1.Not just environmentalists against GM crops
2.Report on the European GMO-free Regions Network conference
---
---
1.Not just environmentalists against GM crops
FRANK McDONALD
The Irish Times, March 25 2010
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0325/1224267012702.html

The European Commission's decision to allow the cultivation of GM potatoes has not gained union-wide approval

THE EUROPEAN Commission's decision earlier this month to approve a genetically modified (GM) potato called Amflora bears all the hallmarks of being the thin end of what could be a very large wedge. That's why it was greeted with such delight by German chemical company BASF, which patented the potato, and by the biotech lobby in general.

This was the first time in 12 years that a GM crop had been approved for cultivation in Europe; the last one indeed, the only other one is an insecticide-emitting maize produced by US multinational Monsanto, which was licensed in 1998. Monsanto also had cause to celebrate, as the commission authorised three more of its GM maize varieties.

The commission said it was authorising the cultivation of Amflora potatoes for industrial use principally in the manufacture of starch and the use of its starch byproducts for animal feed. It also decided that Monsanto could place its three GM maize varieties on the market "for food and feed uses but not for cultivation".

According to health and consumer policy commissioner John Dalli, this followed an "extensive and thorough review" of the applications from BASF and Monsanto and a series of "favourable safety assessments" by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).

"All scientific issues, particularly those concerning safety, had been fully addressed," he said. However, it emerged that two of the 21 EFSA scientists did not share their colleagues’ favourable view of Amflora, saying the possibility of its antibiotic-resistant genes being transferred to bacteria in human or animal gastro-intestinal tracts could not be ruled out; if this happened, it would become more difficult to treat infections such as tuberculosis.

The EFSA’s scientific panel assessing GM products has been chaired since 2003 by Dr Harry Kuiper, a Dutch biochemist who previously co-ordinated a research programme involving three leading biotech firms Bayer, Monsanto and Syngenta.

Greenpeace says the panel has too many biochemists and only "one or two experts on the environment". This lacuna in the EFSA was adverted to by a spokeswoman for the French government, who said: "We do not recognise their expertise because we consider that their opinions are incomplete. They are only interested in the sanitary consequences of GMOs [genetically modified organisms], without taking into account their long-term environmental impact” on soils and species.

So it is not only environmentalists who object to permitting GM crops. The governments of Austria, Bulgaria, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg and Poland are all opposed, making it clear in the wake of the commission's decision that they would not allow Amflora to be cultivated on their territories. (Our own Government has yet to express a view on it).

The Czech Republic, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden take a more tolerant approach. But it is precisely because there are such divided views that the EU council of agriculture ministers failed to reach agreement on Amflora - and this paved the way for the commission to use its residual powers to make the decision by default.

Dalli has been asked to make proposals “setting out how an EU authorisation system, based on science, can be combined with freedom for member states to decide whether or not they wish to cultivate GM crops on their territory”. In other words, the common market may be abandoned in this area.

The public remains sceptical about the need to go down the GM route, promoted so vigorously by Monsanto. In the case of Amflora, there is arguably no need for it; as Friends of the Earth pointed out, two conventional potato varieties already on the market have similar high-starch qualities as the GM alternative produced by BASF.

Writing in The Irish Times last month, Dublin City University president Ferdinand von Prondzynski complained that opposition to GMOs "has often been influenced by various campaigns using scaremongering labels such as 'Frankenstein foods' " before going on, in the next sentence, to indulge in scaremongering himself. "Indeed," he wrote, "if we are to take the Government’s commitment to having Ireland as a GM-free zone seriously, one of the first steps we have to take would be to advise all diabetics to leave the country as we would have to ban insulin" a patently ludicrous claim, given the way insulin is manufactured from GM bacteria in secure laboratories.

Concerns about growing GM crops include contamination of organic crops and the environment, potential destruction of biodiversity and local agriculture, excessive use of pesticides and the as-yet-unknown effects of GM food on public health, as well as the way in which a small number of patent-holding companies would control the food chain.

In 1999, Canadian environmental scientist and long-time campaigner David Suzuki a professor in the University of British Columbia's genetics department for almost 40 years said of GM crops: "Any politician or scientist who tells you these products are safe is either very stupid or lying. The experiments have simply not been done."

