Don't know what wakes me up at 4 A.M. everyday, but I often listen to CBC Radio overnight. There's now a Radio Australia program on at that hour, and today (Aug 3) a really interesting interview with a man called Dr. James Barnard. It was all about phosphorus (stay with me this is important). He not only presented why we should be thinking about this (necessary component to grow food, only a habdful of countries producing it, limited supplies of a non-renewable resource, etc) but he's worked out a way of recovering nutrients like phosphorus from waste water. That's huge. So a bit more on phosphorus and a link to the interview, and a piece on regulating Micky D, not likely to happen with the teabaggers in charge now in Washington.
http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/connectasia/stories/201108/s3284566.htm
(look for the "Listen to Latest Program" button on the right.. choose Part 2 of 3/08/2011 show, and about 60% through that section)
http://howestreet.com/2011/07/peak-phosphate/
Peak Phosphate Ahead?
July 28, 2011 •
If you ask a biologist or organic chemist what the necessary elements for life are here on earth, he or she will probably reply “CHON,” meaning carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen. But then the answer will quickly be qualified with, “And you need sulfur and phosphorus too.”
It’s that last element, phosphorus, that I’d like to discuss today because in addition to being an essential component of DNA, RNA, and ATP/ADP, it also plays a major role in our global food supply – and we may be facing a shortage that could spell the end of cheap food.
To quote a recent article from Foreign Policy magazine:
Our dwindling supply of phosphorus, a primary component underlying the growth of global agricultural production, threatens to disrupt food security across the planet during the coming century. This is the gravest natural resource shortage you’ve never heard of.
Phosphorus is one of the three macronutrients that crops require in large amounts in order to grow (the other two being nitrogen and potassium, neither of which is facing a supply issue). In nature, we generally find phosphorus in the form of a phosphate, in which each phosphorus atom is bonded to four oxygen atoms. Phosphate is present at relatively high concentrations in “phosphate rock,” the geological deposits that are mined in fertilizer production. It’s this phosphate rock that many now worry is in short supply. The term “peak phosphate” has even crept its way into the agricultural sector’s lexicon.
Studies from the Global Phosphorus Research Initiative (GPRI) estimate that peak phosphate could occur by 2030, and that high-grade reserves could be depleted in as few as 50 years.
Obviously, fertilizers are vitally important to food production, and a phosphate shortage could lead to skyrocketing agricultural prices and food insecurity. If we are facing a phosphate shortage, the situation seems all the more grim when one considers some of the factors affecting supply and demand for food globally.
For starters, the global population is growing by about 75 million people per year. That means we have to figure out how to feed a new population the size of Egypt’s or Germany’s each year as the existing supply of arable land per capita declines. One way to try to solve this problem is to convert land from other uses to farmland. The problem is that this process requires a tremendous amount of phosphate, further weighing on what many worry is a dwindling supply.
What’s more, as the Asian middle class shifts to a more meat-based diet, demand for grain to produce that meat (and thus demand for phosphate to grow that grain) will skyrocket. Consider the example from Japan: Its meat consumption per capita jumped by about 1,000% over the past fifty years as it grew into a developed country. If the rest of Asia followed that example, demand for phosphate would go through the roof, as it requires anywhere from 3-6 lbs of grain to produce 1 lb of pork and 7-13 lbs of grain to finish and produce 1 lb of beef.
Further complicating the issue is that the bulk of the world’s phosphate is tied up in just five countries. According to the GPRI, 90% of the world’s remaining phosphate rock reserves is controlled by China, Morocco, S. Africa, Jordan, and the U.S. Imagine how quickly these countries would ban phosphate exports in the face of a food crisis, leaving the rest of the world with basically no way to grow crops.
This discussion would suggest that phosphate might make a compelling speculation in the years ahead. And it might. But I do have to warn you that not everybody views the supply situation as dire.
The International Fertilizer Development Center (IFDC) recently carried out a study that reassessed the phosphate rock reserves and resources of phosphate-producing countries. This study, released late last year, concluded that global phosphate rock resources suitable for phosphate-based fertilizers were far more extensive than previously estimated. According to the study, at current extraction rates, these resources would be available for several centuries. Then, earlier this year, mostly based on the IFDC report, the USGS upped its reserve estimate for Morocco and Western Sahara from 5.7 billion metric tons to 50 billion metric tons, which contributed substantially to an upward revision in global reserves from 16 to 65 billion metric tons. Meanwhile, mine production of phosphate rock reached 176 million metric tons last year… So the situation may not be as ominous as many in the agricultural sector fear.
Nevertheless, whatever the “real” supply situation of phosphate is, we can still be fairly certain that demand is going to continue to increase as the global population grows and the emerging world shifts to a more meat-rich diet. So plays in phosphate are probably a worthwhile area for investors to explore.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/02/when-big-food-makes-its-own-rules/?ref=opinion
Opinionator - A Gathering of Opinion From Around the Web
August 2, 2011
Can Big Food Regulate Itself? Fat Chance
By MARK BITTMAN
Mark Bittman on food and all things related.
Life would be so much easier if we could only set our own guidelines. You could define the average weight as 10 pounds higher than your own and, voilà, no more obesity! You could raise the speed limit to 90 miles per hour and never worry about a ticket. You could call a cholesterol level of 250 “normal” and celebrate with a bag of fried pork rinds. (You could even claim that cutting government spending would increase employment, but that might be going too far.) You could certainly turn junk food into something “healthy.”
A Happy Meal with a piece of apple is still a box of branded, overpriced junk food.
That’s what the food industry is doing.
Back in May I wrote about the voluntary guidelines for marketing junk food to kids developed by an interagency group headed by the Federal Trade Commission. These non-binding suggestions ask that the industry market real food to kids instead of the junk they so famously favor selling. But the industry argues that the recommendations are effectively mandatory because non-compliance would lead to retaliation and eliminate all food advertising to adolescents, as well as 74,000 jobs.
On the phone last week, Representative Rosa DeLauro, a Democrat from Connecticut, told me that even though the guidelines are “without teeth,” the pushback from the industry has been formidable: “We have seen political showmanship, misinformation about the impact of these voluntary guidelines, insistence that the industry has been successful in self-regulation and that these efforts would violate the First Amendment.”
That voluntary guidelines could curb the right to free speech is absurd, but not as wacky as letting the industry set its own standards. Yet that’s what has happened: The Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative (CFBAI), a group of food manufacturers that includes McDonald’s, Burger King, PepsiCo and Kraft Foods came up with its own guidelines defining foods healthy enough to market to kids. (It’s worth mentioning another group, too — if just to admire its name, The Sensible Food Policy Coalition — led by PepsiCo, Kellogg’s, General Mills and other big companies, evidently created solely to prevent the voluntary guidelines from gaining a foothold.)
