Gmo Madness, continuous info on gmo news-breaks Options

[radicalmom]

http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-ne...-news-and-views

Latest GM news and views

Thursday, 29 October 2009 14:09

Attention: open in a new window. PDFPrintE-mail
NOTE: Lots of interesting articles and news, including a very important petition - item 7.
---
---
Recent news and comment

via GMWatch on Twitter
http://twitter.com/gmwatch

and GMWatch's Twitter feed
http://www.gmwatch.org/gm-tweets

1. More Food May Not Mean Less Hunger: http://bit.ly/1HUqrM Focusing too much on upping production may even be damaging - experts

2. GM bans at national/regional levels in the EU. Maps + details: http://bit.ly/VHRnd

3. Industry working to reintroduce GM spuds in US: http://bit.ly/qhvBX Will segregate for foreign markets

4. Nestle, Foster's, Schweppes to use no GM ingredients in Australia http://bit.ly/4QKAU but use in US.

5. India: Opening the door to Bt brinjal, a step towards disaster: http://bit.ly/K54qq

6. Al Gore to give keynote at 2010 Biotech Industry Organisation convention http://bit.ly/3y6gri

7. Tell Obama: Get Monsanto & CropLife men out of your Government. Sign the petition to Obama re Siddiqui and Beachy http://bit.ly/4yImW5

8. Farmers use more pesticides, deep tillage to control superweeds from Monsanto http://bit.ly/3LAw07

9. Monsanto and Pioneer duke it out over biotech corn, farmers take the hit http://bit.ly/44TQdD

10. Interesting interview with bee researcher about suppressed research: http://bit.ly/2XoUH9

11. No GM rice into Taiwan: http://bit.ly/3zApKQ Minister would rather resign than let in GM cotaminated US rice imports

12. Monsanto's omega-3 GM soybean "a scam": http://bit.ly/1iuIqZ

13. Corrupt regulatory process http://bit.ly/3wecLX Expert nominated by India's Supreme Court to GM regulatory body speaks out

14. Hidden cost of viral resistance http://bit.ly/1RfODC http://bit.ly/30oGgz

15. Great pics from protest in Tamil Nadu, India, lead by leading Indian politician; calling for GM ban http://twitpic.com/n8x4j Press coverage http://bit.ly/1YwnI7

16. South Africa: GMOS - Strategic Priority in Whose Interest? http://bit.ly/25fXSA

17. African NGOs Rise Against Land Grabs, GMOs and Agrofuels http://bit.ly/1HiNTu

18. Attack of the Triffids has flax farmers bewildered: http://bit.ly/26cGeI Globe & Mail

19. Interview with scientist who wrote 'Failure of Science' http://bit.ly/3XYaRp

20. Cloning for kicks http://bit.ly/3gZUBe

21. More on Changemakers controversy http://bit.ly/2MW6Wr

22. Can Biotech Food Cure World Hunger? http://bit.ly/dvrsZ New York Times debate, includes Raj Patel, Vandana Shiva and several GM promoters, like Paul Collier

23. India - Madhya Pradesh follows the States of Kerala and Orissa; says no to Bt brinjal http://bit.ly/4jJIIF

24. Monsanto shares dive. "Monsanto under considerable pressure and undercutting broader materials sector" - Dow: http://bit.ly/3j5ve9

[radicalmom]

http://action.panna.org/t/5185/petition.js...tition_KEY=2150

Monsanto & CropLife men have no place in government

Despite campaign promises to the contrary, President Obama has nominated to two key posts “Big Ag” industry insiders who come straight from the chemical pesticide and biotechnology sectors.

* Islam Siddiqui -- current VP of science and regulatory affairs at CropLife, and a former lobbyist -- has been nominated to the critical post of U.S. Chief Agricultural Negotiator. This position will enable him to keep pushing chemical pesticides, inappropriate biotechnologies, and unfair trade arrangements on nations that do not want and can least afford them.

* Roger Beachy -- long-time head of Monsanto’s defacto nonprofit research arm -- has been installed as director of the USDA’s newly created National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA). This office comes with a $500 million budget, and therein control over the U.S. ag research agenda for years to come.


