April20,2011:Patna:-Observing that the proposed seeds bill and the Centre's "favourable stand" on genetically modified crops is detrimental to the agriculture sector, Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar today vowed to oppose such moves if the government went ahead with its anti-farmer policies.There should be threadbare and open-ended discussion on the seeds bill and the GM crops, keeping in view the long-term prospect of the farm sector and the interests of the farmers, Kumar said here.He was addressing a function on the occasion of the former Prime Minister Chandrashekhar's birth anniversary here.The chief minister said the views of the state government's should also be taken into account before formulating policies on the twin issues.Kumar described the proposed seeds bill as a serious issue and apprehended that the farmers will become heavily dependent on the multinational companies for availability of seeds if the bill in the present form was to be passed by Parliament.Similarly, the GM crops posed danger for human health having adverse impact on the environment and bio-diversity, Kumar said and claimed that these issues have not been addressed by the government as well as the scientists.Kumar said he was concerned with the twin issues looming before the agriculture sector and has written to his counterparts in other states for their support to his crusade against the Centre's proposed agricultural policies.He was concerned because agriculture happens to be a key component of the state economy with as much as 71 per cent people dependent on the sector for sustenance, Kumar said.
SOURCE:-The Economic Time
April20,2011:-Efforts to expand the use of genetically modified (GM) crops in Asia and Africa were given a major boost last week with the announcement of a significant investment from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which has pledged $US18.6 million. The grant will fund projects aiming to develop modified varieties of rice and cassava, intending to produce greater quantities of one or more nutrients to tackle malnutrition.Since its beginnings 30 years ago, GM technology has claimed to be able to feed the world and eradicate malnutrition. However in this time, we have only seen the number of hungry and malnourished grow, along with new problems and ramifications of a technology that we do not yet fully understand. While we can transplant a gene from one species to another for its desired characteristics, we cannot yet know how to predict or contain its results.In Kenya and many other African countries, more and more people are turning to the traditional knowledge of communities as the key to solving problems of nutrition, and see the spread of GM crops as a new sickness of the land. Traditionally, communities have reduced their vulnerability to the effects of climate change and crop failure by relying on biodiversity in food supply.
April12,2011:-In February, New York Times food reporter Mark Bittman wrote an excellent article asking a very important question “Why Aren’t G.M.O. Foods Labeled?” Bittman points out, “If you want to avoid sugar, aspartame, trans-fats, MSG, or just about anything else, you read the label. If you want to avoid G.M.Os — genetically modified organisms — you’re out of luck. They’re not listed. You could, until now, simply buy organic foods, which by law can’t contain more than 5 percent G.M.O.s. Now, however, even that may not work.”The Times article was, in part, responding to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) recent decision to reverse a previous restricting position and allow the deregulation and unlimited planting of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready genetically engineered alfalfa and the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) consideration of a proposal that will allow the sale of genetically engineered salmon. If approved, this would be the first genetically modified animal allowed for human consumption in the U.S.Supporters of the wonders of genetically modified foods see the new technology as a way to help farmers meet the world’s food demands and keep prices low.
April12,2011:-Voters are hungry for food policy. All five federal political parties apparently think so, given that each of them has made a national food strategy part of their platforms this election. It's a first, and food advocates across the country are pleased to see it.Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff was out front, and now the NDP, Conservative, Bloc Quebecois and Green parties have followed suit with their own promises to support a Canadian food policy in some form or another.Many developing countries, after all, including Brazil, India and Bangladesh already have long-term policy goals and plans around food security.Last year the governments of Britain and Australia committed to developing national food strategies and the call for a similar plan here in Canada has been growing from a chorus of diverse interests: farmers, industry, consumers, social justice non-profits, environmental NGOs and academics. They all agree on one thing: in the face of global food shortages, climate change and a growing world population to feed, Canada needs to have a national discussion about food. What is much less clear is what should be included in a national food strategy, and how the federal government should pursue it.Looking ahead five years and more"It's rather audacious for us to think that at the national level we can develop a detailed strategy," says Garnet Etsell, chair of the BC Agriculture Council (BCAC). The BCAC is one of the members of an industry-led working group that has the ear of the federal government and has spent the last year developing a national food strategy. Sponsored by chemical company
July24,2011:KENYA:-Genetically modified food is not harmful to eat, an assistant minister has said.Education assistant minister Ayiecho Olweny asked Kenyans to ignore false claims about the food.“I have eaten genetically modified food in South Africa and I have not died. I have not had any negative effect from eating it,” he said at a press conference at Parliament Buildings in Nairobi.Prof Olweny, who taught genetics and agriculture at Nairobi and Maseno universities before becoming an MP, refuted claims that GM food had negative effects.He said GM crops were the product of research in agriculture just as technological advances resulted in the development of mobile phones.He said Kenya had the capacity to handle GM products, contrary to the assertion made by Public Health minister Beth Mugo a week ago.“I’ll say that here, and I’ll say it again tomorrow,” said Prof Olweny.He said the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, the International Livestock Research Institute and universities could handle the products.Prof Olweny claimed there were chances Kenyans were wearing clothes made of genetically modified cotton from China, which has 3.5 million hectares of the cotton.“The most likely thing is that the dress you are wearing, the shirt, the underwear, the towel you use to wipe yourself is made of GM cotton. Have you felt anything?” he posed.
