Movement of genetically engineered organisms

The USDA issued a proposed rule and a notice of public meetings on the topic of movement of genetically engineered organisms into the U.S. Find the federal docket here, which describes the effort as the first revisiting of regulations first established in 1987. The agency will take comments until Nov. 24 and also consider input from three public meetings at Davis, Calif., Riverdale, Md. and Kansas City, Mo. The Davis meeting is set for Oct. 28, with Kansas City on Oct. 30 and Riverdale on Nov. 13. Find the 42 page rule at the docket link...

GE papaya in Florida

Relating to whether the public is ready for genetically modified fruits and veggies, here is a dissenting comment about the University of Florida's petition for non-regulated status of GE papaya. From Matt Vargas on the federal docket:

USDA APHIS’ Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) in its Environmental Assessment (EA) of GE papaya is dubious. The University of Florida’s petition for non-regulated status of GE papaya must not be approved without comprehensive evaluation of the environmental risks associated with commercial/public release of GE papaya line X17-2. The proper course of action is for USDA APHIS, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)) to conduct an Environmental Impact Statement.

Later, Vargas argues against the popular perception that GE papayas have saved the Hawaiian industry:

Yet the ‘success’ of the GE papaya is largely a fiction dreamed up and promoted by its inventors and by a few large Hawaiian Papaya businesses that have trapped themselves in a cycle of genetic engineering use. If they do not succeed in convincing Asian countries to plant and eat the GE papaya, then the Hawaiian industry will likely continue to spiral downward - a collapse being caused by its own self-inflicted GE experiment. This is due to almost universal consumer and market rejection, with a clear preference for non-GE and organic papaya. There is also, sensibly, no regulatory approval for GE papaya import to key markets, e.g. Japan & the 25 countries of the EU.

Wide world of produce - Sept. 2 headlines

Got a message from Gary Fleming about the time line for the Produce Industry Traceability Initiative..developing. Meanwhile, what's on the Web this morning related to produce?

Apple moth quarantine expands

Small farms chafe under big demands

USDA FAS: Mexico ag news

USDA FAS: India's almond imports

USDA FAS: US food safety Web site in China

USDA FAS: Canada Ag Biotech report

Outbreak ends, mystery remains

Landec Corp. conference call

Excess tomatoes

Keep children healthy with fruits, veggies

Wal-Mart rolls on

Recent salmonella outbreak shows benefits of irradiation

About gleaning

UK: more forecasts predict recession for next 18 months

Arizona called ground zero in immigration fight

NYT: End immigration incentives

Obesity society hails Republican platform

UK: Schools should lead obesity fight

UK: Aldi enjoys sales boom

Your wages are working harder

Growing produce to save cash

Wal-Mart delays Md. DCs

State food banks face staggering needs

Meijer, Marsh answer questions on local food

Hydroponics offers sustainability

Apple festival in NC

Nanotechnology :- Visions of the future

Baffled by nanotechnology? Me, too. But another item I missed while in Honduras was this FDA notice about nanotechnology. From the FDA email:


NOTE TO CORRESPONDENTS
For Immediate Release: Aug. 7, 2008 Contact: Christopher Kelly, 301-827-6242, christopher.kelly@fda.hhs.gov
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has posted a Federal Register Notice announcing a public meeting on Sept. 8, 2008 to consider FDA-regulated products that may contain nanoscale materials.
Nanotechnology involves the creation and use of materials and devices at the level of molecules and atoms. A nanometer is one-billionth of a meter, too small to be seen with a conventional lab microscope.
The purpose of the meeting is to gather information that will assist the agency in continuing to implement the recommendations of the Nanotechnology Task Force Report and in the development of agency guidances.
The task force issued recommendations on: foods, including dietary supplements; food and color additives, including food contact substances; cosmetics; animal drugs and feeds; and human drugs, medical devices and biologics.
The FDA also is announcing a request for available data and information on the effects of nanoscale materials on the quality and safety of FDA-regulated products.


