlife

Error in deserializing body of reply message for operation 'Translate'. The maximum string content length quota (8192) has been exceeded while reading XML data. This quota may be increased by changing the MaxStringContentLength property on the XmlDictionaryReaderQuotas object used when creating the XML reader. Line 2, position 8057.
Error in deserializing body of reply message for operation 'Translate'. The maximum string content length quota (8192) has been exceeded while reading XML data. This quota may be increased by changing the MaxStringContentLength property on the XmlDictionaryReaderQuotas object used when creating the XML reader. Line 1, position 9094.
A new report written by staff from English Nature and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds reviewed 76 studies and found that there is more wildlife on organic farms than on conventional farms.

A new report written by staff from English Nature and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds reviewed 76 studies and found that there is more wildlife on organic farms than on conventional farms.

The report stresses that “the intensification and expansion of modern agriculture is amongst the greatest current threats to worldwide biodiversity. Over the last quarter of the twentieth century, dramatic declines in both range and abundance of many species associated with farmland have been reported in Europe… During the next 50 years, global agricultural expansion threatens to impact worldwide biodiversity on an unprecedented scale that may rival climate change in its significance”.

The report found that:

There are more birds, butterflies, beetles, bats and wild flowers on organic farms than conventional farms. Many of these differences apply to species known to have experienced declines in range or abundance as a consequence of agricultural intensification, a significant number of which are now the subject of direct conservation action (e.g. skylark, lapwing, greater and lesser horseshoe bat, corn buttercup). Organic management provides a clear advantage over agri-environment schemes because the farm as a whole is subject to organic standards, rather than limited areas under these schemes. Organic farming could play a significant role in increasing wildlife across lowland farmland in Europe.

Peter Melchett, the Soil Associations Policy Director said: "The scientific case for the wildlife benefits of organic farming is now settled and beyond doubt. People feel powerless in the face of environmental disasters like the loss of wildlife from the British countryside over the last thirty years. Everyone assumes that reversing such destruction will be painful and unpleasant. Not any more. Anyone can enjoy fresh, tasty organic food from Britain, knowing that they are also helping British birds, bees, bats, beetles and butterflies.

“The results confirm what organic farmers have seen on their farms for decades: conversion to organic means more wildlife, a greater variety of wildlife, and more of the wildlife species that have declined on non-organic farms over the last 50 years. The results fully justify the Governments decision to pay organic farmers twice as much as non-organic farmers under the new agri-environment schemes to be launched next year.”

The Soil Association welcomes the publication of this review, which confirms the findings of a Soil Association report published in May 2000 (The Biodiversity Benefits of Organic Farming). The Soil Association report reviewed all the known studies that compared the levels of wildlife on organic and conventional farms and found that overall organic farms support substantially higher levels of wildlife in lowland areas, particularly of those wildlife groups which are declining.

Key extracts from the EN/RSPB report (Soil Association emphasis):

p4 "During the next 50 years, global agricultural expansion threatens to impact worldwide biodiversity on an unprecedented scale that may rival climate change in its significance for the persistence of a panoply of species … A wealth of evidence now points to agricultural intensification as the principal cause of the widespread declines in European farmland bird populations..."

p7 With the exception of one piece of research "all of the studies investigating the flora of arable and mixed farming systems recorded higher weed abundance and species richness in fields under organic management, regardless of the arable crop being grown (e.g. mean number of weed species in both margins and cereal fields was more than twice as high under organic management ... In several studies, fields under organic management held considerably more rare and/or declining species ... " including including red hemp-nettle, corn spurrey, cornflower and corn buttercup.

p11 "Evidence from comparative studies under arable regimes indicated a general trend for higher earthworm abundance under organic management." One study "reported higher earthworm abundance (almost twice the density) and species diversity, both in-field and within grass margins, in organic than conventional fields."

