healthy food insights

Compare leasing and finance vendors online

http://ensnewswire.com/2015/12/06/globalcitizenstribunaltoputmonsantoontrial/

Global Citizens Tribunal to Put Monsanto on Trial

PARIS, France, December 6, 2015 (ENS) – Global food, farming and environmental justice groups

are joining forces to put biotech crop giant Monsanto on trial for ecocide and crimes against nature

and humanity at the International People’s Court in The Hague.

Genetically modified corn, Nabraska (Photo by Rebecca Winters)

At a press conference held in conjunction with COP21, the United Nations climate change conference

now underway in Paris, the groups announced their intention to try the publicly-traded U.S.-based

transnational corporation.

The trial is scheduled for next year on World Food Day, October 16, 2016. It will be held not at the

International Court of Justice, but at the the International People’s Court, which operates outside the

mechanisms of government and formal institutions like the United Nations.

Related articles and information Latest reports and educational tutorials about green business News and key insights for Alternative financing in US and Mexico Press releases and reports about food processing Reports and resources related to Packaging Machinery for foods

http://www.edanaro.com/

http://ens-newswire.com/2015/12/06/global-citizens-tribunal-to-put-monsanto-on-trial/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/butterandoil/2372211026/in/photolist-4BCcG7-kV4ULa-AWnYz-8txoiD-hDsTx3-5NEZc6-fn77Do-ir5zDU-oBowFy-4CAtCJ-8VAN1C-gvD6oG-64T8hD-9pS5Q8-34swwi-tCa9f8-qfvnvn-keeptw-orxrnQ-658zPR-6UoUjj-8VAN4b-5xr9dJ-nbVzL7-63BJok-bb5FuH-cKKQE3-cmV6P9-jSAvN-36PEvA-nrjiv2-fQsAMY-7FAHkb-aConyA-adrP4D-qpUyWQ-eHLt4Q-obytZJ-deBG3E-dRzud9-5g7zLw-oB5oT2-nRJ6wU-oWV9g4-7kvHAG-aBUhhG-71Aa1o-7ALhCe-s4S95-JzYJT

http://www.egreenews.com/

http://www.edanaro.com/edanaro-news

http://www.superindustrialonline.com/

http://www.gustherpack.com/indexallE.htm


Its authority comes from the voices of the victims, as well as that of civil society, both national and

international.

“The time is long overdue for a global citizens’ tribunal to put Monsanto on trial for crimes against

humanity and the environment,” said Ronnie Cummins, international director of the U.S.-based

Organic Consumers Association and Via Organica, based in Mexico, and a member of the Regeneration

International Steering Committee.

“We are in Paris this month to address the most serious threat that humans have ever faced in our

100-200,000 year evolution – global warming and climate disruption, said Cummins.

“Why is there so much carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere and not enough

carbon organic matter in the soil?” he asked.

Answering his own question, Cummins laid blame on, “Corporate agribusiness, industrial forestry, the

garbage and sewage industry and agricultural biotechnology” who have “literally killed the

climate-stabilizing, carbon-sink capacity of the Earth’s living soil.”

March Against Monsanto, San Francisco, California, May 2015 (Photo by Peg Hunter)



https://www.flickr.com/photos/43005015@N06/17438646754/in/photolist-ad69qX-34x69N-34x6v7-5Tgj1k-d45vjf-dgfpdf-6U623c-ofh6vU-fun7AT-aAZnD5-d45zUo-d45ycA-d45DiA-etV6fy-bWDvjr-6Vem1s-6SxMQh-34swwi-5VJcB2-dqnjFr-aspQp9-gCfQbt-Ay8zjk-e6HMQv-e6HMzn-e6PrCW-e6HMMM-e6HMBk-e6PrKE-e6HMHt-e6PrwQ-e6HMTF-gCeKUf-gCfQKV-gCeL2j-gCfgab-rBdD3o-syZC8m-qU5q7g-estG3N-gCfgY4-dK1ZAR-axgncX-ekF4Xa-gz7ygM-ttEMDY-tepsJQ-tw65zB-8QfTRS-5QNA1W






The case will be brought to The Hague by Organic Consumers Association, IFOAM International

Organics, Navdanya, Regeneration International and Millions Against Monsanto, joined by dozens of

global food, farming and environmental justice groups.

Vandana Shiva, physicist, author, activist and founder of Navdanya, and member of the Regeneration

International, RI, Steering Committee said, “Monsanto has pushed GMOs in order to collect royalties

from poor farmers, trapping them in unpayable debt, and pushing them to suicide.”

“Monsanto promotes an agro-industrial model that contributes at least 50 percent of global

anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions,” said Shiva. “Monsanto is also largely responsible for the

depletion of soil and water resources, species extinction and declining biodiversity, and the

displacement of millions of small farmers worldwide.”

Since the beginning of the 20th century, Monsanto has developed a steady stream of highly toxic

products which have permanently damaged the environment and caused illness or death for

thousands of people.

These products include:

• PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls), one of the 12 chemicals governed by the the Stockholm

Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, a global treaty to protect human health and the

environment from chemicals that remain intact in the environment for long periods, become widely

distributed geographically, accumulate in the fatty tissue of humans and wildlife, and have harmful

impacts on human health or on the environment.

• 2,4,5 T (2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid), a dioxin-containing component of the defoliant Agent

Orange, which was used by the U.S. Army during the Vietnam War and continues to cause birth

defects and cancer;

• Lasso, an herbicide that is now banned in Europe;

• RoundUp, the most widely used herbicide in the world. This herbicide, designated a probable human

carcinogen by the World Health Organization, is used in combination with genetically modified

RoundUp Ready seeds in large-scale monocultures of soybeans, maize and rapeseed for animal feed

and biofuels.








Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup (Screengrab fromvideo courtesy Monsanto)

“Monsanto is able to ignore the human and environmental damage caused by its products, and

maintain its devastating activities through a strategy of systemic concealment: by lobbying regulatory

agencies and governments, by resorting to lying and corruption, by financing fraudulent scientific

studies, by pressuring independent scientists, and by manipulating the press and media,” said Andre

Leu, president of IFOAM and a member of the RI Steering Committee.

“Monsanto’s history reads like a text-book case of impunity, benefiting transnational corporations and

their executives, whose activities contribute to climate and biosphere crises and threaten the safety of

the planet,” said Leu.

For its part, Monsanto portrays itself as a company that cares about the climate.

On the agriculture thematic day at the COP21 meeting in Paris, December 1, Monsanto and other food

and agriculture giants outlined their plans to make more food available for a growing population while

reducing agriculture’s greenhouse gas footprint.

Monsanto executives, together with those of PepsiCo, Olam and Kellogg Company, chaired a working

group on Climate Smart Agriculture. They declared that by 2030 they are aiming to make 50 percent



http://news.monsanto.com/video/give-it-minute-glyphosate






more food available and strengthen the resilience of farming communities whilst reducing greenhouse

gas emissions by 50 percent.

“Agriculture and farmers are uniquely positioned to make a real difference in driving climate change

solutions,” said Hugh Grant, Monsanto’s chairman and chief executive.

“Through advanced technologies and better farming practices, like reduced tillage, farmers around the

world have made great strides to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce overall resource use,”

said Grant. “Working together, the global agricultural community has the opportunity to leverage its

resources to mitigate the effects of climate change while still meeting the food needs of our growing

planet.”

Climate Smart Agriculture has the support of organizations such as the World Bank, the United

Nations and the UN Food and Agriculture Organization in addition to national government aid and

development agencies.

Monsanto has never lost a case in court, and has successfully sued farmers who reused the company’s

proprietary genetically modified seeds without paying royalties, even in cases where organic farmers

had sued Monsanto for the inadvertent cross-pollination of their organic crops with GMO seeds.

Monsanto filed 144 patent-infringement lawsuits against farmers between 1997 and April 2010, and

won judgments against all farmers. Earlier this year, the company pledged in a U.S. court that it

would not press charges against farmers if its biotech crops accidentally mix in with organic crops.

Nevertheless, on world Food Day 2016, an international tribunal of lawyers and judges will assess the

potential criminal liability of Monsanto for damages inflicted on human health and the environment,

relying on the “Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights” adopted by the United Nations in

2011.

The tribunal will also rely on the Rome Statute that created the International Criminal Court in The

Hague in 2002. This court has determined that prosecuting ecocide as a criminal offense is the only

way to guarantee the rights of humans to a healthy environment and the right of nature to be

protected.

Too Toxic: EPA Rejects Dow’s Herbicide Enlist Duo








WASHINGTON, DC, November 25, 2015 (ENS) – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says it

will vacate its approval of the Dow AgroSciences herbicide Enlist Duo after determining that its

combination of chemicals could be more harmful than initially believed.

Responding to a lawsuit by conservation groups, in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday, the EPAmoved for voluntary vacatur and remand of EPA’s registration of Dow AgroSciences’ Enlist Duo herbicide under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, FIFRA.

Farmer inspects weeds in his soybean field, Sept. 2013 (Photo by United Soybean Board)

Approved by the agency in October 2014, Enlist Duo is an herbicide developed for use on corn and

soybean crops that are genetically engineered to be resistant to the two active ingredients in Enlist

Duo, glyphosate and 2,4-D.

The EPA told the court that it has “new information regarding potential synergistic effects between the

two ingredients on non-target plants,” so the agency wants to “reconsider the Enlist Duo registration

in light of the new information.”

“EPA cannot be sure, without a full analysis of the new information, that the current registration does

not cause unreasonable effects to the environment, which is a requirement of the registration

standard under FIFRA.”



http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/pesticides_reduction/pdfs/2015-11-24_EPA_Voluntary_Vacatur.pdf

https://www.flickr.com/photos/unitedsoybean/13782182963/in/photolist-mZThQc-mZTaQn-mZUTfo-mZUAuj-mZT7bg-fErjqN-fErj1W-fE9HZ2-fErjQQ-fE9JjR-fBi8xT-mZVnUr-fEdEaB-fE9DHH-fE9Dc2-fA4Wj4-6BQgHg-d3gNpq-6kSWDU-fci4gN-fc3Mj2-mZVo68-mZWWU3-mZUMsb-mZT7LK-mZSTxH-mZTfqp-mZT8d6-mZT7wM-mZT52D-fErr2d-mZVgRK-mZWXJQ-mZVfav-mZVfsp-mZWWDy-fEvf6y-fEdDvP-fEvfH5-fEdEmr-fEvejw-fEvfny-fEvfRw-fEdD3B-fEdDn4-fEdE5v-fEvfyb-fEdCT4-mZT7Vc-mZT6ir






While the plaintiff conservation groups do not oppose the EPA’s motion to vacate Enlist Due’s

registration, counsel for Dow told the court the company intends to file a response to the motion.

