gmo

GMO? Nie będziemy w Polsce tego jeść

Posted on 5 września 2010. Filed under: gmo, gmo szajs, żywność gmo | Tagi: , |


Rozmowa z posłanką GRAŻYNĄ CIEMNIAK, członkinią podkomisji nadzwyczajnej ds. rozpatrzenia projektu ustawy o GMO

imageFot. Przemysław Łuczak

Na jakim etapie są prace nad nową ustawą o GMO, czyli organizmach genetycznie zmodyfikowanych?

Rozpoczęliśmy pracę 9 lutego 2010 roku po wysłuchaniu publicznym, ale pierwsze czytanie rządowego projektu ustawy odbyło się już 16 grudnia 2009 roku. Będzie to nowa ustawa, a nie nowelizacja obowiązującej dotychczas z 2001 roku. Przygotowaliśmy sprawozdanie, którym teraz zajmie się Komisja Ochrony Środowiska, Zasobów Naturalnych i Leśnictwa. Wprowadziliśmy sporo zmian – m.in., z grupą posłów zgłosiłam poprawkę zakazującą wprowadzenia do obrotu i upraw GMO, która została przyjęta. Można się spodziewać jeszcze burzliwej dyskusji nad projektem. Przeciwko uprawom roślin genetycznie zmodyfikowanych i ich wprowadzaniu do obrotu przemawia to, że mogą one stanowić zagrożenie dla zdrowia ludzi i środowiska. Natomiast zwolennicy dowodzą, że są one wydajniejsze i bardziej odporne na szkodniki niż uprawy tradycyjne. Zasada przezorności powinna obowiązywać ustawodawcę.

W rządowym projekcie nie było jednak zakazu GMO…

Podkomisja niemal jednomyślnie opowiedziała się za zakazem upraw i
obrotu organizmami genetycznie zmodyfikowanymi w Polsce. Przeciw byli
tylko posłowie PO. Projekt ustawy reguluje, m.in., działanie zakładów
inżynierii genetycznej, problem zamkniętego (do badań naukowych) użycia
organizmów genetycznie zmodyfikowanych i zamierzonego uwalniania GMO do
środowiska w trakcie prac doświadczalnych. I, co jest bardzo ważne, to
minister ochrony środowiska będzie odpowiedzialny za wszystkie działania
związane z GMO.

Czym posłowie kierowali się wprowadzając zakaz GMO?

W podkomisji prezentowałam pogląd sejmiku woj. kujawsko-pomorskiego,
który kilka lat temu jako pierwszy w Polsce podjął uchwalę, że nasz
region ma być wolny od GMO. Podczas wysłuchania publicznego,
zorganizowanego zgodnie z ustawą o lobbingu, prawie wszyscy naukowcy
byli krytycznie nastawieni wobec możliwości uwalniania GMO do
środowiska. Obecna wiedza naukowa nie daje bowiem żadnej pewności, że
żywność GMO jest bezpieczna dla zdrowia konsumentów, a rośliny GMO
obojętne dla środowiska. Wiele wskazuje na to, że rośliny genetycznie
modyfikowane źle wpływają m.in. na pszczoły. Stwierdzono, że legalizacja
takich upraw jest zagrożeniem dla polskiego rolnictwa. Komitet Ochrony
Przyrody PAN zalecał nawet wprowadzenie 15-letniego moratorium. Żeby
przekonać się, czy GMO szkodzi czy nie, potrzeba bowiem przynajmniej
jednego pokolenia.

Kto jest za legalizacją upraw GMO?

Głównie organizacje producenckie, które wskazują na to, że z powodu
zakazu nasze rolnictwo przestanie być konkurencyjne, bo uprawy GMO są
bardziej efektywne, tańsze. Ale brakuje na to dowodów. Na światowym
rynku GMO dominuje koncern Monsanto. Ostatnio kolumbijscy rolnicy
wystąpili z pozwami przeciwko tej firmie z powodu strat, które ponoszą.
Ponieważ muszą kupować ziarno tylko od Monsanto, ich koszty produkcji są
trzy razy wyższe niż przy tradycyjnych uprawach.

Czy to, że Unia chce dać krajom członkowskim swobodę w
kwestii zakazywania bądź zezwalania na uprawy GMO, może wydłużyć prace
nad ustawą?

Sadzę, że nie. Wciąż obowiązuje dyrektywa Parlamentu Europejskiego i
Rady z 2001 roku, zawierająca tzw. klauzulę bezpieczeństwa. W
przypadku, gdy istnieje zagrożenie życia lub zdrowia, kraje członkowskie
mogą wprowadzać zakaz upraw i obrotu GMO. Dotychczas z tej klauzuli
skorzystało 9 krajów. Są to Francja, Austria, Grecja, Luksemburg,
Niemcy, Węgry i Włochy, a Belgia i Irlandia zrobią niedługo to samo.
Dotyczy to kukurydzy MON 810, posiadającej gen odporny na szkodnika tej
rośliny, która jako jedyna została dopuszczona przez Unię Europejską.
Ostatnio jednak Komisja Europejska zmienia front. O ile jeszcze niedawno
zdecydowanie opowiadała się za wprowadzaniem GMO do obrotu i uprawy, to
dzisiaj chce, żeby decydowały o tym poszczególne kraje.

Czy da się postawić szczelną barierę przed GMO?

Komisja Europejska zaleca tzw. koegzystencję upraw GMO i naturalnych,
ale nawet największa strefa buforowa nie jest skuteczna. Zdaniem
naukowców, nie ma możliwości zabezpieczenia upraw tradycyjnych przez
wpływem upraw roślin genetycznie modyfikowanych. Trudno przecież nakazać
owadom latanie w określonym kierunku. W Portugalii duża część
naturalnych upraw została „zarażona” przez GMO.

W Polsce, przynajmniej teoretycznie, upraw GMO nie powinno być, a jednak są na 3 tys. hektarów.

W naszych przepisach nie ma jednoznacznego zakazu, więc niektórzy
korzystają z luki prawnej. Najgorsze jest jednak to, że nie są
realizowane postanowienia obowiązującej wciąż ustawy. Mówi o tym raport
NIK, opublikowany w grudniu 2008 roku. Jest on druzgocący w swojej
wymowie, bowiem pokazuje, że w Polsce nie ma nadzoru nad GMO. Mimo że
mamy aż dziewięć różnego rodzaju inspekcji, które powinny się tym
zajmować. Brakuje im bowiem wystarczającego zaplecza kadrowego i
technicznego. Specjalistyczne laboratoria są tylko w czterech z nich.
Rząd nie opracował też Krajowej Strategii Bezpieczeństwa Biologicznego,
o co dopominałam się już kilka lat temu. W projekcie nowej ustawy
konieczność stworzenia takiej strategii też została zapisana. Ponadto
NIK wytyka, że ministrowie ochrony środowiska i rolnictwa nie posiadają
rzetelnych informacji o wielkości areału, położeniu i właścicielach
upraw GMO, a swoją wiedzę czerpią z mediów. Na badania skutków
stosowania GMO przeznaczono tylko 10 mln zł.

