The Wal-Mart Hippies - NYT opinion

The Wal-Mart Hippies - NYT opinion

About 40 years ago, a social movement arose to destroy the establishment. The people we loosely call the New Left wanted to take on The Man, return power to the people, upend the elites and lead a revolution.
Today, another social movement has arisen. The people we loosely call the Tea Partiers also want to destroy the establishment. They also want to take on The Man, return power to the people, upend the elites and lead a revolution.

There are many differences between the New Left and the Tea Partiers. One was on the left, the other is on the right. One was bohemian, the other is bourgeois. One was motivated by war, and the other is motivated by runaway federal spending. One went to Woodstock, the other is more likely to go to Wal-Mart.

But the similarities are more striking than the differences. To start with, the Tea Partiers have adopted the tactics of the New Left. They go in for street theater, mass rallies, marches and extreme statements that are designed to shock polite society out of its stupor. This mimicry is no accident. Dick Armey, one of the spokesmen for the Tea Party movement, recently praised the methods of Saul Alinsky, the leading tactician of the New Left.

These days the same people who are buying Alinsky’s book “Rules for Radicals” on Amazon.com are, according to the company’s software, also buying books like “Liberal Fascism,” “Rules for Conservative Radicals,” “Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left,” and “The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party.” Those last two books were written by David Horowitz, who was a leading New Left polemicist in the 1960s and is now a leading polemicist on the right.

But the core commonality is this: Members of both movements believe in what you might call mass innocence. Both movements are built on the assumption that the people are pure and virtuous and that evil is introduced into society by corrupt elites and rotten authority structures. “Man is born free, but he is everywhere in chains,” is how Rousseau put it.

Because of this assumption, members of both movements go in big for conspiracy theories. The ’60s left developed elaborate theories of how world history was being manipulated by shadowy corporatist/imperialist networks — theories that live on in the works of Noam Chomsky. In its short life, the Tea Party movement has developed a dizzying array of conspiracy theories involving the Fed, the F.B.I., the big banks and corporations and black helicopters.

Because of this assumption, members of the Tea Party right, like the members of the New Left, spend a lot of time worrying about being co-opted. They worry that the corrupt forces of the establishment are perpetually trying to infiltrate the purity of their ranks.

Because of this assumption, members of both movements have a problem with authority. Both have a mostly negative agenda: destroy the corrupt structures; defeat the establishment. Like the New Left, the Tea Party movement has no clear set of plans for what to do beyond the golden moment of personal liberation, when the federal leviathan is brought low.

Recently a piece in Salon astutely compared Glenn Beck to Abbie Hoffman. In it, Michael Lind pointed out that the conservatives in the 1960s and 1970s built a counter-establishment — a network of think tanks, activist groups, academic associations and political leaders who would form conservative cadres, promoting conservative ideas and policies.

But the Tea Partiers are closer to the New Left. They don’t seek to form a counter-establishment because they don’t believe in establishments or in authority structures. They believe in the spontaneous uprising of participatory democracy. They believe in mass action and the politics of barricades, not in structure and organization. As one activist put it recently on a Tea Party blog: “We reject the idea that the Tea Party Movement is ‘led’ by anyone other than the millions of average citizens who make it up.”

For this reason, both the New Left and the Tea Party movement are radically anticonservative. Conservatism is built on the idea of original sin — on the assumption of human fallibility and uncertainty. To remedy our fallen condition, conservatives believe in civilization — in social structures, permanent institutions and just authorities, which embody the accumulated wisdom of the ages and structure individual longings.

That idea was rejected in the 1960s by people who put their faith in unrestrained passion and zealotry. The New Left then, like the Tea Partiers now, had a legitimate point about the failure of the ruling class. But they ruined it through their own imprudence, self-righteousness and naïve radicalism. The Tea Partiers will not take over the G.O.P., but it seems as though the ’60s political style will always be with us — first on the left, now the right.

Book examines way to sustainable future - Chronicle Herald

Book examines way to sustainable future - Chronicle Herald

his is a refreshingly Canadian look at how people on this planet have evolved and developed as a society, how the planet has outgrown its ability to sustain itself, and how the global economy has grown and prospered.

The illusion is that although we have reached capacity to feed and support ourselves, we continue to expect our world to sustain growth and expansion.

Mike Nickerson has been interested in sustainability his entire life, so while he may say in his biography that he spent 10 years researching this book, in fact, he has been gathering his evidence much longer than that.

He self-published the first edition of Life, Money and Illusion in 2006 and it was so well received, this updated version was released this past year.

I am in awe of his ability to track his three main themes of human development to global civilization, economic patterns of expansion, and the natural environment’s ability to support and sustain this growth down through the ages until we find ourselves in the present state, where we now consume more than we produce.

Between the covers of this one book, Nickerson has packed a wealth of facts and anecdotes that support the need for a shift in our thinking. While he is a gifted and confident writer, I found myself sometimes overwhelmed by all the information coming at me.

Appropriately enough, I began reading this book shortly after the latest round of climate change talks in Copenhagen and just finished it in the days leading up to our latest federal budget.

