UK FOCUS
1.TAKE ACTION: Let's Remove the Hidden GM Animal Feed From the Food Chain
2.Three Questions for the NFU on GM Animal Feed
3.UK to feed, fuel and heal the world
4.Rothamsted applies for autumn GM wheat trial
5.UK Farming Minister hits out at "international hypocrisy" on GM
6.Biotech bubble: "growing and developing the UK's bioscience base" - new building spree

NOTE: Item 1 provides a good way for people to push back against the nonsense to be found in items 3-6.
---
---
1.Let's Remove the Hidden GM Animal Feed From the Food Chain
  https://secure3.convio.net/fww/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=589

*We don’t need GM feed, and we don’t want it, so help us tell supermarkets to get rid of it now!

While nearly 50 developed nations, including all European Union member states, Australia, Brazil, China, Japan, New Zealand, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and South Korea require labels for genetically modified foods, GM use is hidden in meat, eggs, and dairy. Industrial meat production is the last profitable outlet in the food chain for unwanted GM crops because the meat, milk, and eggs produced from the animals that eat GM crops do not carry GM labels.

So we've asked all major UK supermarkets which of the products they sell come from animals raised on non-GM feed. Most of them couldn’t, or wouldn’t, tell us. Check out the graphic to the right for their responses!

This campaign is focused on the UK because the evidence is so clear that UK shoppers don't want GM animal feed in the food chain. Despite this clear rejection, and bans on GM crops in both Scotland and Wales, the UK Government always votes in favour of GMOs at the EU level. Many UK supermarkets claim they can't provide the non-GM-fed meat, milk, and eggs because there isn't enough non-GM feed, but giant European food companies are doing it, and more progressive shops in the UK do, too.

The big UK supermarkets need to stop making excuses and start using their market power to provide what their customers want.

Please fill out the form [], edit the letter as you wish and click "Send Message". Your message will be sent directly to UK supermarkets. [Send from this link]
 https://secure3.convio.net/fww/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=589
---
---
2.UK Focus: Three Questions for the NFU on GM Animal Feed
Eve Mitchell
Food & Water Europe, March 22 2013
 http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/blogs/uk-focus-three-questions-for-the-nfu-on-gm-animal-feed/

Watching UK’s National Farmers Union (NFU) President Peter Kendall testify to the UK Parliamentary Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ inquiry into horse meat contamination of the EU beef supply on March 5, I was struck again by the inconsistencies in the NFU approach when it comes to GM animal feed.

I have three questions for the NFU:

1) In his testimony, Mr. Kendall repeated the position that short supply chains are the answer to predictable control of our meat supply and regaining consumer confidence. How does this tally with the repeated insistence that UK livestock farmers need industrial GM feed from the Americas traded through complex international commodity markets?

Much is made about the allegedly dwindling availability of non-GM soy (known in the UK as soya), but the non-GM soya industry itself paints a rather different picture. On February 26, Augusto Freire, Managing Director of Cert-ID (a company certifying non-GM soya supplies), said, “20-25% of Brazilian soybean production is free from genetic modification for the 2012/13 crop. China’s and India’s soy production is 100% Non-GMO….Estimates for 2013 are strongly up compared to earlier years due to adoption of the CERT ID and ProTerra [non-GM certification] programs by new operators in Brazil, as well as increased demand in Europe.”

In the current climate, before supply and demand reduce the cost of non-GM feed, it may well be a bit more expensive per tonne, but according to our calculations if non-GM feed costs an extra £14/tonne (about $21.00), this works out to be a mere 3p/dozen eggs (about 5 cents). Mr. Kendall asks, “Are we going to produce chickens in this country that are non-GM, but buy them in from Asia because they are 20% cheaper and they are fed on GM [feed]?” Is he perhaps confusing feed costs with the poor animal husbandry that keeps meat from many non-European factory farms cheap?

We also need to be careful in working out how much animal feed is actually GM – any amount of GM feed comingled with an otherwise non-GM shipment means the entire quantity, and all subsequent feed bags, are labelled GM. This does not mean that feed is anything like 100% GM, and in fact the bulk of any animal feed is probably non-GM.

2) If, as Mr. Kendall says, UK farmers need “confidence” in the market to invest and improve UK beef production levels, why does this logic not apply to the farmers in Brazil already growing non-GM soya but unable to risk the costs of certification without confirmed advance orders from the EU to ensure they gets a return?

Augusto Freire notes, “An additional volume of Brazilian soy meal representing 1.5 million metric tonnes of soybeans could have been certified [as non-GM] if EU buyers had expressed their demand early in the year.” The non-GM soya is there, and more can be grown, we just need to say we want it. It’s not hard.