CFBAI is a champion of “self-regulation,” which means repeating a series of mantras that include “facts” like “there is no such thing as good food and bad food,” or that Cookie Crisp cereal (or dozens of others) “can be a part of a balanced diet,” all the while micro-adjusting hyper-processed food so that “more fiber” and “less sugar” aren’t outright lies, even though the food itself can hardly be claimed to be “less junky.” With self-regulation, even Kraft Singles can be considered “part of a balanced diet.”
And guess what? In general, the companies fare well in meeting their own standards (which, pathetically, the F.T.C. sees as a “significant advance”): two-thirds of the products they advertise are A-O.K., with the remainder requiring just modest adjustments. See? Mission accomplished! Corn Pops are now healthy!
Another example: last week, McDonald’s promised a minor tweak of its Happy Meal, (which, of course, “can be part of a well-balanced diet for kids”) adding a few apple slices, removing a few French fries and making milk — chocolate or regular — a more prominent option. It still comes with a toy, and soda will remain a choice. (I’m not sure anyone is claiming soda is part of a healthy diet, but stay tuned.) The move received widespread praise, with Michelle Obama leading the cheers.
Self-regulation may be immediate, non-threatening and magical, but it doesn’t work.
But despite the seal of approval of our first lady/self-appointed nutrition expert, a Happy Meal with a piece of apple is still a box of branded, overpriced junk food sold not by its value but by its marketing scheme. (Forty percent of McDonald’s advertising budget is spent on marketing to kids.)
This is not “progress,” but a public relations victory along with — as Michele Simon points out in her blog — an attempt to short-circuit regulations and laws that have some guts, like the one in San Francisco that forbids the inclusion of toys in meals that don’t meet reasonable nutrition standards. The last thing McDonald’s or any like corporation wants to see is a strong, activist government protecting consumers, whether or not they’re capable of adult judgment or are habituated (a harsher word is “addicted”) to self-destructive products.
Self-regulation may be immediate, non-threatening and magical, but it doesn’t work. A study published earlier this week in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine by Dr. Lisa Powell and other researchers at the University of Illinois at Chicago tracked changes in exposure for all food, beverage and restaurant TV ads seen by kids from 2 to 11 years old, from 2003 to 2009. It found that, overall, daily exposure to the ads declined but the percentage among companies that had pledged to self-regulate was higher than those that didn’t. And in 2009, 86 percent of these ads still featured unhealthy foods.
What’s worse? Self-serving self-regulation or toothless guidelines set by an agency that appears to be complicit in maintaining the status quo? Hard to say. What’s better is having grass roots movements that drive agencies toward real regulation.
Wednesday, 3 August 2011
Saturday, 30 July 2011
Fishkill: Noun or Verb
It's understandable, but unacceptable. Last week's monsoon-like rain led to an extensive fishkill in three rivers in Western PEI. There's been the usual hand-wringing and accusations, and promises to fully investigate and make improvements. I feel sad and discouraged for the watershed management groups who volunteer so much time and can see stocking efforts lost in a heartbeat, for the many farmers who have taken steps to farm more responsibly but will be tarred with the same brush as the few who haven't, and for people who expect that whomever is responsible (the final verdict isn't in, but all signs point to fungicide, possibly insecticide runoff from a potato field) will be held accountable, because that too is unlikely. These fishkills are difficult to investigate (dead fish are found hours even days after they died, and often well away from where they were killed, water samples are diluted, etc. etc). Prosecution presents more challenges. Judges have been convinced that if farmers have the proper buffer zone (fifteen meters) and are following the same practices as other farmers, then they can't be held responsible.
Here are a few things I learned over the years:
1. Most farmers are very well aware that they're handling dangerous materials when they head out into the field with the sprayer, but as the Irish potato famine attested, if a farmer (conventional or organic) doesn't spray to prevent late blight (it's too late once the fungus lands on the potato leaf, these fungicides coat the leaves to kill the fungus spores blown in on the wind) then they won't have a crop to harvest, and the multiplication of spores will make them very unwelcome to their neighbours as well.
2. As potato farms got bigger to cope with low prices, farmers have little choice but to spray when they'd rather not: when the wind is blowing for example, or just before big rains are predicted. It's a bad excuse, but a legitimate one.
3. Organic farming in and of itself is no solution. The copper-based fungicides used by organic farmers to control late blight are just as dangerous to fish as the ones used by conventional farmers:
4. Unfortunately, hilling potatoes creates perfect gutter-like furrows that can move a lot of water and soil very quickly where there's any slope. One solution for this is something some farmers on PEI are using called a dammer-diker.
It creates a series of small reservoirs in the furrows that capture and hold runoff. Could this (should this) be mandatory equipment on sloping land around waterways??
5. I think the real solution is what's called a riparian zone around waterways. This upgrades the fifteen meter buffer zone to include shrubs and trees that can soak up runoff (not just pesticides but nitrates as well).
This is obviously a long-term project. Here's what I'm thinking: whether farmers like it or not, fifteen meters is the law, so maybe take the outside five meters for planting trees and shrubs. There is financial support to do this, and in fact the ALUS program will also make yearly payments if the outside 5 meters are turned into a riparian zone. I think this gives farmers some cover as well to continue to use the pesticides that are unfortunately absolutely necessary to staying in business, organic or not. If these pesticides remain on the field where they're needed rather than in waterways, then everyone and everything is better off.
6. And finally I wish all of this had been dealt with fifteen years ago when the Royal Commission on Land Use presented its report. There would have been a lot of upheaval, anger, and political fallout at the time, but maybe, just maybe the province would be better prepared to deal with more severe weather events from climate change, and the word fishkill might slowly be forgotten.
Here are a few things I learned over the years:
1. Most farmers are very well aware that they're handling dangerous materials when they head out into the field with the sprayer, but as the Irish potato famine attested, if a farmer (conventional or organic) doesn't spray to prevent late blight (it's too late once the fungus lands on the potato leaf, these fungicides coat the leaves to kill the fungus spores blown in on the wind) then they won't have a crop to harvest, and the multiplication of spores will make them very unwelcome to their neighbours as well.
2. As potato farms got bigger to cope with low prices, farmers have little choice but to spray when they'd rather not: when the wind is blowing for example, or just before big rains are predicted. It's a bad excuse, but a legitimate one.