Planet Earth is in big trouble. Of that Nickerson is certain, and so will any reader be if we take a close look at our world today.

When we consider our renewable resources, we see the collapse of the East Coast fishery, with other major fisheries around the world harvesting stocks beyond their ability to replenish themselves.

Our forests are being cut down faster than they can regenerate themselves. New housing developments and business parks are not only gobbling agricultural land up, but the soil is being depleted of its natural fertility, a situation that is not reversible.

Metals and minerals are not renewable. They can be recycled but we have a limited supply.

Our supply of fresh water is diminishing, and fossil fuels are expected to last for another 400 years before they are exhausted, and that is considered an optimistic projection.

At first it does sound as if the future looks so bleak we may as well put it out of our minds. However, Nickerson is more optimistic than despairing. Humans are both resourceful and creative and we’ve inhabited this planet for millennia. If we have the will, we certainly have the capacity to accommodate this "full" Earth.

There are many practical ways of reorganizing ourselves, so that we enjoy what living has to offer rather than through material accumulation.

As I listen to pundits debate the new budget, one of Nickerson’s comments reverberates in my mind. He says it would be a disaster if the government significantly paid down the national debt.

"Whether it is owed to private interests or to our national bank, the money we use to trade is almost all created through debt. A great deal of money would disappear from circulation if those debts were paid back, and a depression would likely follow."

Kaye Parker is president of Think Training. Reach her through her personal website: www.kayeparker.ca.

What does sustainable agriculture look like? - Ag Weekly

What does sustainable agriculture look like? - Ag Weekly

by Cindy Snyder Ag Weekly correspondent
Friday, March 5, 2010 4:08 PM CST



BOISE - Ask a dozen people what sustainable means and you're likely to get at least a half dozen different answers. It doesn't matter whether they are consumers or food producers.

That was evident at the 2010 Larry Branen Ag Summit that featured "sustainability" as its theme.

"I look around this room and see many second, third and fourth generation farmers, but we've lost the word 'sustainable', " said Doug Jones, who farmed with his father and brother in the Twin Falls area for 35 years. He is now a director in a non-profit organization called Growers for Biotechnology, Inc., dedicated to promoting research, development and acceptance of agricultural biotechnology.

Jones' implication was that the word "sustainable" has been co-opted by the organic movement and now refers to only "green" production practices.

But Chad Henggeler, who runs an orchard near Fruitland, said he didn't mind the word sustainable. "It's organic that I don't have much time for," he said. "Sustainable means not robbing the future for today's gains."

That means providing a healthy, safe product that people want to buy and consistently reminding consumers that American producers are doing good things for the environment. Nothing annoys him more than going to a grocery story and seeing a six-pack of organic apples wrapped in hard plastic. It took more water to make that package than raise the apples, he said. That doesn't match his definition of sustainable.


While the industry leaders who participated in the panel discussion on sustainability in Idaho agriculture agreed producers need to do a better of job of telling their stories to the general public, actually getting the message out is more difficult than shooting a pretty video and uploading it to a website.

The problem, said Rick Stott, former vice president at Agri Beef, is that agriculture is good at telling consumers how sustainable it is, but doesn't stop to listen to what consumers are saying.

Internet companies can now track bloggers to determine how influential those individuals are. Research has also shown that industries that reach out to influential bloggers have an opportunity to insert informed and intelligent comments into online conversations.


With the internet agricultural producers have a tool to listen to the conversation about food safety or sustainability. "Wouldn't it be great to see how bloggers are using the word 'sustainable' and then insert your definition?" he asked. "If we listen, then we can talk and then we can engage them."

For Travis Jones, executive director of the Idaho Grain Producers Association, the discussion about sustainability is mute without also talking about involvement.

"Consumers aren't connected to their food, we all know that," Jones said.

"But if you're not involved beyond the little circle of your farm, you can't have an influence. You can keep going out and doing the same thing every day, but it can't be sustainable if you're not involved."

He sees what he describes as a discouraging and disturbing trend towards apathy among agricultural producers. For example, IGPA has 600 grower members, yet statistics show that the state has about 5,000 wheat growers.

DOT ‘close’ to cross-border trucking plan - Land Line

DOT ‘close’ to cross-border trucking plan - Land Line

Although no details were disclosed, the Department of Transportation is “close” to presenting a plan to Congress on a cross-border trucking program with Mexico.

The assurance that the DOT is moving forward on plans to reopen the border to long-haul trucks from Mexico came during a Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing held on Thursday, March 4.

Sen. Patty Murray, D-WA, questioned DOT Secretary Ray LaHood about the DOT’s progress on a cross-border program. Murray’s line of questioning stemmed from her concern over the impact of the tariffs that Mexico slapped on products from her home state following the closure of the cross-border pilot program last year.

“Those tariffs were imposed on 90 U.S. products and undermined the competiveness of many agriculture products in my home state of Washington,” she told LaHood during the hearing.

“These tariffs are going to send jobs north to Canada ... and are threatening the livelihood of many in my state.”