p13 One study "recorded a significantly higher total abundance of butterflies on organic than conventional farms, in both crop-edges and field boundaries and in both years of the study - a direct result of a greater abundance of non-pest species on organic farms (up to twice the mean density found on conventional farms). In contrast, the two major pest species (large white Pieris brassicae and small white P. rapae) showed no significant difference in abundance between systems."

pp14/15 "Beetle communities are the most commonly studied animal group in comparisons of farming systems. Eleven studies have focussed on beetle populations, with a further ten recording abundance and species richness as part of wider studies, all but two in arable habitats. Twelve studies reported a generally higher abundance, and some evidence for greater species richness, of carabids [beetles] on organically managed fields ..... with four studies indicating the reverse."

p18 One study "investigated bat activity and species richness using a paired farm (organic/conventional) design. Both total bat activity (all species) and foraging activity were significantly higher on organic farms (by 61% and 84% respectively), suggesting that bats were actively selecting organically managed habitats ..".

p19 "Five major studies have compared bird communities as a whole on organic and conventional farmland. All five assessed bird abundance and/or species richness, primarily during the summer, with one also examining nest density and nesting success. All five studies reported greater avian [bird] abundance and/or species richness on organic than conventional farms, although there was some inter-study variation .... Consistencies between the two European studies included higher densities of skylark, blackbird and greenfinch on organic sites" and another study "found 31 species to be significantly more abundant on organic than conventional farms, with only three showing the opposite trend. Of those species showing greater abundance on organic farms, many had declined nationally over the previous two decades (e.g. lapwing, linnet, corn bunting)."

p20 In one study "Skylark territory density was generally found to be greater in organic rather than conventional fields (more than double within cereal fields), with some evidence that nesting success was also greater in organic fields".

p25 The majority of the 76 studies reviewed in this paper clearly demonstrate that species abundance and/or richness, across a wide-range of taxa, tend to be higher on organic farms than on locally representative conventional farms (Table 1). Of particular importance from a conservation perspective is that many of these differences apply to species known to have experienced declines in range and/or abundance as a consequence of past agricultural intensification, a significant number of which are now the subject of direct conservation legislation (e.g. skylark, lapwing, greater and lesser horseshoe bat, corn buttercup Ranunculus arvensis and red hemp-nettle are all UK government Biodiversity Action Plan species). These biodiversity benefits are likely to derive from the specific management practices employed within organic systems (Appendix 1), which are either absent or only rarely utilized in the majority of conventional systems

p27 ... this review indicates that the biodiversity benefits of organic management are likely to accrue through the provision of a greater quantity/quality of both crop and non-crop habitat than on conventional farms.

p28 In the UK, agri-environment schemes (AESs) such as Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs), the Countryside Stewardship Scheme (CSS) and the Rural Stewardship Scheme (RSS) (in England and Scotland) and ‘Tir Gofal (in Wales) seek to provide financial incentives to (primarily conventional) farmers to undertake management practices falling broadly into the three categories outlined above (e.g. Ovenden et al., 1998; Vickery et al., 2004). These schemes have proved successful, at least where management options are ecologically and geographically well targeted (e.g. Peach et al., 2001; Swash et al., 2000). However, organic management currently provides a clear advantage over such schemes in that the farm as a whole is subject to the organic standards, rather than the limited areas on a conventional farm that may be exposed to environmental management under AESs.

p29 ... the available evidence indicates that organic farming could play a significant role in increasing biodiversity across lowland farmland in Europe.


View the original article here

Friday, February 11, 2011

The United States to fund DDT spraying in Uganda

The U.S. Government is prepared, the spraying of DDT to fight malaria finance.

U.S. Ambassador, said Steven Browning, after the Government in place the necessary structures and plans for the safe use of the insecticide is, would the campaign to support it.

The World Health Organization recommended recently wider use of DDT in Africa Malaria to eliminate.

Browning said the United States regulations required an environmental impact statement before the acquisition or use of all pesticides, DDT including to support and other used for indoor residual spraying (IRS).

IRS includes syringes in walls to kill malaria-carrying mosquitoes.