3. Organic farming in and of itself is no solution. The copper-based fungicides used by organic farmers to control late blight are just as dangerous to fish as the ones used by conventional farmers:
4. Unfortunately, hilling potatoes creates perfect gutter-like furrows that can move a lot of water and soil very quickly where there's any slope. One solution for this is something some farmers on PEI are using called a dammer-diker.
It creates a series of small reservoirs in the furrows that capture and hold runoff. Could this (should this) be mandatory equipment on sloping land around waterways??
5. I think the real solution is what's called a riparian zone around waterways. This upgrades the fifteen meter buffer zone to include shrubs and trees that can soak up runoff (not just pesticides but nitrates as well).
This is obviously a long-term project. Here's what I'm thinking: whether farmers like it or not, fifteen meters is the law, so maybe take the outside five meters for planting trees and shrubs. There is financial support to do this, and in fact the ALUS program will also make yearly payments if the outside 5 meters are turned into a riparian zone. I think this gives farmers some cover as well to continue to use the pesticides that are unfortunately absolutely necessary to staying in business, organic or not. If these pesticides remain on the field where they're needed rather than in waterways, then everyone and everything is better off.
6. And finally I wish all of this had been dealt with fifteen years ago when the Royal Commission on Land Use presented its report. There would have been a lot of upheaval, anger, and political fallout at the time, but maybe, just maybe the province would be better prepared to deal with more severe weather events from climate change, and the word fishkill might slowly be forgotten.
Wednesday, 27 July 2011
Doing Real Work
We're just over half way through a three week stretch when Red Lane Gardens is open to the public. It's a fairly large (about 800 cultivars) garden specializing in daylillies, and run by my partner Nancy. The cold nights through June have set everything back about three weeks, and an apparently difficult tourism season means business is down by about fifty percent. There's lots of sweat equity (and labour) in the business so we'll survive, but I do worry about other operations counting on visitors to make their year.
When it comes to weather, and the business of farming, and fishing, people coming to the garden fall into two distinct camps: those with a direct involvement in primary industries quickly go into a rant about how discouraging and difficult things are. I try (not always successfully) to lay off those that have no connection to farming or fishing, because I don't want them leaving the garden thinking there's some crazy man claiming the end is near, and we don't ever want to go back there again.
There is a very smart writer from California (I'm trying to find the reference again) who wrote something that helps explain this divide (and something I wish I'd thought of). He said as long as people think their food comes from a supermarket, then they'll do everything they can to defend and support the economic system and structure that puts lots of reasonably priced (often cheap) food on the shelves: free trade, and corporate concentration in food processing, wholesaling and retailing. If consumers could really be convinced that food actually comes from farms, then they would be just as determined to defend and support primary producers, and demand from politicians that rural economies and the environment must be preserved. I know this argument will sound very simplistic to some, but I think he's on to something. The very slick marketing done by food retailers and processors essentially says "Don't think about where food comes from, just come to this store, or look for this product, and you and your family will be well fed." Almost everyone now can eat the way only royalty did on those historical dramas we see on TV. It's an extraordinary achievement, but I think one with serious consequences (see months of earlier posts as to why and yeah I'm a crazy guy and I do want you to come back to this blog, so I'll stop).
And here's a piece about food safety that raises lot of questions about this complex food system we live with:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/irradiation-and-the-ick-factor/?pagemode=print
Irradiation and the ‘Ick Factor’
By MARK BITTMAN
After the E. coli outbreak in Europe last month — which sickened more than 3000 people and killed at least 50 — it was impossible not to think about irradiation. “What if,” I asked myself, “those little fenugreek seeds had been irradiated?” Might there have been fewer deaths, fewer cases of hemolytic-uremic syndrome (essentially, kidney failure; there were 900), fewer tragic stories?
The answer is “yes.” But it’s not the only question.
When it comes to irradiation, you might need a primer. (I did.) Simply put, irradiation — first approved by the FDA in 1963 to control insects in wheat and flour — kills pathogens in food by passing radiation through it. It doesn’t make the food radioactive any more than passing X-rays through your body makes you radioactive; it just causes changes in the food. Proponents say those changes are beneficial: like killing E. coli viruses or salmonella bacteria. Opponents say they’re harmful: like destroying nutrients or creating damaging free radicals.
Many people are virulently for or against. Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, says that irradiation “could do for food what pasteurization has done for milk.” (The main difference between irradiation and pasteurization is the source of the energy used to kill microbes.) Wenonah Hauter, the executive director of Food & Water Watch — which calls irradiation “a gross failure” — told me it was “expensive and impractical, a band-aid on the real problems with our food system.”
There are a few people in the middle. Former assistant secretary of the Department of Agriculture (USDA) Carol Tucker-Foreman is mostly anti-, but said that if she ran a nursing home or a children’s hospital — a place where people with weaker-than-average immune systems were cared for — it “might be something I wanted to do.” Marion Nestle, a New York University nutrition professor and the author of “Safe Food: The Politics of Food Safety” (and a food-movement icon), allows that “the bottom line is that it works pretty well if done right, and I’m not aware of any credible evidence that it does any worse harm to foods than cooking. But it isn’t always done right, and foods can become re-contaminated after irradiation.”
My gut tells me that everyone quoted above is correct; the feelings are different but the information isn’t conflicting. If irradiation were called “cold pasteurization” — as it sometimes is — it wouldn’t have the “ick factor,” and we might be more accepting of it. If we were more accepting of it, it might be less cumbersome and less expensive. But it’s too late for that, and though both USDA and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have approved it for use in specific instances, few people are buying it. (It’s mostly used for spices and a little bit of meat and poultry.)
I don’t believe irradiation is harmful; I do believe it could be beneficial, as beneficial as Mike Osterholm says; at the least it could be a useful tool. (It’s not a panacea; nothing is.) But I doubt we’ll see it used on a large scale; in a world of international trade and 60 zillion approval processes it’s just too tough a nut to crack. People don’t like the sound of it — it’s not going to get re-labeled cold pasteurization — and it’s expensive. (Still, if there were another massive E. coli outbreak here, there could be a groundswell.)
The ironies are that irradiation would be beneficial, not hazardous, and that irradiated food is almost certainly safer than, for example, meat from animals routinely fed antibiotics. But because irradiated food is branded with this “radura” you can — wisely or not — reject it. As — wisely or not — you’d probably reject genetically engineered food were it so labeled. As — wisely or not — you might decide to reject pasteurized milk were you not already used to it.