We need 50,000 signatures! To make this kind of impact, PAN is joining a broad coalition of partner groups from around the country in mobilizing to block Siddiqui's nomination. We join National Family Farm Coalition, Food & Water Watch, Farmworker's Association of Florida, Institute for Agriculture & Trade Policy, Food Democracy Now!, Greenpeace, and Center for Food Safety in calling on President Obama to live up to his promises.

Your name will be added to the following petition, which ends:

"As parents, farmers, advocates, scientists and people who eat food, we remember your promise on the campaign trail: “We’ll tell ConAgra that it’s not the Department of Agribusiness. It’s the Department of Agriculture. We’re going to put the people’s interests ahead of the special interests.” We, the undersigned, are writing to hold you to that promise."


Dear President Obama, We urge you to withdraw the nomination of Islam Siddiqui as Chief Agriculture Negotiator and to reconsider your support of Roger Beachy as director of the new National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA). Siddiqui is CropLife’s current vice president of science and regulatory affairs, and until last month, Beachy was the head of Monsanto’s de facto nonprofit research arm. As two textbook cases of the “revolving door” between industry and the agencies meant to keep watch, Siddiqui and Beachy’s industry ties demonstrate that both men are too beholden to corporate agriculture to serve the public interest. Appointing Siddiqui to this critical post within the U.S. Trade Representative’s office sends a clear signal to the rest of the world that the U.S. plans to continue down the worn and failed path of chemical-intensive industrial agriculture by pushing pesticides, inappropriate biotechnologies and unfair trade arrangements on nations that do not want and can least afford them. Siddiqui’s professional record is revealing on several points: •Siddiqui was a paid lobbyist for 3 years for Croplife America, which represents the chemical pesticide industry. Members include Monsanto, DuPont and Syngenta. •CropLife America's regional partner notoriously “shuddered” at Michelle Obama's organic White House garden, and launched a letter-writing campaign urging the First Lady to use chemical pesticides. •CropLife America has consistently lobbied the U.S government to weaken and thwart international treaties governing the use and export of toxic chemicals such as PCBs, DDT and dioxins. •Siddiqui’s past service at the USDA included overseeing the initial development of national organic food standards that would have allowed GMOs and toxic sludge to be labeled “organic”— until over 230,000 consumers forced their revision. As the global food crisis deepens and we head into the Doha round of trade talks at the WTO, the U.S. needs a lead negotiator who understands that current trade agreements work neither for farmers nor for the world’s hungry. All eyes are on the U.S. to demonstrate international leadership in this arena by withdrawing support for the current industrial model of agriculture, which imperils both people and the planet by undermining food security and worsening climate change. In his capacity as director of NIFA, Roger Beachy will be in charge of the nation’s agricultural research agenda and purse strings for the next six years. Given Beachy’s previous career running the Danforth Plant Science Center, a nonprofit closely linked to and funded by Monsanto, we believe that billions more in government funding will be funneled into genetic engineering and chemical pesticide research. Meanwhile the real solutions to our growing agricultural problems, provided by sustainable and organic agriculture research, will suffer from a lack of federal funding and attention. Despite 20 years of research and 13 years of commercialization, agricultural biotechnology—of the kind aggressively promoted and marketed by CropLife—has failed to deliver its promises of higher yields for U.S. farmers, or drought-resistance for developing country farmers. What Monsanto’s research agenda has yielded is skyrocketing herbicide use, resistant “super-weeds”, rising debt for farmers, polluted waterways, threats to the health of farmworkers and rural communities, and unparalleled corporate consolidation in the agrochemical and seed industries. The top 10 agribusinesses control 89% of the agrochemicals market, 66% of the modern biotech market and 67% of the global seed market. With farmers here and abroad struggling to respond to water scarcity and increasingly volatile growing conditions, we need a resilient and restorative model of agriculture that adapts to and mitigates these effects of climate change. In the most comprehensive analysis of global agriculture to date, the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) states unequivocally that “business as usual is not an option.” We need a new, sustainable model of agriculture that regenerates soil health, sequesters carbon, feeds communities, and puts profits back in the hands of farmers and rural communities. Industrial agriculture—and Roger Beachy, Islam Siddiqui and CropLife in particular—favor none of these solutions. While we appreciate your Administration’s recent gestures in support of local food systems, we fear these initiatives will not fulfill their potential unless the monopolistic power and political influence of the agricultural input industry is addressed and curtailed. We therefore respectfully ask you to withdraw your appointments of Siddiqui and Beachy, and replace them with candidates who have a sustainable vision for U.S. agriculture and trade. As parents, farmers, advocates, scientists and people who eat food, we remember your promise on the campaign trail: “We’ll tell ConAgra that it’s not the Department of Agribusiness. It’s the Department of Agriculture. We’re going to put the people’s interests ahead of the special interests.” We, the undersigned, are writing to hold you to that promise.