Here some links on the future of nanotechnology:

The vision of nanotechnology

Nanofrontiers

Nanotechnology: the future is coming sooner than you think From the House-generated report from 2007:


There is a widespread desire to avoid repeating the mistakes of biotechnology, a technology whose advance has been substantially slowed by political opposition that has little scientific basis. But it is not really clear what the mistakes of biotechnology are. No human deaths can be attributed to genetically modified organisms. Nor has any product of biotechnology ever resulted in significant environmental harm. The potential health and environmental benefits of biocrops in the form of reduced use of pesticides, fertilizer, and fuel and improved vitamin delivery are totally discounted in favor of vague warnings against Frankenfood. One might wish that companies like Monsanto had been more open about their research and intentions, but this research surely would have been used against them by environmental groups who intentionally distort the debate by exaggerating any dangers and denying any benefits. It is far from certain that better studies and more open debate would have produced a more reasoned policy. Much of the reaction against nanotechnology is based solely on the fact that even if it has benefits, these benefits will change society in substantial ways. This is why opponents often mention the need to look at “socio-economic effects”. Similar arguments are being used today against the expansion of the Internet. Realtors have argued that home earches done over the Internet are not really the same as those done by a licensed professional and that the industry therefore should not have to open up its listing services to discount brokers. Optometrists have argued that contact lenses purchased over the Internet are not really as safe as those that they sell and that therefore they should be allowed to write prescriptions for brands that promise not to make their products available to Web stores. Of course, in neither of these arguments is there room for the consumer to determine what actually does or does not benefit him. Rather, the strategy is for the incumbents to make the decision for the individual. Had the development of the World Wide Web waited for a full understanding of its “socioeconomic effects” it would probably not exist today.

Florida consumer survey

I noticed reference to a consumer survey in a recent email newsletter from the Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association, and I requested more info on it from the Florida Department of Agriculture. The survey, called the Promotions Campaign Survey, was conducted in April this year.
No big surprises here, perhaps, except to note that responses seem to vary widely based income and ethnic group. The food budget is a bigger concern this year than a year ago, and four out of five viewed Florida's ag products as safe compared with imports. The summary of the survey is published below.

Summary

While the percentages are only around 25%, a significant number seeks out Florida grown products as well as locally grown products when they shop. Florida residents are concerned about a safe and stable food supply.

A large number are more concerned today than they were a year ago about the family food budget reflecting the economic downturn nationally. Florida residents feel products grown in the State are safe when compared to imported products.

Television and newspapers are the two primary sources of information for news. Respondents generally felt Florida farmers were concerned about their impact on the environment. There was strong support for allowing legal workers from other countries to work as temporary farm employees.

Just under 30% were aware of the phrase, “Safe, affordable and abundant: Food for thought from Florida’s farmers.” A majority feels Florida farmers should produce crops that can be used as sources for alternative fuels, such as bio-diesel, bio-gas and ethanol.

Highlights

24% say they always look for food produced in Florida when they shop. This is significantly higher among Hispanics and in the Miami/Ft. Lauderdale area. Another 36% say sometimes and that is well above the norm among African-Americans and those earning $40,000-$50,000 a year. 18% say seldom and 19% never.

A significant number are concerned about a stable food supply. Using a mean average scale of 1 to 5 with a 1 most concerned, the average was 2.3. This was most important to those earning $50,000-$75,000 a year.

Again using the 1 to 5 scale, the mean average was 1.9 when asked how concerned they were about a safe food supply. Women were more concerned than men.

69% are more concerned about their family’s food budget than they were a year ago. This was above the norm among African-Americans, 45-54 year olds and those earning $50,000-$75,000 a year. Only 12% said less and 19% about the same.

81% feel agricultural products grown in Florida are safe compared to imported products. Only 5% said they were somewhat unsafe compared to imported products. 23% of African-Americans felt they were unsafe.

31% say extremely and 42% very when asked how important university research is to the farmers who produce food and fiber in Florida. When 73% combined give these responses, it reflects a very high percentage that considers it important.

50% receive their news and information from television. This is higher than the norm among respondents in Jacksonville and African-Americans and below the norm among Hispanics. 27% say newspapers and this rises in importance among 65+ respondents, those earning $20,000-$30,000 and $50,000-$75,000 a year. It is also higher in West Palm/Ft. Pierce and Ft. Myers/Naples. 8% said the Internet but is twice as high among 18-34 year olds and families with two or more children in the household.

32% were not sure if Florida farming operations were hi-tech or low-tech. Women, families with 2+ children and those in the Ft. Myers/Naples area were the groups most unsure. 39% said hi-tech and this rose significantly among those earning over $100,000 a year and in West Palm/Ft. Pierce. 25% said low-tech and 4% no-tech.