But take this a step further: Would you reject vegetables with a sprayer icon, one that represented the use of chemical pesticides? Would you reject meat that featured a nice bold CAFO label, telling you how the animals had been treated, or one with a syringe, indicating that they’d been given prophylactic antibiotics? Would knowledge of air miles that food had traveled affect your buying decisions? How about carbon footprint? How much knowledge do you want, or, for that matter, can you handle?
The big question is this: How do we get the safest and most ethical food system possible while adequately feeding ourselves? The answer will come in steps — better regulation and inspection of food production; stricter labor laws; more rigorous testing for pathogens, to name just a few — and eventually those steps may lead to a point where irradiation is unnecessary.
To get to that point we must be fully informed about the issues and decide — through a combination of our shopping patterns and support of regulatory agencies like FDA and USDA — which issues are most important to us. If it were up to me, I’d implement more widespread irradiation; but I’d also embark on a massive overhaul of the food system.
Since neither of these things is about to happen, here’s something a little more practical: let’s support and fully fund — at a piddling $183 million — the FDA’s Food Safety Modernization Act, which for the first time begins to really look at safety as food travels from the farm to the table. Only by having an agency regulating every single step of food production, processing and marketing can we approach a system that quickly improves on the one we have now. This would go a long way towards addressing the dangers that irradiation is meant to prevent — and then some.
When it comes to weather, and the business of farming, and fishing, people coming to the garden fall into two distinct camps: those with a direct involvement in primary industries quickly go into a rant about how discouraging and difficult things are. I try (not always successfully) to lay off those that have no connection to farming or fishing, because I don't want them leaving the garden thinking there's some crazy man claiming the end is near, and we don't ever want to go back there again.
There is a very smart writer from California (I'm trying to find the reference again) who wrote something that helps explain this divide (and something I wish I'd thought of). He said as long as people think their food comes from a supermarket, then they'll do everything they can to defend and support the economic system and structure that puts lots of reasonably priced (often cheap) food on the shelves: free trade, and corporate concentration in food processing, wholesaling and retailing. If consumers could really be convinced that food actually comes from farms, then they would be just as determined to defend and support primary producers, and demand from politicians that rural economies and the environment must be preserved. I know this argument will sound very simplistic to some, but I think he's on to something. The very slick marketing done by food retailers and processors essentially says "Don't think about where food comes from, just come to this store, or look for this product, and you and your family will be well fed." Almost everyone now can eat the way only royalty did on those historical dramas we see on TV. It's an extraordinary achievement, but I think one with serious consequences (see months of earlier posts as to why and yeah I'm a crazy guy and I do want you to come back to this blog, so I'll stop).
And here's a piece about food safety that raises lot of questions about this complex food system we live with:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/irradiation-and-the-ick-factor/?pagemode=print
Irradiation and the ‘Ick Factor’
By MARK BITTMAN
After the E. coli outbreak in Europe last month — which sickened more than 3000 people and killed at least 50 — it was impossible not to think about irradiation. “What if,” I asked myself, “those little fenugreek seeds had been irradiated?” Might there have been fewer deaths, fewer cases of hemolytic-uremic syndrome (essentially, kidney failure; there were 900), fewer tragic stories?
The answer is “yes.” But it’s not the only question.
When it comes to irradiation, you might need a primer. (I did.) Simply put, irradiation — first approved by the FDA in 1963 to control insects in wheat and flour — kills pathogens in food by passing radiation through it. It doesn’t make the food radioactive any more than passing X-rays through your body makes you radioactive; it just causes changes in the food. Proponents say those changes are beneficial: like killing E. coli viruses or salmonella bacteria. Opponents say they’re harmful: like destroying nutrients or creating damaging free radicals.
Many people are virulently for or against. Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, says that irradiation “could do for food what pasteurization has done for milk.” (The main difference between irradiation and pasteurization is the source of the energy used to kill microbes.) Wenonah Hauter, the executive director of Food & Water Watch — which calls irradiation “a gross failure” — told me it was “expensive and impractical, a band-aid on the real problems with our food system.”
There are a few people in the middle. Former assistant secretary of the Department of Agriculture (USDA) Carol Tucker-Foreman is mostly anti-, but said that if she ran a nursing home or a children’s hospital — a place where people with weaker-than-average immune systems were cared for — it “might be something I wanted to do.” Marion Nestle, a New York University nutrition professor and the author of “Safe Food: The Politics of Food Safety” (and a food-movement icon), allows that “the bottom line is that it works pretty well if done right, and I’m not aware of any credible evidence that it does any worse harm to foods than cooking. But it isn’t always done right, and foods can become re-contaminated after irradiation.”
My gut tells me that everyone quoted above is correct; the feelings are different but the information isn’t conflicting. If irradiation were called “cold pasteurization” — as it sometimes is — it wouldn’t have the “ick factor,” and we might be more accepting of it. If we were more accepting of it, it might be less cumbersome and less expensive. But it’s too late for that, and though both USDA and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have approved it for use in specific instances, few people are buying it. (It’s mostly used for spices and a little bit of meat and poultry.)
I don’t believe irradiation is harmful; I do believe it could be beneficial, as beneficial as Mike Osterholm says; at the least it could be a useful tool. (It’s not a panacea; nothing is.) But I doubt we’ll see it used on a large scale; in a world of international trade and 60 zillion approval processes it’s just too tough a nut to crack. People don’t like the sound of it — it’s not going to get re-labeled cold pasteurization — and it’s expensive. (Still, if there were another massive E. coli outbreak here, there could be a groundswell.)
The ironies are that irradiation would be beneficial, not hazardous, and that irradiated food is almost certainly safer than, for example, meat from animals routinely fed antibiotics. But because irradiated food is branded with this “radura” you can — wisely or not — reject it. As — wisely or not — you’d probably reject genetically engineered food were it so labeled. As — wisely or not — you might decide to reject pasteurized milk were you not already used to it.
But take this a step further: Would you reject vegetables with a sprayer icon, one that represented the use of chemical pesticides? Would you reject meat that featured a nice bold CAFO label, telling you how the animals had been treated, or one with a syringe, indicating that they’d been given prophylactic antibiotics? Would knowledge of air miles that food had traveled affect your buying decisions? How about carbon footprint? How much knowledge do you want, or, for that matter, can you handle?
The big question is this: How do we get the safest and most ethical food system possible while adequately feeding ourselves? The answer will come in steps — better regulation and inspection of food production; stricter labor laws; more rigorous testing for pathogens, to name just a few — and eventually those steps may lead to a point where irradiation is unnecessary.
To get to that point we must be fully informed about the issues and decide — through a combination of our shopping patterns and support of regulatory agencies like FDA and USDA — which issues are most important to us. If it were up to me, I’d implement more widespread irradiation; but I’d also embark on a massive overhaul of the food system.