Just after the agency approved Dow’s herbicide, EPA discovered that Dow made claims of “synergistic

herbicidal weed control” in its provisional patent application for Enlist Duo.

Dow filed its final patent application on December 11, 2014, a month after EPA approved the

herbicide.

With these two photos Dow tries to show that Enlist Duo drifts less than another mix of

the two active chemicals in the herbicide at issue. (Photos courtesy Dow Agrosciences)

EPA told the court on Tuesday that “the claimed ‘synergism’ could affect the agency’s assessment of

drift reduction measures for avoiding impacts to non-target organisms, including those listed as

endangered…”

Concern for endangered species exposed to the herbicide is what caused conservation groups to sue

the agency.

The groups challenged EPA’s failure to consider the impacts of Enlist Duo on threatened and

endangered plants and animals protected under the Endangered Species Act.








The EPA approval was challenged by Earthjustice and Center for Food Safety, on behalf of Center for

Food Safety, Beyond Pesticides, the Center for Biological Diversity, Environmental Working Group, the

National Family Farm Coalition and Pesticide Action Network North America.

The Endangered Species Act requires that every federal agency consider the impacts of its actions on

America’s most imperiled plants and animals and seek input from expert wildlife agencies before

acting.

“With this action, EPA confirms the toxic nature of this lethal cocktail of chemicals, and has stepped

back from the brink,” said Earthjustice Managing Attorney Paul Achitoff.

“Glyphosate is a probable carcinogen and is wiping out the monarch butterfly, 2,4-D also causes

serious human health effects, and the combination also threatens endangered wildlife,” Achitoff said.

“This must not, and will not, be how we grow our food.”1:02 PM 11/25/2015

Judy Hatcher, executive director of Pesticide Action Network North America, said, “EPA is taking a step

in the right direction, but Enlist Duo shouldn’t have been given the green light in the first place.”

“Too often, GE seeds and the herbicides designed to accompany them are rushed to market without

thorough evaluation of their real-world impacts on community health and farmer livelihoods, said

Hatcher.

The Enlist Duo label states, “This pesticide is toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates. Do not apply

directly to water, to areas where surface water is present, or to intertidal areas below the mean high

water mark. Drift or runoff may adversely affect aquatic invertebrates and non-target plants. Drift and

runoff may be hazardous to aquatic organisms in water adjacent to treated areas.”








A portion of the Enlist Duo product label. (Image courtesy Dow Agrosciences)

The EPA had approved use of Enlist Duo in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Ohio, South Dakota, Wisconsin,

Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, Nebraska, Oklahoma and North Dakota,

and had intended to approve it in additional areas in the near future.

“The decision by EPA to withdraw the illegally approved Enlist Duo crops is a huge victory for the

environment and the future of our food,” said George Kimbrell, Center for Food Safety’s senior

attorney.

“This Thanksgiving, I’m thankful for the EPA taking this important action to protect people, rare plants

and animals from Enlist Duo,” said Lori Ann Burd, environmental health director at the Center for

Biological Diversity. “As we gather with our families for the holiday feast, we can all breathe a little bit








easier knowing that the EPA has protected our food from being drenched with this poisonous pesticide

cocktail.”

U.S. Approves First Transgenic Animal for Human Food

WASHINGTON, DC, November 20, 2015 (ENS) – Over the objections of millions of Americans, the

U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved a genetically engineered animal food. Atlantic

salmon engineered for faster than normal growth was approved by the agency for sale, no label

required.

Wild-caught salmon on ice at Seattle’s Pike Place Market (Photo by Kevin Galens)

“The FDA has thoroughly analyzed and evaluated the data and information submitted by AquaBounty

Technologies regarding AquAdvantage Salmon and determined that they have met the regulatory

requirements for approval, including that food from the fish is safe to eat,” said Bernadette Dunham,

DVM, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine.



https://www.flickr.com/photos/kevygee/2665454889/in/photolist-54x9SM-tinQX-z5Ncx-7tVZpy-4rrxJS-2pkABt-8j1yHa-7GLfsC-7GLaUN-7GL8Cb-7GGhkR-4dmvEn-5E2P9J-5ssw6f-3X5qTj-2pkuzB-7GLA3Q-9UaVTq-2nYFn8-bPYjvz-5JbQXJ-7MNGan-2jViP6-7MSKJs-2j27MP-7MNEdK-7MSEWN-LuHx8-2eCbtV-7GGzfz-7GGwPc-7GGBY4-7GLnTq-7GGpie-7GGGQM-jJaCLs-2jZEyW-2jVjtD-2j25B4-31juAS-2jViEx-yTnRv-2eC9xi-2eB4iz-2jyJBi-7MNw5K-7MSGQw-7MSGr5-LuQzv-7MSh6d






Made public Thursday, the approval has already drawn threats of a lawsuit and vows not to sell the

AquaBounty salmon by thousands of grocery stores nationwide.

More than 60 grocery chains, including Safeway, Kroger, Trader Joe’s and Target, with more than

9,000 stores across the United States, have made commitments to not sell this fish, dubbed

“frankenfish” by its opponents such as Friends of the Earth.

A growth hormone-regulating gene from a Pacific Chinook salmon and a promoter from an ocean pout

were added to the Atlantic salmon’s 40,000 genes.

These genes enable the farmed salmon to grow year-round instead of only during spring and summer.

The purpose of the genetic modifications is to grow the fish to market size in 16 to 18 months rather

than three years.

Based in Maynard, Massachusetts, publicly-traded AquaBounty Technologies is a biotechnology

company focused on “enhancing productivity in aquaculture,” and a majority-owned subsidiary of

Intrexon Corporation.

AquaBounty CEO Ronald Stotish, PhD calls AquAdvantage salmon …”a game-changer that brings

healthy and nutritious food to consumers in an environmentally responsible manner without damaging

the ocean and other marine habitats.”








AquaBounty salmon are raised in land-based tanks. (Photo courtesy AquaBounty)

“While farming salmon in sea cages is less expensive and less technologically complex than a

land-based farm, land-based salmon farming eliminates many of the environmental problems with

net-pen farms,” AquaBounty explains on its website. “Sea cages are susceptible to a number of

hazards such as violent storms, predators, harmful algal blooms, jellyfish attacks, and the

transmission of pathogens and parasites from wild fish populations passing close to the sea cages.”

“Using land-based aquaculture systems, this rich source of protein and other nutrients can be farmed

close to major consumer markets in a more sustainable manner,” Stotish said.

The company says that land-based aquaculture systems can provide a continuous supply of fresh,

safe, traceable, and sustainable AquAdvantage Salmon to communities across the United States and

do it with a reduced carbon footprint. “It offers an alternative approach to fish farming that does not

exploit the oceans,” says the company.

The FDA says it conducted “an exhaustive and rigorous scientific review,” before arriving at the

decision that “AquAdvantage salmon is as safe to eat as any non-genetically engineered Atlantic

salmon, and also as nutritious.”

“The data demonstrated that the inserted genes remained stable over several generations of fish, that

food from the genetically engineered salmon is safe to eat by humans and animals, that the genetic

engineering is safe for the fish, and the salmon meets the sponsor’s claim about faster growth,” the

FDA said in a statement.

The FDA also determined that the approval “would not have a significant impact on the environment of

the United States.”

“That’s because the multiple containment measures the company will use in the land-based facilities in

Panama and Canada make it extremely unlikely that the fish could escape and establish themselves in

the wild,” the agency stated.

The FDA said that although it is not requiring labeling, food manufacturers are free to label the GMO

salmon if they wish.

Because the FDA recognizes that many consumers are interested in this information, and some food

manufacturers will want to make the distinction, the agency released two guidance documents

detailing its current thinking on labeling – a draft guidance



https://aquabounty.com/






http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/ucm469802

.htm

for labeling of food derived from Atlantic salmon that has or has not been genetically engineered and a

final guidance for labeling of food that has or has not been derived from genetically engineered plants.

“Both guidance documents explain FDA’s best thinking on how to make it easy for consumers to know

whether a food was produced using genetic engineering or not,” says Felicia Billingslea, BS, MS,

director of FDA’s Division of Food Labeling and Standards.

The public is invited to provide comments on this draft guidance. Starting November 23, comments

can be submitted at Regulations.gov.

The agency is sure to receive some blistering comments.

“The FDA is supposed to protect public safety, yet the agency’s environmental review was done in the

form of an environmental assessment instead of a more thorough environmental impact statement

that would fully consider the threat this controversial new fish could pose to wild fish populations and

ecosystems,” said Wenonah Hauter, executive director, Food & Water Watch, based in Washington,

DC.

“Food & Water Watch will be examining all options to stop this controversial and unnecessary GMO fish

from reaching the marketplace. We urge President Obama to overturn FDA’s approval and stop GMO

salmon from reaching consumers’ dinner plates,” said Hauter.

“FDA’s decision also disregards AquaBounty’s disastrous environmental record, which greatly raises

the stakes for an environmentally damaging escape of GMO salmon,” said Hauter.

AquaBounty facilities outside the United States have dealt with an accidental disease outbreak, an

accident that led to “lost” salmon, and a $9,500 fine from Panamanian regulators who found the

company in breach of their environmental laws.

In October 2014, officials in Panama penalized the local AquaBounty facility for failing to obtain

necessary water use and pollution permits. The authorities said the company had “repeatedly violated”

these regulations, and stated that these problems persisted from 2012 into 2013. AquaBounty

Technologies said that Panama’s concerns were administrative in nature.








Another problem could arise if genetically modified Atlantic salmon were to escape from captivity.