36% believe Florida farmers are very concerned about their impact on the environment. This is well above the norm among respondents who were separated, widowed or divorced and in the Tampa Bay/St. Pete area. 48% say they are somewhat concerned and this rose among 35-44 year olds, Hispanics, singles and men. 7% said they weren’t concerned at all and 8% weren’t sure.

25% said it is extremely important that Florida farmers be able to employ temporary, legal workers from other countries to produce food. This rose well above the norm among 18-34 year olds, Hispanics and those with two or more children in their household. 34% said it was very important and this rose in importance among 55-64 year olds and respondents earning $50,000 or more a year. 23% said it was somewhat important and 12% said it was not important.

29% recall seeing or hearing the phrase, “Safe, affordable and abundant: Food for thought from Florida’s farmers.” Only among those earning $75,000-$100,000 do we see in increase from the norm. 69% said they had not and 3% weren’t sure.

26% said they always make an effort to seek out locally grown food products. This is higher among those earning under $20,000 a year and in the Miami/Ft. Lauderdale area. 57% said sometimes and 15% never.

93% consider agriculture to be important to Florida’s economy and another 93% believe the United States should be able to produce enough food domestically to feed its citizens.

31% said it was extremely important and 30% very important for Florida farmers to produce crops that can be used as sources for alternative fuels, such as bio-diesel, bio-gas and ethanol. When you combine extremely and very together, it reflects 61% was say it is important. Another 22% said somewhat important and only 12% not important. 45-54 year olds, Hispanics, African-Americans and those in West Palm Beach/Ft. Pierce felt it was most important.

Banana RIP?

So warns this article from The Scientist, a story that recounts the last 100 years of commercial marketing of the banana. From the story by Dan Koeppel:

The banana we eat today is not the one your grandparents ate. That one - known as the Gros Michel - was, by all accounts, bigger, tastier, and hardier than the variety we know and love, which is called the Cavendish. The unavailability of the Gros Michel is easily explained: it is virtually extinct.

Introduced to our hemisphere in the late 19th century, the Gros Michel was almost immediately hit by a blight that wiped it out by 1960. The Cavendish was adopted at the last minute by the big banana companies - Chiquita and Dole - because it was resistant to that blight, a fungus known as Panama disease. For the past fifty years, all has been quiet in the banana world. Until now.


Panama disease - or Fusarium wilt of banana - is back, and the Cavendish does not appear to be safe from this new strain, which appeared two decades ago in Malaysia, spread slowly at first, but is now moving at a geometrically quicker pace. There is no cure, and nearly every banana scientist says that though Panama disease has yet to hit the banana crops of Latin America, which feed our hemisphere, the question is not if this will happen, but when. Even worse, the malady has the potential to spread to dozens of other banana varieties, including African bananas, the primary source of nutrition for millions of people.

Crop disease is only half the problem. The other part is denial. One of the most recent places Panama disease struck was Australia. Three years ago, when I was researching my book on bananas, growers down under were bragging that they'd found a way to control the disease, which first appeared in 1997 near the Northern Territory town of Darwin. "We have developed a rapid and accurate DNA-based diagnostic test...used in the detection and management of outbreaks," asserted a brochure issued by the country's Cooperative Research Centre for Plant Protection.



TK: Koeppel suggests that banana companies are unwisely downplaying the risk of Panama disease in Central and South America and notes that the next banana variety with wilt resistance will come from a biotech lab.

Europe's dilemma with biotech

Europe's policy on biotechnology is fast putting their livestock producers at a serious competitive disadvantage. This link from the USDA FAS reveals that the EU policy on biotech crop varieties will soon preclude the ability of livestock producers to import soybeans. From the report:


A group of German food and feed industry associations released a discussion paperex pressing the industries' concerns about the negative implications of the EU biotech policy. The industry is highly concerned that the EU policy on biotechnology will cause significant supply problems for Germany. The concern is heightened by the prospect of new biotech events, such as the second generation RR soybeans, being introduced in the U.S. and other major soybean producing countries. The EU biotech policy prohibits the importation of food/feed products containing traces of not yet EU-approved biotech events.

Not preaching to the choir

Japan has been resistant to GMO technology, but world events could be softening opposition. At least this speech by U.S. Ambassador J. Thomas Schieffer to the 8th annual Life Sciences Summit in Tokyo on April 21 makes the case that Japan should embrace biotech agriculture. With talk of food security, he may be pushing the right buttons for the Japanese psyche.