Since neither of these things is about to happen, here’s something a little more practical: let’s support and fully fund — at a piddling $183 million — the FDA’s Food Safety Modernization Act, which for the first time begins to really look at safety as food travels from the farm to the table. Only by having an agency regulating every single step of food production, processing and marketing can we approach a system that quickly improves on the one we have now. This would go a long way towards addressing the dangers that irradiation is meant to prevent — and then some.
Saturday, 23 July 2011
Yes the Weather is Getting.....
A big conference in Halifax of people who have to care about the weather: people breeding seeds for the crops that will have to cope with the weather extremes that seem to becoming the norm. And note this: "In most cases, weeds come out the winner," Bullock says, noting that current controls may not continue to be a solution. Glyphosate efficacy has dropped when there is an increase in carbon dioxide, one of the effects of climate change. "That's a bit of a cause for concern."
Glyphosphate is our old pal round-up. It's wide use is already leading to resistance in weeds.
http://www.fcc-fac.ca/newsletters/en/express/articles/20110722_e.asp#story_1
Glyphosphate is our old pal round-up. It's wide use is already leading to resistance in weeds.
http://www.fcc-fac.ca/newsletters/en/express/articles/20110722_e.asp#story_1
Climate change impact on weather explored
by Allison Finnamore
About 500 experts in Canadian plant science gathered in Halifax this week for the Plant Canada conference.
The Canadian Societies of Agronomy, Horticultural Science, Plant Physiologists, Phytopathological, Weed Science and the Canadian Botanical Association met to discuss plant adaptation to environmental changes. The societies held some joint meetings and tours of Nova Scotia, but also held their own association meetings and discussed recent research projects and findings within specific fields of research.
David Phillips, senior climatologist with Environment Canada and Paul Bullock of the Department of Soil Science at the University of Manitoba delivered keynote speeches to the group, both noting that climate change and changing weather is having an impact on Canadian crops.
The Canadian Societies of Agronomy, Horticultural Science, Plant Physiologists, Phytopathological, Weed Science and the Canadian Botanical Association met to discuss plant adaptation to environmental changes. The societies held some joint meetings and tours of Nova Scotia, but also held their own association meetings and discussed recent research projects and findings within specific fields of research.
David Phillips, senior climatologist with Environment Canada and Paul Bullock of the Department of Soil Science at the University of Manitoba delivered keynote speeches to the group, both noting that climate change and changing weather is having an impact on Canadian crops.
Phillips pointed out that extreme weather events -- ice storms, rain, wind and snow -- are happening more, calling recent meteorological events "an epidemic of ferocious, killer, catastrophic weather everywhere."
At the same time, seasons are more unpredictable, he says, noting that parts of Saskatchewan last year were in drought conditions, while this year, the same areas are flooded. Maple syrup producers used to begin their season when the sap started running on the first day of spring, says Phillips. Over the years, the season has shifted so that 80 per cent are now finished before the start of spring.
He says weather models predict that over time, the seasons will continue to shift and the variability of the weather will increase. That will result in longer growing seasons and more extremes in weather.
At the same time, seasons are more unpredictable, he says, noting that parts of Saskatchewan last year were in drought conditions, while this year, the same areas are flooded. Maple syrup producers used to begin their season when the sap started running on the first day of spring, says Phillips. Over the years, the season has shifted so that 80 per cent are now finished before the start of spring.
He says weather models predict that over time, the seasons will continue to shift and the variability of the weather will increase. That will result in longer growing seasons and more extremes in weather.
Phillips encouraged the plant scientists to continue their research "to try to get more out of the seed," to deal with the expected weather changes.
Bullock weighed the pros and cons of climate change on Canadian crops, listing yield loss, increased aridity, more severe or frequent droughts, breed tolerance to more pests and poor rainfall distribution as some concerns climate change is bringing to researchers. However, positive impacts of climate change could be more heat units, carbon dioxide stimulation of yields, northward expansion to suitable cropping areas, improved water use efficiency, deeper roots and warmer soil.
Weeds are also expected to be impacted with climate change, he notes.
"In most cases, weeds come out the winner," Bullock says, noting that current controls may not continue to be a solution. Glyphosate efficacy has dropped when there is an increase in carbon dioxide, one of the effects of climate change. "That's a bit of a cause for concern."
Precipitation, he says, is harder to predict.
"This is where we have some of the poorest knowledge about what to expect," Bullock says, noting that many studies predict "potentially longer dry periods between less frequent but more intense precipitation."
"That's not a good thing. That's a poor rainfall distribution that tends to be negative for crop yields."
Overall, Bullock says, the pros and the cons of climate change on Canadian crops are close to even.
"There is definitely some positive potential, but some negative. Where it all shakes down, I don't know," he says.
Monday, 18 July 2011
Happier Together
John Wayne or Moses Coady. It was always tempting to describe farmers and fishermen as rugged individualists who faced the challenge of weather, highly competitive markets, worked harder and smarter than their neighbours, and enjoyed the benefits of their labour (think John Wayne in the movies anyway). However in a business where middlemen, processors, and retailers have gained enormous economic control over the last twenty years, it always seemed in those moments when primary producers acted (often against their instincts) in a collective way (think Moses Coady), that good things happened.
Potato growers suffered for years from over production and low prices in North America. French fry companies and fast food restaurants were the beneficiaries, but farmers were slowly going broke. In 2004 a large potato grower from Idaho called Albert Wada and some others decided something had to be done:
"To say that the potato production industry has been struggling is not an overstatement. Technological advances and other factors have spurred an increase in the potato grower’s ability to produce more potatoes at a time when consumer demand and industry infrastructure have changed. In addition, the modern grower grapples with increasing production costs and an over-supplied marketplace. Product over-supply makes it impossible for growers to receive a reasonable price."
The United Potato Growers of America was the result. A United Potato Growers of Canada has also been created. The laws are different in both countries, not every farmer has joined, so there's been varying success, but in the early days it definitely had a positive impact on prices for farmers. So much so that "the trade" (everyone after the farmgate) has launched a lawsuit. (an indication the United movement is working)
http://www.foodmanufacturing.com/scripts/ShowPR~RID~20531.asp
May 03, 2011
NEW YORK (Milberg LLP) — Milberg LLP has filed a class action lawsuit alleging that consumers were overcharged on their purchases of potatoes dating back to 2004 through the present. The complaint alleges that the defendants, an alleged cartel consisting of among the largest potato growers, cooperatives, processors and licensors, violated federal and state antitrust laws by having entered into an illegal scheme to restrict output and raise prices for potatoes. The suit covers consumers in Arizona, California, the District of Columbia, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. In December 2010, the Court hearing the case appointed Milberg LLP as interim co-lead counsel.