[radicalmom]

http://www.fleshandstone.net/healthandsciencenews/1669.html


The European Commission decided Friday to authorize the importation of three types of genetically modified corn which are mainly used in animal foods.

When European agriculture ministers met October 19 to consider importation of three types of genetically modified (GMO) corn they failed to produce an agreement. Instead, the ministers forwarded the issue to the European Commission for a final decision, says French daily Liberation.

The varieties concerned are two Monsanto products, MON 88017 and MON 89034, and one from Pioneer Hi-Bred (a Dupont company). They are now cleared for legal importation into Europe over the next 10 years for use in animal foods and their transformation in other food products, but growing them remains unlawful.

All three products had already been cleared by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).

The decision represents a victory for European agriculture commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel, who had been campaigning for their authorization for a long time.

Boel has always insisted upon the risks of severe corn shortages in Europe, noting that entire shiploads of corn had been refused at European ports after minute traces of unauthorized GMO corn had been discovered in them.

She reminded the Commission that not only is Europe heavily dependant on American corn imports, most notably during winter, but unfavorable world corn market conditions are not helping the situation. For example, Argentinean corn production dropped 30 percent this year due to a drought.

These are not the first GMOs to be authorized for use in Europe, but European public opinion has traditionally been hostile towards their use, resulting in a limited number of authorized GMO products.

Only one GMO seed variety, Monsanto’s MON 810, has ever been authorized for both cultivation and use in food products in Europe, and several more are present in test field-growing conditions. Farmers testing them often take great pains to conceal their activities due to the likelihood of their plants being destroyed if discovered by anti-GMO protest groups.

[radicalmom]

http://www.beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/?p=2620

(Beyond Pesticides, November 2, 2009) Ireland has passed a policy banning the cultivation of all genetically modified (GM) crops and introducing a voluntary GM-free label for food – including meat, poultry, eggs, fish, crustaceans, and dairy produce made without the use of GM animal feed as a way “[t]o optimize Ireland’s competitive advantage as a GM-Free country.” The policy is a part of the Renewed Programme for Government agreement that was adopted in October and is supported by many stakeholder groups, including the Irish Cattle and Sheepfarmers Association who have been working on this issue since 2004.

The passage of the policy is at a time when the international market for GM-free animal produce is growing rapidly. Across Europe, hundreds of leading food brands and dozens of leading retailers now offer premium meat, fish, eggs, poultry eggs and dairy produce made without the use of GM feedstuffs. These are backed by GM-free labels and Government regulations in Austria, Italy, Germany, with France to follow later this year. Sales of GM-free milk have skyrocketed since the label came into effect in Germany.

In the U.S., to which Ireland exports vast quantities of dairy produce (including milk powder and casein for cheese production), leading food manufacturers, retailers, processors, distributors, farmers, seed breeders and consumers have set up joint venture called the Non-GMO Project, which already provides GM-free labels for over 1,000 food products by individual manufacturers in addition to thousands of GM-free private retail brands. The Non-GMO (genetically modified organism) Project focuses on the belief that everyone deserves the information to make an informed choice about whether or not to consume genetically modified products, and a common mission to ensure the sustained availability of non-GMO choices. The Non-GMO Project has enrolled over 1,000 food products by individual manufacturers in its non-GMO verification program, in addition to thousands of private retail labels that are also in the process of becoming “‘Non-GMO Project Verified.”