A long excerpt:

Why then is there such public resistance to so many of the advances made by science in agriculture? Why are some people so afraid of things like genetically modified organisms, or GMOs as they are called? Why do some people fear products produced more by the latest science than products produced by the oldest superstitions? Is it because science is moving aster than our ability to explain it? Maybe. It seems to me that all of us whether we are in or out of government have a duty to defend science and common sense against irrationality and ignorance. Science has a much better chance of giving us what we need than myth and conspiracy theories. Biotechnology allows farmers to plant crops that will be less susceptible to disease, drought, and pests and more receptive to fertilizers and weed control. That will translate into higher yields, greater productivity, and safer products for consumers. What will be so bad about that? For the last decade, the use of biotech crops has been increasing at double digit rates. In 2007, over 114 million hectares of biotech crops were grown in 23 countries around the world. The United States is the biggest biotech producer, followed by Argentina and Brazil. To put it into perspective, the area planted in biotech crops last year was almost three times the size of the total land area of Japan. The number of farmers planting biotech crops has surged past 12 million. Some of these farmers are American, Australian, Canadian, and European, but more than 90% are small, resource-poor farmers from the developing world. The use of biotech crops is massive, growing, and transcends a country's level of economic development. Why are farmers around the world using this technology? Because it works. It delivers higher yielding crops that are easier on the environment and most of all are safe for human consumption. Farmers are also able to use these crops to increase the profitability of their farms, and improving the financial well-being of farmers is a policy most governments - including Japan - like to follow. It might surprise you to learn that Japan is already the world's largest importer of biotech crops, because millions of tons of biotech grain are imported for use as animal feed and for vegetable oil. But many Japanese consumers are reluctant to have biotech foods "on the end of their chopsticks." In 2004 and 2005, the U.S. Embassy participated in a study about Japanese views on agricultural biotechnology. The results were disappointing. We already knew that Japanese consumers are concerned about food safety, but we learned that they fear biotech foods for "unknown" long-term health effects. Many Japanese consumers said they did not feel that biotechnology offered them any benefits. Even more worrying was the fact that Japanese consumers in the study were unsure if the Japanese government itself was favorably disposed toward biotechnology. One factor that keeps biotech foods off Japanese shelves at the supermarket is the government requirement that they be labeled as "GMO." So far, no Japanese food manufacturer or retailer has been willing to test the market for GMO-labeled, consumer-ready food. We are hopeful that new products, like oils made from grains with health benefits, will change this. Biotech soybeans, for instance, enable more foods to be trans-fat free. Biotech soybeans are also rich in omega-3 oils which the human body cannot make. Studies show that a diet rich in omega-3 fats will reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease. While these new products will have to be labeled as "GMO," we hope they will change consumer's existing views on biotechnology. Biotech crops also have the ability to combat malnutrition and disease. According to the World Health Organization, dietary deficiencies in vitamin A, iodine, iron, or zinc, can be major sources of disease and death. A lack of vitamin A alone causes up to 500,000 children a year to go blind. Consumption of biotech crops like "golden rice" could prevent that from happening. Right here in Japan a team of government, university, and company scientists has developed a rice that can act as a cholera vaccine. This kind of biotechnology could reduce suffering and save millions of lives. The U.S. Census Bureau predicts that the world's population will grow by 50% to 9 billion souls in 2042. This will represent a tripling of the earth's population in less than a century. Higher incomes and urbanization are leading to major changes in dietary consumption. The world food economy is increasingly driven by a shift toward livestock products. We are seeing huge increases in per-capita consumption of fish, meat, and milk products, especially in Asia. This is not bad; it is good. But we must plan for its ultimate impact. It is likely that an additional 1 billion metric tons of cereal grains will be needed annually by 2030, which is a 50% increase over production in 2000. World cereal demand will double by 2050 with developing countries in Asia accounting for half of the increase in global demand. How will all these billions be fed? Through technology. We must employ it to raise more food on less land, so that we will minimize our environmental footprint. Without an increase in farm productivity, an additional 1.6 billion hectares of arable land would have to come under the plow by 2050. If that happened, it would have catastrophic consequences for the environment and make a reduction in greenhouse gases almost unachievable. Feeding people without destroying the environment will be a challenge. Mankind needs all the tools that are available, and none are better than biotechnology. Japan already imports more than 60% of its caloric intake. Food security is and should be of great concern, but Japan is just one part of a much bigger Asian market. The longer Japanese consumers are uneasy about biotechnology, the longer they will face the possibility of being shut out of world markets, and that is the essence of what good food security is all about.