According to the complaint, defendants, who have been publicly called the "potato cartel" and control 80% of the United States potato supply, conspired to increase prices for fresh and process potatoes in the United States starting in 2004 by reducing the potatoes grown or available for consumer markets. Defendants' actions effectively reduced competition in the markets for fresh and process potatoes throughout North America.
The defendants in the action include: United Potato Growers of America, Inc., United Potato Growers of Idaho, Inc., United II Potato Growers of Idaho, Inc., United Potato Growers of Canada, Wada Farms, Inc., Wada Farms Potatoes, Inc., Wada-Van Orden Potatoes, Inc., Albert Wada, Blaine Larsen Farms, Inc., Blaine Larsen, Potandon Produce LLC, Cornelison Farms, Inc., Keith Cornelison, Michael Cranney d/b/a Cranney Farms, Snake River Plains Potatoes, Inc., Driscoll Potatoes, Inc., Lance Funk d/b/a Lance Funk Farms, Rigby Produce, Inc., Pleasant Valley Potato, Inc., Raybould Brothers Farms LLC, RD Offutt Co., Dole Fresh Vegetables, Inc., Dole Food Company, Inc., and Idahoan Foods LLC.
The action is part of a multi-district litigation captioned In Re Fresh and Process Potatoes Antitrust Litigation pending in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho and is numbered 4:10-md-02186-BLW.
Then there's tuna. PEI fishermen have by far the largest quota of tuna in the Maritimes. Federal Fisheries has some pretty strict rules to ensure there isn't overfishing of this endangered species. (It's hook and line fishing, one fish per boat per day, etc. in North America, while in the Eastern Atlantic, in European waters, nets are used to indiscriminately catch huge numbers of fish.) The instinct for fishermen is go out and catch fish quickly, because if they don't get them, someone else will. The challenge for fishermen is to resist this.
A couple of times PEI tuna fishermen have agreed to even stricter limits than the use of quota (splitting the season into two for example) and have been rewarded with fatter fish and better prices. Last Fall they couldn't get agreement, and the quota was caught in two days. Prices hit rock bottom, there were stories that some fish ended up dumped in back fields. Today (July 18) we hear that fishermen have once more agreed to stricter catch rules, and I say good work. Canada's position that it harvests tuna in a responsible way will be strengthened (there are still many smart fish biologists calling for a moratorium on all tuna fishing), and fishermen will be rewarded with better prices.
With my comfortable job and regular paycheck at CBC I always felt a little discomfort reporting on (and I know sometimes advocating for) collective action by farmers and fishermen. Who's to say that "dog eat dog"
isn't the way of the business world anyway. The fact is "cheap food" is a huge benefit to the economy and the vast majority of consumers. No one is going to offer to pay primary producers more voluntarily, and if farmers and fishermen think they need more, then they've got to fight the John Wayne and embrace the Moses Coady.
Potato growers suffered for years from over production and low prices in North America. French fry companies and fast food restaurants were the beneficiaries, but farmers were slowly going broke. In 2004 a large potato grower from Idaho called Albert Wada and some others decided something had to be done:
"To say that the potato production industry has been struggling is not an overstatement. Technological advances and other factors have spurred an increase in the potato grower’s ability to produce more potatoes at a time when consumer demand and industry infrastructure have changed. In addition, the modern grower grapples with increasing production costs and an over-supplied marketplace. Product over-supply makes it impossible for growers to receive a reasonable price."
The United Potato Growers of America was the result. A United Potato Growers of Canada has also been created. The laws are different in both countries, not every farmer has joined, so there's been varying success, but in the early days it definitely had a positive impact on prices for farmers. So much so that "the trade" (everyone after the farmgate) has launched a lawsuit. (an indication the United movement is working)
http://www.foodmanufacturing.com/scripts/ShowPR~RID~20531.asp
Lawsuit Alleges "Potato Cartel" Conspiracy
May 03, 2011
NEW YORK (Milberg LLP) — Milberg LLP has filed a class action lawsuit alleging that consumers were overcharged on their purchases of potatoes dating back to 2004 through the present. The complaint alleges that the defendants, an alleged cartel consisting of among the largest potato growers, cooperatives, processors and licensors, violated federal and state antitrust laws by having entered into an illegal scheme to restrict output and raise prices for potatoes. The suit covers consumers in Arizona, California, the District of Columbia, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. In December 2010, the Court hearing the case appointed Milberg LLP as interim co-lead counsel.
According to the complaint, defendants, who have been publicly called the "potato cartel" and control 80% of the United States potato supply, conspired to increase prices for fresh and process potatoes in the United States starting in 2004 by reducing the potatoes grown or available for consumer markets. Defendants' actions effectively reduced competition in the markets for fresh and process potatoes throughout North America.
The defendants in the action include: United Potato Growers of America, Inc., United Potato Growers of Idaho, Inc., United II Potato Growers of Idaho, Inc., United Potato Growers of Canada, Wada Farms, Inc., Wada Farms Potatoes, Inc., Wada-Van Orden Potatoes, Inc., Albert Wada, Blaine Larsen Farms, Inc., Blaine Larsen, Potandon Produce LLC, Cornelison Farms, Inc., Keith Cornelison, Michael Cranney d/b/a Cranney Farms, Snake River Plains Potatoes, Inc., Driscoll Potatoes, Inc., Lance Funk d/b/a Lance Funk Farms, Rigby Produce, Inc., Pleasant Valley Potato, Inc., Raybould Brothers Farms LLC, RD Offutt Co., Dole Fresh Vegetables, Inc., Dole Food Company, Inc., and Idahoan Foods LLC.
The action is part of a multi-district litigation captioned In Re Fresh and Process Potatoes Antitrust Litigation pending in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho and is numbered 4:10-md-02186-BLW.
Then there's tuna. PEI fishermen have by far the largest quota of tuna in the Maritimes. Federal Fisheries has some pretty strict rules to ensure there isn't overfishing of this endangered species. (It's hook and line fishing, one fish per boat per day, etc. in North America, while in the Eastern Atlantic, in European waters, nets are used to indiscriminately catch huge numbers of fish.) The instinct for fishermen is go out and catch fish quickly, because if they don't get them, someone else will. The challenge for fishermen is to resist this.