Tan, said the rules pesticide use, particularly in the areas stressed a comprehensive mechanism to safe use training staff to ensure insecticide transport, storage, monitoring the environment and human health and evaluation.

If the Uganda Government to use DDT in his indoor spraying program funds requested and if our strict requirements are met, is the United States Fund for DDT use in Uganda's spraying campaigns bieten.Als now, no such application has been made, "he said."

Browning said Wednesday at the opening of a two day Forum, the Government and the public on malaria control and prevention Speke resort offer Cottbus of independent advice.

Over 50 top scientists, including former Vice President Dr. Specioza Wandira, Uganda National Academy of Sciences (UNAS) and the United States attended academies Forum jointly organized by the national.


View the original article here

The Zambia experiment - GM vs organic

Translate Request has too much data
Parameter name: request
Translate Request has too much data
Parameter name: request
With 86 percent of the country below the poverty line, the southern African nation of Zambia seems an unlikely candidate to face down the United States - and corporate giant Monsanto - over genetically modified seeds.

When the government rejected the US offer in August, many commentators described themove as a bold step aimed at asserting the countrys national pride.

But with the UN World Food Programme (WFP) estimating that nearly three million peoplefaced starvation in Zambia, the rejection was seen by some Western observers as unreasonable- the UK Financial Times newspaper called it "absurd".

Now, following strong international pressure, a re-think is in the offing.

It is not as if there has been no public discussion about genetically modified organisms(GMOs). On 12 August the government organised a public debate in order to gauge thescientific evidence and other views. The debate highlighted deep divisions among Zambianscientists on the benefits of biotechnology.

The government voiced two concerns: initially, it highlighted the possibility of ill-health resulting from consumption of GM food. It later added an economic concern,saying GM crops may end up contaminating local non-GM crops and endanger Zambian agriculturalexports to Europe, which maintain strict guidelines on GMOs.

These discussions were held against a backdrop of little media coverage of GMOs. Accordingto one media content analysis, only four newspaper articles appeared on the issuethroughout 2000. Almost all covered biotechnology in a general way, with little localcontextualisation.

Focus group discussions organised by Panos in 2001, in conjunction with the ZambiaNational Farmers Union (ZNFU), showed that farmers too were divided on the issue.While most small-scale farmers wanted more information on the subject, commercialfarmers were opposed to GMOs, citing as their main reason the possibility of losingEuropean markets for their existing non-GM exports.

The European Union accounts for 53 per cent of Zambian exports - mostly made up ofprocessed and refined foods, primary agricultural commodities and floricultural, horticultural,animal and leather products.

Largely based on this trade-related rationale, ZNFU was among those organisationsthat welcomed the governments rejection of the US food consignment - others includethe Organic Farming Association and the Jesuit Centre for Theological Reflection.

The scientific case for rejection is led by Dr Mwananyanda Mbikusita-Lewanika of theNational Institute for Scientific and Industrial Research. He says there is compellingevidence that GMOs would have a negative impact on the local breeds such as millet,sorghum and traditional maize, with the possibility of causing an ecological problemthat would affect farming.

Dr Lewanika says that the government would do well to err on the side of caution byinvoking the precautionary principle clause of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety,arguing that his fears are borne out by a peer-reviewed study that showed GM plantsto have had adverse ecological effects on Mexican local maize varieties.

According to the precautionary principle, even if there is no clear scientific evidencethat a seed type is dangerous, the government can decide to take the precaution ofrefusing it, if there is likelihood that it might be harmful.

Quoting research projects from around the world focusing on potential ill effects,such as toxicity, resistance to antibiotics, allergies, loss of biodiversity, andresistance to pesticides, Dr Lewanika builds a case for rejecting GMOs.

Dr Lewanika lays down two basic preconditions for allowing GMOs into the country.Firstly, he says, there is a need to develop a national biosafety framework to regulatebiotechnology and GMOs. Second, the government must build the capacity to detect andmonitor GMO substances in foodstuffs coming into Zambia.