There have been more experiments carried out over the past decade, particularly in the US, but only 0.12 per cent of agricultural land throughout the EU (most of it in Spain) is currently used for GM crops. This may change if the European Commission was to extend its benign view of Amflora to 17 other GM crops currently awaiting approval.

Yet we still do not know enough to say for sure that such genetically engineered crops are safe. Until we do, the precautionary principle must surely intervene.
---
---
2.A recipe for excellence
Gillian Westbrook
Organic Matters (Ireland), 24 March 2010
http://www.organicmattersmag.com/features/315-a-recipe-for-excellence

Gillian Westbrook attended the European GMO-free Regions Network conference and came away inspired at the commitment of the regions to sustainable food production.

The European GMO-Free Regions Network held their third conference on Non-GM labels, Quality Productions and European Regional Agricultures in Brussels on 3rd to 4th February, 2010. Representation from Ireland consisted of a delegation from the Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers Association (ICSA), the ever-committed Michael O'Callaghan from GM-free Ireland and Stiofán Nutty, special advisor to Minister Sargent [the Minister of State for Food and Horticulture].

The conference was of specific relevance to the Irish representation due to the inclusion in the Programme for Government of a voluntary GM-free label and the existing commitment to keep Ireland free from GM cultivation. The experiences from other regions and the feasibility of maintaining a constant supply of nonGM soy, including additional feed costs, if any, was particularly relevant. If attending the event was only to weed out (no pun intended) and separate the myriad propaganda surrounding this subject and establish some sound facts and realities, then my expectations were well exceeded.

Overall this was an excellent event, packed with informative presentations by representatives from all over Europe and outside of the EU. There were over 55 presentations over two days and this is just an overview of the nontechnical aspects. Further information is available on www.gmo-free-regions.org.

Meeting Demand

The focal point, as the title suggests, was on the labelling aspect of GMO in animal feed, the supply of certified GM-free soy and the potential for protein independence for feed. The first day mainly focused on outlining the various regional development criteria and opportunities for non-GM agriculture. Speakers identified the economic value for rural regions to continue to concentrate on nonGM cultivation. This approach necessitates strategic planning in order to facilitate the production of high quality produce that will enhance both the composition of local food as well as complement the rural economy. Availability of certified non-GM soy to supply the EU dominated the latter part of day one. New and emerging suppliers of non-GM soy, such as India and Ukraine, clearly illustrated their capacity to meet EU demands, as did highly reputable companies in the business of certification.

The following day expanded on the land management of high nature value non-GM regions as well as hearing from producers, mainly red meat and dairy, involved in co-operative movements and specialists in native breeds. The commitment and engagement of the producer at every stage of the food process was inspiring to say the least.

It was a pleasure to listen to the producers' expertise, from the traceability of feeding stuffs, specialist grass varieties, soil management, rearing of livestock, the food process, up to the finished product sold direct to the consumer. This was an exceptional demonstration from producers of their comprehensive knowledge of each production stage to produce exquisite food resulting from excellent farming practices.

Consumers were subsequently informed as to the real value of the produce by making best use of marketing standards, geographical indications, organic and GMfree labels and superb branding.

Regional Quality

An over arching element was the need to define quality with associated provenance. Consumer perception of quality and what criteria they used to define it was considered to be of increasing importance. Taste, health and authenticity of local food clearly enhanced the image, but the need to have quality certified was essential to validation.

Guy Palluy, Vice-President of agricultural and rural development for the Rhone-Alpes region explained how this area is the second largest French region, consisting of 10% of the French population (6 million inhabitants) and 35% of the land utilised in agriculture. The entire region is free from GM cultivation. They hold 120 quality labels and 15 geographical indications, 1,300 organic farms and 30% of all farms covered by an official quality label - a label recognised for its integrity and quality. He explained the importance for producers to network. Using the example of 'Uni Ferme' he explained the means by which farm co-operation works, how they went against all the trends, and best of all, how successful it has been for all involved including the producer and consumer.

Daniele Govi, Director of Crop Production in the Emilia Romagna region, spoke about their agriculture and regional control of quality. This region of east Italy consists of just over 1 million hectares, 82,000 farms, 9 provinces, 30 food denominations (that's 20% of the entire Italian denominations) and 49,000 organic farms. The integrated criteria for the Emilia Romagna regional label covers human health and production, strictly prohibits GMOs or use of GMO products and includes the entire food chain, right up to sale. Many of the organic products were making use of the GM-free label as well as the organic certification logo. Obviously, a prerequisite for organic production, it is interesting to see how it adds value to an already premium product.