Na świecie jednak nie wszyscy mają aż takie skrupuły wobec GMO jak Unia Europejska…

W Stanach Zjednoczonych stawia się przede wszystkim na zysk, a
środowiska naturalnego nie chroni się w takim stopniu jak w Unii
Europejskiej. W Stanach Zjednoczonych rzeczywiście jest najwięcej upraw
GMO. Trzeba też podkreślić, że USA nie ratyfikowały Konwencji o ochronie
klimatu, choć są jednym z największych eminentów dwutlenku węgla i
gazów cieplarnianych. Nie powinien to być więc najlepszy przykład dla
Polski.

Teczka osobowa

Grażyna Ciemniak, posłanka na Sejm RP

Doktor nauk chemicznych. Senator III kadencji, poseł IV, V i VI (od
2009 r.) kadencji – Koło Poselskie Socjaldemokracji Polskiej. W 2008 r.
wystąpiła z SLD. Działa w sejmowych komisjach: ochrony środowiska,
zasobów naturalnych i leśnictwa oraz samorządu terytorialnego i polityki
regionalnej oraz, m.in., w podkomisji nadzwyczajnej do rozpatrzenia
rządowego projektu ustawy: Prawo o organizmach genetycznie
zmodyfikowanych.

W latach 1998-2001 była wiceprezydentem Bydgoszczy. W nadchodzących
wyborach będzie ubiegała się o stanowisko prezydenta Bydgoszczy. Od 1971
r. zawodowo związana z bydgoskim „Zachemem”.

// ]]>

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

STOP GMO – wiadmości ze świata

Posted on 5 września 2010. Filed under: gmo, gmo szajs, Propaganda medialna, żywność gmo | Tagi: , , , |


WiadoGMOści nr 14, opracowano  30.08.2010 r.

http://nowinyjeleniogorskie.com.pl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5975&Itemid=141
http://wn.com/Jedzenie__ostateczny_sekret_ujawniony_GMO
http://www.fit.pl/dietetyka/abc_zywienia/alternetywna_zywnosc/gmo/gmo_wymyka_sie_spod_kontroli,377,3744,0.html
http://www.fit.pl/dietetyka/tag/14184,zywnosc_modyfikowana_genetycznie
http://www.eioba.pl/a88338/gmo
http://www.eioba.pl/a81442/gmo_bro_masowego_ra_enia
http://www.eioba.pl/a85568/ryzyko_gmo_genetyczne_modyfikacje_upraw_afera_pusztai
http://il.youtube.com/user/monopolistan#p/a/f/0/LDZobAEMBEc
http://il.youtube.com/user/monopolistan#p/a/f/1/ePhDyDbbO-M
http://il.youtube.com/user/monopolistan#p/a/u/1/xDqyOXQ2nxw
http://zenobiusz.wordpress.com/2010/08/28/jak-zniszczyc-panstwo-nasze-polskie-panstwo/
http://www.ankietka.pl/ankieta/46549/swiadomosc-spoleczenstwa-w-zakresie-gmo.html
http://www.ekomiko.pl/index.php/wiadomosci/items/ksiaze-karol-gra-w-zielone.html
http://www.stat.gov.pl/cps/rde/xbcr/gus/PUBL_wz_dzieci_i_mlodziez_2002_2008.pdf
http://polskieforumspoleczne.blogspot.com/2010/08/tematy-zgoszone-na-i-polskie-forum.html


WiadoGMOści nr 13, opracowano  27.08.2010 r.

http://kuchnia-kuchnia.pl/pl20/teksty985/jadwiga_lopata_8211_laureatka_nagrody_goldmana_eko
http://vimeo.com/14406041
http://polska-wolna-od-gmo.org/library-english/monsanto-abandons-gm-canola-in-south-africa/
http://icppc.pl/info/images/GMO_Zawleczka.pdf
http://www.kobiety.pl/?mod=aktualnosci&action=zobacz&id=2737
http://www.wprost.pl/ar/206549/Kukurydza-nieznana/?I=1438
http://icppc.pl/info/images/GMO_IK.pdf
http://lubczasopismo.salon24.pl/aelita/post/220734,prawdziwe-zagrozenie-u-bram
http://www.stomatolog-pila.cba.pl/gmo-kto-zarabia/
http://www.agrosukces.pl/wyrok-przeciwko-gmo-w-usa,2314,aktualnosc.html
http://www.nowosci.com.pl/look/nowosci/article.tpl?IdLanguage=17&IdPublication=6&NrIssue=1503&NrSection=80&NrArticle=180803&IdTag=832


WiadoGMOści nr 12, opracowano 26.08.2010 r.

http://www.festiwalpiekna.pl/
http://news.webwweb.pl/2,39423,0,Alergie,u,dzieci,koniecznosc,czy,uciazliwa,przypadlosc.html

http://www.kobiety.pl/?mod=aktualnosci&action=zobacz&id=2737
http://vislania.wordpress.com/2010/08/25/najpiekniejsze-contra-gmo/
http://prawnicy.na-blogu.pl/index.php/2010/08/25/kto-zarabia-na-gmo/
http://grypa666.wordpress.com/2010/08/24/holo-oszusci-cz-3/
http://www.bibula.com/?p=26127
http://www.icppc.pl/antygmo/czarna-lista/
http://www.icppc.pl/antygmo/2010/08/
http://www.icppc.pl/antygmo/petycjelisty/
http://www.icppc.pl/antygmo/category/swiat/badania-naukowe/
http://www.icppc.pl/antygmo/do-sciagniecia/


WiadoGMOści nr 11, opracowano 23.08.2010 r.

http://wadowice24.pl/na-luzie/ciekawostki/1837-miski-na-kremowkach-foto
http://zig.eco.pl/a310_gmo.html
http://www.enji.pl/pl/gmo/czy-wiesz-co-jesz/85-nowa-idea-billa-gatesa-ludzie-tego-potrzebuja
http://icppc.pl/kobiety/
http://www.stowarzyszenieekoland.pl/MINISTERSTWO_EDUKACJI.pdf
http://www.era-zdrowia.pl/strefa-toksyczna/gmo/jedzenie-ostateczny-sekret-ujawniony.html
http://eko-produkt.com.pl/index.php?strona=sytuacja_w_polsce
http://www.izba-ochrona.pl/media/
http://www.katastrofa.kde.jgora.pl/article/gmo-kto-zarabia/
http://friendfeed.com/astromaria/8a804659/jedzenie-ostateczny-sekret-ujawniony-gmo
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20675
http://www.agroworld.pl/content/autoryzacja-do-wymiany
http://wiadomosci.ngo.pl/wiadomosci/580730.html
http://wiadomosci.ngo.pl/wiadomosc/dzialaj/574269.html
http://wiadomosci.ngo.pl/x/563688
http://wiadomosci.ngo.pl/x/572997
http://www.farmer.pl/fakty/swiat/usa_zabrania_uprawy_burakow_gmo,be2c8f7c6d5b8bcec088.html

http://www.ppr.pl/artykul-stop-gmo-158471.php
https://alexirin.wordpress.com/2010/08/04/monopol-jest-faktem/

http://zbrodniarze.com/

http://zbrodniarze.com/wyklad_jeffreya_smitha

http://gmo.mos.gov.pl/usage/register/index.php?s_notification_no=&s_organization_name=&s_organizm_name=&s_voivodeship_id=0&s_gmina=&s_decision_date_from=1990-01-01&s_decision_date_to=2100-01-01&s_obligation_date_from=1990-01-01&s_obligation_date_to=2100-01-01&site=list&Button_DoSearch=Szukaj