Ireland’s geographical isolation and offshore Atlantic western winds provide a natural barrier to contamination by wind-borne GM pollen drift from countries such as the UK and Spain, which still allow commercial release and/or field trials of GM crops. There has never been any commercial release of GM crops on the island of Ireland, and the only field trial of GM crops that took place in the Republic was stopped by protestors in 1998. This is not the case in other European Union (EU) member states. Despite national and regional bans or moratoria on the commercial cultivation of GM crops in Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Poland and Switzerland, many of these countries have previously allowed (or been illegally subjected to) the commercial release of GM crops, and many of them still allow uncontained GM field trials. Banning GM crops in a given country does not guarantee their absence there, and conducting field trials usually results in contamination, which can travel across borders and is frequently irreversible.

In 2007, the Irish Government adopted a weaker policy “to seek to negotiate to declare the island of Ireland as a GMO-free zone,” but failure to define the implications of the policy for GM animal feed created confusion in the farming sector and the Government failed to even draft any related legislation to implement the policy. That said, Ireland did stop voting in favor of new GMOs in Brussels and has since joined the majority of EU member states that back an Austrian proposal, presented in June 2009, for the EU Commission to allow national bans on GM crops. The Austrian proposal is co-signed by Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Slovenia and the Netherlands; it was subsequently backed by France, Poland, Portugal, and parts of the German government, and is now supported by the majority of member states.

Although Ireland’s new affirmative GM-free policy unambiguously aims to ban both commercial release as well as field trials of GM crops, it requires implementing legislation in the Republic, as well as Northern Ireland to prevent contamination from across the border. Although the UK is one of the few remaining EU member states whose government still officially supports GM food and farming, the UK regions of Scotland and Wales also strongly oppose the release of GM crops. This leaves Westminister isolated with only a few English counties still in favour of GM crops in the whole of the UK.

Michael O’Callaghan of GM-free Ireland said the policy signals a new dawn for Irish farmers and food producers, “The WTO’s economic globalization agenda has forced most Irish farmers to enter an unwinnable race to the bottom for low quality GM-fed meat and dairy produce, in competition with countries like the USA, Argentina and Brazil which can easily out-compete us with their highly subsidized GM crop monocultures, cheap fossil fuel, extensive use of toxic agrochemicals that are not up to EU standards, and underpaid migrant farm labor. Meanwhile, hundreds of European food brands, retailers and Regions now offer GM-free beef, pork, lamb, poultry, eggs, fish and dairy produce as part of their Food Safety, Quality Agriculture, Biodiversity, Fair Trade, Sustainable Development and Climate Change strategies. Thousands of brands in the USA are doing likewise. Without a GM-free label to distinguish our produce, Irish food is being excluded from this global market.”

“Ireland has taken a truly inspiring step towards ensuring consumers’ right to choose non-GMO products,” said Executive Director of the Non-GMO Project Megan Thompson. “As more and more companies in the USA and Canada are looking for non-GMO ingredients, this is a very timely move and we look forward to developing sourcing opportunities with GM-free producers in Ireland.”

In the U.S., environmental and public health groups believe that, at a very minimum, labeling as a means of identifying products that contain GM ingredients are critical and complete regulatory review of all GM crops, which is currently not the case. Organic agriculture does not permit GE crops or the use of synthetic herbicides, and focuses on building the soil–minimizing its effect on climate change. For more information, see Beyond Pesticides’ GE program page.

[radicalmom]

oops...

[radicalmom]

http://brownfieldagnews.com/2009/11/13/a-n...soybean-aphids/

A new tool for controlling soybean aphids

November 13, 2009 by Ken Anderson
Filed under Feature Programs, Managing for Profit

Soybean farmers will soon have another control option for soybean aphids—aphid-resistant soybeans. The initial resistant trait revolves around the Rag1 gene developed by University of Illinois researchers. For 2010, Syngenta plans to launch its aphid-management system in up to six soybean varieties with Rag1-based tolerance. Pioneer and Monsanto are also developing resistant varieties. Brownfield’s Ken Anderson talks to Matt O’Neal, an entomology professor at Iowa State University.