GMO-Free Labelling

Ferruccio Luciani, manager of food quality for the Marche region, continued the Italian theme with his presentation on Italy's quality brand. The brand is not restricted to just food, but includes and incorporates the agri-tourism business, linking into services within the local area and beyond. The quality mark makes use of a comprehensive software package, compulsory for traceability purposes. The standard format covers various products from livestock and crops to ingredients and processing aids, all with GMOs prohibited. What differentiates this from other quality marks is its flexibility to link into other systems and its quality control mechanisms.

For example, to ensure both the traceability and freshness of a fish, a 'block' occurs 36 hours after harvest which means the fish can no longer be sold. To many producers this might sound like a burdensome quality control, but this really works in reassuring the purchaser as to the freshness of local produce. For a region so heavily reliant on food-tourism, it's not hard to see how this model of quality control benefits an area and protects its reputation for fine food.

France doesn't have the same flexibility as Italy in its approach to GM-free requirements. Instead, as a rule, they have to follow major trends, explained Pascal Loget Vice-President of the Brittany region. France has only recently adopted the introduction of a GM-free label. To prepare for the change in national labelling legislation, Brittany is promoting GM-free labels such as 'Animaux d'OGM' to indicate animals are not fed on ingredients containing GMOs. The Loire valley is setting up a similar project. Clearly, they are responding to the overwhelming evidence that many millions of European consumers do not want and will never accept GM ingredients either directly or indirectly via animal products.

The market is apparent and it couldn't be more obvious. Any country not seeking to make best use of a GM-free voluntary label is missing out on the potential to explore a premium market. This point was communicated in the ICSA presentation, pointing out that Ireland must not limit its current or future market and should make available a voluntary GM-free label for those who wish to use it.

Feed Supply and Premiums

Presentations concerning the supply of GM-free feed and the need for nutrient-rich alternatives to soy to ensure protein independence all echoed a common theme - the need to have and maintain a network of certified GM-free cereal producers and distributors.

Some speakers referred to the difficulty in replacing protein rich soy in feed and having no alternative but to use GM-free soy. Others, such as French livestock producers from the Limousin area, have developed natural grasslands to reduce dependency on compound feed. Their mix of land, nutrient and nitrogen management is proving to be highly successful, providing production systems that are modified to suit resources, and they have achieved independence in feed.

The additional costs of §15 per tonne for certified non-GM soy was generally considered to be easily offset by the additional premium for the product, as long as a label could be used to add value. The capacity of GM-free soy was not really an issue, as there are sufficient supplies. Soy independence, however, was much more difficult to achieve, depending on location, soil quality and production system used.

Achieving even more of a premium, above that of GM-free, was considered by some regions to be the desired route to take, integrated with strong branding. This would require labelling to have environmental criteria that depict sustainable agriculture and incorporates a quality approach to farming. This aspect was reiterated by the successful French certifying company, 'Label Rouge', (currently this label does not signify GM-free). They explained that even aspects of on-farm renewable energy should be included as environmental criteria, so as to relay to the consumer the level to which the farmer has gone to look after the countryside.

Encouraging a viable agriculture system that would see a future for young farmers keen to adopt a GM-free sustainable approach was also an intrinsic requirement. John Fagan from Cert ID continued with this approach in applying certification to verify quality, social and environmental sustainability, including GM-free.

Premium Market

The core message was possibly best highlighted by the additional cost to the consumer. The premium on chicken, if fed a GM-free diet, is between 6 cents and 10 cents per kilo. This includes the additional factory costs to prevent cross contamination, additional feed costs and relevant analysis. It was quite obvious from the experience of the speakers who have already gone down this route that there is a premium that consumers are willing to pay. High quality feed for better quality produce for the everyday consumer - this message was repeated with every new speaker, from Germany, Spain, Menorca, Austria and Italy, to name but a few. Many are key agricultural players in Europe, urging regional industry to seek GM-free suppliers, and to work together to make plans and strategies to make this happen.

A recipe for excellence: Certified GM-free food with associated provenance, farmed in a sustainable way (preferably organic but not compulsory); add a big bunch of enthusiasm and supply to a growth market.