Alongside this dominant position has emerged a pro-GMO perspective. The proponentsare largely drawn from a pool of University of Zambia (UNZA) scientists, among whomare some who have been working with South Africas Muffy Koch, a senior microbiologistwho is serving on the South African governments working group developing GMO regulationsand drafting the countrys position paper for the International Biosafety Protocol.

Foremost among these are Dr Luke Mumba, dean of the School of Natural Sciences, andDr Fastone Goma, a medical doctor in private practice and research scientist in theSchool of Medicine.

Dr Mumba, quoting research sources from around the world, argues that "in the developedworld there is clear evidence that the use of GM crops has resulted in significantbenefits", including higher crop yields, reduced farm costs, increased profits andimprovements in the environment.

He also asserts that research focusing on "second generation" transgenic crops - thosemore to do with increased nutritional and/or industrial traits - has led to such beneficialproducts as iron- and vitamin-enriched rice, potatoes with higher starch content,edible vaccines in maize and potatoes and maize varieties able to grow in poor conditions.

In drought-prone Zambia, says Dr Mumba, hardy, genetically-modified maize would bea useful contribution to ensuring food security.

"…Given the importance people place on the food they eat," adds Dr Mumba, "policiesregarding GM crops will have to be based on an open and honest debate involving awide cross-section of society".

But Dr Mumba and Dr Goma have complained of having been left out of the planning committeefor the national debate held in August.

Both suggest that, if indeed it is true that GM maize might contaminate local cropvarieties, the GM maize grain should be milled so as to ensure that it is consumedby the starving masses without there being the possibility of storing any of it forthe next farming season. The position is shared by ZNFU.

Although most of the debate has been confined to scientific polemics, there has beensome ideological-nationalistic opposition to GMOs. Led largely by Women for Changesexecutive director, Emily Sikazwe, this argument suggests that the US government,pressured by huge seed transnational corporations, has an interest in establishingfuture markets on the African continent for its GM food exports. Sikazwe says theUS is not willing to offer non-GM maize in place of GM food aid.

What is clear from the debate so far, though, is the absence of the voices of themost affected people in rural areas. Bishop Peter Ndhlovu, the head of the Bible GospelChurch in Africa who has visited hunger-stricken villages, says: "The food crisisin rural Zambia is more grave than can be imagined from an urban perspective."

This echoes many concerns that the debate has been so urban-centred and elite-basedthat it has largely ignored the concerns and urgent needs of the rural poor.

The emphasis on scientific evidence as a basis for policy-making has rendered thepublic debate elitist. Those who are not schooled in science have largely been onthe sidelines, apart from some vocal civil society organisations.

While there is obviously a desire to learn more about the science of GMOs, there isincreasingly a political-economic movement that seeks to highlight the issue of unequalpower relations between rich and poor nations as well as the role of multinationalcorporations in perpetuating research and development that may seek to scientificallyjustify GM food.

It is also clear that there is a general lack of information about GMOs, especiallyamong rural populations, including small-scale farmers.

There are signs that the government has actively marginalised the voices of thosewho would support GMOs. This trend is also evident in the largely one-sided way themedia have covered the issue in Zambia, favouring those opposed to introducing GMtechnology into the country. The policy dilemma confronting Zambia over whether ornot to accept genetically-modified maize, offered as food aid by the United States,has thrown up urgent questions over the way - and the extent to which - debate overthe issue has been allowed in the country.

When the government rejected the US offer in August, many commentators described themove as a bold step aimed at asserting the countrys national pride.

But with the UN World Food Programme (WFP) estimating that nearly three million peoplefaced starvation in Zambia, the rejection was seen by some Western observers as unreasonable- the UK Financial Times newspaper called it "absurd".

Now, following strong international pressure, a re-think is in the offing.

It is not as if there has been no public discussion about genetically modified organisms(GMOs). On 12 August the government organised a public debate in order to gauge thescientific evidence and other views. The debate highlighted deep divisions among Zambianscientists on the benefits of biotechnology.

