GE crops

Bill C-474 – Scientists reject market acceptance as GM approval factor

/ Cami Ryan, PhD / Leave a comment

Bill C474

Scientists say “no” to Bill C474 while some seed and organics growers support it.  What are your thoughts?  

Dr. Peter Phillips’ (University of Saskatchewan) and Dr. Wilf Keller (Genome Prairie) warn MPs against support of such a bill.  Dr. Phillips’ kindly provided his notes from this presentation and they are attached. 

“…this proposed 42-word, well-intentioned and apparently simple and straightforward amendment is a veritable Trojan horse that would destabilize the vitally important Canadian agri-food innovation system. As an alternative, I strongly urge you to broaden the dialogue to consider how we might truly achieve the stated goals of this amendment—an efficient, effective and commercially viable research, development, regulatory commercialization system that delivers world-class agri-food products…” (Phillips)

 

Phillips_Bill_C474_Oct_2010.pdf
Download this file

article_WP_Oct_14_2010.pdf
Download this file

Please check out previous ‘Kaleidoscope’ postings on Bill C474.

More developments on the EU Biotech Policy

/ Cami Ryan, PhD / 1 Comment

“…Importing biotech crops for feed and food will continue to be regulated as now. Member states would not be allowed to prohibit the import and/or the marketing of authorized biotech products. The current list of authorized biotech crops for feed and food use includes one sugar beet, three soybeans, three rapeseeds, six cotton and 17 corn products. What would change is that once a new biotech crop is authorized for cultivation, member states would be able to ban it across all or part of their country for socioeconomic, ethical and moral reasons other than those included in the health and environmental risk assessment of the EU.”

EU Biotech Policy Debate Continues
Ross Korves
July 23, 2010

Excerpt:
“In 2009 the EU grew 234,000 acres of the one biotech corn (MON810) authorized in 1998. According to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA), Spain had 187,900 acres of biotech corn, the Czech Republic 16,000 acres, Portugal 12,600 acres, Romania 8,000 acres, Poland 7,400 acres and Slovakia 2,200 acres. Germany and France had previously grown biotech corn. Romania grew 360,000 acres of biotech soybeans in 2006 before joining the EU in 2007. A biotech starch potato, known as ‘Amflora’, was authorized for cultivation and industrial processing in March 2010. Austria, Luxembourg and Hungary have already notified the Commission they will prohibit its cultivation.”

Full article at:
http://www.truthabouttrade.org/news/editorials/trade-policy-analysis/16303-eu…

Science is not trusted by organic farmers, and that plays against their economic interests

/ Cami Ryan, PhD / Leave a comment

Green thumbs

Genetically engineered crops are more environmentally friendly than
organic ones

By Elliot Entis
April 11, 2010
The Boston Globe

*

The yield per acre of such organic crops as wheat and beans is
between 50 and 80 percent of the yield of conventional crops

*

GE outperforms conventional crops: yields from genetically
engineered crops are 36% better for corn and 12% better for soy beans

*

Since 1997, the reduction in pesticide use resulting from
genetically engineered crops is estimated at 790 million pounds,
or 8.8%, and herbicide reduction in soybeans at 161 million
pounds, or 4.6%

“Farmers who grow Bt-corn [a GE variety that contains the natural pesticide Bt] use 75 percent less pesticides, essentially receiving the benefits of chemicals without releasing them into the environment or leaving residue on the final product.’’ Bt is one of the pesticides organic farmers use to protect their own crops.”

“The organic movement is largely a romantic ideal, far removed in many ways from science. It believes it is environmentally friendly, but it largely avoids science. True environmentalists look at the facts, and those facts do not support the growth of organic farming as a way to feed the world. However, with few exceptions, environmental organizations do not admit to this publicly. Why? Because they share a constituency: citizens who oppose certain elements of mass production farming, who yearn for a simpler time, when things were more natural. But this constituency is built on a shared belief system about the past, not the future.”
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/04/11/…