WiadoGMOści nr 10, opracowano 21.08.2010

http://www.decostyl.pl/bo-mimi-blog/tags/Polska-wolna-od-GMO/
http://www.decostyl.pl/bo-mimi-blog/1-piknik-stop-gmo.html

http://sigma-not.pl/wyszukaj-0-0-10-2928674-gmo.html
http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=j9SqYBZs7o0&feature=related
http://www.stowarzyszenieekoland.pl/index.php?news&nid=25
http://www.stowarzyszenieekoland.pl/index.php?news&nid=24

http://opcja.wordpress.com/2010/08/20/broszurki-ulotki-pisemka-w-ramach-kolejnej-spolecznej-inicjatywy-informacyjnej/
http://amanasunta84.salon24.pl/220734,prawdziwe-zagrozenie-u-bram
http://www.portalspozywczy.pl/inne/alkohole/wiadomosci/genetycznie-zmodyfikowane-winorosle-zniszczono-we-francji,36533.html

http://cudmilosci.net/index.php/2010-08-08-14-50-04/178-tracimy-niezaleno-ywienio


WiadoGMOści/GMOwieści nr 9, opracowano 15.08.2010

http://www.przyszloscwprzeszlosci.info/teraniejszo/38-teraniejszo/2137-ycie-wymyka-si-spod-kontroli

http://fajne-stronki.cba.pl/?p=31749
http://www.portalspozywczy.pl/owoce-warzywa/wiadomosci/buraki-gmo-firmy-monsanto-dostaly-czerwone-swiatlo-w-usa,36505.html
http://www.agrosukces.pl/parlament-bedzie-musial-zdecydowac-co-z-uprawami-gmo,2277,aktualnosc.html
http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/Wiadomosci/1,80277,8232367,Siedmiolatkom_rosna_piersi__Naukowcy_zaniepokojeni.html?order=najnowsze


WiadoGMOści/GMOwieści nr 8, opracowano 13.08.2010

http://www.przk.pl/?page=nr&nr=470&cat=85&art=20587

http://rolnikantygmo.pl/
http://medycyna24.pl/gmo-wymyka-sie-spod-kontroli
http://rolnikantygmo.pl/index.php?p=1_5_GMO-Co-to-jesthttp://www.ekonews.com.pl/gmo/
http://kampaniespoleczne.pl/showimage_pure.php?img=images/zdjecia/zdjecie_20100722114717_400.jpg&podpis=Spotkaniew Dobczycach

http://kampaniespoleczne.pl/wydarzenia,2250,pikniki_dla_polski_wolnej_od_gmo

http://www.ekonews.com.pl/pl/131,264,7165,0,1,narodowa_inicjatywa_eksportowa_usa.html

http://www.ekonews.com.pl/pl/131,264,7204,0,1,dzikie_gmo.html


WiadoGMOści nr 7, opracowano 12.08.2010

http://www.organicconsumers.org/monlink.cfm#news
http://www.icppc.pl/antygmo/2010/08/gmo-historia-o-tym-jak-wielkie-koncerny/
http://luwr.pl/2010/08/11/gmo-a-polska/
http://www.statystyki24.kde.wielun.pl/article/komu-gmo-daje-zarobic/
http://www.wiadomosci24.pl/artykul/greenpeace_o_gmo_152593.html?usun_komentarz
http://www.icppc.pl/antygmo/2010/08/uprawy-gmo-%E2%80%93-mity-i-fakty/
http://vislania.wordpress.com/2010/08/11/najpiekniejsze-kobiety-chca-byc-eko/
http://wadowice24.pl/na-luzie/styl-zycia/1813-czeka-nas-zlot-miss-szykujcie-aparaty


WiadoGMOści nr 6, opracowano 10.08.2010

http://kiev.trade.gov.pl/pl/aktualnosci/article/a,10701,.html
http://www.icppc.pl/antygmo/2010/08/
http://kopalniawiedzy.pl/USA-genetycznie-modyfikowane-rosliny-GMO-Cynthia-Sagers-rzepak-11044.html
http://www.icppc.pl/antygmo/2010/08/spiewka-o-gmogrozie/
http://asymetriainformacji.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/human-monsanto/
http://ekologia.re.pl/artykul/13164.html
http://www.fit.pl/dietetyka/abc_zywienia/alternetywna_zywnosc/gmo/gmo_wymyka_sie_spod_kontroli,377,1,0.html
http://www.fit.pl/dietetyka/abc_zywienia/alternetywna_zywnosc/gmo/gmo_8211;_szansa_czy_zagrozenie,256,1,0.html
http://www.fit.pl/dietetyka/abc_zywienia/alternetywna_zywnosc/gmo/komisja_europejska_dopusci_do_upraw_gmo,351,1,0.html
http://www.fit.pl/dietetyka/abc_zywienia/alternetywna_zywnosc/gmo/gmo,172,1,0.html
http://stop-gmo.pl/index.php/tag/zakaz-upraw-gmo/


WiadoGMOści  nr 5, Opracowano 8.08.2010

http://www.euranet.eu/pol/Informacje/Wiadomosci/Polish/GMO-rosnie-dziko
http://www.polskieradio.pl/nauka/print.aspx?id=181532
http://www.roik.pl/gmo-na-wolnosci/
http://wiadomosci.ekologia.pl/srodowisko/Genetycznie-Modyfikowane-Organizmy-na-naszych-stolach-Naukowcy-odkryli-transgeniczny-rzepak,12938.html
http://www.agrosukces.pl/usa-nie-zadowolone-z-unijnych-propozycji-w-sprawie-gmo,2211,aktualnosc.html
http://info.zdrowie.gazeta.pl/temat/zdrowie/gmo
http://www.cafemed.pl/zdrowie/gmo-podbija-ameryke.html
http://przeglad-socjalistyczny.pl/opinie/sprawy-midzynarodowe/460-wiat-wedug-monsanto.html


WiadoGMOści nr 4, opracowano 06.08.2010

http://www.google.com/hostednews/epa/article/ALeqM5iU7StHNN6tsZ54PM1g4tMVcMZDKw
http://www.wiadomosci24.pl/artykul/wielki_piknik_dla_polski_wolnej_od_gmo_150703.html
http://katowice.naszemiasto.pl/artykul/506018,wiedzma-od-modyfikowanej-kukurydzy-szalala-w-katowicach,id,t.html?kategoria=678
http://katowice.naszemiasto.pl/artykul/502566,happening-promujacy-zdrowa-zywnosc,id,t.html?kategoria=678
http://www.nowiny.gliwice.pl/index.php/puls-miasta/5337-wolni-od-gmo
http://www.kobiety.pl/?mod=aktualnosci&action=zobacz&id=2700
http://www.radio.opole.pl/?kat=wiadomosci_wiecej&id=51659
http://lodz.naszemiasto.pl/artykul/506940,eko-piknik-w-parku-staromiejskim-film,id,t.html?kategoria=660
http://www.tvp.pl/opole/aktualnosci/spoleczne/sprzeciw-wobec-gmo/2183069
http://wiadomosci.onet.pl/blogi/mareksawicki.blog.onet.pl,410498071,blog.html
http://wiadomosci.onet.pl/blogi/januszwojciechowski.blog.onet.pl,410682163,blog.html
http://www.naszdziennik.pl/index.php?dat=20100714&typ=ww&id=ww13.txt
http://www.radio.opole.pl/?kat=wiadomosci_wiecej&id=51533
http://odkrywcy.pl/kat,111394,title,Polska-Wolna-od-GMO,wid,12493858,wiadomosc.html
http://odkrywcy.pl/query,GMO,szukaj.html
http://odkrywcy.pl/kat,111406,page,2,title,Rosliny-GMO-uciekly-do-srodowiska,wid,12549290,wiadomosc.html