Citrus greening report

Today the USDA put out this news about the December summit on citrus greening. No silver bullets, unfortunately, but I wonder if biotechnology will be part of the answer. From the USDA:

The U.S. Department of Agriculture today announced the findings from the Dec. 2007 meeting between federal, state and industry leaders to improve America's defense against citrus greening and its insect vector, the Asian citrus psyllid (ACP).

"This summit provided 65 citrus health experts the opportunity to share their ideas about enhancing cooperative prevention, preparedness, response and recovery efforts for citrus greening and the Asian citrus psyllid," said Bruce Knight, under secretary for marketing and regulatory programs. "This was the first step towards developing an integrated National plan that once implemented will help protect the domestic citrus and nursery industries from this devastating disease."

Throughout the course of the meeting, five key needs emerged: (1) strong and decisive national leadership; (2) enhanced and coordinated research; (3) increased funding to support a wide array of activities; (4) improved communication among all federal, state and industry sectors and (5) better coordination between the United States and Mexico to address potential pathways and to harmonize disease and vector-control activities.

USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) proposes to develop a national plan that will result in a coordinated and holistic approach for conducting ongoing and future activities to target these pests. APHIS will select a national citrus greening/ACP coordinator who will lead the effort in the development of the national plan. The coordinator will be responsible for forming a Leadership Steering Committee to assist in the development of the national plan and in the coordination of citrus greening/ACP management and control activities. APHIS also will work with key federal, state, tribal, citrus health experts and industry leaders to create working groups that will gather information and help address the critical issues identified at the summit. However, these working groups will have no direct influence over Federal and State appropriations or regulatory activities.

Interested parties can review the full report at www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/citrus_greening/. APHIS seeks feedback on this document and invites the public to submit comments to the following e-mail address: CitrusGreeningPlan@aphis.usda.govail. Individuals also can mail comments to the Citrus Health Response Program, APHIS, USDA, 920 Main Campus Drive, Suite 200, Raleigh, NC 27606-5213. Consideration will be given to comments received on or before May 9.

Citrus greening, also known as huanglongbing, is one of the more serious diseases of citrus fruit. The Asian citrus psyllid is the primary insect vector that spreads citrus greening from infected trees to healthy trees as the insect feeds on a plant. Currently, there are 30 counties in Florida quarantined for citrus greening. Hawaii, Puerto Rico and Guam, as well as 32 counties in Texas are quarantined for the Asian citrus psyllid

IYOP

Dean Kleckner, an Iowa farmer, chairs Truth About Trade & Technology. www.truthabouttrade.org. He writes here about the colorful past and intriguing future of the potato - particularly wondering if genetically modified spuds will have a future.


Surely you’ve heard that 2008 is the year of a presidential election here in the United States, as well as the year of the Summer Olympics in Beijing. Personally, I hope that 2008 will be a good one for the St. Louis Cardinals, whose season gets started on Monday.
This is also the International Year of the Potato, according to a decree by the United Nations. In 2008, the UN wants “to increase awareness of the importance of the potato as a food in developing nations.”

It’s the world’s fourth-most-important crop, after corn, wheat, and rice. The French call it the “ground apple” and my farming friends in Sweden call it an “earth pear”—succulent names for a blue-collar root vegetable that is one of agriculture’s great workhorses. “The potato produces more nutritious food more quickly, on less land, and in harsher climates than any other major crop,” says a UN website.

The potato is grown all over the world, with about half of its harvest taking place in developing countries. It’s rich in calories, making it an excellent source of energy—especially in nations that are more concerned about malnutrition than the low-carb Atkins diet. Finally, demand for it is growing.

So the potato looks to have a bright future. But it also has a rich past, and it has played a crucial role in economics, trade, and globalization.
The plant is native to South America, where farmers have grown it for thousands of years. The earliest potatoes, according to the Oxford Companion to Food, were “small, misshapen, and knobbly” and tasted bitter. Through breeding (genetic changes), they became bigger, rounder, and more appetizing.

The European encounter with the New World began the potato’s process of globalization. In the 16th century, farmers in Spain and Italy planted their first potatoes. Then the crop spread everywhere. Its advantages were significant enough to overcome occasional religious objections, based on the concern that the potato isn’t mentioned anywhere in the Bible. The Irish came up with a clever solution to this problem: They sprinkled holy water on their seed potatoes and planted them on Good Friday.