The government voiced two concerns: initially, it highlighted the possibility of ill-health resulting from consumption of GM food. It later added an economic concern,saying GM crops may end up contaminating local non-GM crops and endanger Zambian agriculturalexports to Europe, which maintain strict guidelines on GMOs.

These discussions were held against a backdrop of little media coverage of GMOs. Accordingto one media content analysis, only four newspaper articles appeared on the issuethroughout 2000. Almost all covered biotechnology in a general way, with little localcontextualisation.

Focus group discussions organised by Panos in 2001, in conjunction with the ZambiaNational Farmers Union (ZNFU), showed that farmers too were divided on the issue.While most small-scale farmers wanted more information on the subject, commercialfarmers were opposed to GMOs, citing as their main reason the possibility of losingEuropean markets for their existing non-GM exports.

The European Union accounts for 53 per cent of Zambian exports - mostly made up ofprocessed and refined foods, primary agricultural commodities and floricultural, horticultural,animal and leather products.

Largely based on this trade-related rationale, ZNFU was among those organisationsthat welcomed the governments rejection of the US food consignment - others includethe Organic Farming Association and the Jesuit Centre for Theological Reflection.

The scientific case for rejection is led by Dr Mwananyanda Mbikusita-Lewanika of theNational Institute for Scientific and Industrial Research. He says there is compellingevidence that GMOs would have a negative impact on the local breeds such as millet,sorghum and traditional maize, with the possibility of causing an ecological problemthat would affect farming.

Dr Lewanika says that the government would do well to err on the side of caution byinvoking the precautionary principle clause of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety,arguing that his fears are borne out by a peer-reviewed study that showed GM plantsto have had adverse ecological effects on Mexican local maize varieties.

According to the precautionary principle, even if there is no clear scientific evidencethat a seed type is dangerous, the government can decide to take the precaution ofrefusing it, if there is likelihood that it might be harmful.

Quoting research projects from around the world focusing on potential ill effects,such as toxicity, resistance to antibiotics, allergies, loss of biodiversity, andresistance to pesticides, Dr Lewanika builds a case for rejecting GMOs.

Dr Lewanika lays down two basic preconditions for allowing GMOs into the country.Firstly, he says, there is a need to develop a national biosafety framework to regulatebiotechnology and GMOs. Second, the government must build the capacity to detect andmonitor GMO substances in foodstuffs coming into Zambia.

Alongside this dominant position has emerged a pro-GMO perspective. The proponentsare largely drawn from a pool of University of Zambia (UNZA) scientists, among whomare some who have been working with South Africas Muffy Koch, a senior microbiologistwho is serving on the South African governments working group developing GMO regulationsand drafting the countrys position paper for the International Biosafety Protocol.

Foremost among these are Dr Luke Mumba, dean of the School of Natural Sciences, andDr Fastone Goma, a medical doctor in private practice and research scientist in theSchool of Medicine.

Dr Mumba, quoting research sources from around the world, argues that "in the developedworld there is clear evidence that the use of GM crops has resulted in significantbenefits", including higher crop yields, reduced farm costs, increased profits andimprovements in the environment.

He also asserts that research focusing on "second generation" transgenic crops - thosemore to do with increased nutritional and/or industrial traits - has led to such beneficialproducts as iron- and vitamin-enriched rice, potatoes with higher starch content,edible vaccines in maize and potatoes and maize varieties able to grow in poor conditions.

In drought-prone Zambia, says Dr Mumba, hardy, genetically-modified maize would bea useful contribution to ensuring food security.

"…Given the importance people place on the food they eat," adds Dr Mumba, "policiesregarding GM crops will have to be based on an open and honest debate involving awide cross-section of society".

But Dr Mumba and Dr Goma have complained of having been left out of the planning committeefor the national debate held in August.

Both suggest that, if indeed it is true that GM maize might contaminate local cropvarieties, the GM maize grain should be milled so as to ensure that it is consumedby the starving masses without there being the possibility of storing any of it forthe next farming season. The position is shared by ZNFU.