WiadoGMOści – nr 3 – Opracowano w dniu 5.08.2010

http://www.zdrowiebezgranic.pl/rozne-tematy/4-gmo-droga-do-samozagady
http://proteusz.pl/index.php/2010/08/04/gmo-na-talerzu-brytyjczyka/
http://www.portalspozywczy.pl/zboza-oleiste/wiadomosci/ekolodzy-przeciw-zmianom-w-ustawie-o-gmo,27836.html
http://www.portalspozywczy.pl/inne/polityka-i-spoleczenstwo/wiadomosci/greenpeace-wykorzystuje-kampanie-wyborcza-do-walki-przeciwko-gmo,34337.html
http://www.portalspozywczy.pl/prawo/wiadomosci/rzadowy-projekt-ustawy-o-gmo-rozpatrzony,34782.html
http://www.portalspozywczy.pl/zboza-oleiste/wiadomosci/patent-na-gmo-ograniczony-do-fazy-uprawy,35134.html
http://www.portalspozywczy.pl/prawo/wiadomosci/komisje-sejmowe-badajace-ustawe-o-gmo-przedstawia-wnioski-7-lutego,25824.html
http://www.portalspozywczy.pl/mieso/wiadomosci/klonowane-mieso-trafilo-na-brytyjskie-stoly,36010.html


WiadoGMości – nr 2 – opracowano w dniu  04.08.2010

http://www.tvn24.pl/12692,1667120,0,1,sawicki-protestuje-przeciw-decyzji-unii,wiadomosc.html
http://www.wiadomosci24.pl/artykul/greenpeace_o_gmo_152593.html
http://www.pomorska.pl/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100630/ROLNICTWO30/32026803
http://www.pomorska.pl/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100708/ROLNICTWO22/540615151
http://www.pomorska.pl/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100713/ROLNICTWO30/180720729
http://www.pomorska.pl/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100709/ROLNICTWO/286736267
http://www.pomorska.pl/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100706/ROLNICTWO22/254116627
http://www.pomorska.pl/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100724/ROLNICTWO30/403873638
http://www.pomorska.pl/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100706/ROLNICTWO22/160071312
http://www.pomorska.pl/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100614/ROLNICTWO22/49874420
http://www.pomorska.pl/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100628/ROLNICTWO30/86487948
http://www.pomorska.pl/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100419/TORUN01/716479377
http://www.pomorska.pl/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100417/INOWROCLAW01/801426051
http://www.pomorska.pl/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100322/ZDROWIE/691509973
http://www.pomorska.pl/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090821/ZDROWIE/565305021
http://www.biokurier.pl/aktualnosci/319-kukurydza-gmo-pojawi-sie-w-europie
http://www.swiat-zdrowia.pl/artykul/genetyczna-rewolucja-dna-dieta


WiadoGMOści – nr 1 – Opracowano w dniu 03.08.2010

http://www.polskatimes.pl/pap/287613,ke-zatwierdzila-6-kolejnych-gatunkow-kukurydzy-gmo,id,t.html
https://www.ewgt.com.pl/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9109:gmo&catid=94:ue&Itemid=239
http://ww6.tvp.pl/4909,20100803972978.strona
http://www.nacjonalista.pl/tag/gmo
http://www.goodlifepoland.pl/?p=1804&lang=pl
http://www.portalspozywczy.pl/zboza-oleiste/wiadomosci/zaognia-sie-konflikt-miedzy-usa-i-ue-ws-eksportu-gmo,35866.html

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

TO B(t) OR NOT TO B(t)

Posted on 5 kwietnia 2010. Filed under: gmo, gmo szajs, oszukańcze koncerny, Oszustwa mediów | Tagi: , , |


Gigantic, greedy and powerful multinational companies are using muscle and media power to push through genetically modified food products, backed by parasitic lobbies in India peddling unscientific evidence. Will Jairam Ramesh succumb to this profit cartel?

Shaweta Anand Delhi

Those opposed to GM-food may be happy to see how Union Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh stopped Bt brinjal’s commercial release after public consultations. However, the way the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) draft bill is taking shape, with its draconian clauses to thwart any anti-GM voices, it wouldn’t be too surprising if we are found chewing Bt vegetables in the near future, without even knowing it! Quite like the civilian nuclear deal with the United States that went through all kinds of legislative and political convulsions before it was passed in Parliament, the clearance of Bt brinjal is expected to test similar frontiers of Indo-US strategic partnership – this time in the realm of agriculture.

Despite the minister’s assurance that the period of six months would be used for getting scientific opinion and a better appreciation of this ticklish issue, there are core issues that must be dealt with before the country faces the same challenge again – to B(t) or not to B(t)?

Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) is a toxic, soil-based bacteria, which is being genetically engineered into food crops so that they can ward off pest-attacks ‚most effectively’ as the new toxin-laden plant will kill any pest that dares to feast on it for breakfast. Indeed, US-based agri-giant – Monsanto – has grown from being a chemical company into one of the highest money spinners through transgenic technology, that is, the technology of transferring genes from one kind of organism to another, across different species.

Farm animals (in the US) are largely fed Bt corn and Bt soya and roughly 70-80 per cent of what humans consume has derivatives of the same processed GM-food. „Even though it does not establish a cause and effect relationship, it gives prima facie evidence that there could be a causal relationship between rising consumption of GM-food and rising gastrointestinal disorders as curves for both these observations overlap,” says Dr Pushpa Mittra Bhargava, scientist and Supreme Court-appointed nominee to observe functioning of the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), ministry of environment and forests. He was speaking at a colloquium on Bt brinjal in Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) in January, 2010. He was interviewed by Hardnews later.

In his book called First the Seed, Jack Ralph Kloppenburg Jr, of the University of Wisconsin, writes: „Both transnational and the ‚genetic research boutiques’ are gearing to enter a market for seed that is projected to be $7 billion dollars in US alone by the year 2000.” In a 2008 article titled Monsanto’s Rich Harvest in the Business Week, author Brain Hindo says: „The company’s first-quarter earnings nearly tripled, from $90 million to $256 million…  Sales for the period rose 36 per cent to $2.1 billion.” This can give a fair idea about how fast this industry is growing.

Narrating the experience of African country Zambia with regard to GM-food, Bhargava says, „US had offered GM-corn to Zambia in the past, which they refused because genetically modified genes would contaminate other crops as well. The country exports many of its non-GM foods to Europe where maximum people prefer it. So Zambians chose to protect their own export market outside while in India, we don’t realise that with the different kinds of vegetables we have – some of them with pharmacological properties (karela, drumsticks etc) – we could become leaders of the world’s (non-GM) vegetable market in future. But if we let in Bt brinjal now, we will open floodgates for 20 other kinds of GM-vegetables, besides closing our doors to the world vegetable market, forever.”