LaHood, while very animated in earlier exchanges with lawmakers during the hearing, was notably reserved – although short on detail – as he assured Murray the DOT was working toward a resolution with Mexico

“We are finalizing a plan. The reason it is taking so long is because there are a lot of different moving parts, including about five different Cabinet officials. And every time we make a tweak or a change everyone has to sign off on it,” LaHood told Murray.

Safety concerns continue to be the hot button of conversation between lawmakers and officials within the DOT. LaHood attempted to assure Murray those concerns had not been forgotten, even though he did not hint as to what a new cross-border program might entail.

“We’re very near a proposal that we think will meet all the safety concerns that I heard when I talked with 25 members of Congress,” he said. “We’re close to talking to all of you about what we think are our way of addressing the safety concerns Congress brought to us.”

Murray mentioned during the exchange that she had also met with U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk about the tariffs – adding to the mounting pressure on Kirk to address the tariffs.

Lawmakers and organizations, including the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, have continued to increase the pressure on Kirk’s office to address the tariffs – tariffs that have been called “illegal” and “retaliatory.”

Kirk, while once quoted as saying the easiest way to resolve the tariff dispute would be to open the border, has been quiet on any details his office may have on resolving the dispute.

– By Jami Jones, senior editor
jami_jones@landlinemag.co

Eating more fruits and vegetables and healthful grains was associated with a longer survival time.

Eating more fruits and vegetables and healthful grains was associated with a longer survival time.

A new study found a diet high in fruits, vegetables and healthful grains may be associated with higher ovarian cancer survival rates.

Researchers from the University of Illinois at Chicago examined data from a longitudinal study looking at the self-reported, pre-diagnosis diets of women who had epithelial ovarian cancer. With epithelial ovarian cancer, malignant cells are found in the tissue that covers the ovary. The 351 study participants filled out a questionnaire that covered what they ate for three to five years before receiving their diagnosis. They were given a list of foods and food subgroups; grains and meats, for example were divided into more healthful and less healthful categories. Less healthful meats included red meat and cured meats.

Mexican wholesalers benefit from Florida's tomato freeze - Arizona Daily Star

Mexican wholesalers benefit from Florida's tomato freeze - Arizona Daily Star



Mexican tomato wholesalers are benefiting - and so are Arizona import companies - as a frigid Florida winter takes its toll on your sandwiches.

The Sunshine State is the main U.S. source for fresh winter tomatoes, and its growers lost 70 percent of their crop during January's unusual, prolonged cold snap.

Domestic U.S. wholesale prices are up nearly five times over last year. The average wholesale price for a 25-pound box of tomatoes is now $30, up from $6.50 a year ago, The Associated Press reports.

Many national burger chains buy their produce in advance by contract and aren't affected, but some Wendy's restaurants posted signs saying tomatoes would be provided only upon request because of limited availability.

And because high demand has driven up domestic prices, many wholesalers are buying from Mexico instead.

"We're obviously losing market share to Mexico," said Reggie Brown of the Florida Tomato Grower's Exchange.

With Florida out of the market, supply-and-demand issues have raised the average wholesale price for a box of tomatoes going through Nogales to about $24 to $26, said Allison Moore, communications director of the Fresh Produce Association of the Americas, based in Nogales, Ariz.

Normally at this time of year that price would be about $10 to $12, she said.

"What people in Tucson may not realize is, this is benefiting a lot of Arizona importers and companies," Moore added.

She said the produce industry employs 12,000 to 15,000 people in Arizona.

Venezuela Post: Caracas Government Creates Socialist Business Entity USDA FAS

Venezuela Post: Caracas Government Creates Socialist Business Entity USDA FAS

Executive Summary: General Information: Begin Informal Translation Article1. Authorizes the creation of a government company under the structure of a “public limited company” called CORPORACION DE MERCADOS SOCIALISTAS (COMERSO) – Socialist Markets Corporation- which will be assigned to the Peoples Power Ministry for Commerce. Article 2. COMERSO’s objective is to serve as commercialization channel for products manufactured by communes, socialist factories, and companies recovered from the private sector participating equally in the constitution of transnational companies willing to generate socio-economical links between nations. Likewise, COMERSO will provide an incentive to socio productive organizations emphasizing strategic areas related to the transition to socialism. Article 3. COMERSO’s business domicile is Caracas, and it can establish branches, subsidiaries and representation offices anywhere within the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and abroad, upon Board of Directors and Shareholders Assembly decision, and approval from the Peoples Power Ministry for the Commerce. COMERSO will operate as headquarters, holding the following companies: Megatiendas Hogar (Home Megastores), Automotriz (Automotive); Mercados de Economia Popular (Popular Economy Markets); Tiendas Alba (Alba Stores); Red de Areperas Socialistas (Socialist Areperas Net); Tienda Virtual y Maquinas Expendedoras (Virtual Store and Supply Machines); Mercados Mayoristas (Wholesale Markets); Ferias (Fairs), Comersitos; Red de Farmacias Socialistas (Socialist Drugstores Net); Comercio Exterior (Foreign Trade). Article 4. COMERSO’s public limited capital stock will be Bs 100,000,000 represented by 1,000 bearer non-changeable nominative stock shares. Each share’s value will be Bs. 100,000, subscribed and paid in 100% by the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela under approval from the Peoples Power Ministry for the Commerce. Article 5. The shareholders’ assembly will manage the company, performing the highest level of authority, and will have sufficient rights in order to accomplish COMERSO’s objectives. Article 6. COMERSO will be administered by a Board of Directors formed by the President and Vice President and three Directors who will have a respective back-up: The Board of Directors’ members and back-ups will be designated as follows: 1. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela’s president will select the company’s president and vice-president who will be chosen out of three candidates that will be presented by the Peoples Power Ministry for the Commerce. 2. The three directors and back-ups will be selected by the Peoples Power Ministry for Commerce.