AUDIO: Matt O’Neal (3 min MP3)

[radicalmom]

http://civileats.com/2009/11/13/kitchen-ta...ngineered-food/


For the sixth installment of Kitchen Table Talks on Oct. 27, about 60 people gathered at the SUB-Mission Gallery in the Mission District of San Francisco to hear renowned U.C. Berkeley Microbial Ecologist Ignacio Chapela and Center for Food Safety attorney Zelig Golden for a lively conversation about the past, present and future of genetically engineered food.

For more than a decade, one of the largest genetic experiments in history has been taking place and all of us have been unwitting, or at least non-consenting, participants. According to the Center for Food Safety, up to 85 percent of U.S. corn, 91 percent of soybeans, and 88 percent of cotton (cottonseed oil is often used in food products), is genetically engineered, which means an estimated 70 percent or more of all processed foods on supermarket shelves–from soda to soup, crackers to condiments–contain genetically engineered ingredients.

Whether it’s referred to as GMO, genetic engineering, transgenic manipulation, or recombinant DNA, the process is the same — DNA molecules from different sources are combined into one molecule to create a new set of genes. As he provided a brief historical overview, Ignacio Chapela explained that when transgenic manipulation began in the 1970s, it was the most radical change to ever occur in the domestication of food. “We’re not talking about beer or yogurt making here. When you alter life in this way [using genetic engineering], it has a universal effect on things that are far beyond what the human eye can see or the human mind can imagine.”

Chapela described society’s difficulty to grasp what it cannot see as the first fundamental challenge to understanding the true implications of genetically engineered food. The second challenge is the abundance of disinformation being funneled through the media by corporations whose primary interest is making money through agricultural biotechnology. “From the beginning,” Chapela claimed “It’s been about making money.”

Chapela summarized the GE food business as: 4 crops (cotton, soybeans, corn and canola), 5 countries (U.S., Canada, Brazil and Argentina) and two traits (insecticides and herbicides). “Herbicide production works,” said Chapela. “It’s incredibly efficient in creating deserts where everything dies except the GE crop and the soil becomes completely barren. Insecticides, on the other hand, just don’t work.”

“Why should anyone be worried?” asked Chapela. “By the time I label the concerns, our time is up. We are dealing with something that has a life of its own. In 2001 when I wrote my paper exposing the presence of genetically engineered DNA in wild Mexican maize, I carried with me the concerns of the people in Oaxaca. There, people are corn and corn is people. These were indigenous communities where GMO was already in the DNA of corn when theoretically, there shouldn’t have been any. The result was a campaign to suppress the information and get rid of the messenger. I am a happy survivor, but many scientists who dare to ask questions aren’t so lucky. For every question asked, there’s been a career lost.”

The genetic engineering of food is no longer a just scientific issue, said Chapela. It has become a deeply political and economic issue, which Chapela attributes to the U.S’s insatiable addiction to progress. Early in his career, Chapela worked in the pharmaceutical industry. He remembers a dire letter from the CEO stating that the company was in serious trouble–profits only increased by 12 percent. “The only way to keep economic growth is by co-opting science and technology. Science has become the servant to technological gadget making. We’ve lost public science.”

As Zelig Golden continued the presentation, he explained that genetic engineering is more than a technology problem, it’s a culture war. Just as Rachel Carson outed pesticides, the Center for Food Safety and other organizations are working to hold agricultural biotechnology corporations like Monsanto accountable. Golden then provided an overview of the five important victories won by the Center for Food Safety’s legal team. A complete list of these victories can be found here.

Golden then explained the four myths of GMOs:

* Myth #1: Genetic engineering is merely an extension of traditional breeding. Golden explained that this is the most widely believed, damaging misconception. “Transgenesis is totally novel and has unintended and yet to be fully understood consequences,” said Golden.
* Myth #2: GE foods are necessary to feed the developing world’s growing population. Quite the opposite is true. Genetic engineering could actually lead to an increase in hunger as biodiversity, local knowledge and sustainable agriculture systems are undermined by monoculture GE crops. A recent Union of Concerned Scientists report called Failure to Yield disproves the belief that GMOs produce more food.
* Myth #3: Genetic engineering can make foods better, more nutritious, longer-lasting and better-tasting. Seventy million acres of GE crops in the U.S. have been genetically altered with one singular goal–to withstand more pesticides or produce its own.
* Myth #4: GE crops eliminate pesticides and are necessary for environmentally sustainable farming. Actually, it’s likely that GE crops are the greatest threat to sustainable agriculture on the planet. Studies show that instead of reducing pesticide use, GE crops result in significant pesticide use increases.