Although most of the debate has been confined to scientific polemics, there has beensome ideological-nationalistic opposition to GMOs. Led largely by Women for Changesexecutive director, Emily Sikazwe, this argument suggests that the US government,pressured by huge seed transnational corporations, has an interest in establishingfuture markets on the African continent for its GM food exports. Sikazwe says theUS is not willing to offer non-GM maize in place of GM food aid.

What is clear from the debate so far, though, is the absence of the voices of themost affected people in rural areas. Bishop Peter Ndhlovu, the head of the Bible GospelChurch in Africa who has visited hunger-stricken villages, says: "The food crisisin rural Zambia is more grave than can be imagined from an urban perspective."

This echoes many concerns that the debate has been so urban-centred and elite-basedthat it has largely ignored the concerns and urgent needs of the rural poor.

The emphasis on scientific evidence as a basis for policy-making has rendered thepublic debate elitist. Those who are not schooled in science have largely been onthe sidelines, apart from some vocal civil society organisations.

While there is obviously a desire to learn more about the science of GMOs, there isincreasingly a political-economic movement that seeks to highlight the issue of unequalpower relations between rich and poor nations as well as the role of multinationalcorporations in perpetuating research and development that may seek to scientificallyjustify GM food.

It is also clear that there is a general lack of information about GMOs, especiallyamong rural populations, including small-scale farmers.

There are signs that the government has actively marginalised the voices of thosewho would support GMOs. This trend is also evident in the largely one-sided way themedia have covered the issue in Zambia, favouring those opposed to introducing GMtechnology into the country. The policy dilemma confronting Zambia over whether ornot to accept genetically-modified maize, offered as food aid by the United States,has thrown up urgent questions over the way - and the extent to which - debate overthe issue has been allowed in the country.

When the government rejected the US offer in August, many commentators described themove as a bold step aimed at asserting the countrys national pride.

But with the UN World Food Programme (WFP) estimating that nearly three million peoplefaced starvation in Zambia, the rejection was seen by some Western observers as unreasonable- the UK Financial Times newspaper called it "absurd".

Now, following strong international pressure, a re-think is in the offing.

It is not as if there has been no public discussion about genetically modified organisms(GMOs). On 12 August the government organised a public debate in order to gauge thescientific evidence and other views. The debate highlighted deep divisions among Zambianscientists on the benefits of biotechnology.

The government voiced two concerns: initially, it highlighted the possibility of ill-health resulting from consumption of GM food. It later added an economic concern,saying GM crops may end up contaminating local non-GM crops and endanger Zambian agriculturalexports to Europe, which maintain strict guidelines on GMOs.

These discussions were held against a backdrop of little media coverage of GMOs. Accordingto one media content analysis, only four newspaper articles appeared on the issuethroughout 2000. Almost all covered biotechnology in a general way, with little localcontextualisation.

Focus group discussions organised by Panos in 2001, in conjunction with the ZambiaNational Farmers Union (ZNFU), showed that farmers too were divided on the issue.While most small-scale farmers wanted more information on the subject, commercialfarmers were opposed to GMOs, citing as their main reason the possibility of losingEuropean markets for their existing non-GM exports.

The European Union accounts for 53 per cent of Zambian exports - mostly made up ofprocessed and refined foods, primary agricultural commodities and floricultural, horticultural,animal and leather products.

Largely based on this trade-related rationale, ZNFU was among those organisationsthat welcomed the governments rejection of the US food consignment - others includethe Organic Farming Association and the Jesuit Centre for Theological Reflection.

The scientific case for rejection is led by Dr Mwananyanda Mbikusita-Lewanika of theNational Institute for Scientific and Industrial Research. He says there is compellingevidence that GMOs would have a negative impact on the local breeds such as millet,sorghum and traditional maize, with the possibility of causing an ecological problemthat would affect farming.

Dr Lewanika says that the government would do well to err on the side of caution byinvoking the precautionary principle clause of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety,arguing that his fears are borne out by a peer-reviewed study that showed GM plantsto have had adverse ecological effects on Mexican local maize varieties.