COMERSO’s president, vice president and board of directors’ functions and duties will be defined through COMERSO’s official charter as well as its organization and operation regulations. Article 7. COMERSO shall follow the regulations and policies dictated by the National Executive, through the Planning Central Commission, to complete its objectives. Article 8. The Peoples Power Ministry for Commerce will handle the tasks related to elaboration and registering of COMERSO’s official certificate before the corresponding Mercantile Register Office and upon review of the respective project by the Republic’s National Law Office, and shall publish in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela’ Official Gazette according to that provided in article 104 from the Public Administration’s Organic Law Decree. Article 9. The Peoples Power Ministry for the Commerce is in charge of the Decree’s execution. Article 10. The present Decree is valid as of its publication on the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela’s Official Gazette. End of Informal Translation

EU Approve GMO potato - Europa

Questions and Answers on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO's)

Why is the Commission taking this Decision for the cultivation of the GM Amflora potato now?

The favourable European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) opinion on the cultivation of this starch potato was issued in February 2006. This opinion confirmed the favourable opinion of Sweden of 2004. Since that time, the Commission has been very carefully and very seriously reflecting on the situation. In particular , the Commission decided, during its College meeting of 8 may 2008, to request a new EFSA opinion. The objective was to obtain a new and authoritative opinion on the Antibiotic Resistance Marker (ARM) gene. The College also indicated that in case of a new positive EFSA opinion, decisions would have to be taken accordingly.

On 11 June 2009, EFSA, in collaboration with scientists from EMEA and ECDC, provided a new positive opinion. When the analysis of this opinion was finalised, the Commission was already in the transitional period brought about by the delay in the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty. It was, therefore, decided that it would be more appropriate to proceed with this authorisation when normal business would resume under the new College.

Given the high scrutiny that was devoted to this dossier, given the fact that there are presently no new scientific issues which merit a further assessment and in view of the repeated scientific opinions, it is now appropriate to proceed with this authorisation. This is also in line with the principle of responsible innovation.

Is this Decision on Amflora scientifically backed?

A considerable amount of sound scientific work constitutes the basis of this decision.

The request of authorisation for the placing on the market of Amflora potato received a first favourable opinion in Sweden that was initially in charge of the risk assessment. While some Member States had objections to this assessment, EFSA repeatedly confirmed the favourable safety assessment.

Potato is by nature a crop that poses little risk of spreading into the environment or of transferring its genes to other plants. As outlined in the EFSA opinion: " Potato rarely survives outside the cultivated environment and there is no indication of enhanced weediness or invasiveness of the GM potato. Potato has no cross-compatible wild relatives in Europe. Since it is vegetatively propagated and the natural exchange of genetic material is only possible with other varieties of potato, there is negligible risk to the environment of any transgene flow. Therefore, no unintended environmental effects due to the establishment and spread are anticipated."

However, the fact that the GM potato harbours an ARM gene has deserved high scrutiny.

The first opinion of EFSA on ARM genes was adopted in April 2004. It considered that nptII (the gene that is in the GM potato) can be used in commercially cultivated plants because:

*

the risk of gene transfer from plant to bacteria is remote (a common feature for all ARMs);
*

the resistance to the antibiotics at stake can already be found in the soil and in bacteria in animal and human intestines;
*

these antibiotics have only minor therapeutic relevance in human medicine.

In 2007, EFSA agreed with EMEA that the preservation of the therapeutic relevance of the antibiotics kanamycin and neomycin is important (the World Health Organisation (WHO) considers them as "highly important antimicrobials "). Notwithstanding these considerations, EFSA confirmed the safety of nptII by indicating that the use of this gene in GM plant will not affect the therapeutic effect of these antibiotics.

In June 2009, EFSA issued a new opinion. In accordance with the mandate of the Commission, this opinion focuses on the safety of the nptII gene and it was made with the assistance of experts from EMEA and ECDC. It reiterates the favourable opinion on the Amflora potato (although with 2 minority opinions).

EFSA has always issued favourable opinions for GM plants containing the ARM gene present in the Amflora potato. EFSA also refers to several scientific reviews confirming the safety of the nptII gene.

Why is the Commission adopting two decisions on the GM starch potato?

The first decision is related to the Cultivation and is adopted under Directive 2001/18/EC.