A couple of times PEI tuna fishermen have agreed to even stricter limits than the use of quota (splitting the season into two for example) and have been rewarded with fatter fish and better prices. Last Fall they couldn't get agreement, and the quota was caught in two days. Prices hit rock bottom, there were stories that some fish ended up dumped in back fields. Today (July 18) we hear that fishermen have once more agreed to stricter catch rules, and I say good work. Canada's position that it harvests tuna in a responsible way will be strengthened (there are still many smart fish biologists calling for a moratorium on all tuna fishing), and fishermen will be rewarded with better prices.
With my comfortable job and regular paycheck at CBC I always felt a little discomfort reporting on (and I know sometimes advocating for) collective action by farmers and fishermen. Who's to say that "dog eat dog"
isn't the way of the business world anyway. The fact is "cheap food" is a huge benefit to the economy and the vast majority of consumers. No one is going to offer to pay primary producers more voluntarily, and if farmers and fishermen think they need more, then they've got to fight the John Wayne and embrace the Moses Coady.
Thursday, 14 July 2011
The Wonders of Legumes
Yes a lot of awful things are happening out there, and the weather in Eastern Canada anyway is cold and wet, but certainly not the extremes of drought and heat in many parts of the world. So no complaining here. In fact I want to celebrate a family of vegetables called legumes. You know them as peas, beans, soybeans, lentils, clover, alfalfa, lupins, peanuts, and there are more. What makes them special is the symbiotic relationship they have with a soil bacteria called rhizobia. (the vast majority of bacteria are good for us). Here's what they look like:
The bacteria are capable of fixing (capturing) nitrogen from the air. Nitrogen is necessary to produce crops and used to come essentially from animal manure, and bat quano. In the mid 1800's a German chemist called Justus von Liebig discovered the important role nitrogen plays in plant growth, and was the first to create chemical fertilizers (now made from natural gas) which have been the boon and bane of farming: huge productivity gains, accompanied by nitrate pollution of waterways and dead zones everywhere these synthetic fertilizers are used. (search for nitrates in earlier posts).
That's what makes legumes so special. There's really no need for chemical fertilizer (in fact too much available nitrogen suppresses the production by the bacteria). All of the legumes make excellent crops for experienced or beginning gardeners. Legumes generally have higher protein levels than other vegetables (scientists think it's because of the extra nitrogen which is a key component of protein)and crops like beans can be harvested and re-harvested over several weeks. One trick I've found is wide-row planting. Because fertility isn't an issue, they can be bunched together and still be very productive. As well the wide rows shade the ground and keep weeds at a minimum, and the very best thing is you can stand in one place and harvest a lot before moving down the row. Here's what it looks like. (the peas are doing well in the cold, damp summer of 2011, beans are a little slow, they like warmer weather.)
The holy grail for many plant biologists would be developing grains that would attract the rhizobia bacteria to their roots, then you'd be able to grow wheat, barley, etc, with little or no need for chemical fertilizer, and all the cost and environmental damage that come along with it. It's this promise (I keep reading that it's a long-shot) that maintains many people's interest in GMO research. Scientist say there's no way this would happen with conventional breeding techniques, but might through genetic engineering. A good enough reason to keep GMO research going?
The bacteria are capable of fixing (capturing) nitrogen from the air. Nitrogen is necessary to produce crops and used to come essentially from animal manure, and bat quano. In the mid 1800's a German chemist called Justus von Liebig discovered the important role nitrogen plays in plant growth, and was the first to create chemical fertilizers (now made from natural gas) which have been the boon and bane of farming: huge productivity gains, accompanied by nitrate pollution of waterways and dead zones everywhere these synthetic fertilizers are used. (search for nitrates in earlier posts).
That's what makes legumes so special. There's really no need for chemical fertilizer (in fact too much available nitrogen suppresses the production by the bacteria). All of the legumes make excellent crops for experienced or beginning gardeners. Legumes generally have higher protein levels than other vegetables (scientists think it's because of the extra nitrogen which is a key component of protein)and crops like beans can be harvested and re-harvested over several weeks. One trick I've found is wide-row planting. Because fertility isn't an issue, they can be bunched together and still be very productive. As well the wide rows shade the ground and keep weeds at a minimum, and the very best thing is you can stand in one place and harvest a lot before moving down the row. Here's what it looks like. (the peas are doing well in the cold, damp summer of 2011, beans are a little slow, they like warmer weather.)
The holy grail for many plant biologists would be developing grains that would attract the rhizobia bacteria to their roots, then you'd be able to grow wheat, barley, etc, with little or no need for chemical fertilizer, and all the cost and environmental damage that come along with it. It's this promise (I keep reading that it's a long-shot) that maintains many people's interest in GMO research. Scientist say there's no way this would happen with conventional breeding techniques, but might through genetic engineering. A good enough reason to keep GMO research going?
Tuesday, 12 July 2011
More GMO Talk
There's been a fierce debate on PEI about whether the province should ban the use of GMO crops. The provincial legislature held hearings on the issue in 2005, and there were more presentations, pro and con, than on any other issue house committees have studied. Supporters of the ban argue there are still serious environmental and health questions around GMO's. As well they say it would create enormous marketing opportunities for PEI farmers. Those opposed to the ban says farmers sell into very competitive markets and need access to every available technology. Others argue that there is risk in every technological development, and opposition to GMO's has more to do with concerns about corporate control (read Monsanto) than anything else.
One of the issues that came up in the hearings is whether PEI even has the legal right to ban GMO's. It's never been tested in court, but provincial lawyers said there are no federal rules prohibiting a ban, so in their opinion, PEI could do it. There's no question that GMO promoters would test a ban in court.
Europe has long wrestled with these issues as well, and has just come out with suggested rules that would allow different EU countries to decide their own GMO regulations. There's more on that below, but there was one regulation PEI should think about: "Socio-economic considerations: Such as the practicality and cost of measures to avoid an unintentional presence of GMOs in other products".
A small group of PEI farmers has developed important markets for non-GMO soybeans and canola in Japan. Cross contamination in soybeans is very unusual (bees and other pollinating insects not that interested in soybean) but canola is something very different. It could easily be cross-contaminated, and a market that farmers have worked hard to cultivate could be lost in a heartbeat. I think there's justification to at least create some zones around non-GMO canola where GM crops would be prohibited. It would take some regulations and paperwork, and some farmers would be put out, but it would respect the effort made by some farmers to find markets where producers can actually make some money. That's not something you put at risk just to be stubborn.