They could succeed in breeding and passing their genes into the wild, Canadian researchers have

found, a potential risk that FDA never addressed in its risk assessment.

Dr. Darek Moreau, from the Memorial University of Newfoundland, published a study in July 2011 finding that genetically engineered Atlantic salmon can cross-breed with brown trout, a related species common to areas surrounding both AquaBounty facilities, in Panama and Canada.

“[Under hatchery conditions] the transgenic hybrids grew faster than the wild salmon, wild trout and

wild-type hybrids,” said Moreau. “The GM hybrids also outgrew the GM salmon.”

On November 17, Canadian environmental groups went to court to challenge the federal government’s

approval of an application to manufacture genetically-modified salmon eggs in the province of Prince

Edward Island. The eggs would then be shipped to Panama for grow out before being sold as food in

North America.

Ecojustice lawyers, on behalf of Living Oceans Society and the Ecology Action Centre, argued that the

Canadian government acted unlawfully when it approved AquaBounty Canada Inc.’s application to

manufacture genetically-modified salmon without adequate public notice and without adequate

assessment for its other uses. The groups seek a court order overturning the approval.

“Canadians expect government decision-making to be open and transparent, especially when it comes

to something as significant as manufacturing genetically-modified salmon that may pose serious risks

to wild Atlantic salmon stocks,” said Ecojustice lawyer Kaitlyn Mitchell.

Back in the United States, Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Washington, DC-based Center

for Food Safety, said his nonprofit plans to sue the FDA in coordination with other plaintiffs.

“FDA has neglected its responsibility to protect the public,” said Kimbrell.

In approving the AquaBounty transgenic salmon, FDA ignored millions of Americans and more than 40

members of Congress who have voiced their opposition.

FDA also neglects the concerns of more than 300 environmental, consumer, health and animal welfare

organizations, salmon and fishing groups and associations, food companies, chefs and restaurants.

Some two million people filed public comments with the FDA in opposition to this action, the largest

number of comments the FDA has ever received on an action.



http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-4571.2011.00196.x/abstract;jsessionid=A2F71194F6E6D4C04C5F45BCA1B887D4.f02t03






“The review process by FDA was inadequate, failed to fully examine the likely impacts of the salmon’s

introduction, and lacked a comprehensive analysis,” said Kimbrell. This decision sets a dangerous

precedent, lowering the standards of safety in this country.”

African Women in Agribusiness Resolve to Take Action

DURBAN, South Africa, November 13, 2015 (ENS) – Women as key producers of food for African

households will no longer cry, Estherine Fotabong assured a conference for women in agribusiness in

Durban last week. “Now is the time to take action!”

As the Director of Programs with the New Partnership for African Development, NEPAD, Fotabong

opened the Durban International Conference on a high note.

Estherine Fotabong is director of programs with the New Partnership for African

Development (Photo © Charles Mkoka)








She focused on the theme of the conference, “Women in entrepreneurial development: A Must for

Success of the Sustainable Development Goals in Africa.”

The 17 Sustainable Development Goals were adopted by world governments September 25 at the

landmark Sustainable Development Summit at UN Headquarters in New York. The historic new

agenda, “Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,” was agreed by

the UN’s 193 Member States.

Fotabong said that now, with the Sustainable Development Goals in place, there must be a clear

acknowledgment of the important role that women play in economic development as producers of 80

percent of the food on African tables.

“You have power, women have power. If you are feeding 80 percent of the continent, you have

power,” declared Fotabong to applause.

Cyril Xaba, who serves as Member of the Executive Council for Agriculture and Rural Development in

the South African province of KwaZulu-Natal, welcomed the delegates to the KZN coastal city of

Durban. He said they could feel at home to deliberate in a free atmosphere.

Member of the KwaZulu Natal Executive Council for Agriculture Cyril Xaba (Photo

courtesy Government of KZN)








Xaba opened an exhibition linked to the conference where cooperatives from across the continent

displayed their products.

The conference was graced by local agribusiness stakeholders from across Africa and development

partners: the South African Agribusiness Development; the UN Food and Agricultural Organization,

FAO; a Member of the Executive Provincial Council in Durban; and a representative of the Norwegian

Agency for International Development

It was organized by the Gender Climate Change Agriculture Support Programme to actively engage

women in agribusiness as part of climate resilience and to spearhead development.

Fotabong told the delegates, “Women must realize their full potential from small to medium

enterprises but also get a voice in the political process.”

“It is time to realize that … the world is moving from a knowledge economy to a relationship economy.

This calls for who do you know,” Fotabong said. “As such women have to organize themselves and

turn to be a strong force and speak with one voice, as it is easier to get such a voice.”

Fotabong urged more training for women in business planning and governance so that women can act

forcefully.








Delegates to the Women in Agribusiness Conference in Durban, Nov. 3, 2015 (Photo ©

Charles Mkoka)

It is important to ensure that agreements made at the continental level trickle down to the average

women in even remote areas of Africa, she emphasized.

Fotabong said that should apply to Agenda 2063, the 50-year vision and development plan agreed in

2013 on the 50th Anniversary of the African Union.

She said the trickle-down effect must also apply to the Malabo Declaration agreed in 2014 at the

African Union Assembly in Malabo, Equatorial Guinea that capped the 2014 AU Year of Agriculture and

Food Security.

Through the Malabo Declaration, the AU Heads of State and Government committed to ending hunger

by the year 2025. To achieve this they resolved to halve the current levels of post-harvest losses by

2025.

“These things should not only remain on paper,” Fotabong told the delegates in Durban. “It is the duty

of governments, civil society groups and development partners to take action when it comes to

women in development,” she said.








A farmer in Zimbabwe harvests dinner from her cabbage patch. 2014 (Photo © T. Ogolla /

FAO)

Tobias Takavarasha, the UN FAO representative in South Africa, told the delegates that his institution

and NEPAD have signed a Memorandum of Understanding that endorses more thrust on food security,

women and youth in agriculture. He said the agreement sets forth many other interventions to foster

agriculture-led development and assist both genders equally.

Entrepreneur Anna Msowoya, founder of Kwithu Kitchen in the northern Malawian city of Mzuzu, said it

is time governments gave more support to locally-based businesses that often face high interest rates

from lending institutions and high taxes when they order packaging materials.

This is in sharp contrast to the tax holiday offered to foreign investors, a development that puts local

businesses at a disadvantage, she said.

The gathering is building on the outcomes of the first conference on women in agribusiness, held in

2014, and also on the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals adopted in September, with particular

reference to goals 2: Zero Hunger; 4: Quality Education; and 5: Gender Equality.

The conference provides a platform for dialogue among stakeholders in the field of economic

participation of women, including governments, development partners and civil society

representatives.

They are considering strategies and political economies of building an enabling environment for

women entrepreneurs.

Delegates will share best practices and identify new and innovative opportunities to improve rural

womens’ entrepreneurial skills and develop gender-sensitive business services.

They will also strengthen networking and advocacy for women entrepreneurs to encourage a

progressive integration of woman-led rural businesses into the continent’s formal economy.

Eating Hot Dogs, Ham, Red Meat Raises Cancer Risk








LYON, France, October 27, 2015 (ENS) – Reducing consumption of red meat and processed meats

can reduce the risk of colorectal, pancreatic and prostate cancers, finds a new report from the World

Health Organization’s cancer agency.

In a report released on Tuesday, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, IARC, a Working

Group of 22 experts from 10 countries evaluated the carcinogenicity of the consumption of red meat

and processed meat based on a review of the scientific literature.

Processed meat party platter (Photo by Alpha)

The IARC Working Group classified the consumption of processed meat as carcinogenic to humans

(Group 1), based on “sufficient evidence in humans that the consumption of processed meat causes

colorectal cancer.”

The Working Group classified consumption of red meat as probably carcinogenic to humans (Group

2A), “based on limited evidence that the consumption of red meat causes cancer in humans and

strong mechanistic evidence supporting a carcinogenic effect.”

The experts concluded that each 50 gram (1.76 ounce) portion of processed meat eaten daily

increases the risk of colorectal cancer by 18 percent.



https://www.flickr.com/photos/avlxyz/4063479636/in/photolist-f7GUx-5pdaRg-8drg5q-8dnZjx-dKRGnr-8dnZfM-7guWsY-7cPTWk-7c5oVJ-Gt7QL-Gtcca-sLf7-5MJqRU-Gk8f8-jSPyw-6P1PPZ-auAnqy-6P1NMr-bAW9My-b5htbF-8ehtHH-m5UcwK-fFb2dS-5duyvM-5dyUDS-8drg1W-8dnZdF-8dnZiH-8dnZaX-8dnZbn-8dnZnF-8drfXs-8drfVA-8drfWw-oXYr19-ccPasG-m5U7Yg-fuASCV-7Bc8Gn-44tAek






This association was observed mainly for colorectal cancer, but associations were also seen for

pancreatic cancer and prostate cancer, the Working Group said.

Many studies show the links, both in populations of people and in tests that show how eating these

foods can cause cancer, IARC said in its report, published in “The Lancet” medical journal.

Dr. Christopher Wild, who directs IARC, said in a statement, “These findings further support current

public health recommendations to limit intake of meat.”

“At the same time, red meat has nutritional value,” said Dr. Wild. “These results are important in

enabling governments and international regulatory agencies to conduct risk assessments, in order to

balance the risks and benefits of eating red meat and processed meat and to provide the best possible

dietary recommendations.”

Red meat refers to all types of mammalian muscle meat, such as beef, veal, pork, lamb, mutton,

horse, and goat.

Processed meat refers to meat that has been transformed through salting, curing, fermentation,

smoking, or other processes to enhance flavor or improve preservation.








Eating hot dogs on New York City’s 5th Avenue, August 2015 (Photo by Steve Pisano)

Most processed meats contain pork or beef, but processed meats may also contain other red meats,

poultry, offal, or meat by-products such as blood.

Examples of processed meat include ham, sausages, corned beef, hot dogs or frankfurters, and biltong

or beef jerky as well as canned meat and meat-based preparations and sauces.