The complementary authorisation is taken under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 on GM food and feed. It covers the by-products of the starch extraction when they are used as feed. It also covers the unintended presence of GM potato tubers in food and feed. While all measures are in place to prevent that the starch potato is mixed with potato for food and feed, it can never be totally excluded. This is why this unintended presence has also been thoroughly assessed by EFSA and covered by an authorisation up to a level of 0.9%.

What are Antibiotic Resistance Marker (ARM) genes?

The process of introducing new genes for the production of GM plants involves, in its first stage, many plant cells out of which only a fraction successfully incorporates the new genes. In order to easily identify and select the cells with the newly introduced genes, the genes carrying the desired traits are associated from the beginning to so-called "marker genes." The first development of GMO's has been associated with the use of genes coding for antibiotic resistance as marker genes. Using these markers, only the cells that are genetically modified are resistant to the antibiotics in question and are kept in the process of selection for a GM plant.

The use of these ARM genes has always generated concerns regarding potential development of antibiotic resistance. This is the reason why Directive 2001/18 on the deliberate release of GMO's provides that "Member States and the Commission shall ensure that GMO's, which contain genes expressing resistance to antibiotics in use for medical or veterinary treatment, are taken into particular consideration when carrying out an environmental risk assessment, with a view to identifying and phasing out ARMs in GMO's which may have adverse effects on human health and the environment."

Are there other GM products that are already authorised and that contain antibiotic resistance marker genes?

Yes. MON863 maize contains the nptII gene that confers resistance to the antibiotics kanamycin and neomycin . The placing on the market of this maize for all uses with the exception of cultivation is authorised in the EU since 2006.

The cottons MON531, MON1445, MON15985, MON15985xMON1445, and MON531xMON1445 contain both the nptII and the aadA (that confers resistance to the antibiotic Streptomycin) genes.

Are there specific measures foreseen to control the effects on the environment and with respect to coexistence?

It has to be noted that, contrary to the situation with many other crops, the potato species does not rely on cross-pollination with other potatoes to reproduce. It is vegetatively propagated.

With respect to risk management measures, the potato will be cultivated and harvested before it produces seeds, eliminating the possibility of inadvertent seed dissemination and persistence into the wider environment.

Measures to avoid unintentional re-growth will also be taken. The sale of the GM potato will be subject to an agreement between BASF and the operators. According to this agreement, (i) conventional potatoes can not be planted in the same field the year following the cultivation of the GM potato (ii) the fields shall be monitored during the following growing season and any volunteer potatoes shall be destroyed. Any potato volunteers that may appear post-harvest will be relatively easy to control by using pesticides, particularly as potatoes are not grown in the same field for successive growing seasons as a part of crop rotation.

Are there measures in place to prevent the mixing of this GM potato with conventional or organic potatoes?

The authorising Decision contains three obligations for the consent holder to prevent the presence of the GM potato tubers in the food and feed chain. These obligations will also be part of the contracts to be signed between BASF and the operators involved in the production chain (farmers and starch producers). In particular; measures have to be taken to:

*

ensure that the potato tubers will be physically separated from potatoes for food and feed uses during planting, cultivation, harvest, transport, storage and handling in the environment;
*

ensure that conventional potatoes can not be planted in the same field the year following the cultivation of the GM potato.
*

ensure that the potato tubers shall be delivered exclusively to designated starch processing plants for processing into industrial starch within a closed system.

Adventitious presence can never be totally excluded. This is why this unintended presence of GM potato tubers in other potatoes has also been thoroughly assessed by EFSA and is authorised with a maximum level of 0.9%.

What are starch potatoes and what is the use of this genetically modified starch potato?

Starch potatoes are specific varieties of potatoes that have been selected for the production of starch. They are not used for food purposes since they do have the necessary organoleptic properties. However, the by-product of the starch production (pulp of the potato) is used as feed.

The cultivation of starch potato is closely linked to the proximity of a starch producing plant since the transport costs are high and the conservation time of potatoes is low. Starch potatoes are mainly cultivated in the following Member States: Germany, The Netherlands, France, Denmark and Poland. Other producers include Austria, Finland, Sweden and Czech Republic.

Conventional potatoes produce a mixture of amylopectin and amylose starch. This GM potato has been developed, to produce starch composed almost exclusively of amylopectin (starch content of 98%, which is around 20% higher than starch potatoes normally have). For many technical applications, such as in the paper, textile and adhesives industries, only amylopectin is needed. This genetic modification helps to optimise the production process and to save raw materials, energy and water- and oil-based chemicals.

What is the procedure for authorising the placing on the market of GMO's?

There are two different types of authorisation procedures:

1) Procedure relating to GMOs and the environment

Under Directive 2001/18/EC, a company intending to market a GMO must submit to the competent national authority of an EU Member State an application. It must include an evaluation of the environmental risks. The national authority must issue an opinion which will take the form of an "assessment report," which may be favourable or unfavourable.

In the event of a favourable opinion, the Member State informs the other Member States via the European Commission. The other Member States and the Commission examine the assessment report and may issue observations and objections.

