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