Because potatoes are packed with calories and easy to grow, their cultivation in Europe made it possible for large numbers of people to move from farms to cities. They “liberated workers from the land,” writes The Economist, and thereby planted the seeds for the industrial revolution.

Potatoes also fueled international trade, in a completely unexpected way. In the early 19th century, Britain imposed hefty tariffs known as the Corn Laws. Their purpose was to shield domestic agriculture from foreign competition. The result was to keep food prices artificially high, which helped rich landowners but frustrated uppity manufacturers who wanted British consumers to enjoy more disposable income. That’s always the price of protectionism: More money for special interests, and less cash for ordinary people.

It took the Irish Potato Famine in the 1840s to repeal the Corn Laws. Sir Robert Peel, the Conservative prime minister, called for their abolition so that the starving people of Ireland could have something to eat. Peel’s moral argument prevailed, though this success soon cost him his political career.

Growing potatoes may be relatively ‘easy’ but breeding a healthier and stronger potato that has consumer benefits like antioxidants, enhanced vitamins (C, A and E) and improved starch content is difficult and a long, slow process using traditional breeding. That’s just how the potato works. Today, researchers are using intragenics – using biotechnology to introduce new traits from other potato varieties – to produce potatoes with these added-value attributes.

Modern agricultural practices make the appearance of a new potato famine unlikely. Even so, the potato finds itself at the center of a new controversy in Europe, where farmers would like a special GM variety approved for use. The potato in question isn’t even grown for food. Instead, it generates a starch that’s an industrial ingredient for glossy paper, adhesive cement, and other products.

The EU’s unnecessary restrictions on GM crops are the Corn Laws of our time, especially because they’re holding back poor nations in Africa and elsewhere from adopting advanced agricultural practices. Europe could hardly choose a better time or rationale than the International Year of the Potato for rethinking its small-minded opposition to sensible biotechnology.

Contemplating the future of Hawaiian agriculture

One environmental blog site has raised the issue of biotech crops in Hawaii. Here is how the issue was framed by the site:

At a staff meeting yesterday, we threw out this idea: How amazing would it be if “grown in Hawaii” was known world-wide to mean “organic and GMO free”?

As the most remote archipelago in the world–we are at the crossroads of the future of agriculture. We can either choose to become a haven for pure, high-quality, high-value organic and GMO-free food, or an isolated testing ground for corporate biotech to try out their genetically modified pharmaceutical and mcfood crops. What’s it going to be?

To remain silent on this issue, is the same thing as choosing. Unless we raise our hand to say “NO”, the future for Hawaii IS unrestricted, unmitigated, unlimited biotech. From last year’s Star Bulletin:

Pineapple will give way to biotech seed crops in Kunia as Monsanto Co. expands its acreage in the state by purchasing lands once tended by Del Monte Fresh Produce Hawaii.

Monsanto has entered an agreement to acquire 2,300 acres of agriculture-zoned land from the James Campbell Co.

See full article at: http://starbulletin.com/2007/04/05/news/story02.html

TK: By the way, the blog said it is a a project of KAHEA: the Hawaiian-Environmental Alliance, a non-profit 501(c)3 working to protect the unique natural and cultural resources of the Hawaiian islands. If Hawaii wants a vibrant agriculture economy, it obviously can no longer lean on the pineapple trade or the sugar business. While KAHEA may dream of a Hawaii that is "organic and GMO free," the reality is that well regulated biotech development makes economic sense for the islands.

ANSI and Leonardo

The American National Standards Institute Inc. is getting a bit of attention from the Pundit over its standard setting activities for sustainable agriculture. Here is a link to the group's IRS 990 form, and it shows a non profit group with about a $17 million budget in 2005 ($22 million now) and some $7.8 million in assets in 2005. Here is the letter that dozens of farm groups, notably Farm Bureau, wrote to ANSI relating to concerns about draft sustainability standards. Here are their concerns, from the Jan. 31 letter. Here, from the letter published by the Pundit:

We are writing in follow-up to our conversation on January 17th with Anne Caldas of American National Standards Institute (ANSI) to express our concern about the process used to establish the proposed American National Standards Institute Draft Standard for Sustainable Agriculture for Trial Use. We understand the Leonardo Academy’s desire to generate and harmonize sustainability standards. It is unfortunate, however, that this standard with its important implications for American agriculture was processed in this manner. We are concerned that the ANSI process has not been followed and that this may have already led to irremediable defects in terms of ANSI’s ability to receive approval.
Stakeholder concerns and the controversial nature of the standard make procedural issues of utmost importance.
* It equates organic practices with best agricultural practices, a conclusion that would be soundly rejected by many in the scientific community and an issue that will provoke intense debate between the organic and conventional agricultural communities.
* It rejects the use of biotechnology, perpetuating scientifically unsound and overly precautionary approaches that have been rejected by ma y governments, including our own, and which have provoked significant trade concerns.