If there are no objections by other Member States or by the European Commission, the competent authority that carried out the original assessment authorises the placing on the market of the product throughout the European Union. The authorisation has a maximum duration of ten years and may be renewed. If objections are raised (which is the majority of the cases), the procedure provides for a conciliation phase among the Member States, the Commission and the notifier. The objective of this phase is to resolve the outstanding questions.

If at the end of the conciliation phase the objections are maintained, a decision must be taken at European level. The Commission first asks for the opinion of the EFSA. The Commission then presents a draft decision to the Regulatory Committee composed of representatives of the Member States for an opinion. If the Committee gives a favourable opinion by qualified majority, the Commission adopts the decision.

If not, the draft Decision is submitted to the Council of Ministers for adoption or rejection by qualified majority. If the Council does not act within three months, the Commission shall adopt the decision. During the notification process, the public is also informed and has access to the publicly available data on the Internet

2) Procedure relating to GM food and feed

Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 on genetically modified food and feed lays down a procedure for issuing authorisations for placing on the market of genetically modified food and feed as well as for cultivation for the production of food and feed. In this procedure, the Commission's role is crucial. Notably, it is up to the Commission to adopt the final decision and grant or reject the authorisation if the Committee composed of representatives of the Member States, and the Council do not manage to adopt the decision by qualified majority within a given time frame.

Applications are submitted first to the competent authority of a Member State. The application must clearly define the scope of the application, indicate which parts are confidential and must include a monitoring plan, a labelling proposal and a detection method.

The application and any supplementary information supplied by the applicant must be made available to EFSA, which is responsible for the scientific risk assessment covering both the environmental risk and the human and animal health safety assessment. Its opinion will be made available to the public and the public will have the opportunity to make comments.

In general, there is a time limit of six months for EFSA to deliver its opinion. This time limit can be extended if EFSA has to request further information from the applicant. Within three months of receiving the opinion of EFSA, the Commission will draft a proposal for granting or refusing authorisation. The Commission may diverge from EFSA’s opinion, but it must then justify its position. The Commission’s proposal must be approved through qualified majority by the Member States within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health (SCoFCAH), composed of representatives of the Member States.

If the Committee gives a favourable opinion, the Commission adopts the Decision. If not, or in the event the Committee rejects the Commission’s proposal by qualified majority, the draft Decision is submitted to the Council of Ministers for adoption or rejection by qualified majority.

If the Council does not act within three months or does not obtain a qualified majority for the adoption or rejection of the Commission’s proposal, the Commission shall adopt the decision.

What is the procedure that has been followed for the authorisation of the cultivation of the GM potato?

The German company BASF Plant Science submitted a request for authorisation in Sweden in January 2003.

In April 2004, the Swedish competent authority forwarded its assessment report to the Commission. It concluded that the genetically modified potato should be placed on the market for its intended uses. The Commission forwarded the full notification and assessment report to the other Member States in May 2004.

The competent authorities of some Member States raised objections to the placing on the market of the products on the basis of molecular characterisation, allergenicity, toxicity, an inadequate monitoring plan and the detection method of the product.

In light of these objections, EFSA was consulted and delivered its opinion on 24 February 2006. It concluded that the genetically modified potato (Solanum tuberosum L. line EH92-527-1) is unlikely to have an adverse effect on human and animal health or on the environment in the context of its proposed uses.

Following the positive assessment by EFSA, a draft Commission decision to place the product on the market was presented to the Regulatory Committee for a vote on 4 December 2006. The Committee failed to deliver, by qualified majority, an opinion on the draft submitted by the Commission.

In 2007, EFSA agreed with EMEA that the preservation of the therapeutic relevance of the antibiotics kanamycin and neomycin is important (the World Health Organisation (WHO) considers them as "highly important antimicrobials "). Notwithstanding these considerations, EFSA confirmed the safety of nptII by indicating that the use of this gene in GM plant will not affect the therapeutic effect of these antibiotics.

Consequently, the Commission was required to submit to the Council a proposal relating to the measures to be taken; the Council having three months in which to act by a qualified majority. The proposal was considered by the Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 16 July 2007. No qualified majority was reached at the Council.

On 11 June 2009, EFSA published a statement on the use of ARM genes in GM plants which concludes that the previous assessment of EFSA on genetically modified potato EH92-527-1 is in line with the risk assessment strategy described in the statement, and that no new evidence has become available that would prompt EFSA to change its previous opinion.

Are there still additional procedural steps needed to allow the cultivation? When will the cultivation start?

The decision of authorisation for cultivation adopted under directive 2001/18 is addressed to Sweden that carried out the original assessment. In accordance with this procedure, Swedish authorities have 30 days to issue the final consent to the company.

The GM starch potato will be sold by the company BASF on the basis of contracts signed with the operators (farmers and starch processors).

The company BASF plans the commercial cultivation in Czech Republic and Germany for this year (the planting season starts in April). For the coming years, the company indicated that it had already an agreement for the additional commercial cultivation in The Netherlands and Sweden.

Is this decision an indication of what the Commission will be doing with the GMOs in the coming months?

