1. Consultation 'not needed on GM crop trials' - Finnie
2. Princess defends organic foods [& much else!]
3. 0% Tolerance of GMOs, Premiums for Farmers
4. AUSTRALIA: GM foods could bypass labelling laws
---
1. Consultation 'not needed on GM crop trials' - Finnie
Last night at Tittleshall in Norfolk author Luke Anderson and Dr Jeremy Bartlett amongst others addressed a community meeting for those facing an Aventis winter OSR farmscale trial. After hearing both sides of the argument, the community feeling was, as ver, clearly opposed to the trial -- but the wishes of the community count for nothing
This issue grows and grows. Interesting to see a member of the Scottish Executive actually admitting it is "unsatisfactory that no legislative requirement for consultation existed" and "The biggest single anxiety that's arising in this whole process is without any doubt the absence of lack of statutory framework for public consultation - it does not exist. "
---
Consultation 'not needed on GM crop trials' - Finnie
Ananova
7:46 7-Sep-00
Controversial trials of genetically-modified crops do not require public consultation with communities living close to the sites where the experiments take place, MSPs have been told.
Rural affairs minister Ross Finnie has told the Scottish Parliament there was no legislation which obliged the Scottish Executive to meet the public in affected areas to discuss the controversial issue. Mr Finnie's comments came during Question Time in the Parliament after Maureen Macmillan, Labour regional member for Highlands and Islands, told the chamber local people were furious at not being consulted in areas where trials take place.
She asked the minister what consultation had been carried out with local communities before a decision was taken to plant GM crops at Roskill in the Black Isle, Highlands. Mr Finnie said there was no legislative requirement for consultation to take place but added that he took advice from the Food Standards Agency and would not allow any trials which would harm public health or the environment to take place. However, he admitted it was unsatisfactory that no legislative requirement for consultation existed.
Liberal Democrat MSP John Farquhar Munro, Liberal Democrat MSP for Ross, Skye and Inverness, said the northern board of Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), the national conservation agency, had now withdrawn their approval for the trial at Roskill. He said: "Will the minister now reconsider his previous position and stop this dubious experiment?"
Mr Finnie replied: "I regret to advise Mr Munro that that is not quite the case. The board has not withdrawn its advice to me. There is clearly a very public dispute between members of SNH and the board of SNH which is not in my domain. I have not received a withdrawal of their scientific advice and therefore my position remains the same."
Alex Johnstone, Tory regional member for north-east Scotland, asked Mr Finnie if he would agree with him that MSPs, including Mrs Macmillan and Mr Munro, who had supported GM crop trials in Aberdeenshire but not in the Black Isle were guilty of "cynical hypocrisy".
Mr Finnie responded, saying: ""The biggest single anxiety that's arising in this whole process is without any doubt the absence of lack of statutory framework for public consultation - it does not exist. "
---
2. Princess defends organic foods
The Journal, 7th September 2000
The Princess Royal has leaped to the defence of organic food after scientists [you know who they mean!] said it was a waste of money. She also said she did not have a problem with animal experiments, but was firmly on the fence when it came to GM crops. The princess yesterday said paying extra for organic produce was a matter of personal choice. But she was "appalled" by the low opinion some people had of farmers who treated their crops with chemicals, when this was necessary to improve yields and keep down prices. "It's a matter of choice. If you believe the organic system is inherently better for the land, whether it's plant organic or animals, in terms of input and output, you're likely to pay more to be more confident about the way it's produced.
"If you notice a difference in terms of taste, you might pay more for the genuine article."
---
3. Northland: 0% Tolerance of GMOs, Premiums for Farmers
9/7/00
(7 September - Cropchoice News) -- St. Paul, Minnesota-based Northland
Seed and Grain is an integrated seed, grain, and food company that goes the extra mile for customers who want to avoid biotech. To do it, the company relies on a careful identity preserved system that pays farmers a premium. In the case of soybeans, Northland is currently offering a 50 to 75 cents a bushel premium to its growers.
Northland markets 31 non-GMO products, many of which are organic, including feed grade grains. Most products are corn and soy-based; but the company also sells wheat, barley, rye, and millet.
Northland is rushing to fill demand for hard to find non-GMO ingredients, including soy lecithins and oils, which it announced this June. One look at the company's six language website tells you a bit about Northland's market: English (of course), French, German, Italian, Spanish, and Japanese.
The company asks a lot of farmers. Its IP system includes testing seed stocks, inspecting and approving storage facilities, and GMO tests during growth and at harvest.
CEO Peter Shortridge, who was recently named Minnesota World Trader of the Year, says that farmers choose to grow for Northland because of 10-15% premiums for non-GMO grain and specialty varieties as well as the possibility of more reliable sales. Shortridge says "The Farmer can also gain some market guarantee (share lock) and multi year contracts for sale of his crop with a price premium."
As to whether or not the extra effort of IP is worth it, Shortridge replies "The fact of the matter is that, in most cases, there is little additional effort and cost to the farmer to IP his crop and maintain segregation, most of the additional costs... are actually downstream from the farmer..."
Once grain is off the farm, the company uses third party verification to certify its non-GMO prodcuts. The availability of such independent services - for both individual farmers and companies - is growing. Earlier this year Genetic ID of Iowa and Lawlabs of the UK announced their shared system, Cert-ID (www.cert-id.com). Other approaches include services like cropverifeye.com, in which records are maintained on the internet.
Northland says that pollen drift, buffers, and GMO contaminated seed are issues it has to deal with; but that growers find the IP system easier over time. On seed contamination - a hot issue in Europe - Shortridge says "we have caught cases where we tested batches of conventional seed from various seed companies [at] over 1% contamination of GMO" He says seed companies and certifying agencies need to raise standards to prevent headaches for companies and growers.
You can visit Northland online by clicking here. [via
http://www.cropchoice.com]
-------------------------------------------
This story sent to you from Cropchoice.com by user request. Visit http://www.cropchoice.com for more information. May be reproduced freely for non-commercial purposes and with appropriate credit.
---
4. AUSTRALIA: GM foods could bypass labelling laws
justfood.com
6 Sep 2000
Author: Catherine Sleep - Managing Editor just-food.com
New labelling laws due to come into force in Australia next year, genetically modified foods could legally be sold without labels indicating the GM content. This is due to a loophole that stipulates that foods which do not already carry a produce label will not be required by law to carry a specific GM label. Conversely, foods that do already bear alabel must be rebranded to alert consumers to the GM ingredients contained within.
A spokesman for the Australia New Zealand Food Authority commented: "It's just the way labelling rules operate." Fresh produce rarely carries labels, and even packaged foods are likely to avoid the labelling requirement if they are sold in basic packaging without proper labels.