July24,2011:Andhra Pradesh:-The controversial Genetically Modified (GM) crop field trials are all set to get a fillip in the state. The Andhra Pradesh government is moving in the direction of encouraging and regulating the controversial GM crop field trials. For this it has formed a 5-member committee of experts, headed by Principal Secretary to the government, Agriculture Department, to review the situation now and then, and to assess requests for Biotechnology trials (Institutional Strip Tests and BRLs).The Centre recently modified its rules and sought permission from state governments before granting appr-oval of GM crop field trials. Several companies and institutions have appr-oached the Central government’s Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee for permission to conduct field trials for a variety of crops including BT wheat, tomato, okra (bhendi) and maize.
July24,2011:KENYA:-quires 200,000 bales of cotton every year to be self-sufficient in cotton needs and this is easily achievable through planting GMO cotton.These revelations come when the country is debating whether it should import GMO maize from South Africa.Arguments in favour of adopting genetically modified maize have resonated from the larger science community, while environmental activists have opposed it on the grounds that GMOs are harmful to humans and biodiversity in the long term.
July17,2011:-Guidelines issued by the Cabinet yesterday on genetically modified foods clear up a great deal of confusion.They are bound to be controversial insofar as they allow the importation of GM maize at a time when there are still a lot of worries over the safety of such foodstuffs.The Cabinet statement came just a day after an assurance by Public Health minister Beth Mugo that Kenya had not opened the doors to GM maize. Not so reassuring, however, was her admission that she could not rule out such maize being already in the market.Her assurance came with the rider that “officially we are not aware of the presence of GM maize in the country . . . we cannot rule it out completely because we understand what happens at the port of Mombasa.”The garbled message presented the picture of a government unaware of what was going on; and one that would be impotent if merchants chose to circumvent all safeguards related to GM foods.It also presented a picture of a government whose left hand does not know what the right is doing.Kenyans are being presented with conflicting information from the ministries of Public Health, Agriculture, Special Programmes, and Higher Education, Science and Technology.The situation is also muddied by the conflicting positions exhibited by a myriad administrative, research and regulatory bodies, especially the National Biosafety Authority, the Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Service, the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute and the University of Nairobi’s Centre for Biotechnology.At the very least Kenyans should expect coherent policies from their government free of doublespeak and contradictions.Hopefully the Cabinet statement clarifies matters, but it must be followed by action that ensures Kenya has the capacity to vigorously enforce the safety regulations. Public worries about the safety of GM foods cannot be taken lightly.
July17,2011:-As I reported last week, the USDA's recent surprise decision not to regulate genetically modified bluegrass poked yet more holes in an already-porous regime for overseeing GM crops—essentially to the point of regulatory collapse.There were a few important strands I wasn't able to wrestle into the story. The main one is an odd letter that USDA secretary Tom Vilksack sent Scotts Miracle-Gro as an addendum to the agency's response to Scott's GM bluegrass petition. Vilsack's letter, dated July 1, acknowledges concerns that GM bluegrass will contaminate non-GM bluegrass—that is, that the Roundup Ready gene will move through wind-blown pollen and work its way into non-modified varieties. This is the process known as "gene flow," and it has already been well-established for GM corn and other modified crops.Since bluegrass shows up (among other places) in cow pastures, organic dairy and beef farmers face the risk of suddenly having their animals nosh on fields full of a GM crop, which would jeopardize their organic status. As the the secretary put it in his letter:he USDA recognizes that if this GE variety were to be commercially released, producers wishing to grow non-GE Kentucky bluegrass will likely have concerns related to gene flow between the GE variety and non-GE Kentucky bluegrass. Exporters of Kentucky bluegrass seed, growers of non-GE Kentucky bluegrass seed, and those involved in the use of non-GE Kentucky bluegrass in pastures will likely have concerns about the loss of their ability to meet contractual obligations.
July17,2011:-Differences continued to emerge among leaders over whether the country should import genetically modified crops.Medical assistant minister Kazungu Kambi and Belgut MP Charles Keter warned against the importation of GM maize, arguing that it had negative effects.“We do not want our people to eat GM maize because it has bad effects on their health. We totally are against it,” said Mr Kambi.However, Agriculture secretary Wilson Songa said the country could not run away from GM technology.“The technology is coming, there is no stopping it,” he said.Dr Songa said maize production in the country would double if the country adopted GM crops.“Before we fully introduce the crop, it will go through the necessary agro-research analysis through Kenya Agricultural Research Institute,” he said.He argued that a farm with GM crop could produce as much as 40 to 50 bags of maize per acre unlike the current case where only 30 bags were produced.Kenya produces about 32 million bags of maize yearly while the consumption has shot up to 38 million due to rise in population.The agriculture secretary noted that if the country adopted the technology, production would shoot up to about 64 million bags.A 90kg bag of maize is currently going for Sh4,500, up from Sh1,200 three years ago.Speaking during a Climate Change Agriculture and Food Security meeting at Intercontinental Hotel, Dr Songa said the country could not be competitive if it stuck to the old traditional methods of farming.He cited South Africa, where farmers used three to four pesticides on a GM crop while in Kenya farmers used more than 15 pesticides before a crop matured.