Although Europe in the 1980s was quick to develop legislation addressing GMOs, Golden explained that the U.S. decided to stick with a patchwork of existing statutes and laws to create the U.S. Coordinate Framework, which turns out to be the most uncoordinated framework in U.S. regulatory history. The EPA covers pesticides; the FDA covers food safety and says in all cases that GMOs are safe (if it looks like a tomato, it’s a tomato); and the USDA deals with plant pests and has never once denied a biotech company the right to do a field test or de-regulation.

The chink in the armor of agri-chemical offensive to propagate untested, unchecked GE crops is the National Environmental Policy Act. NEPA requires federal government agencies to prepare Environmental Assessments (EAs) and Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) when an action poses a potentially damaging environmental effect. Yet, since the first introductions of GMOs into the United States, the USDA has never prepared an EIS to analyze and disclose the environmental impacts of GMOs – that is until CFS has successfully forced USDA to do so in two successful lawsuits.

Beyond the ecological, economic and political issues surrounding GE crops is the fundamental issue of patenting life. “All GMOs have a marker inside of them,” said Chapela. “This process of branding life has destroyed seed saving and is turning food production into IT–just as every PC comes with Microsoft Windows installed, every seed will hold have a Monsanto marker.”

As the evening sped by and audience members perched on the edge of their chairs in eagerness to ask questions, it was clear that one evening’s session was not sufficient to tackle the enormity of GE food. The audience had obviously done its homework and compelling questions about the specifics of pending anti-trust legislation, labeling efforts, Gates Foundation work in Africa to promote GE crops, and the Obama administration’s seemingly pro-GMO stance fueled a vigorous conversation and even more questions. Some in the audience expressed feeling overwhelmed by the pervasiveness of GMOs, lack of independent science being conducted on the implications to human health and all life, and the sheer complexity of the issues involved. Chapela reassured the audience that the most important thing to do is be dedicated to asking questions. “There are no easy or quick answers, but we must not give up asking questions.”

The sixth Kitchen Table Talk may have only scratched the surface on the GE food debate, but it was a rousing call to the fundamental philosophical questions at its root. Chapela poignantly summed it up: “DNA has come to be thought of as the operating system of life, but we are not just DNA programs walking around. There are mysteries to life we cannot understand.”

Takeaways:

* Eat organic as much as possible. Organic food by definition is made with GMO-free ingredients
* Even if digesting GMOs doesn’t concern you, be aware that GE crops have much higher concentrations of pesticides and herbicides
* Read the PLU stickers on your produce–conventional produce has a four-digit number, organic produce has a five-digit number that starts with 9, and GE produce has a five-digit number that starts with 8. The International Federation of Produce Standards publishes a full list of PLU codes here
* Films provide an entertaining, memorable way to learn about GE food. Three “must sees” are Food, Inc., Future of Food, and The World According to Monsanto
* GE biofuel crops are quickly out pacing GE food crops in pervasiveness. Keep apprised of developments in biofuels, particularly in Brazil and Africa
* Advocate for independent research in the effects of GMOs on humans by contacting organizations like the Institute for Responsible Technology and the Center for Science in the Public Interest
* Sign up for CFS alerts
* Download the CFS Shoppers Guide
* Since this talk took place, GE Crops have been prominently featured in the mainstream media. Here are links to some of the most important and informative articles:
o USA Today covers A report released by the Center for Science in the Public Interest found that one out of every four farmers growing GE corn is failing to comply with environmental requirements
o Reuters released a special report on the future of food
o Reuters asks, is Monsanto the answer or the problem to global food security
o New York Times runs opinions from experts on every side of the debate about whether biotech food can cure world hunger
* Watch for developments coming out of the UN World Summit on Food Security happening next week, Nov. 16-18 in Rome

[radicalmom]