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh announced a bilateral deal during his trip to the US in 2005 and said in his speech to the US Congress: „(India’s) first green revolution benefited in substantial measure from assistance provided by the US. We are hopeful that the Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture (KIA) will become the harbinger of a second green revolution in our country.”

It has to be pointed out that no debate proceeded in the public domain or amidst the policy-making elite in India on such a deal or contours of the second green revolution, if any, says Kavitha Kuruganti of the Kheti Virasat Mission.

„All this talk about the launching of a second green revolution is just a red herring. This deal is essentially about changing Indian regulatory regimes around agriculture so that it suits the American business interests better. Fundamental questions about what is it that we really need to learn from the USA where farming is propped up with huge subsidies; whether there are similarities between American and Indian farming so that we need to learn from them; aren’t there huge differences between the way USA and India approach specific issues within agriculture and so on have to be answered first? In fact, the government needs to first state what lessons have been learnt from the first green revolution, before launching a second green revolution,” informed Kuruganti, in an interview to Hardnews.

„It is little wonder then that about 35 per cent of our agricultural research focuses on preparing Bt products as a majority of the Indian scientific community continues to chase the Bt gene,” says Dr Suman Sahai, senior scientist and convenor, Gene Campaign.

In an analysis offered by Rajeshwari S Raina, the Indo-US collaboration document is based on ‚a consideration mechanism’ among senior Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) officers, select VCs of state agricultural universities, directors of national institutes, private organisations and other stake holders. There is no mention of consultation with farmers.

„Public doesn’t know what GM technology is, so there is limited point in debating the good or bad of it, for instance, at the public consultations (before Ramesh announced moratorium on Bt brinjal),” says Prof KC Bansal, principal scientist, National Research Centre on Plant Biotechnology, ICAR.

„The basic problem is that Indian scientists or ‚experts’ feel they know everything, including the practical aspects of agricultural practices that farmers know better about. There is an unfortunate gap between the powerful, privileged scientific community and the farmer,” says Prof KJ Mukherjee of the Centre of Biotechnology, JNU.

Sahai noted that if farmers were asked, they could have probably suggested more uses of biotechnology in our country, but alas, our scientists are busy preparing Bt okra, Bt tomato, Bt cauliflower etc, as if all our food security woes will get resolved by hammering out that single toxic Bt gene. Monsanto gets paid a license fees every time there is a sale of any Bt product anywhere in the world.

To top it all, bacterial wilt is the main pest that affects brinjal not shoot and fruit borer to kill which Bt brinjal got made in the first place, she adds. One can clearly see how this business is single-mindedly market-driven and not based on the needs of farmers.

Whether Bt brinjal eventually comes through or not (most probably it will), there are serious issues with our preparedness. Inadequate, long-term testing of GM-food products for assessing their health impact on human beings is one major problem. There are no working labelling laws that could enable consumers to differentiate between GM and non-GM-food. Even if one consumes GM food – knowingly or unknowingly – there are no liability laws that fix responsibility on someone in case of adverse health impact. The biggest concern is regarding correlation of appearance of disease in humans and GM-food consumption in the absence of a post-release monitoring system, which should ideally be in place before introducing GM-food products in the market. Clearly, we are not prepared for consuming GM-food products safely, not just yet. Besides, why should we, if long-term independent tests establish that they are unsafe for human consumption?

A report on health impacts of GM-foods by ‚Doctors for Food and Biosafety’- a network of concerned Indian medical professionals – should sound like a wake-up call for a majority of Indian policy makers, agricultural scientists and agri-businessmen, who apparently want to bypass rigorous testing mechanisms and allow GM-food products to enter Indian markets as soon as possible.

In an interview to Hardnews, Dr GPI Singh of the doctors’ network says, „There are 65 documented evidences of adverse health effects related to consumption and exposure to GM crops – food or non-food.” Their report urges policy makers to utilize the Precautionary Principle approach that mandates rigorous, long-term testing by independent scientific bodies since GM-food once released in the environment cannot be recalled as easily as harmful agro-chemicals like DDT. Once released, the effects of GM crops could stay on for a lengthy time-period. Long-term testing is crucial instead of the 90-day safety trials conducted on rats by Mahyco – the Maharashtra-based Biotech Company that manufactures Bt brinjal.

Apparently, Monsanto claims that it’s Mahyco which is involved, when controversy hits it. Incidentally, Monsanto has 26 per cent stake in Mahyco.

Among studies quoted in the doctors’ report, crucial is one conducted by Austrian scientists (2008) that found reproductive issues with third and fourth generation mice eating Bt corn. In another study done by Italian scientists (2008), there were alterations in immune reactions in weaning and old mice that were fed Bt maize.

Noted epidemiologist Dr Judy Carman of Institute of Health and Environmental Research, Australia, analysed the food safety evaluation for Bt brinjal as done by Mahyco and found issues with their research methodology. Jairam Ramesh acknowledged Carman’s view in his public statement on Bt brinjal after introducing a moratorium on its commercial use in February this year. She is facing trouble  in her own country for speaking  out against interests of powerful biotech companies.

Carman’s report reveals stunning facts that were probably missed by the powerful people and media outfits promoting GM-food: „…if this GM-brinjal comes into the Indian food supply, then every Indian will be eating it, resulting in 1.15 billion Indians exposed to the GM-brinjal. Some of those exposed will be children or the elderly. Some of those exposed will already be ill with cancer, auto-immune problems, heart disease, diabetes, or infectious diseases. Because of the number of people exposed, if GM-brinjal is later found to cause illness, it could cause significant economic and social problems for India.  For example, if only 1 in 1,000 of exposed people later gets ill, or has an underlying illness made worse, then 1.15 million Indians would be ill and requiring treatment.”

In an exclusive interview with Hardnews, she says: „What happens is that studies conducted by GM companies generally involve very few animals and generally measure things relevant to animal production (eg. meat yield) rather than human health.  We need thorough, long-term animal feeding studies that measure things relevant to human health, conducted by people independent of GM companies.  But independent researchers have serious problems getting samples of GM-crops for research. For instance, a farmer who buys GM-crops from Monsanto signs a contract with Monsanto that prevents the farmer from doing any research or giving seeds to others to do it. This includes any crop yield, environmental or health research. And GM crops have a strong patent on them.  If a GM gene lands in a farmer’s crop, it belongs to the GM company. So farmers can find themselves growing GM- contaminated crops without choosing to, because bees have carried GM- containing pollen into their crop, or because the farmer has unknowingly bought contaminated seeds.  And then the farmer can be fined by the GM company for growing a GM crop without a licence to do so.  This has happened to farmers in other countries.”

Emphasising the necessity of long-term testing, Sahai says, „When you insert a gene into a new organism in a fairly aggressive manner, you do not know where that gene will go and sit and how many copies of it will get made… Gene regulation is not something we understand to the fullest extent, but when you disturb genetic material of the organism by adding new genetic material, chances are that its local environment will change and its regulation could change too. Hence the importance of long-term testing for toxicity and allergenicity to check for formation of new proteins.”