In his political guidelines presented in September 2009, President Barroso states that it should be possible to combine a Community authorisation system, based on

science, with the freedom of Member States to decide whether or not they wish to cultivate GMOs in their territory.

In the case of the Amflora potato, the four Member States (Germany, the Czech Republic, Sweden and The Netherlands) in which cultivation of the Amflora potato is anticipated by the Company BASF in the coming years expressed themselves in favour of the authorisation.

The Commission is currently reflecting on the most efficient way to implement these guidelines.

Why is the Commission also authorising today three GM maize products?

The three GM maize products that were authorised today for food and feed uses with the exception of cultivation are the following: MON863xNK603, MON863xMON810 and MON863xMON810xNK603. These maize products are resulting from the combination, by conventional breeding, of genetic modifications that are already authorised.

Since the genetic modification of the MON863 maize harbours the same marker gene as the Amflora potato, the final decision of authorisation was also to be taken after the last EFSA opinion on antibiotic resistance marker genes.

Are some GMO's already cultivated in the EU?

Yes. There is one GM maize -"MON 810"- that is commercially cultivated in the EU. Its genetic modification aims to protect against the European corn borer.

It was authorised in 1998 and as of today there are more than 140 different varieties of this GM maize that are registered in the EU common catalogue of varieties.

In 2009, MON810 was cultivated in 5 Member States: Spain, the Czech Republic, Romania, Portugal, and Slovakia. Spain cultivates around 80 % of the total EU area used for the cultivation of MON810 (circa 100 000 ha).

The procedure to renew the EU authorisation is currently ongoing. EFSA adopted a favourable opinion in August 2009 and the Commission is considering the next steps in accordance with the comitology procedure.

In this context, it is also worth to note that six Member States (Austria, Hungary, France, Greece, Germany, and Luxembourg) adopted safeguard clauses and prohibit the cultivation of GM maize on their territories. In addition, Poland has legislation in place forbidding cultivation of all GMOs.

These safeguard measures on the cultivation of MON 810 will be viewed within the light of the solution to be proposed by the Commission by the summer.

Are there any other GMO's on which the Commission could take decision in the near future?

The MON810 excluded, the Commission will also have to take decisions on three other GM maize products that have received favourable EFSA opinions.

The first two are GM Bt maize which confer protection to the plant against insects. These two maize are Bt maize Bt 11 (from the company Syngenta) and Bt Maize 1507 (from the company Pioneer). They are in the middle of the Comitology procedure since proposals of authorisations did not receive the necessary support of the Regulatory Committee. The Commission should now decide whether it is appropriate to transmit to the Council proposals for authorisation.

The third one is maize NK 603 (from the Company Monsanto) that is tolerant to the herbicide RoundUp. The favourable EFSA opinion was adopted in June 2009 and the Commission should take a decision regarding the submission of a draft decision to SCoFCAH (first step of the comitology procedure).

For more information please see:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/biotechnology/index_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/index_en.htm

Pre-earthquak eChile Wine Annual USDA FAS

Chile’s wine production expanded again in CY2009, as weather has been good in most growing areas and additional new planted areas are coming into production. A smaller output is expected for CY2010 as unusual freezing weather affected vineyards in most production area. Chile has an estimated 8,000 producers of wine grapes. Planted area has increased over 70 percent during the last 8 years.

China - Peoples Republic of LIVESTOCK AND PRODUCTS SEMI-ANNUAL - USDA FAS

China - Peoples Republic of LIVESTOCK AND PRODUCTS SEMI-ANNUAL - USDA FAS

FAS Beijing forecasts China’s beef production in 2010 will fall five percent due to a continued fall in China’s cattle herd. High Chinese beef prices will boost beef imports, with beef imports forecast to jump one-third to 30,000 metric tons (MT). Beef exports are forecast to slide 25 percent to 28,000 MT due to high Chinese beef prices. Rising swine and productive sow inventories and a stronger Chinese economy in 2010 will boost Chinese pork production four percent to 50.6 million MT. Despite higher domestic production, Chinese pork imports will rebound from sharply lower levels in 2009 to 220,000 MT, fueled by stronger demand in 2010. China’s live swine and pork exports in 2010 are forecast to increase four and three percent respectively to 1.78 million head and 240,000 MT, bolstered by higher sales to Hong Kong.

Mexico SE Eliminates Duties on U.S. Apples - USDA FAS

Mexico SE Eliminates Duties on U.S. Apples - USDA FAS

Report Highlights: On March 2, 2010, the Secretariat of Economy (SE) published the final resolution in the Diario Oficial (Federal Register) that eliminates the compensatory duties imposed on red and golden delicious apples imported from the United States. The decision enters into force March 3, 2010, and fully complies with the NAFTA Bilateral Panel’s decision of October 15, 2009 (please see GAIN report MX9074). This final resolution can still be challenged by the domestic industry or interested parties, but this process would take a significant amount of time. There is no indication that Mexico’s domestic industry will challenge the ruling, but the Binational Panel must wait 25 days for appeals. If there are no appeals, the decision will stand.