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/11/13-2

Published on Friday, November 13, 2009 by Mother Jones
Obama's Pesticide-Pushing Nominee
The president taps an exec from the pesticide lobby—which slammed Michelle Obama's organic garden—for a top agriculture post.

by Kate Sheppard
When Michelle Obama announced plans to plant an organic garden at the White House, nearly everybody thought it was a great idea. Everybody except for the pesticide industry. Representatives from a branch of the industry's main trade association, CropLife America (CLA), wrote to the First Lady asking her to respect the role of "conventional agriculture;" they added in a separate note to supporters that the thought of the White House's chemical-free vegetables made them "shudder." But the public swipe at the president's wife didn't stop the administration from nominating senior CLA executive Islam "Isi" Siddiqui to a key post: chief agricultural negotiator for the office of the US Trade Representative (USTR). If confirmed, Siddiqui will be responsible for, among other things, negotiating international agreements governing the use of pesticides.

CLA is the American branch of CropLife International, a powerful global lobby; its members include agriculture giants such as Dow AgroSciences, Monsanto, and DuPont. Siddiqui joined the CLA in 2001 as a registered lobbyist, and since 2003 has served as its vice president of science and regulatory affairs. In that position, he's played a critical role in setting CLA’s domestic and international agenda.

[(Photo by flickr user jekrub used under a Creative Commons license)](Photo by flickr user jekrub used under a Creative Commons license)
Chiding Michelle Obama for not using "crop protection products" in her garden is one of the milder tactics CLA has deployed in service of its cause. During Siddiqui's tenure at the organization, it has lobbied aggressively to weaken domestic and international regulations on pesticides and other agricultural chemicals.

In 2005, the group participated in secret talks with the Environmental Protection Agency and the Office of Management and Budget on permitting pesticide testing on children. In 2006, CropLife America helped secure an exemption for American farmers from a worldwide ban on methyl bromide, an ozone-depleting pesticide. It has also actively worked to remove what it terms "trade irritants" on pesticides under NAFTA. In its 2008 annual report, CLA highlighted its "relentless" efforts to persuade negotiators to cut language "discriminatory to pesticides" from the 2008 Farm Bill. Meanwhile, its parent organization has fought to eliminate all tariffs on pesticides in World Trade Organization (WTO) trade negotiations.

After the nomination was announced, more than 80 organizations—including environmental groups and organic and local farm interests—wrote to the Senate Finance Committee in protest. "The Obama administration has said they're not going to put lobbyists in these roles in government, and [Siddiqui] was a lobbyist, he worked for industry," explained Doug Gurian-Sherman, a senior scientist working on food and environmental issues at the Union of Concerned Scientists. "The question is whether he can take a scientific, unbiased perspective on what works and doesn't work, rather than a trade agenda that primarily [supports] large US companies and the technologies they prefer."

While running for president, Obama promised Iowa voters that Big Ag would not call the shots on his administration's farm policy. "We'll tell ConAgra that it's not the Department of Agribusiness," he proclaimed. Yet agribusiness seems pretty satisfied with Siddiqui's nomination—more than 40 companies and trade groups signed a letter applauding it.

Siddiqui is a textbook example of the type of revolving door careerist that Obama promised to shun for key administration posts. Before joining CropLife, he held several jobs in Bill Clinton's Department of Agriculture, including senior agricultural trade adviser and undersecretary for marketing and regulatory programs. During that period, he advocated against efforts to label genetically modified foods.

Following Siddiqui's nomination earlier this year, the White House credited him for having led "the first phase of development for national organic natural food standards in the United States." What press officials didn't mention was that those standards received a barrage of criticism upon their release in 1998. As Mother Jones reported at the time, the first version of the rules "not only included the use of genetically engineered products but also allowed for irradiation and fertilization with sewage sludge—which can contain metals and toxic chemicals." In December 2000, after receiving more than 300,000 public comments, the Department of Agriculture strengthened the rules.

At his November 4 confirmation hearing, Siddiqui faced few tough questions from the finance committee. Only Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) asked for Siddiqui's views on sustainable agricultural practices and about his background working for the petrochemical industry. The nominee's response was vague. "I am a true believer in all processes, systems, whether using conventional means or organic, and I will do my best in terms of representing all these interests in promoting agriculture exports of both organic as well as conventionally grown products," he said.