The consumption of meat varies greatly between countries, with from a few percent up to 100 percent

of people eating red meat, depending on the country, and somewhat lower proportions eating

processed meat.



https://www.flickr.com/photos/stevenpisano/20446597475/in/photolist-x9Na5F-vry2qq-6W3xH9-mXQyzN-awFJUb-a6AzVK-MGzwv-o92hXP-DAtgi-52xz9q-5Tdbwv-ryKLSq-hsuQgK-Mo8E-7xyt9-26PXYA-htkC8-6Ww3Hg-DAtvB-DAtEE-263nvx-a1Z6WS-aJUmcF-8w6ZEH-bBycFD-8fQaUG-DAtnC-5g4dBE-533huU-6Aj8VR-6WsnjH-9E1i2V-8efeYk-6EMdL7-4Mt1Q-kGuNYW-kJRyPk-9ZZQQU-4E4VY1-qfxXSt-bXuyRy-D3CrX-7uu5AS-9ZWY62-9tmLzw-5fBsdq-58udBd-9ZEp7D-26PXU3-4E4VY5






“For an individual, the risk of developing colorectal cancer because of their consumption of processed

meat remains small, but this risk increases with the amount of meat consumed,” said Dr. Kurt Straif,

who heads the IARC Monographs Programme that produced this report.

“In view of the large number of people who consume processed meat, the global impact on cancer

incidence is of public health importance,” said Dr. Straif.

The IARC Working Group considered more than 800 studies that investigated associations of more

than a dozen types of cancer with the consumption of red meat or processed meat in many countries

and populations with diverse diets.

Honey Bee Queens Harmed by Neonicotinoid Pesticides

BERN, Switzerland, October 16, 2015 (ENS) – The first study to investigate the effects of

neonicotinoid insecticides on honey bee queens finds that these chemicals may contribute to bee

colony mortality by affecting queen health. It strengthens calls for more thorough environmental risk

assessments of these widely used pesticides to protect bees.

A research team from Bern, Switzerland and Wolfville, Canada has found that honey bee queens,

which are crucial to colony functioning, are severely affected by the two neonicotinoid insecticides

thiamethoxam and clothianidin.

In 2013, governments in Europe moved to partially restrict the use of these neonicotinoids while

further risk assessments were performed.

The province of Ontario, Canada followed suit in 2015.








A marked honey bee queen used during the study shown on a wax comb with adult

workers, capped cells containing maturing workers, and open cells containing eggs that

will develop into workers. (Photo: Geoffrey Williams, University of Bern)

In recent years beekeepers have had difficulties maintaining honey bee colonies throughout North

America and Europe, and often experience dramatic winter mortalities.

A research team from the Institute of Bee Health at the University of Bern, from Agroscope at the

Swiss Confederation, and from the Department of Biology at Canada’s Acadia University,

demonstrated in an article in the open-access journal “Scientific Reports” from the Nature Publishing

Group that honey bee queens are “extremely vulnerable” to the neonicotinoids thiamethoxam and

clothianidin.

The study shows profound effects on queen physiology, anatomy, and overall reproductive success.

“Alongside introduced parasites, it is believed that agricultural chemicals may play a role in these

issues,” says lead author Geoff Williams of the University of Bern.

Previous research suggests that exposure to these chemicals causese both lethal and sub-lethal

effects on honey bee workers, but nothing has been known about how they may affect queens.








The observation that honey bee queens are highly vulnerable to these common neonicotinoid

pesticides is “worrisome, but not surprising,” says senior author Laurent Gauthier from the Swiss

Confederation’s Agroscope.

“Beekeepers frequently cite poor queen health as a major cause of colony death each year,” he said.

Beekeepers across the Northern Hemisphere have been struggling to keep their hives

alive. (Photo byKris Fricke)

Honey bees are complex social organisms that demonstrate female reproductive division of labor

between the queen and workers within a colony.

Queens release chemical pheromones essential for colony social organization and usually monopolize

female reproduction, while workers carry out all other tasks necessary for colony maintenance.

Since there is only a single queen in each colony, queen health is crucial to colony survival.

Soon after birth, each queen will embark on a series of mating flights to collect sperm from males

called drones. Afterwards, she will return to her colony to lay eggs and be cared for by workers.



https://www.flickr.com/photos/commissariat/2442796990/in/photolist-4JgLhD-fkuwW-6h6YN1-4TJYcP-wFnWpf-n5D2t-4TJY92-4qK57a-gMjW63-5D8ZQm-agRNsC-gMmZgj-91nvM7-4HMHJ8-91nvPb-4Gejki-4HRYpU-cfE8vd-9P3cit-bgPSa-5gL3Rg-5gQj1q-5gKZqP-5gQmcJ-5gQoLy-5gL2D6-5gQhQy-5gQjL5-5gL2PB-5gQiJj-5gL318-5gQo1S-5gKZUz-5gKXGn-5gQksj-5gL2GP-5gQm9h-5gQok3-5gKYHz-5gL2gT-5gKZPM-5gQm5S-5jeY9f-deoPT7-deoPQb-deoR9Z-djVtUu-7LXhYU-FjVhp-4HRYru






Co-author Peter Neumann from Bern said, “This study, along with other recently published ones,

supports calls for more thorough environmental risk assessments of agricultural chemicals to protect

biodiversity and ecosystem functioning.”

Honey bees, like all insect pollinators, provide crucial ecosystem and economic services. Annually in

Europe and North America, millions of honey bee colonies produce honey and contribute to the

pollination of a range of agricultural crops, from carrots to almonds to oilseed rape, that is valued at

billions of Euros.

In 2013 governments in Europe took a precautionary approach by partially restricting the application

of the neonicotinoid pesticides thiamethoxam, clothianidin, and imidacloprid, with the mandate to

perform further environmental risk assessments.

A new inter-governmental review will take place in the coming months.

In late August thousands of people, some dressed as bees, swarmed in Parliament Square to protest

the July decision of the UK Parliament to temporarily allow farmers to spray the toxic neonicotinoids

on their crops.

Over 500,000 people signed a petition opposing suspension of the ban.

The UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Defra, says it followed the advice of the

UK Expert Committee on Pesticides and the agency’s chief scientist, to grant a limited emergency

authorization of two pesticides in areas where oil rape crops are at risk of pest damage.

The Committee recommended rejecting authorising 79 percent of the crop area and instead

recommended a much more limited and controlled application for five percent of the crop area for the

worst affected areas.

Defra’s approach contrasts with other EU countries such as Denmark, which have issued unrestricted

emergency authorizations for the same use of neonicotinoids.

Plastic for Dinner

DAVIS, California, October 9, 2015 (ENS) – Roughly one in every four fish sold for human

consumption in certain California and Indonesian markets contain plastic fragments or textile fibers in

their guts, an international team of scientists has found.








Published in the journal “Scientific Reports,” the study is one of the first to directly link plastic debris with the fish that shows up on dinner tables.

Seller at an Indonesian fish market. (Photo by Dale Trockel courtesy UC Davis)

Researchers from the University of California, Davis, and Hasanuddin University in Indonesia sampled

76 fish from markets in Makassar, Indonesia, and 64 from Half Moon Bay and Princeton in California.

The researchers collected whole fish, GI tracts of fish and whole bivalves directly from fish markets or

from fisherman selling their catch for human consumption.

Not all fish tested had plastic in their guts. Species tested included tilapia, skipjack tuna, salmon,

herring, mackerel, scad and snapper. Plastic debris or fiber was found in the guts of Indian mackerel,

shortfin scad, silver-stripe round herring, two species of rabbitfish, and fish from the family

Carangidae that could not be identified as to genera.

In Indonesia, manufactured debris was found in 28 percent of individual fish and in 55 percent of all

species. Similarly, in the United States, anthropogenic debris was found in 25 percent of individual fish

and in 67 percent of all species.

Manufactured debris was also found in 33 percent of individual shellfish sampled.



http://bit.ly/1LwO7L1






Students help pick up plastic from an Indonesian beach. (Photo by Susan Williams, UC

Davis)

All of the fragments recovered from fish in Indonesia were plastic. In contrast, 80 percent of the

debris found in California fish was fibers, but not a single strand of fiber was found in the Indonesian

fish tested.

“It’s interesting that there isn’t a big difference in the amount of debris in the fish from each location,

but in the type – plastic or fiber,” said lead author Chelsea Rochman, a postdoctoral fellow in the

Aquatic Health Program at the UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine.

“We think the type of debris in the fish is driven by differences in local waste management,” said

Rochman.

Indonesia has few landfills and little waste collection or recycling. Instead, large amounts of plastic are

tossed directly onto the beaches and into the ocean.

A lack of purified drinking water that forces Indonesian residents to drink bottled water, and they

often toss the plastic bottles.








“Indonesia has some of the highest marine life richness and biodiversity on Earth, and its coastal

regions – mangroves, coral reefs and their beaches – are just awash in debris,” said co-author Susan

Williams, a professor with the UC Davis Bodega Marine Laboratory who has worked on projects in

Indonesia for years. “You have the best and the worst situation right in front of you in Indonesia.”

Meanwhile, the United States has advanced systems for collecting and recycling plastics. But most

Californians wash their clothes in washing machines, the water from which empties into more than

200 wastewater treatment plants off the California coast.

The authors theorize that fibers remaining in sewage effluent from washing machines were ingested

by the fish they sampled in the state.

“To mitigate the issue in each location, it helps to think about local sources and differences in waste

management strategies,” Rochman said.

The scientists emphasize that the plastic and fibers are found in the fishes’ guts so humans are likely

to eat the debris only if the fish is eaten whole, as it is in Indonesia, or as with sardines and anchovies

or shellfish such as clams or mussels.

But if people do eat the plastic debris along with their fish, the authors say they risk “physical damage

leading to cellular necrosis, inflammation and lacerations of tissues in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract.”

“Moreover, in nature,” the authors write, “anthropogenic debris is recovered from the marine

environment with a cocktail of chemicals, including chemicals accumulated from ambient water, in

addition to the ingredients of the debris itself. Some of these chemicals can transfer from the debris to

fish upon ingestion.”

Human food security could be impacted if the plastics damage or destroy whole populations of fish,

they warn.

The study was funded by a UC Davis Outreach and International Program SEED Grant, the National

Science Foundation’s Graduate K-12 and IGERT programs, and the National Institute of Environmental

Health Sciences’ Superfund Research Program.