Further, Bhargava asserts, „the toxic gene might insert itself in a beneficial gene and disturb its function or it might lead to formation of new proteins or deletion of useful ones. Only adequate and rigorous safety testing can resolve that doubt. But GEAC has done none of these tests. It has basically believed the safety tests done by the company!”

In October 2009, the GEAC gave clearance to the release of commercial use of Bt brinjal after few years of introduction of Bt cotton in India. There are company claims that farmers have benefited immensely from rising cotton yields since Bt toxin – the toxic gene to kill pests that ingest it – got introduced in ordinary cotton varieties. Others on the ground, however, give abundant evidence regarding instances of allergies, cattle deaths and farmer suicides due to rising agricultural input costs that includes purchasing relatively expensive Bt cotton seeds every season.

„Where can a farmer go and register a complaint about allergic reactions he developed after exposure to Bt crops? Even the local agricultural officer doesn’t know anything about such a redressal mechanism,” says Sahai.

Besides health hazards and related socioeconomic costs to the Indian exchequer, recent media reports reveal that pests have become resistant to Bt toxin in four districts of Gujarat, thus defeating the very purpose of introduction of GM crops in the first place. Monsanto now plans to introduce another variety of Bt cotton called Bollgard 2, which will have two toxic genes instead of one to deal with more pests.

Former member of Planning Commission and former Union minister of state for agriculture and water resources, Chowdhary Sompal, says, „In the normal course of nature, pests are bound to develop resistance to pesticides within three to five years of first exposure. So no matter what product Monsanto brings in, pests will soon become resistant to it.” Questioning the very idea of farmers’ dependency on profit-driven companies, he opposed the ‚slow poisoning’ caused by toxic Bt gene that gets inserted in the plant.  „This inbuilt poison cannot be washed away, unlike externally sprayed pesticides,” says Dr Krishen Bir Choudhary, president, Bhartiya Krishak Samaj. He criticised the MNCs for the slow disappearance of our traditional, diverse seed varieties.

Speaking about politics (and profits) of seed ownership, Vijay Jardhari of Beej Bachao Andolan, Uttarakhand, whose organisation has led protracted struggles to preserve indigenous food culture and biodiversity of the Garhwal hills, says that traditionally, Indian farmers could grow many crops that kept everyone relatively healthier since they consumed nutrition from multiple sources. But after the advent of hybrid technology, and GM crops, farmers are being forced to grow monoculture crops since that increases profits for the company. This has health consequences because those living in remote hills or in cities need doctors and medicines since they suffer from lack of basic nutrition due to the non-availability of all seasonal crops. This was not the case before agriculture started getting industrialised and becoming dependent on lab-made agro-inputs.

Dr Satyajit Rath, faculty at the National Institute of Immunology, New Delhi, feels that the condition of small and marginal farmers is deplorable as „he’s slowly getting coerced to buy all kinds of agricultural inputs from the market, including GM-seeds, but cannot sell back his product the same way”. The local seed dealer runs the agricultural economy since he is also the creditor.

„This seed dealer gets a commission from the company on every packet of Bt seeds he sells to the farmer, but to conclude that Monsanto is ‚evil’ and has a calculated design to kill our farmers is incorrect, because all they want to do is increase their sales! This is the how the capitalistic system works anywhere.” Most of our ministers and agricultural scientists too belong to the same neo-liberal paradigm, Rath added.

„The main problem,” says Mukherjee, „is that risk assessment of GM-foods is not an easy task for scientists anywhere in the world.” It is particularly challenging in the Indian context because human life here has little value. So the malnourished majority will also eat (Bt) brinjal because it is a cheap, readily available vegetable. So how can safety tests exclude this aspect, especially keeping in mind their low immunity?

„The poor are exposed to so many toxins regularly that might tend to hide negative effects of Bt toxin present in GM-brinjal. Therefore, safety tests designed for the poor of this country will need a combination of hard sciences and social sciences along with long-term health checks, which is not what our Indian scientists are currently doing, despite one of the world’s best agricultural research infrastructure in the world,” he added.

Calling their research work as a metaphorical ‚aam patta jam patta’ (if someone has done research on mango leaves, repeat the same with jamun leaves), Prof Mukherjee urged Indian scientists to rise above from manufacturing profit-driven ‚quickies’; instead they should generate genuinely new scientific knowledge that can be useful to millions across the spectrum. „As for what they’re doing with Bt now, even a BSc student can do that!” he says.

And Rath was more cryptic: „Scientists are after all government employees. Whatever the government will tell them, they will do.”

Źródło: http://www.hardnewsmedia.com/2010/03/3509

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Ban on glyphosate spraying near town in Argentina

Posted on 19 marca 2010. Filed under: gmo, gmo szajs, Niebezpieczne, Prawo, Urzędy | Tagi: , , , , , , , , , |


Thursday, 18 March 2010 15:18

Attention: open in a new window. PDFPrintE-mail

EXTRACT: The court found that farmers „have been indiscriminately using agrochemicals such as glyphosate, applied in open violation of existing laws [causing] severe damage to the environment and to the health and quality of life of the residents.”

While the decision is limited to the area around San Jorge, other courts in the farming province are likely to follow suit if residents seek similar court action.


Argentina Court Blocks Agrochemical Spraying Near Rural Town
Shane Romig
Dow Jones Newswires, March 17 2010
http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=201003171558dowjonesdjonline000680&title=argentina-court-blocks-agrochemical-spraying-near-rural-town
http://bit.ly/cg2AgG

BUENOS AIRES -(Dow Jones)- In a ruling bearing potentially far-reaching implications, an appellate court in Argentina’s Santa Fe province this week upheld a decision blocking farmers from spraying agrochemicals near populated areas.

The ruling blocks the use of chemicals such as the widely used herbicide glyphosate within 800 meters of the town of San Jorge, and aerial spraying within 1,500 meters of the town.

While the decision is limited to the area around San Jorge, other courts in the farming province are likely to follow suit if residents seek similar court action.

The court found that farmers „have been indiscriminately using agrochemicals such as glyphosate, applied in open violation of existing laws [causing] severe damage to the environment and to the health and quality of life of the residents.”

A backlash is building in the country against the increasing reliance on transgenic soybeans and the herbicide widely used in their cultivation. Soybeans dominate the country’s farm output, but growing concern over the environmental impact of soybean-cultivation practices has spurred a legal and legislative assault.

Last year, the Argentine Association of Environmental Lawyers filed a case at the Supreme Court to halt the use of glyphosate, which virtually all of the soybeans grown in Argentina have been genetically modified to resist. Up to 200 million liters of the herbicide are sprayed across the farm belt each season. The court has yet to decide on whether to hear the case.

Genetically modified soybeans resistant to glyphosate were introduced to Argentina in 1996 by St. Louis-based biotech giant Monsanto Co. (MON). Now, with over half of all cultivated land going to soy in the last season, virtually all of the soybeans grown in Argentina uses Monsanto’s technology. Monsanto didn’t return a call seeking comment.

The spread of the transgenic beans has led to an unprecedented boom in farm wealth but also brought a host of ills, including soil deterioration and wide- scale deforestation to open up new fields.

While environmentalists have long decried the shift to soy monoculture, opposition heated up last year when an unpublished study conducted by the University of Buenos Aires Institute of Cellular Biology and Neuroscience Molecular Embryology Lab found that very low doses of glyphosate caused mutations in amphibian embryos.