TK: There are more objections to the process of setting sustainability standards, which is being spearheaded by the Lenoardo Academy with assistance from SCS. The 990 form for the Leonardo Academy show a Madison, Wi.-based (liberal bastion) non profit with a budget of $421,000 and assets of just $119,000 in 2006.

Here is what Leonardo's Web site says about current standard setting work:

Leonardo Academy is a member of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), an organization that coordinates the development and use of voluntary consensus standards in the United States, and is an ANSI Accredited standards developer. Leonardo Academy is currently developing an ANSI standard for emission reductions and offsets and is working with Scientific Certification Systems on a Sustainable Agriculture Practice Standard.

TK: Farm groups are wise to go to the power-wielding ANSI with their concerns, though I question how much traction and buy-in this sustainability standard would have, even with the blessing of ANSI. I don't think the vast majority of consumers are connecting to this issue - not just yet, anyway.

Plowing over agriculture - Florida firestorm

Here is coverage about the controversy in Florida about a possible cash grab from IFAS that would hurt the interests of Florida farmers. From the Feb.17 coverage:

Increasing age of farmers tempts many to grab off developer's bucks.
By JACK STRIPLING NYT Regional Newspapers
Rumors of agriculture's demise may have been greatly exaggerated, but there's cause for concern about the industry's overall bill of health, according to experts.A firestorm erupted earlier this month when Bernie Machen, president of the University of Florida, was quoted as saying agriculture was a "dying industry" unworthy of state investments. Machen has denied making the remarks, which were published Feb. 5 in a monthly agriculture newspaper. Even so, the ensuing controversy raises real questions about whether agriculture will play as pivotal a role in the 21st century as it has in the past.

Later....

A 2008 UF study placed the agriculture industry's total economic impact at $59 billion in Florida, when one includes the money spent by manufacturers that support the industry through equipment and supplies.The study itself indicates IFAS' continual efforts to prove its worth in the state.The institute, which has roots going back to the presidency of Abraham Lincoln, was designed to conduct research that would help improve agriculture across the state. With extension offices now spread across all 67 Florida counties, IFAS has an annual budget of $300.4 million and employs more than 2,300 people who are supported by state money and grants.(IFAS includes the Citrus Research and Education Center in Lake Alfred, the world's largest research facility devoted to citrus.)
Despite its long history and sprawling presence in the state, IFAS is undervalued, according to some faculty in the institute. And while Machen contends he didn't forecast the doom of agriculture in a public statement, there are a number of faculty who now say they see Machen as out of touch with the land-grant mission that created UF and IFAS.Actually, Machen has publicly backed major initiatives that rely on the institute's expertise. He was a major supporter of building a new center to fight infectious diseases that plague plants as well as humans. The institute also has a real presence in the university's alternative energy research, which Machen has called a key priority.But when it comes to the inventions UF is pushing into the marketplace, UF has focused mostly of late on biomedical research and technology."Is ag bio, other than energy, right now a very big part of the investment portfolio? No, it's really not," said David Day, director of technology licensing at UF.
The technology research that's helping UF to secure big grants and contracts is also in part what's helping to propel the university upward in national rankings.Machen has made moving UF into the top 10 public universities the over-arching goal of his presidency, and the trustees who approve his bonuses largely grade Machen on his ability to improve numbers that matter to U.S. News & World Report.While reaching for the top 10 may sound good to trustees, the intense focus on rankings is exactly what has some IFAS faculty on edge. A faculty member, who asked not to be identified for fear of retribution, called Machen's focus troubling."What we read in the paper is that Machen wants to move UF into the top 10 Ivy League type of situation, and one doesn't get into the Ivy League by increasing yields of wheat per acre or solving citrus greening," the faculty member said. "(But) what is the use of being in the Ivy League if the ivy has some disease that pathology can't cure because it's been liquidated?"Faculty may be increasingly less inclined to publicly criticize Machen, and IFAS leaders aren't talking either.Jimmy Cheek, the senior vice president of IFAS, and his second-in-command, Joe Joyce, both refused to comment for this story.