Arctic Nations Pledge to Prevent Unregulated Fishing








OSLO, Norway, July 19, 2015 (ENS) – The five states that surround the central Arctic Ocean on

Thursday signed a declaration to prevent unregulated commercial fishing on the high seas of the 1.1

million-square-mile so-called “donut hole” in that icy ocean that fall under no country’s jurisdiction.

This part of the Arctic Ocean has been locked in ice year-round until just a few years ago, but now a

warming climate is making it accessible in the summer months.

Even so, the declaration – signed by Canada, Denmark representing Greenland, Norway, Russia and

the United States – acknowledges that commercial fishing in this area of Arctic Ocean is unlikely to

occur in the near future.

A U.S. Coast Guard plane flies over the Arctic Ocean during a study of sea ice, ocean and

atmosphere conditions, Sept. 2014. (Photo by John F. Williams courtesy U.S. Navy)

Still, the nations decided, the reduction of Arctic sea ice and other environmental changes in the

Arctic, combined with the limited scientific knowledge about marine resources in this area, require a

precautionary approach to prevent unregulated fishing in the area.








To that end, the five countries declared that they will authorize their vessels to conduct any future

commercial fishing in this area only once one or more international mechanisms are in place to

manage any such fishing in accordance with recognized international standards.

They also intend to establish a joint program of scientific research with the aim of improving

understanding of the ecosystems of this area.

Just over 400 fish species are known from Arctic seas and adjacent waters. The dominant Arctic fish

families are cods, eelpouts, snailfishes, sculpins, and salmonids, according to scientists with the Arctic

Ocean Diversity, based at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks.

One of the key species in the Arctic is the Arctic cod, Boreogadus saida, because it is a critical link

between lower levels of the food chain and the top predators – birds, seals and whales.

The Arctic cod is the most northerly gadid, a family of fishes that includes cod, haddock, whiting, and

pollack.

Unlike most other oceans, commercial fisheries do not currently exist in the high Arctic, although they

are extensive in the sub-Arctic southern Barents and southeastern Bering Seas.

The lack of high-Arctic fisheries catch and by-catch data means even basic knowledge is lacking. The

Arctic Ocean Diversity scientists say that the traditional methods of collecting fish by trawls do not

work well in ice-covered waters, making it difficult even today to advance our understanding of fish

biodiversity and biology.

The declaration recognizes that other nations may have interests in preventing unregulated high seas

fisheries in this area. It suggests the initiation of a broader process that would include commitments

by all interested states.

The United States assumed the two-year rotating chairmanship of the Arctic Council on April 24, 2015.

The declaration signed in Oslo builds on U.S. action in 2009 to prohibit commercial fishing in the U.S.

Exclusive Economic Zone north of the Bering Strait until better scientific information to support sound

fisheries management is available.

The United States initiated this five-state process consistent with congressional direction under Public

Law 110-243, which calls for the United States to take steps with other Arctic nations to negotiate an

agreement for managing fish stocks in the Arctic Ocean, as well as the Implementation Plan for the








2013 National Strategy for the Arctic Region, which commits the United States to prevent unregulated

high seas fisheries in the Arctic.

Globally, illegal and unregulated fishing is worth more than US20 billion.

The Oslo declaration extends the work Norway initiated in March to activate new international

cooperation against financial crime in the fisheries sector.

The North Atlantic Fisheries Intelligence Group was founded in Oslo with the participation of Norway,

Great Britain, Germany, Netherlands, Ireland, Denmark and Iceland to uncover economic crime in the

fishing industry.

Norway’s Minister of Fisheries Elisabeth Aspaker said then, “Illegal fishing and trading is not only a

threat to sustainability and the environment, it also provides the basis for a vast black economy. The

fisheries sector is international and knows no boundaries, and we must have zero tolerance for illegal

fishing, whether it happens in our waters or elsewhere.”

Anti-Poverty Activist Awarded $250,000 World Food Prize

WASHINGTON, DC, July 2, 2015 (ENS) – Sir Fazle Hasan Abed of Bangladesh has been awarded the 2015World Food Prize, given in recognition of those whose achievements alleviate hunger and promote global food security.

Calling the $250,000 award a “great honor,” Sir Fazle said, “I consider this award recognition of the

work of BRAC, which I have had the privilege to lead over the last 43 years.”



http://www.worldfoodprize.org/






Sir Fazle Hasan Abed at the Clinton Global Initiative in is role as president of the Women

Entrepreneur Association of Bangladesh, Sept. 2013 (Photo courtesy CGI)

BRAC, formally known as the Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee, has been hailed as the most

effective anti-poverty organization in the world.

Its agricultural and development innovations have improved food security for millions and contributed

to a decline in poverty levels through its direct effects on farmers and small communities across the

globe.

“The real heroes in our story are the poor themselves and, in particular, women struggling with

poverty,” said Sir Fazle. “In situations of extreme poverty, it is usually the women in the family who

have to make do with scarce resources.”

“When we saw this at BRAC, we realized that women needed to be the agents of change in our

development effort,” he said. “Only by putting the poorest, and women in particular, in charge of their

own destinies, will absolute poverty and deprivation be removed from the face of the Earth.”

This year’s World Food Prize winner was announced by U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack at the

U.S. State Department. The event was hosted by Assistant Secretary of State for Economic and








Business Affairs Charles Rivkin, with Ambassador Kenneth Quinn, president of the World Food Prize

Foundation.

Awarded by the World Food Prize Foundation, the $250,000 prize honors Sir Fazle’s unparalleled

achievement in building the unique, integrated development organization BRAC, which is

headquartered in Bangladesh and operates programs in 10 other countries around the globe.

Sir Fazle with some of the children he advocates for (Photo courtesy World Food Prize)

Since he created it over 40 year ago, Sir Fazle’s organization has provided the opportunity for nearly

150 million people worldwide to improve their lives, have enhanced food security and follow a pathway

out of poverty through its dynamic and effective development programs.

Said Ambassador Quinn, “At a time when the world confronts the great challenge of feeding over nine

billion people, Sir Fazle Abed and BRAC, the organization he founded and leads, have created the

preeminent model being followed around the globe on how to educate girls, empower women and lift

whole generations out of poverty.”

Today BRAC operates 18 financially and socially profitable enterprises, across health, agriculture,

livestock, fisheries, education, green energy, printing and retail sectors. BRAC has been responsible








for extraordinary advancements in the poultry, seed, and dairy industries in Bangladesh and other

countries in which it operates in Africa.

“For this monumental achievement, Sir Fazle truly deserves recognition as the 2015 World Food Prize

Laureate,” said Ambassador Quinn.

Sir Fazle’s award comes shortly after Bangladesh was applauded in a United Nations report for

successfully meeting the Millennium Development Goal of halving hunger by the year 2015.

In his formal remarks, Ambassador Quinn praised the leadership and policies of the Bangladesh

government which led to this dramatic achievement.

Sir Fazle will receive the World Food Prize at a ceremony in the distinguished Iowa State Capitol

building in Des Moines, on the evening of October 15.

The event is the centerpiece of an annual three-day international symposium entitled the Borlaug

Dialogue, which draws over 1,200 people from 65 countries to consider cutting-edge issues in global

food security.

Also scheduled for World Food Prize week is the Iowa Hunger Summit on October 13, as well as the

three-day Global Youth Institute designed to inspire the next generation of high school students to

explore careers in agriculture and fighting hunger.

Eating Chicken, Not Beef, Yields Climate Benefits

GOTHENBURG, Sweden, April 7, 2015 (ENS) -Eating beef is one of the biggest climate villains, but a

vegan diet is not necessary to reach climate goals, finds new research from Chalmers University of

Technology. A poultry-based diet is a smart and inexpensive way to reduce our impact on the climate.

The trend all over the world is the same: an increasing number of people are eating an increasing

amount of beef, although this trend runs counter to the goal of limiting the temperature increase to 2

degrees Celsius as governments agree to do at the UN climate summit in Copenhagen in 2009.








Black Angus cattle in the United States (Photo courtesy USDA)

“Cattle ranching is already responsible for 15 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions that humans

cause. The diet we are accustomed to in wealthy countries is not consistent with our climate goals,”

says Chalmers researcher David Bryngelsson, whose doctoral thesis concerns land use, food related

greenhouse gas emissions, and climate change.

He examined how the climate would be impacted if humans were to change their diet. People may

have heard that that a vegetable diet results in less greenhouse gases. But Bryngelsson’s research

shows that we can continue eating animal protein and still make a major contribution to the climate, if

we replace beef with poultry and eggs, and cut down on our consumption of milk and cheese.

“Even people who eat an extremely protein-rich LCHF [Low Carb High Fat] diet with chicken as the

base make a greater contribution to the environment than vegetarians who consume a great deal of

dairy products,” he said.

Bryngelsson believes that climate gains will prevail even with more chicken-friendly production

methods.

Technical improvements in the production chain can reduce the food industry’s climate impact, but

cattle are still the biggest problem because they need a lot of feed and release the greenhouse gas








methane as they ruminate. Cows belch large amounts of methane while chewing their cud, something

chickens do not do.

Forests are disappearing to make room for the increasing number of cattle, which also impacts the

climate.

“Changing our consumption is the most effective way to reduce the impact food has on the climate,

and my studies show that it would also make it much less expensive to reach climate goals on a global

level compared to merely making changes in the energy and transport sector.”

Broiler chickens graze on organic pastures and live in pens that protect them from

predators, direct sun light, and wind at Nick’s Organic Farm, owned by Nick Maravell in

Adamstown, Maryland (Photo courtesy USDA)

“Since around 70 percent of all agricultural land is currently used to raise cattle, converting to a more

energy-efficient diet of poultry would free up land for cultivation of for example bioenergy,” says

Bryngelsson, who has also studied that possibility.

“It has been claimed that we can cultivate bioenergy on previously unutilized, less fertile land,” said

Bryngelsson. “My models, however, show that this would result in a poorly functioning market, where

land owners ultimately earn more by planting bioenergy crops on their prime land instead of using it








for our crucial vegetables as is currently the case. We quite simply have to accept that cultivation of

bioenergy will compete with food production for prime farming land.”