General Information: Introduction: This report summarizes an announcement by the SE published in Mexico’s Diario Oficial (Federal Register) on March 2, 2010, that eliminates the compensatory duties on imported red and golden delicious apples from the United States. Disclaimer: This summary is based on a cursory review of the subject announcement and therefore should not, under any circumstances, be viewed as a definitive reading of the regulation in question, or of its implications for U.S. agricultural export trade interests. In the event of a discrepancy or discrepancies between this summary and the complete regulation or announcement as published in Spanish, the latter shall prevail. Title: Resolution to comply with the Final Decision of October 15, 2009, of the Binational Panel of case MEX-USA-2006-1904-02, in charge of the revision of the final resolution of the antidumping investigation on the table apple imports of red delicious varieties and their mutations and golden delicious apples that originate from the United States of America, independently of the country of origin, with the replacement that was made in fulfillment to the dictated sentence on October 28, 2003, by the First Collegiate Court in Administrative Matters of the First Circuit, in Toca R.A.431/2003-5523, relative to the Court Injunction 1183/2002 that was promoted by Northwest Fruit Exporters and issued by the Secretariat of Economy, and published on November 2, 2006, and by which the final resolution is revoked. Executive Summary: On March 2, 2010, the SE published an announcement in the Diario Oficial (Federal Register) that complies with the October 15, 2009, NAFTA Binational Panel’s decision concerning the compensatory duties on U.S. imported red and golden delicious apples. The SE’s final decision is that the compensatory duties imposed on U.S. red and golden delicious apple imports (HTS 0808.10.01) must be eliminated starting March 3, 2010. The SE indicated that there was not enough information from the domestic industry that demonstrates damage to the industry from 2002 to June 2005. Therefore, there was no proof of damage to the domestic industry and the duties must be eliminated. The Binational Panel must wait 25 business days to allow the interested parties to either challenge or appeal the decision from the SE. If there are no appeals, the Binational Panel will issue an order that confirms the Final Resolution of March 2, 2010, and the decision will be permanent. Since this final resolution can still be challenged by interested parties, the Panel will publish its final decision in 90 business days in order to provide enough time to examine appeals or complaints.

Important Dates

1. Publication Date: March 2, 2010 2. Effective Date: March 3, 2010

EU-27 Wine Annual Report and Statistics - USDA FAS

EU-27 Wine Annual Wine Annual Report and Statistics - USDA FAS

The European Union (EU) is the world‟s largest wine producer, consumer, exporter, and importer. Total EU-27 wine production in 2009/10 decreased 1 percent due to adverse weather, mainly in Spain and to a lesser extent in Germany and Romania. This decrease was only partially offset by increases reported in France and Italy. Wine consumption is expected to decline in 2010/11 primarily to the continued general economic crisis. EU exports in 2009 declined 8 percent in volume and 17 percent in value. Total EU imports in 2009 increased 4 percent in volume, but declined 11 percent in value. Wine shipments from the United Sates remain fairly stable and are increasingly represented by bulk wine bottled locally for distribution within the EU.

Geographic Indications Italy's Food Trademark System - USDA FAS

Geographic Indications Italy's Food Trademark System - USDA FAS

Geographical indications (GIs) are indications that identify a good as originating from a certain place, where a given attribute, reputation, or other characteristic of that good is essentially attributable to its geographical origin. Examples of GIs include Florida oranges, New Zealand lamb, and Parma ham. Although frequently applied to foods items, GIs may be associated with any product (e.g. Swiss watches). GIs act like trademarks. Once established they confer certain exclusive rights to the owner. Producers use GIs to create market recognition, hopefully at a premium price. Although GIs may benefit from a certain reputation or characteristic, their quality – that is, their wholesomeness, healthiness, safety – is not guaranteed above the minimal level guaranteed for all similar food items. The perceived “quality” of GIs is thus a matter of taste and marketing. For example, Grano Padano producers claim that blind taste tests show there is no statistical taste/preference difference between their product and Parmigiano Reggiano, even though the latter costs several euros more per kilo. Not all GIs win international taste competitions. The United States and the European Union (EU) protect GIs in different ways. The United States protects GIs as part of its patent and trademark laws. However, in 1992, the EU developed a new system to provide protection throughout the EU for the geographical indications and designations of origin of certain agricultural products and foodstuffs. In 1999, the United States challenged the EU‟s GI regulation in the WTO on two grounds: discrimination against U.S. GIs and failure to protect U.S. trademarks. In March 2005, the WTO panel ruled that certain aspects of the EU GI regulation were inconsistent with WTO rules and set a deadline for the EU to modify its regulations. For more information, see the USEU fact sheet on GIs: http://www.fas.usda.gov/posthome/useu/GI.html. Controversies occur when GIs protected in one area are considered to be generic in another. For example, cheddar is considered to be generic (mainly because the world consumes far more cheddar cheese than could be produced in Cheddar), while Italy argues vehemently that „parmesan‟ (as well as Parmigiano Reggiano) are GIs. Controversy also occurs because many “GI” products were made well before they were registered under the EU scheme (which began only in 1992) by people who long ago moved from a particular geographical area to settle elsewhere, taking their traditional knowhow with them.