Here's more on what the European Commission is proposing:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/06/europe-gm-crop-bans
Europe paves way for GM crop bans
The European Parliament on Tuesday backed plans to let member states choose whether to ban the cultivation of genetically-modified (GM) crops on their territory, giving a detailed list of grounds on which such bans could be imposed.
The House voted to amend European Commission proposals for an EU regulation that would allow member states to restrict or ban the cultivation on their territory of GM crops, which have been given safety approval at EU level.
The Commission's initial proposal suggested that member states could restrict or ban their cultivation on all but health or environmental grounds, which were to be assessed solely by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).
But the proposals have sparked a wave of criticism, with businesses fearing they could lead to fragmentation of the internal market, bringing legal uncertainty for farmers. Some of the EU executive's proposals have also been deemed incompatible with World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules.
The Parliament's report seeks to provide member states with "a solid legal basis" for banning GM crop cultivation, and to give them better legal protection in the event of challenges from trading partners opposed to bans.
The report - adopted with 548 votes in favour, 84 against and 31 abstentions – lists a number of reasons to allow member states to impose bans. These include:
• Environmental grounds: Such as pesticide resistance, the invasiveness of certain crops, threats to biodiversity or a lack of data on potential negative consequences for the environment.
• Socio-economic considerations: Such as the practicality and cost of measures to avoid an unintentional presence of GMOs in other products, fragmentation of territory, changes in agricultural practices linked to intellectual property regimes, or social policy objectives such as the conservation of diversity or distinctive agricultural practices.
• Grounds relating to land use and agricultural practices.
Health Commissioner John Dalli noted that specifying the grounds on which the cultivation could be restricted would indeed enhance the EU executive proposal. "I can therefore support this approach," he said.
Dalli also welcomed the Parliament's restriction criteria for being largely inspired by the indicative list that the Commission had already developed.
But he insisted that the environmental considerations put forward for banning GMOs should be clearly distinct from those that have already been assessed by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).
In addition, he stressed that "any grounds need to be substantiated and in line with the reality of the territory in question".
In another move, the Parliament voted to change the legal basis of the Commission proposal from Article 114 (on the approximation of national law to establish the internal market) of the EU Treaty to Article 192, which is related to the environment.
The Parliament's rapporteur, French MEP Corinne Lepage (Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe), said that basing the proposal on Article 192 would give member states more say on the matter.
But Commissioner Dalli said he still thought that the Article 114 was best suited to the proposal.
The Parliament's report maintains a common EU authorisation framework for GMOs, but the House wants the risk assessment conducted at EU level by EFSA to be improved by taking into account long-term environmental effects or effects on non-target organisms before a new GMO variety can be authorised.
The Parliament also insisted that member states must take measures to prevent contamination of conventional or organic farming by GM crops, and ensure that those responsible for such incidents can be held financially liable.
One of the issues that came up in the hearings is whether PEI even has the legal right to ban GMO's. It's never been tested in court, but provincial lawyers said there are no federal rules prohibiting a ban, so in their opinion, PEI could do it. There's no question that GMO promoters would test a ban in court.
Europe has long wrestled with these issues as well, and has just come out with suggested rules that would allow different EU countries to decide their own GMO regulations. There's more on that below, but there was one regulation PEI should think about: "Socio-economic considerations: Such as the practicality and cost of measures to avoid an unintentional presence of GMOs in other products".
A small group of PEI farmers has developed important markets for non-GMO soybeans and canola in Japan. Cross contamination in soybeans is very unusual (bees and other pollinating insects not that interested in soybean) but canola is something very different. It could easily be cross-contaminated, and a market that farmers have worked hard to cultivate could be lost in a heartbeat. I think there's justification to at least create some zones around non-GMO canola where GM crops would be prohibited. It would take some regulations and paperwork, and some farmers would be put out, but it would respect the effort made by some farmers to find markets where producers can actually make some money. That's not something you put at risk just to be stubborn.
Here's more on what the European Commission is proposing:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/06/europe-gm-crop-bans
Europe paves way for GM crop bans
The European Parliament on Tuesday backed plans to let member states choose whether to ban the cultivation of genetically-modified (GM) crops on their territory, giving a detailed list of grounds on which such bans could be imposed.
The House voted to amend European Commission proposals for an EU regulation that would allow member states to restrict or ban the cultivation on their territory of GM crops, which have been given safety approval at EU level.
The Commission's initial proposal suggested that member states could restrict or ban their cultivation on all but health or environmental grounds, which were to be assessed solely by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).
But the proposals have sparked a wave of criticism, with businesses fearing they could lead to fragmentation of the internal market, bringing legal uncertainty for farmers. Some of the EU executive's proposals have also been deemed incompatible with World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules.
The Parliament's report seeks to provide member states with "a solid legal basis" for banning GM crop cultivation, and to give them better legal protection in the event of challenges from trading partners opposed to bans.
The report - adopted with 548 votes in favour, 84 against and 31 abstentions – lists a number of reasons to allow member states to impose bans. These include:
• Environmental grounds: Such as pesticide resistance, the invasiveness of certain crops, threats to biodiversity or a lack of data on potential negative consequences for the environment.
• Socio-economic considerations: Such as the practicality and cost of measures to avoid an unintentional presence of GMOs in other products, fragmentation of territory, changes in agricultural practices linked to intellectual property regimes, or social policy objectives such as the conservation of diversity or distinctive agricultural practices.
• Grounds relating to land use and agricultural practices.
Health Commissioner John Dalli noted that specifying the grounds on which the cultivation could be restricted would indeed enhance the EU executive proposal. "I can therefore support this approach," he said.
Dalli also welcomed the Parliament's restriction criteria for being largely inspired by the indicative list that the Commission had already developed.
But he insisted that the environmental considerations put forward for banning GMOs should be clearly distinct from those that have already been assessed by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).
In addition, he stressed that "any grounds need to be substantiated and in line with the reality of the territory in question".
In another move, the Parliament voted to change the legal basis of the Commission proposal from Article 114 (on the approximation of national law to establish the internal market) of the EU Treaty to Article 192, which is related to the environment.
The Parliament's rapporteur, French MEP Corinne Lepage (Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe), said that basing the proposal on Article 192 would give member states more say on the matter.
But Commissioner Dalli said he still thought that the Article 114 was best suited to the proposal.
The Parliament's report maintains a common EU authorisation framework for GMOs, but the House wants the risk assessment conducted at EU level by EFSA to be improved by taking into account long-term environmental effects or effects on non-target organisms before a new GMO variety can be authorised.
The Parliament also insisted that member states must take measures to prevent contamination of conventional or organic farming by GM crops, and ensure that those responsible for such incidents can be held financially liable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)