Bryngelsson’s studies show that a vegan diet is still the most climate-friendly, since plant based food

is more efficiently produced than livestock based, but the greatest gains are to be had by

discontinuing products from cattle.

The benefits to the climate when moving away from a poultry diet to a vegan diet are relatively minor

compared to moving away from cattle to poultry, he says.

“We have done our calculations based on a diet similar to the one most of us eat today, but which is

still greatly beneficial to the climate. You could say that chicken is like an electrical car – it is a better

alternative, yet still very similar to what we are accustomed to.”

There is no doubt that the chicken leaves a smaller carbon footprint regardless of production method.

This is because a hen can have around 150 chicks per year as compared to a cow that can give birth

to not quite one calf per year, and because chicks grow extremely quickly and thus absorb a greater

proportion of their feed.

Intensity of emissions is basically the same for eggs and chicken meat, so Bryngelsson concludes that

eggs are also climate smart compared to beef and dairy products.

U.S. Approves First Genetically Engineered Apples

WASHINGTON, DC, February 13, 2015 (ENS) – The first genetically engineered apples were today

approved for planting and sale in the United States by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The two approved apple varieties are genetically engineered to resist browning. They were developed

by the Canadian company Okanagan Specialty Fruits Inc. and will be marketed as the Arctic® Granny

and Arctic® Golden.








Arctic apples will be labeled, but the labels with not state that they are genetically

engineered. (Photo courtesy OSF)

The USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, APHIS, said it is taking this action based on a

final plant pest risk assessment that finds

the genetically engineered apples “are unlikely to pose a plant pest risk to agriculture and other plants

in the United States.”

APHIS also completed an environmental assessment to comply with the National Environmental Policy

Act. The assessment finds that deregulation of these apples “is not likely to have a significant impact

on the human environment.”

Under the Plant Protection Act, APHIS is required to evaluate whether a new genetically modified

plant, such as these apple varieties, are a plant pest risk to agricultural crops or other plants or plant

products. If APHIS finds that a new GMO is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk, then under the law, the

agency must deregulate the plant, allowing its sale and planting.



http://www.arcticapples.com/






Neal Carter, president and founder of Okanagan Specialty Fruits, said this announcement is a

monumental occasion for his team. “The commercial approval of Arctic apples, our company’s flagship

product, is the biggest milestone yet for us, and we can’t wait until they’re available for consumers.”

British Columbia orchardist Neal Carter, president and founder of Okanagan Specialty

Fruits, in his orchard. (Screengrab from video courtesy OSF)

Consumers will have to wait a little longer, though, since apple trees take several years to produce

quantities of fruit.

“Our focus is working with growers to get trees in the ground. As more trees are planted and they

come into commercial production, there will be a slow, but steady market introduction,” Carter

explains, estimating Arctic apples will first be available in late 2016 in small, test-market quantities.

Here’s how it works. When you bruise, bite or slice an apple, rupturing its cell walls, a chemical

reaction that turns the apple brown occurs between an enzyme in the apple known as polyphenol

oxidase, PPO, and antioxidant compounds in the apple called phenolics.








Okanagan Specialty Fruits’ team turned down the expression of the apple PPO genes in a process

called gene silencing, which utilizes low-PPO genes from other apples. In the end, Arctic apples

produce too little PPO to brown.

The transformed Arctic apple plantlets are grafted onto rootstock and grow in a tree nursery until they

are transplanted to an orchard, just as other commercial apple tree seedlings are propagated.

“No frankenfood here, folks,” says Carter, “just apples, now with suppressed PPO to stop enzymatic

browning.”

Some consumers like the idea of non-browning apples. In October 2014, Okanagan Specialty Fruits

issued the results of a mall intercept survey in which consumers shared their thoughts on the benefits

of non-browning apples.

A cut Arctic apple can be refrigerated in a zip-lock type bag for several days without any noticeable

browning, said 86 percent of respondents. Nonbrowning apples save consumers money, since these

apples are eaten instead of being thrown away when they turn brown, said 85 percent. Freshcut Arctic

apple slices won’t require treatment with lemon juice or chemicals to prevent them from browning,

said 84 percent.

But not everyone likes the idea of genetically engineered apples, particularly if they are not labeled as

such.

On Thursday, three Democrats – U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer of California, U.S. Senator Richard

Blumenthal of Connecticut and Congressman Peter DeFazio of Oregon – joined with Chef Tom

Colicchio at a press event in the Capitol to introduce the Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know

Act.








Democrats announce the introduction of the Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know

Act. From left, Rep. Peter De Fazio, Sen. Barbara Boxer, Chef Tom Colicchio, Sen. Richard

Blumenthal, Feb 12, 2015 (Photo courtesy Office of Senator Boxer)

The bill would require the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA, to clearly label genetically

engineered foods so that consumers can make informed choices about what they eat.

“Consumers have a right to know what is in the foods they eat and parents have a right to know what

they are feeding their families,” Senator Boxer said.

“As a consumer and dad, I want to know whether my family is eating food that has been altered

artificially in genetics – and the American public wants and deserves to know as well,” Senator

Blumenthal said.

“We cannot continue to keep Americans in the dark about the food they eat,” Congressman DeFazio

said. “More than 60 other countries make it easy for consumers to choose. Why should the U.S. be

any different? If food manufacturers stand by their product and the technology they use to make it,

they should have no problem disclosing that information to consumers.”

“The public wants more information about the food they are buying and how it’s grown,” said Tom

Colicchio, owner of Craft Restaurants and co-founder of Food Policy Action. “I applaud Senator Boxer








and Representative DeFazio for their leadership, and urge their colleagues to join them, and stand up

for the 93 percent of Americans who want to know if their food has been genetically modified.”

The FDA currently requires the labeling of over 3,000 ingredients, additives and processes, including

labels for juices made “from concentrate,” but the agency has resisted labels for genetically modified

foods since 1992, claiming that these foods were not “materially” different from other foods because

the genetic differences could not be recognized by taste, smell or other senses.

The lawmakers and chef Colicchio object that the FDA’s labeling policy has not kept pace with 21st

century food technologies that allow for a wide array of genetic and molecular changes to food that

cannot be detected by human senses.

Apples for sale in Dupage, Illinois (Photo credit unknown)

According to surveys, more than 90 percent of Americans support the labeling of genetically

engineered foods. In fact, many consumers are surprised to learn that genetically engineered foods

are not already labeled.

On the other hand, Congressman Mike Pompeo, a Kansas Republican, last year introduced H.R. 4432,

The Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2014, dubbed by its critics the “DARK [Deny Americans








the Right to Know] Act.” This bill would prohibit states from passing their own state-wide GMO labeling

laws, and it would continue to allow GMOs to be labeled as “natural.”

This bill would make permanent the voluntary labeling system now in place and prevent the FDA from

ever requiring GMO labeling in the future.

H.R. 4432 is backed by Monsanto, Dow Chemical, the Koch Brothers and food companies such as

Pepsi. Since 2012, big food and chemical companies have poured more than $100 million into fighting

GMO labeling initiatives in California, Washington, Oregon and Colorado.

Arctic apples will be labeled, but the labels will not say the fruit is genetically engineered.

The company states on its website, “An “Arctic” label provides real information because anyone who

doesn’t already know how they differ from conventional apples can easily find out all the specific

details they want. A “GMO” label, on the other hand, would be completely useless and fear inducing,

just like all these mandatory labeling initiatives.”

Okanagan Specialty Fruits Inc. is currently engaging in a voluntary food safety assessment

consultation with the Food and Drug Administration regarding its Arctic® Apples.

Other nonbrowning Arctic varieties of fruits, such as peaches, are expected to follow. Carter says it

will take “many years” before nonbrowning Arctic fruit is widely distributed.

Sea Shepherd Chases Toothfish Poachers From Australian Waters

MELBOURNE, Australia, February 4, 2015 (ENS) – The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society says one

of its ships has chased an illegal toothfish-poaching vessel out of its hunting grounds in Australia’s

Exclusive Economic Zone onto the high seas of the Southern Ocean.

Two poaching vessels, Kunlun and Yongding, were intercepted by the Sea Shepherd ship Sam Simon

on Monday, just 50 nautical miles from Australia’s Mawson Base in Antarctica with prohibited fishing

gear on their decks.








The poaching vessel Kunlun sails towards drift ice in an attempt to flee from the Sam

Simon. (Photo by Jeff Wirth courtesy Sea Shepherd)

Sam Simon Captain Sid Chakravarty said today he has successfully defended his ship against

numerous aggressive intimidating actions of the Interpol-wanted poaching vessel, Kunlun, while in

“hot pursuit” of the vessel through drift ice.

“In an attempt to hide their illegal operations and deter us from our pursuit, the poachers first made a

dangerous attempt to flee through thick drift ice. When that failed, they tried to intimidate us, making

multiple, intentional approaches to my vessel which resulted in dangerous, near collision situations,”

said Captain Chakravarty.

“We have maintained our pursuit for 40 hours in spite of these aggressive, illegal actions, during

which time the poachers have been unable to engage in further illegal fishing,” he said. “The captain

and officers of the Kunlun have remained hidden behind drawn curtains throughout the pursuit. Bullies

are often the biggest cowards and the Kunlun is no exception to this.”

The Kunlun and the Sam Simon are now headed north, approximately 2,500 nautical miles southwest

of Australia.








The incident was the second such attack on the Sam Simon in as many days. On Monday, the

poaching vessel, Yongding, turned aggressively towards the Sam Simon, crossing within 10 metres of

the conservation ship, narrowly avoiding a collision.

The Yongding eventually split from the chase and was last seen by the Sam Simon heading east.

The poachers are after Patagonian and Antarctic toothfish, usually marketed as Chilean sea bass.

These slow-growing fish fetch premium prices in markets and restaurants for their rich, oily flesh.

The poaching vessel Yongding turned toward the Sam Simon, missing a collision by 10

metres. (Photo by Jeff Wirth courtesy Sea Shepherd Global)

“Australia’s Antarctic Territory is under attack from these poachers. We have maintained our pursuit of

the Kunlun, and will not let them engage in any further illegal fishing activity. However, thanks to the

mute response from the Australian government, who maintain an embarrassing silence in the face of

this invasion in Australian waters, one more poaching vessel is now on the loose in the Southern

Ocean,” said Chakravarty.