While glyphosate has been used for 30 years and is approved in more than 100 countries, the defense minister prohibited growing transgenic soybeans on army farms with residential compounds, in the wake of the report. In addition, a number of local districts have banned or limited the use of glyphosate around populated areas, and some provinces also are debating legislation to prohibit or limit its use.

Argentina is the world’s leading exporter of soymeal and oil and the third- largest exporter of soybeans. The legume is the country’s largest export product and a key source of export-tax revenue.

Despite criticism of the excessive reliance on soybeans from President Cristina Fernandez, the government has encouraged the continued shift toward soy by imposing export limits and price controls on other goods such as wheat, corn and beef to keep local food prices down. With virtually no domestic demand for soybeans, their pricing and exports have been left untouched, prompting farmers to plant more beans.

-By Shane Romig, Dow Jones Newswires; 54-11-4103-6738; shane.romig@ dowjones.com

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Resistant weeds threaten to cripple Iowa’s agriculture economy

Posted on 19 marca 2010. Filed under: gmo, gmo szajs, Niebezpieczne, Petycje, Prawo | Tagi: , , , , , , , |


Glyphosate-resistant weeds now established in 19 states

By Lynda Waddington 3/10/10 12:10 PM

Iowa crop farmers are battling an old problem with potentially new and devastating repercussions for the entire state’s agricultural economy: Herbicide-resistant weeds.

Creative Commons photo by jeffbalke via FlickrCreative Commons photo by jeffbalke via Flickr

The phenomenon is not all that new, said Mike Owen, a weed specialist at Iowa State University who has been discussing herbicide-resistant weeds since the 1980s. But widespread adoption of certain biotech advances have made matters much more complicated.

It has only been in the last few years that crops have been selectively engineered to tolerate topical application of active ingredients in a specific herbicide. The resistance that weeds have developed to that ingredient — called glyphosate — combined with its widespread adoption, has the potential of costing Iowa producers millions of bushels of produce, and severely crippling the state’s ag-based economy.

An herbicide with glyphosate was introduced by the Monsanto Co. in 1974 under the commercial name Roundup. Roughly 18 years later, the company introduced its first biotech crop, Roundup Ready soybeans, which would tolerate direct application of the glysophate-based herbicide. Modified corn was introduced two years later.

When these glyphosate-resistant crops came onto the market, many hoped and some believed that another herbicide or genetically-modified crop wouldn’t need to be developed. However, over time, crop farmers encountered more and more glyphosate-resistant weeds, and no new herbicide ingredients being developed to control them. Within a decade, some environmental and consumer groups were beginning to question the safety of the Roundup Ready crop line, specifically pointing to the emergence of “super weeds.”

Despite the concerns voiced by some, and increasingly aggressive tactics by Monsanto to protect its seed patents, use of the Roundup Ready crop brands were widely adopted by farmers in Iowa and throughout the nation. While each individual grower had his or her own specific reasons for changing to the Roundup Ready system, Owen believes that larger scale operations’ search for simplicity and convenience as well as corporate marketing played key roles.

“[P]art of this is definitely the issue of scale. Growers are looking at time management. They are looking for simplicity and convenience because of the scale that agriculture has achieved over the past 10 years,” Owen said. “We also need to look at how the marketing has influenced the growers’ decisions. Certainly marketing campaigns are very influential in the decisions that growers make. They are very persuasive, and they are very pervasive in the marketplace.”

From television to radio to numerous ag-specific print publications, Iowa’s rural community has been bombarded by a wealth of advertising by corporations that need growers to adopt their systems. As agriculture has grown, and larger growing plots have become more time-consuming for producers, the companies have successfully highlighted the aspects of their products they believe will most appeal to producers.

“These are very powerful and very desirable things in the marketplace. Convenience and simplicity are both very useful and very important; however, they are also something that have considerable risks associated,” he explained.

Although it might seem logical to point an immediate accusatory finger at either the modified crops or the herbicides as being the key forces behind the problem, Owen warns that while both might play an indirect role, neither are fully or totally to blame.

“The predominant system that has emerged in Iowa is based on glyphosate-resistant crops, and the subsequent use of glyphosate,” he said. “Now, as a result of that, we are beginning to see weeds that no longer respond to that herbicide. The question becomes if this resistance is because we are planting these crops. No, because the trait that dictates resistance to glyphosate is essentially benign in the environment. Is the herbicide causing the problem? The answer to that is directly no, but indirectly yes.”

If the situation cannot be fully placed on the back of the crops or herbicide, what or who is to blame?

“The who or what is the manner by which the growers decide to use the technology,” he said. “Their decisions are influenced by obviously their own interpretation and assessment of the technology, but also influenced by the marketing that the corporations use to move their proprietary traits and herbicides into the grower marketplace.”

While Owen has no doubt that farmers and producers are some of the best stewards of our land, water and overall environment, he is also concerned that they are not seeing the big picture when it comes to management and control of weeds.

“In relation to some of the obvious issues that reflect land and environmental quality — tillage, waterways and things like that — I think [growers] can foresee long-term problems, and they do make stewardship efforts once those issues are identified,” Owen said. “In relation to weed management and the potential evolution of resistant weeds, however, I don’t think they fully understand the implications of the practices that they use or anticipate the severity of the problems that may result”

To some degree that is the industry’s fault, Owen said, because “historically we have always been able to come back with a better tool, a new tool, that would take care of those problems. What we’ve found ourselves in now is a situation where those tools are not readily available and they are not, at least in the near future, observable.”

There needs to be a renewed understanding on the part of growers that “what we’ve got is what we’ve got, and there’s going to be nothing — that is, the Lone Ranger isn’t going to come riding in on Silver to fix the problem.”

There is no new silver bullet, he said, so growers need to take care of the tools that they have.

“I think we can do this and, as it turns out, based on what I’ve observed, we can actually make money by using some of the practices that provide better diversity of management practices for weed control,” he said. “But growers, at least at this point, just don’t seem to be accepting this message for a number of different reasons.”

Chart showing soybean farmers who believe higher rates or  application frequency of glyphosate is required for weed control.  (Source: Iowa State University/Iowa Soybean Association)Chart showing soybean farmers who believe higher rates or application frequency of glyphosate is required for weed control (Source: Iowa State University/Iowa Soybean Association).

Although glysophate-based herbicide had been on the market for a number of years, the 1996 Field Crops Summary conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture indicated that less than 1 million pounds of the herbicide were applied to roughly 15 percent of Iowa soybean fields — a figure well be below what was being used at the same time by farmers in Illinois and Indiana.

In 2006, however, use by Iowa farmers had skyrocketed to more than 12 million pounds on nearly 90 percent of all soybean acreage — and had out-paced use by any other Midwestern state known for soybean production. Not only had the percent of Iowa’s land use for soybean production increased during that time frame, but the statistics clearly show that producers were more than doubling the amount of glyphosate that was initially used for weed control.

Just as diseases can evolve resistance to antibiotics, weeds can evolve resistance to herbicides, prompting more frequent application to provide adequate control and maintain crop yield potential. Glyphosate-resistant weeds are now established in 19 states and deemed a serious economic concern — both for the increased cost to destroy the weed, and for the potential to drag crop yield.