Consumer demand should boost confidence enough to take this step. A 2010 GfK/NOP poll showed fewer than 40% of supermarket shoppers were aware that imported GM animal feed fuels British factory farming, and 89% wanted these products to be clearly labelled. In January of this year the UK Food Standards Agency published research showing again that two-thirds of respondents want all use of GM feed to be labelled. Even among those undecided about GM food and crops respondents felt “some form of labelling should be in place to help them determine GM content and avoid choosing foods containing GM if they so wish”. Overall there is a clear indication this need to identify GM use applies to animal products in particular. People don’t want GM feed in the food chain, and they want clear labels to help them see where it is – or isn’t.

3) I completely agree that there is, as Mr. Kendall told the Committee, “too much focus on price” in the food industry. If this is the case, why are industrial crops feeding industrial megafarm production to produce cheap meat worthy of such vocal support?

True, there are vested interests on both sides of the discussion, and there are rumours that Indian soya is less desirable than Brazilian. Overall we’d be far better off moving away from the industrial meat model. Yet this does not explain why supermarkets can’t do their part in delivering what the market demands now by placing clear orders for non-GM soya (or non-GM fed products) to give Brazilian farmers the confidence they need to grow and certify non-GM crops. The NFU position invokes the market, but goes directly against the basics of supply and demand. The more non-GM feed is demanded, the more will be supplied, and the costs will come down—unless vested interests interfere with the market. Large supermarkets and dairies in other parts of Europe seem to be able to manage it, so it is very difficult to see why the UK is different.

Mr. Kendall told the NFU 2013 conference, “Today I want to talk about a pact with the great British consumer to get things changed…We now need supermarkets to stop scouring the world for the cheapest products they can find and start sourcing high quality, traceable, product from farmers here at home…That may mean more dedicated supply groups. It will certainly mean longer-term thinking and a shorter supply chain.” We agree, and we’re here to help.

Mr. Kendall, if you truly “Do not want food safety and standards to be politicised,” as you told the Committee, why do you say GM skepticism is “directly comparable to Nazi book-burning in the 1930’s”? Why do you not support your members in providing what the market clearly wants?

The situation with regard to GM animal feed looks increasingly like lucrative supply lines controlled by shippers and importers, not farmers, attempting to force an end to non-GM supplies on an unwilling market. The NFU position, which wedges farmers uncomfortably between their market and these vested interests, remains very difficult to understand. The sooner the NFU applies the logic it uses in the meat chain to the feed chain, the sooner consumers will begin to regain confidence in our food.

Mr. Kendall also told your 2013 conference consumers should demand answers from the people they buy from. We agree European consumers can and should get what they want.

This action is a good first step:
 https://secure3.convio.net/fww/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=589
---
---
3.Appliance of UK science will aid agriculture and boost economy
Challenges faced by the global agriculture sector provides opportunities for the UK's knowledge economy says George Freeman MP [biotech industry linked Life Sciences advisor to UK Government]
UK to feed, fuel and heal the world etc.
Full article here:
 http://np.netpublicator.com/netpublication/n34080675  (p.14)
See also item 6 below
---
---
4.Rothamsted applies for autumn GM wheat trial
Philip Case
Farmers Weekly, 25 March 2013
 http://www.fwi.co.uk/articles/25/03/2013/138305/rothamsted-applies-for-autumn-gm-wheat-trial.htm

Britain's first open field trial of autumn-sown GM wheat could get under way later this year.

Rothamsted Research has submitted an application to DEFRA to plant autumn-sown wheat as part of its GM wheat trial.

Scientists believe the extension of the trial would allow them to study the effects of autumn aphid infestations on their experimental aphid-repelling wheat.

They say autumn-sown Cadenza wheat engineered to repel aphids - a major crop pest - would allow them to gain further data for the experiment.

Research leader John Pickett, head of chemical ecology at Rothamsted Research, said: "With the trial up and running, it seems sensible to make this small adjustment.

"Autumn infestations of aphids are a real problem too, especially with the varied weather we are having.

"This additional data will add a great deal of value to the overall investigation by testing our wheat plant under a more varied range of environmental conditions throughout the year and in accordance with the different times of the year farmers plant their wheat."

The request to DEFRA will be assessed by the independent Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE), and by members of the public during a 60-day consultation period.

The application asks for permission to conduct the winter sowing of Cadenza wheat, which involves exactly the same GM lines and experimental design as the current spring-sown experiment.

If DEFRA secretary Owen Paterson gives the trial the green light, it will be sown in mid-September and destroyed after 10-12 weeks in late November or late December, depending on the weather.

Rothamsted Research director Maurice Moloney said: "We worked hard last year to engage the public and listened to their views.

"The more data we can gather, the more evidence we will be able to obtain for government and society to make decisions on whether they wish to explore this next-generation GM technology further."