According to the precautionary principle, even if there is no clear scientific evidencethat a seed type is dangerous, the government can decide to take the precaution ofrefusing it, if there is likelihood that it might be harmful.

Quoting research projects from around the world focusing on potential ill effects,such as toxicity, resistance to antibiotics, allergies, loss of biodiversity, andresistance to pesticides, Dr Lewanika builds a case for rejecting GMOs.

Dr Lewanika lays down two basic preconditions for allowing GMOs into the country.Firstly, he says, there is a need to develop a national biosafety framework to regulatebiotechnology and GMOs. Second, the government must build the capacity to detect andmonitor GMO substances in foodstuffs coming into Zambia.

Alongside this dominant position has emerged a pro-GMO perspective. The proponentsare largely drawn from a pool of University of Zambia (UNZA) scientists, among whomare some who have been working with South Africas Muffy Koch, a senior microbiologistwho is serving on the South African governments working group developing GMO regulationsand drafting the countrys position paper for the International Biosafety Protocol.

Foremost among these are Dr Luke Mumba, dean of the School of Natural Sciences, andDr Fastone Goma, a medical doctor in private practice and research scientist in theSchool of Medicine.

Dr Mumba, quoting research sources from around the world, argues that "in the developedworld there is clear evidence that the use of GM crops has resulted in significantbenefits", including higher crop yields, reduced farm costs, increased profits andimprovements in the environment.

He also asserts that research focusing on "second generation" transgenic crops - thosemore to do with increased nutritional and/or industrial traits - has led to such beneficialproducts as iron- and vitamin-enriched rice, potatoes with higher starch content,edible vaccines in maize and potatoes and maize varieties able to grow in poor conditions.

In drought-prone Zambia, says Dr Mumba, hardy, genetically-modified maize would bea useful contribution to ensuring food security.

"…Given the importance people place on the food they eat," adds Dr Mumba, "policiesregarding GM crops will have to be based on an open and honest debate involving awide cross-section of society".

But Dr Mumba and Dr Goma have complained of having been left out of the planning committeefor the national debate held in August.

Both suggest that, if indeed it is true that GM maize might contaminate local cropvarieties, the GM maize grain should be milled so as to ensure that it is consumedby the starving masses without there being the possibility of storing any of it forthe next farming season. The position is shared by ZNFU.

Although most of the debate has been confined to scientific polemics, there has beensome ideological-nationalistic opposition to GMOs. Led largely by Women for Changesexecutive director, Emily Sikazwe, this argument suggests that the US government,pressured by huge seed transnational corporations, has an interest in establishingfuture markets on the African continent for its GM food exports. Sikazwe says theUS is not willing to offer non-GM maize in place of GM food aid.

What is clear from the debate so far, though, is the absence of the voices of themost affected people in rural areas. Bishop Peter Ndhlovu, the head of the Bible GospelChurch in Africa who has visited hunger-stricken villages, says: "The food crisisin rural Zambia is more grave than can be imagined from an urban perspective."

This echoes many concerns that the debate has been so urban-centred and elite-basedthat it has largely ignored the concerns and urgent needs of the rural poor.

The emphasis on scientific evidence as a basis for policy-making has rendered thepublic debate elitist. Those who are not schooled in science have largely been onthe sidelines, apart from some vocal civil society organisations.

While there is obviously a desire to learn more about the science of GMOs, there isincreasingly a political-economic movement that seeks to highlight the issue of unequalpower relations between rich and poor nations as well as the role of multinationalcorporations in perpetuating research and development that may seek to scientificallyjustify GM food.

It is also clear that there is a general lack of information about GMOs, especiallyamong rural populations, including small-scale farmers.

There are signs that the government has actively marginalised the voices of thosewho would support GMOs. This trend is also evident in the largely one-sided way themedia have covered the issue in Zambia, favouring those opposed to introducing GMtechnology into the country.


View the original article here