The region is managed by Australia in accordance with its international obligations as a Member of the

Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR).








Both the Yongding and the Kunlun have Interpol Purple Notices issued for them, and are on the

CCAMLR black list of Illegal, Unregulated, Unreported (IUU) fishing boats. Both vessels were flying the

Equatorial Guinea flag at the time they were located by the Sea Shepherd.

The Yongding and the Kunlun, along with another poaching vessel, the Songhua, are believed by

Interpol to have links to a known Spanish crime syndicate.

On January 13, following a request from the New Zealand government, all three poaching vessels

were issued with Interpol Purple Notices for suspected illegal fishing activity and related crimes.

The New Zealand Navy was unsuccessful in its attempt to board the Yongding and the Kunlun after

they were discovered operating illegally in the Southern Ocean last month. The New Zealand ship

HMNZS Wellington had to return to port to refuel.

Between January 6 and 13, the New Zealanders spotted the Yongding, the Kunlun and the Songhua

hauling gill nets laden with toothfish in a CCAMLR regulated area, where such fishing methods are

prohibited.

The three vessels, which were sighted travelling together in December 2014, “have all changed their

names, national registration and other identifying characteristics on multiple occasions to try and

avoid detection,” interpol said, announcing the Purple Notices on January 13.

The Songhua has been on the CCAMLR illegal vessel list “following an investigation in 2008 when it

was named the Paloma V, which was previously associated with the Vidal Armadores syndicate,”

Interpol states. “Since then, the Songhua has used at least eight names under six flags and is

currently purported to be owned by Eastern Holdings Ltd, believed to be a shell company based out of

Belize.”








Kunlun crew members fishing illegally in the Southern Ocean haul in a Patagonian

toothfish. (Photo by New Zealand Defence Force)

Both the Yongding, which has operated under at least 11 different names and nine flags since 2001,

and the Kunlun, which has been spotted using at least 10 different names and five flags since 2006,

are allegedly owned by Stanley Management Inc., thought to be a shell company based out of

Panama, according to the Interpol statement.

“New Zealand is committed to doing its part to protect the Southern Ocean and we will continue to

work with international partners to take every possible action to deter illegal fishing and prosecute

those responsible,” said New Zealand’s Foreign Minister Murray McCully, announcing the decision to

request the Interpol Purple Notices.

Australia has not responded to the presence of the poaching vessels in Australian waters; now Sea

Shepherd is prodding the Australian government to act.

“The inaction of the Australian government, choosing to not take up the chase after the HMNZS

Wellington was forced to return to port, has allowed the poachers to roam free in these waters. This

has directly resulted in the illegal vessels continuing to plunder Antarctica of its vulnerable toothfish

populations,” said Chakravarty.








Chakravarty said Sea Shepherd plans to stop the illegal fishing by using the Sam Simon as a

blockading tool, putting the conservation vessel behind the poaching vessels when they run their

fishing gear out.

“The Sam Simon is now committed to blockading the fishing operations of the Yongding and the

Kunlun, with the Sea Shepherd once again standing as the last line of defence for the marine life of

Antarctica,” he said.

The Australian Greens Spokesperson for Fisheries, Senator Peter Whish-Wilson, says that New

Zealand’s efforts to use its Navy to round up illegal toothfish poachers in the Southern Ocean shows

how pitiful the Australian government’s efforts have been.

“The Australian government is frozen with inaction as these illegal activities are carried out under their

nose,” said Whish-Wilson.

Chilean sea bass as served in a Los Angeles restaurant (Photo by LWYang)

“The Liberals had promised to send the ACV Ocean Protector, our A$150 million dollar, purpose built,

Southern Ocean patrol boat, to protect our fisheries. It was part of the Coalition’s fisheries election



http://https//www.flickr.com/photos/lwy/5252772877/in/photolist-91aQnB-9dTRh6-8f6c35-7sRJ2w-9dm6k-6WjNN8-9DYgDs-M22zq-819dfy-7u3gcf-9dm58-8veKzn-5Fi32G-ogBik-9B5xzm-dk7QjT-9dm4D-7Egpb1-7EcvUa-7EcvCk-7EgmW7-7EcyVB-7EcwrF-7Egpy1-7Egov3-7Egmtw-7Ecw6c-7Ecyqc-7EcxtR-7Egq75-7EgoSj-7Ecwn2-7EgpTQ-7Ecx1T-7EcxNn-7Egozj-7Ecy5R-9B2EwF-7EgpmN-7EcwgV-7EgoLS-7EcyPF-7Ecwcp-7Ecvha-7EcwV6-7EcybV-7Egmos-7Egnsq-7EcwDk-7Egohj






policy document,” he said. But that vessel is being decommissioned and ADV Ocean Shield has

replaced it.

“Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fishing in the Southern Ocean is a major issue. Not only does it

impact on fisheries, but it finances organized crime gangs,” said Whish-Wilson.

“The government must meet its election commitment and act by sending the Ocean Shield south,”

said Whish-Wilson. “Otherwise it is allowing organised crime gangs to operate with impunity.”

The Yongding and the Kunlun are two of six remaining outlaw vessels, which Sea Shepherd calls the

“Bandit 6”, that are known to be involved in IUU fishing of toothfish inside the CCAMLR region in the

Southern Ocean.

On January 16, the Sam Simon completed an operation to retrieve illegal gillnets from the Southern

Ocean, after they were abandoned by another of the “Bandit 6” poaching vessels, the Nigerian-flagged

Thunder.

More than 70 kilometers (45 miles) of illegal gillnet was retrieved over a three-week period and over

1,400 fish were returned to the ocean.

Fellow Sea Shepherd ship, the Bob Barker, is currently engaged in a record-breaking pursuit of the

Thunder, which today entered its 47th day.

The outlaw poaching vessels are the focus of Sea Shepherd’s current Southern Ocean Defence

Campaign, Operation Icefish, which began last December.

Operation Icefish is Sea Shepherd’s 11th Southern Ocean Defence Campaign and the first to target

toothfish poachers in Antarctic waters. The other campaigns have targeted the Japanese whaling fleet.

The Japanese said that this year they would only count, not kill, whales in the Southern Ocean after

the International Court of Justice ruled in March 2014 that Japan’s lethal “research” whaling program

is illegal.

Chakravarty has said that Sea Shepherd ships will keep an eye on Japan’s minke-whale surveillance to

make sure Japanese whalers are not actually killing any of the animals this year.








Brazilian Lab Turns Fruits, Veggies Into Edible Plastic

BRASILIA, Brazil, January 14, 2015 (ENS) – Imagine putting a pizza in the oven without having to

remove the plastic casing that protects the pizza from contamination. The plastic film consists of

tomatoes and, when heated, it will become part of the pizza.

This edible plastic has been developed by researchers at the Brazilian Agricultural Research

Corporation, Embrapa Instrumentation, a state-owned company affiliated with the Brazilian Ministry of

Agriculture.

In fact, the researchers have made edible plastic films from foods such as spinach, papaya and guava

as well as tomatoes.

“We can use the waste food industry to manufacture the material. This ensures two features of

sustainability: the use of food waste and replacing synthetic packaging that would be discarded,” says

the coordinating scientist on the project, Luiz Henrique Capparelli Mattoso.








Scientist Luiz Henrique Mattoso, left, and students Marcos Lorevice and Caio Otoni display

edible plastic made from papayas. (Photo by Flavio Ubiali / Embrapa)

Mattoso says that Embrapa’s work to develop plastic films from tropical fruits is a world first.

The material has physical features similar to conventional plastics, such as resistance and texture, and

is equal in its ability to protect food.

The fact that it can be eaten opens a vast field to be explored by the packaging industry. Mattoso

pictures spiced wrapping material for poultry, and soup packages that can dissolve with their contents

in boiling water.

The research that produced edible plastic was developed within the network of Nanotechnology

Applied to Agribusiness (AgroNano) and received investments equivalent to US$75,000.

The edible plastic is made of dehydrated food mixed with a nanomaterial which has the setting

function.

“The greatest challenge of this research was to find the ideal formulation, the recipe of ingredients and

proportions so that the material had the features we needed,” says materials engineer José Manoel

Marconcini, an Embrapa researcher who participated in the work.

He explains that the food used as the feedstock passes through a type of dehydration in which, after

the food is frozen, all the water contained in it turns from a solid state directly into gas, without

passing through the liquid phase.

The result is a completely dehydrated food with the advantage of keeping its nutritional properties.

It can be applied to many different foods such as fruits, vegetables, legumes and even some types of

seasonings, which explains the great diversity of edible raw materials that can flavor and color the

plastic.

The development of the edible plastic material was the result of work that started two decades ago,

when Mattoso began his studies in materials science at Embrapa.

“In the beginning, the concern was to use materials from renewable sources studying alternatives to

synthetic polymers derived from petroleum,” recalls Mattoso. To accomplish this, the group began to

add natural fibers to synthetic plastics, generating composites with the two types of raw material.








Sisal, cotton, jute, coir and bagasse were some natural fibers tested. Mattoso says that in laboratory

testing they were more resistant to traction and impacts, in addition to being up to three times

stronger than the 100 percent synthetic polymers.

Before discovering how to make edible plastic, the research team developed biodegradable polymers,

driven by the demand for packaging easily absorbed into the environment in a short time.

Finally, they arrived at edible plastic, after incorporating higher standards of safety and hygiene in the

manufacturing process.

Now the scientists have increased the food’s shelf life by adding added chitosan, an antibacterial

polysaccharide found in the exoskeletons of crabs. This natural molecule has antibacterial properties

which can extend the length of time food can remain fresh on the shelf.

“How long it will take to get to the market depends a lot on the kind of partnership we’ll establish with

companies,” said Cauê Riberito, head of the network. “We have to focus on the production process of

these items.”

European Parliament Backs GMO Choice for Member States

STRASBOURG, France, January 13, 2015 (ENS) – New legislation to allow member states of the

European Union to restrict or ban the cultivation of crops containing genetically modified organisms on

their own territory, even if this is allowed at the EU level, was passed by the European Parliament on

Tuesday.