The committee is expected to approve Siddiqui's nomination sometime this month. And critics aren't optimistic that he'll live up to his word and give sustainable agriculture a fair shake. "Given his background," said Gurian-Sherman "we think he's going to continue to push the industrial agriculture agenda he's been involved with for the past years."


Kate Sheppard covers energy and environmental politics from Washington, D.C.

[radicalmom]

http://brownfieldagnews.com/2009/11/13/dup...soybean-traits/

Dupont, Dow sign agreement on soybean traits

November 13, 2009 by Ken Anderson
Filed under Crops, Events/Organizations, News

Leave a Comment

DuPont and Dow AgroSciences have announced a new agreement on soybean traits.

Under the agreement, Dow is licensing its proprietary herbicide tolerant trait technology for soybeans to DuPont’s seed company Pioneer Hi-Bred. In addition, Pioneer is licensing its proprietary Optimum GAT trait for soybeans to Dow. Both companies have given the other rights to stack additional traits with their respective technology.

When stacked together, the Optimum® GAT® trait from Pioneer and the new herbicide-tolerant trait technology being developed by Dow would produce soybeans that are tolerant to 2,4-D, glyphosate and ALS herbicides. Dow says it anticipates commercialization of its new product early in the next decade pending regulatory authorizations.

Financial details of the agreement were not disclosed.

[radicalmom]

http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-ne...ood-be-modified

Will our views on GM food be 'modified’?

Saturday, 14 November 2009 14:57

Attention: open in a new window. PDFPrintE-mail
Will our views on GM food be 'modified’?
Geoffrey Lean
Daily Telegraph, 13 November 2009
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthcomm...ountryside.html

Stand by for yet another attempt to persuade a resistant British public to consume genetically modified food. The Food Standards Agency - the same quango that constantly condemns the organic produce that people really do want - is about to organise, at ministers' request, a "dialogue project" to see how consumers “can be helped to make informed choices about the food they eat”.

Tomorrow, the agency will announce the members of a steering group for the dialogue, which it says will "include stakeholders… with different views of GM". In fact, it seems that only two of the 11 to be named are known to oppose the technology.

It brings back memories of the last time the Government tried this tactic, six years ago. Again, it held a public "debate", whose purpose – one senior official told me - was to "dispel the myths" put about by "extremists in environmental groups".

The exercise sought to overturn public opinion that was running at three-to-one against GM, in preparation for starting planting modified crops in Britain. But by the time it had finished, opposition among those who participated had soared to 90 per cent, with the uncommitted becoming increasingly hostile the more they learned about GM.

Many of those who took part ended up seeing the debate as "window dressing used to cover secret decisions to go ahead with GM crop development".

That could not possibly be what is happening this time. Could it?

[radicalmom]

http://www2.dupont.com/Media_Center/en_US/...17.html?src=RSS

DuPont Recognized for Excellence in Agriculture

DuPont received three prestigious Agrow Awards, recognizing innovation and excellence in the development of agricultural products and technologies.

“We are honored to receive these awards that reflect so positively on our work in developing better products for our customers,” said Jim Borel, DuPont executive vice president, after the company accepted the awards in London last week. “Our research and development is driven by innovation to increase productivity for growers worldwide.”

DuPont received the awards for:

Most Innovative Chemistry: DuPont™ Cyazypyr™ insect control that combines excellent control of destructive pests with minimal known impact on beneficial insects and the environment. Pending global regulatory approvals, DuPont anticipates commercial launch of Cyazypyr™ insect control products in

DuPont helps growers reduce destructive pests and weeds.

Best Off-Patent Pesticide Strategy: Homogenous Granule Blend Technology that provides customers with new product blends tailored to rapidly changing weed control needs. With this technology, DuPont can continue to offer differentiated products that growers value in an increasingly generic marketplace.

Best Innovation in Non-Crop:DuPont™ Acelepryn® insecticide for the turf and ornamental market that balances product efficacy with reduced environmental impact. Acelepryn® helps golf course superintendents as well as lawn and landscape professionals protect turf and ornamentals from devastating pests, such as white grubs.