Currently there are at least 15 different types of herbicide-resistant weeds in Iowa. The first, Kochia scoparia, was reported in 1985 with a resistance to atrazine. The most widespread glyphosate-resistant weed in the state is common waterhemp, which infests an estimated 1,000 to 10,000 acres. The most recently discovered glyphosate-resistant weed, identified just last year, is giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida). It is estimated by state weed scientists that there are 1,210 sites and more than 12,400 acres invested with herbicide resistant weeds in Iowa, and that they infest corn, railways and soybeans.

Although those figures may seem striking to a person who is not familiar with the problem of resistant weeds, the truth is that Iowa has fared much better than Southeast states. For instance, producers in Macon, Georgia  abandoned about 10,000 acres of cropland in 2007 following an infestation of glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth, a member of the pigweed family.

“My sense is that we are going to see more weed problems if growers continue to rely only on glyphosate,” said Owen. “If the only thing they are planning to do this year is use glyphosate, then I would suggest that they may have greater problems with weeds this year than what they may have had last year.”

For now, there are other options available to farmers — options they should use wisely, Owen said. Despite the initial cost of using a soil residual pre-emergent herbicide, Owen believes there is a significant yield boost associated with the application. He and his colleagues at Iowa State University have developed a 2010 Herbicide Guide for Iowa Corn and Soybean Production that outlines and highlights some of the best practices they have used for maintaining crop profits.

“Just as an estimate, if growers are only using glyphosate, and if they are making application at only particular instances, they are likely losing five or so bushels of soybeans per acre. And there are similar, if not higher, numbers of bushels of corn being lost,” he said. “If your project that over all the acres — five bushels of soybeans over 9 million acres of soybeans produced — then you are looking at 45 million bushels of soybeans that may be lost because of poor timing of weed management. Although that’s just a ‘back-of-the-envelope’ projection, it seems reasonable based on some of the modeling routines that we’ve done.

“Suffice it to say that it is a butt-load of money.”

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Monsanto, Big Ag has ‘troubling’ control over seed market, report finds

Posted on 19 marca 2010. Filed under: gmo, gmo szajs, Niebezpieczne | Tagi: , , , , , , |


Ten companies account for two-thirds of the world’s proprietary seed for major crops

By Lynda Waddington 12/29/09 6:00 AM

Few Iowans are aware of the price increases plaguing farmers, or the federal policies and U.S. Supreme Court rulings that have resulted in a handful of large corporations controlling the seed markets. But a new report, issued three months ahead of scheduled discussions in Ankeny on anti-competitiveness within the seed industry, highlights what Iowa farmers have known for some time.

xxxxThe Farmer to Farmer Campaign on Genetic Engineering, a network of 34 farm organizations throughout the U.S., issued the report in advance of an unprecedented series of antitrust workshops co-sponsored by the U.S. Departments of Justice and Agriculture. The five workshops, which will begin in Ankeny in March and span four other states over the next year, are an opportunity for producers to speak directly to federal officials about antitrust concerns. The Iowa-based discussion will specifically focus on seeds and the few corporate giants that control that market.

According to the report, which attributes the current consolidation of the seed industry to lax antitrust enforcement and laws favorable to large corporations, 10 companies account for roughly two-thirds (65 percent) of the world’s proprietary seed for major crops. Of those 10 companies, four firms account for 50 percent of the proprietary market alone, and 43 percent of the commercial market, which includes both proprietary (branded seeds subject to intellectual property protection) and public varieties.

The 1980 Bayh-Dole Act allowed universities — for the first time — to patent inventions that result from publicly funded research projects on the theory that the law would increase innovation. With passage, industry funding of public research surged and public funding dropped dramatically. The result has been the privatization of public research … , leading to restrictions on the free exchange of basic research, less public analysis of new varieties, and diminished innovation. Though industry funding of universities may not be something to criticize on its own, these trends are troubling.

Dozens of mergers and acquisitions followed the expansion of agriculture biotechnology. … At least 200 independent  seed companies have been lost in the last 13 years alone. …

Due to the prevalence of soybean and corn in Iowa, most discussion in the state focuses on the Monsanto Co., whose genetically engineered seeds are planted on more than 80 percent of all U.S. corn acres and more than 90 percent of all U.S. soybean acres.

Monsanto's 2008 seed market share in corn and soybeans. (Source:  Farmer to Farmer report, Monsanto's April 2009 supplemental toolkit for  investors)Monsanto’s 2008 seed market share in corn and soybeans. (Source: Farmer to Farmer report, Monsanto’s April 2009 supplemental toolkit for investors)

Such market dominance has left Iowa farmers holding the bag.

“[Genetically engineered] traits have spurred a rapid increase in seed prices, largely because firms have implemented a novel pricing structure through ‘technology fees’ charged on top of basic seed costs,” the report said, adding: “Prices farmers pay for seed have increased 146 percent since 1999, and 64 percent of that increase occurred in just the last three years. Prices of hybrid corn seed were more than 30 percent higher, and soybean seed about 25 percent higher, over 2008 prices.”

Monsanto and other large seed companies have argued that demand for their seed has driven the market to where it is. But critics point to anti-competitiveness clauses within agreements with seed distributors that require specific varieties of seed of its total corn seed inventory in order for the distributor to receive rebates.

By controlling the funnel of seeds to farmers, large corporations also have the luxury of pushing their latest products and making older formulas less available. In August 2009, for example, Monsanto announced that the royalty fee on its next generation Roundup Ready soybean seed would increase 42 percent in 2010 — an increase of roughly $75 per acre. It also announced that there would be a price hike on first generation Roundup Ready soybean seed to roughly $52 per acre, with anticipation that the first generation seed would eventually be phased out.

That same month, however, U.S. Department of Justice officials announced that they were investigating Monsanto for anti-trust actions. As reported by the New York Times, Monsanto has conceded that it will allow its first-generation soybeans, the first Roundup Ready crop, to go the way of generic prescription drugs and will allow farmers to continue to grow the seeds even after the patent expires in 2014. The seeds are the first widely utilized crop seed to lose patent protection, but loss of the patent itself is not likely to be enough to reduce Monsanto’s market share.

Glyphosate, a broad-spectrum herbicide, was initially patented and sold by Monsanto in the 1970s under the trade name Roundup. The seeds produced by Monsanto were specifically engineered to be resistant to the herbicide, allowing farmers to spray crops for weeds even after the crop had emerged from the ground. Although the patent for Roundup expired in 2000, the company has continued to market its brand and include the resistant trait in its seeds. In Iowa alone, the USDA estimates that 12.1 million pounds of glyphosate was applied to fields in 2006 — compared to 0.9 million in 1997.

Despite the expiration of the Roundup patent in 2000, which resulted in an initial cost reduction, farmers are now experiencing ever-inflating prices of the herbicide. Seed and chemical dealers told farmers, according to the report, that the increases — often double or triple the cost of just two years ago — are a result of demand, waning genetic production in China and a shortage of phosphorous, a key ingredient. When supply waned, Monsanto reacted by increasing the cost of its product, Roundup, by 30 percent in an effort to “ration supply.”

More troubling for Iowa and farmers throughout the U.S., however, is the fact that such wide use of glyphosate has enabled the emergence of several glyphosate-resistant weeds, and a lack of incentive or money within the herbicide industry to begin development of formulas to combat them.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...