The legislation, informally agreed by Parliament and Council in December, was originally tabled in

2010 but was then deadlocked for four years due to disagreement between pro-GMO and anti-GMO

member states.








A field of Monsanto’s genetically modified corn, or maize MON810, in Europe (Photo

courtesy Monsanto Europe)

The agreement negotiated with EU ministers in December was approved in Parliament today by 480

votes to 159, with 58 abstentions.

The new legislation will come into force in the spring of 2015 if it is approved by the European Council,

made up of the heads of state or government of the EU’s 28 member states, along with the council’s

own president and the president of the European Commission.

This law is in response to Europeans’ growing concerns about GMOs, as shown by Eurobarometer

surveys.

“This agreement will ensure more flexibility for member states who wish to restrict the cultivation of

the GMOs in their territory. It will, moreover, signpost a debate which is far from over between pro-

and anti-GMO positions” said Frédérique Ries, a Belgian MEP and member of the Alliance of Liberals

and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) Party, who is steering the legislation through Parliament.



http://monsantoblog.eu/any-future-for-green-biotech-in-europe/






“As to what comes next, I place my trust in Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker’s formal

pledge to strengthen the democratic process on GMOs in Europe and ensure that research is genuinely

independent,” Ries said.

Ries said the change is needed as countries kept being taken to court to justify why they had banned

a certain GMO crop. “I don’t think it’s a good idea that legislation is being created by courts,” she said.

Legislation should be decided by lawmakers, not courts, MEP Frédérique Ries told

reporters, Jan. 13, 2015. (Photo courtesy European Parliament)

European Commissioner for Health and Food Safety Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis of Lithuania welcomed

the European Parliament’s approval of choice for EU member states regarding GMO cultivation.

“The European Parliament’s vote in favor of the legislative proposal on GMO cultivation brings us one

step closer to providing Member States with tools to decide on cultivation of EU authorised GMOs on

their territory, based on reasons other than risk on health and the environment,” said Andriukaitis

today.



http://www.europarl.europa.eu/






“The agreement meets Member States’ consistent calls since 2009, to have the final say on whether or

not GMOs can be cultivated on their territory, in order to better take into account their national

context,” the commissioner said.

The agreement retains a strong risk assessment and authorization system for GMOs guaranteeing a

high and uniform level of safety throughout the EU,” Andriukaitis said. “I fully trust that this legislation

will be endorsed in the coming weeks by the Council, allowing the member states to start exercising

their extended capacities to decide on GMO cultivation as from spring this year.”

The new rules will allow any of the EU’s 28 member states to ban GMOs on environmental policy

grounds other than the risks to health and the environment already assessed by the European Food

Safety Authority.

Member states could also ban GMO crops on other grounds, such as town and country planning

requirements, socio-economic impact, avoiding the unintended presence of GMOs in other products

and farm policy objectives.

Bans could include groups of GMOs designated by crop or trait.

Farmers will have to comply with whatever their government decides. If their government opts for a

ban on GMOs, then the farmer will not be able to cultivate them.

“I hope that when the legislation is updated, there will be an obligation to compensate farmers who

are affected by this,” said Ries.

Member states will be able to ensure that GMO crops do not contaminate other products, and

particular attention should be paid to preventing cross-border contamination with neighboring

countries, the bill states.

Before a member state may adopt such measures, the legislation provides for a procedure enabling

the GMO crop company to consent to such restrictions on its marketing authorization. However, if the

company disagrees, the member state may impose a ban unilaterally.

MON810 maize, or corn, is currently the only genetically modified crop cultivated in the European

Union. MON 810 corn is a genetically modified maize used around the world. It is a line known as

YieldGard from the company Monsanto.








Larvae of the European corn borer damaged this corn plant. (Photo by Eric Bohnenblust /

Penn State)

This genetically modified organism corn is designed to combat crop loss due to insects. There is an

inserted gene in the DNA of MON810 which allows the plant to make a protein that harms insects that

try to eat it.

The inserted gene is from the Bacillus thuringiensis which produces the Bt toxin that is poisonous to

insects in the Lepidoptera order, including the European corn borer.

Monsanto Europe blogged on its website today, “We have already commented on this sad piece of

legislation many times, and our position remains the same: This is a bad move for Europe. It

undermines science, it undermines European farmers, and it raises prices for European consumers.”

MON810 maize was approved for use in the European Union in 1998. Since then, six countries have

grown it and six countries: Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary and Luxembourg have banned

its cultivation under an emergency temporary provision due to concerns that it causes environmental

damage.



https://www.flickr.com/photos/pennstatelive/11451048733/in/photolist-irTNMn-irTmaq-irSknM-irTBQH

https://www.flickr.com/photos/pennstatelive/11451048733/in/photolist-irTNMn-irTmaq-irSknM-irTBQH






In Italy its cultivation has been banned since July 12, 2013, when the Italian Health minister required

the suspension of the authorization of GM maize’s cultivation, in reaction to a scientific report by the

Italian Agricultural Research Council.

The Amflora genetically modified potato was banned by the EU General Court in 2013 after initial

approval by the European Commission.

Monsanto Europe blogged today, “We have withdrawn all applications for the cultivation of new

biotech crops in Europe, and have no plans to submit any new ones anytime soon. But that doesn’t

mean we don’t think what’s unfolding in Europe is a tragedy, both for Europe and for the signal that

Europe’s anti-scientific hysteria about supposed ‘Frankenfoods’ is sending the rest of the world.”

EU Countries Granted the Right to Ban GMO Crops

BRUSSELS, Belgium, December 4, 2014 (ENS) – A political agreement on new legislation to allow EU

member states to restrict, or ban, the cultivation of crops containing genetically modified organisms,

GMOs, on their own territory, even if it is allowed at EU level, was reached by Parliament and Council

delegations last night.

Starting next spring, member states will be able to ban GMOs stating environmental policy objectives

as a justification. These objectives would relate to environmental impacts other than the risks to

health and environment assessed during the scientific risk assessment.








A rapeseed field in northern Germany (Photo byTravelswiss1)

Bans could also include groups of GMOs designated by crop or trait. GMO crops in Europe include:

corn, soy, sugar beet and rapeseed, among others.

Speaking for the Italian Presidency of the EU, Italy’s Environment Minister Gian Luca Galletti said,

“With the agreement in principle reached between the Council, the Commission and the EU Parliament

in Brussels we are approaching a great European goal under the Italian Presidency: the recognition of

sovereignty and autonomy of the single States as regards the cultivation of GMOs.”

Galletti said the negotiators reached “a fair and balanced compromise, enhancing the realities of the

single States and creating, finally, the necessary conditions to ensure the freedom of choice at

national level with respect to the cultivation of GMOs.”

European institutions “have showed great responsibility and attention as regards a very delicate

issues, which concerns the whole society, from farmers to consumers,” Galletti concluded.

The agreement in principle comes after years of intense debate on this issue. Producers of GMO seeds

and crops claim that the technology and the foods it producers are just as safe as naturally produced

crops. They claim a scientific consensus supports their position.



https://www.flickr.com/photos/travelswiss1/8804927203/in/photolist-85P1jm-aYqgKX-85wEaR-aYqnRH-aYqrAe-aYqfKk-aYqhbD-aYqjsi-aYqnaR-eq4y6H






On the other hand, the European Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibilities (ESSER) said

in October 2013 that “the claimed consensus on GMO safety does not exist” and “the claim that it

does exist is misleading and misrepresents the currently available scientific evidence and the broad

diversity of opinion among scientists on this issue.”

“The claim encourages a climate of complacency that could lead to a lack of regulatory and scientific

rigour and appropriate caution, potentially endangering the health of humans, animals, and the

environment,” ESSER said in a formal statement.

Environmental risks posed by genetically modified crops include the effects of Bt insecticidal crops on

non-target organisms and effects of the herbicides used in tandem with herbicide-tolerant GM crops.

ESSER warned, “As with GM food safety, no scientific consensus exists regarding the environmental

risks of GM crops.”

Activists in protective clothing display a banner reading ‘No GMO’s X’ in a GE

contaminated field in Pordenone, Italy, July 30, 2010. (Photo byGreenpeace France)

Greenpeacers from Italy, Austria, France, Germany and Hungary, among other countries, have been

campaigning against GMO crops for years, as have other environmental and public health

organizations.



https://www.flickr.com/photos/gpfrance/4843144907/in/photolist-8nYofp-nHSvAS






MEP Frédérique Ries of Belgium has been steering the measure through Parliament. “The agreement

reached last night on the directive, which goes into effect Spring 2015, will ensure more flexibility for

member states who wish to restrict the cultivation of the GMOs in their country,” she said.

“It will, moreover, signpost a debate which is far from over between pro- and anti-GMO positions. As

to what comes next, I place my trust in Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker’s formal pledge to

strengthen the democratic process on GMOs in Europe and ensure that research is genuinely

independent,” said Ries, who is with the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

The informal agreement reached last night is to be discussed in the member states’ Permanent

Representatives Committee (COREPER) on December 10 and still needs to be backed by Parliament’s

Environment Committee and the full House, as well as by member states. The legislation is expected

to be voted in plenary in January 2015.

“This agreement was long overdue and we welcome this result, if confirmed by the Council and the

House. Member states wishing to restrict or ban GMOs would now have the possibility to do so,

without facing the risk of being taken to court. It is important to let the member states take a decision

in full subsidiarity, and to listen to our citizens, who, in certain member states, refuse to have GMOs

forced upon them,” said Environment Committee Chair MEP Giovanni La Via.

The EU’s new Health and Food Safety Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis of Lithuania welcomed the

agreement. If it is confirmed, he said, “it would meet member states’ consistent calls since 2009 to

have the final say on whether or not GMOs can be cultivated on their territory, in order to better take

into account their national context and, above all, the views of their citizens.”

The agreed text of the new measure is in line with President Juncker’s commitment to give the

democratically elected governments at least the same weight as scientific advice when it comes to

important decisions concerning food and environment, said Andriukaitis.

“I fully trust that this agreement in principle will be formally endorsed in the coming weeks by the

European Parliament and the Council, allowing the member states to start exercising their extended

capacities to decide on GMO cultivation as from spring 2015,” he said.