Rothamsted scientists conducted the first field trial last spring to investigate whether the GM plants work outside in the field, as well as in the laboratory. The trial was successfully harvested last autumn and is being repeated this year.

The controlled experiment being conducted by Rothamsted scientists at the headquarters in Harpenden, Hertfordshire, combines modern genetic engineering with natural plant defences to test whether aphid-repelling wheat works in the field.

For the trial, Cadenza wheat plants have been modified to produce an odour, or alarm pheromone, (E)-β-farnesene, which is also produced by some plants as a natural defence mechanism. It repels aphids, but also attracts their natural enemies, such as ladybirds.

The field trial is part of a five-year project funded by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC).

BBSRC director of science Melanie Welham said: "We face the challenge of producing food in a sustainable way, while minimising effects on the environment.

This research is exploring one approach to solving this problem. It is important to carry out these investigations, as the data gathered will help to provide answers about the potential of this type of GM technology and what benefits it could offer.

"Importantly, the findings generated through this extension will add to the picture of how this technology compares to others and it is vital that future decisions are based on scientific evidence."

Wheat is the most important UK crop with an annual value of about GBP1.2bn. 
---
---
5.Heath hits out at "international hypocrisy" on GM
Alistair Driver 
Farmers Guardian, 21 March 2013 [edited for length]
 http://www.farmersguardian.com/54281.article

FARMING Minister David Heath has hit out at the "international hypocrisy" he claims exists over the rules surrounding genetically modified (GM) crops.

Mr Heath said he had always been "extremely cautious" about GM technology because of the "need to be clear about the human health and environmental implications".

But, speaking at the International Food Exhibition, in London, this week he said the evidence was there that GM crops had been grown over a "very large part of the world for a very long time without those effects being manifest". Specific GM applications therefore ought to be considered on their own merit,” he said. 

“There is a moral duty to look at every possibility to see if there are things we can do safely and better than we do now to meet the challenge of feeding a hugely increased population with sustainable techniques,” he said. 

He contrasted the level of GM feed currently imported into the EU with the restrictive rules on growing GM crops in Europe.

“We have an international hypocrisy at the moment about the huge amount of GM soya which is grown and fed to animals around the world and imported into European countries. I just don’t believe it is sustainable just to close our eyes to that,” he said.

“We have a science and technology base in this country capable of doing something excellent in this area. If we can do so safely, we ought to be at the forefront of that technology, not stifled by rules which frankly may not make any logical sense.”

Mr Heath went on to accuse the national media of being "very poor at understanding science". This had resulted in the perpetuation "scare stories" depicting GM as a "disaster waiting to happen", based on the possibility of even the smallest risk of negative effects. He said the media and legislators both needed to improve their understanding of risk.
---
---
6.Turf cutting ceremony marks start of building of landmark Centrum at Norwich Research Park
Norwich Research Park, 22 March 2013 [edited]
 http://www.norwichresearchpark.com/newsandevents/latestnews/turfcuttingceremonyforcentrum.aspx

A turf-cutting ceremony and the burial of a time capsule marked the beginning of construction of the new Centrum building at Norwich Research Park following a GBP26m investment from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC).

The new GBP11.5 million building, due to open in Spring 2014, will form the hub of commercial research and development at the Norwich Research Park, Europe’s leading centre for research in food, health and the environment. The expanding campus could bring valuable jobs and major investment to the region. 

The vision of the Norwich Research Park partners and stakeholders is to develop a thriving research and innovation campus over the next decade and beyond by supporting spin-out and start-up companies and through attracting inward investment from multinational corporate organisations involved in science and technology.

For those companies that take up the laboratory and office accommodation provided across the top two floors of the building, it will provide a unique opportunity to work alongside the best scientific and research minds.

The investment will help to create and support new companies and jobs based on world-leading bioscience. D

The Norwich Research Park North development area includes the John Innes Centre site (also encompassing research institutes The Sainsbury Laboratory and The Genome Analysis Centre), Institute of Food Research site and the University of East Anglia triangle site.

Steve Visscher, BBSRC Deputy Chief Executive, said: “BBSRC’s investment represents a commitment to growing and developing the UK’s bioscience base to help to create and support new companies and jobs based on world leading bioscience. The Centrum building will help ensure that Norwich Research Park has the infrastructure and capability to position itself as a world leader in agri-food, health and environmental sciences.”

Notes to Editors

Quote from George Freeman MP: “The Norwich Research Park applies world class expertise in agriculture, nutrition and plant science which if developed properly can define a major role for Britain helping to feed the rapidly emerging global markets of tomorrow.

“By working with our partners in Cambridge, our region can lead a revolution that will build a sustainable, export-led economic recovery and support the fastest growing markets in the developing world. This is a major opportunity we should seize without delay."