TK: "What use is the Ivy League if the ivy has some disease that reserachers can't cure because they have been liquidated?" A well turned phrase, and clearly some university administrators need to educated again about the importance of agriculture in Florida.

Mission at risk

As first noted by Big Apple of the Fresh Produce Industry Discussion Group, a a new 60-page report from a subcommittee of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's science board was released today. Titled "FDA Science and Mission at Risk," the report states that increasing demands and a lack of resources have created an "imbalance" that puts the integrity of the FDA's mission - and the safety of the public - at risk. From the report's reference to food safety (highlights mine):

The Subcommittee found that FDA’s ability to provide its basic food system inspection, enforcement and rulemaking functions is severely eroded, as is its ability to respond to outbreaks in a timely manner and to develop and keep pace with the new regulatory science needed to prevent future problems arising from both novel (prion disease, genetically modified organism) and traditional (resistant microbes, chemical contamination) sources. There is an appallingly low inspection rate: the FDA cannot sufficiently monitor either the tremendous volume of products manufactured domestically or the exponential growth of imported products. During the past 35 years, the decrease in FDA funding for inspection of our food supply has forced FDA to impose a 78 percent reduction in food inspections, at a time when the food industry has been rapidly expanding and food importation has exponentially increased. FDA estimates that, at most, it inspects food manufacturers once every 10 years, and cosmetic manufacturers even less frequently. The Agency conducts no inspections of retail food establishments or of food-producing farms.

There are several reasons for the crisis in CFSAN and CVM. One is a dramatic increase in and diversification of Agency responsibilities, reflecting the sharp increase in FDA regulatory mandates and the challenges of globalization. Another is the increasing complexity of the task: surveillance combined with the complexities of cross-Agency regulatory responsibilities and a general lack of coordination across agencies. A third is the increased scientific demands placed on the Agency due to the emerging sciences that are resulting in new products for humans and animals. Finally, a recurrent theme — that of inadequate resources. In this case, inadequate sensing technology to augment surveillance and investigational activities, inadequate scientific capability to effectively model food supply risks, and inadequate staff to inspect an adequate sample of domestic and internationally produced food products all limit the effectiveness of the Agency.
The Subcommittee’s findings are consistent with those of previous committees that voiced deep concerns about the viability of the foods program and the lack of Agency priority for food issues. Sixteen years ago the Final Report of the Advisory Committee on the Food and Drug Administration to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) (May 1991) identified the same problems (Appendix D, page 1): "There are deep concerns about the viability of the foods program and the lack of Agency priority for food issues. Decline in resources and program initiatives during the past 10–15 years indicate a lack of Agency management attention and interest in this area, although public interest in, and concern for, an effective food program remain high." Since 1991, continued declines in resources and personnel have exacerbated this situation.
CVM has the authority of ensuring the safety of milk, meat and eggs. However, the Center is faced with myriad other regulatory demands; including assessing safety of genetically modified foods and engineered animals used to make biotechnology-based drugs for humans (so-called biopharming); developing analytical techniques to screen meat, milk and eggs for volatile residues of drugs, pesticides and environmental contaminants; as well as managing the approval of an explosion of new pet-animal drugs that are essentially a microcosm of the human drugs regulated by both CDER and CBER (partially supported by Animal Drug Use Fee Act). When Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), commonly known as mad cow disease, first appeared in Europe and elsewhere, consumers and the industry looked to the FDA to ensure that the disease would not spread to the US through the animal feed that FDA regulates. But Agency officials were denied the funds to bring the feed industry into rapid compliance with the new feed regulations, and the disease did indeed appear in the US. Perhaps if the small sums requested by FDA had been provided, Japan and other countries would not have cut off imports of US beef and American producers would not have suffered multibillion dollar losses. To this day, the BSE research program, as well as others in the CVM See Appendix C, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) related to detection of newly emerging infectious agents, remains seriously underfunded.
The recent pet food safety crisis has strained this overtaxed system. CVM received more than 18,000 telephone calls concerning melamine pet food contamination. The pet food industry is a $15 to $20 billion a year business and largely falls within FDA’s regulatory purview. It was estimated that about 1 percent of the total volume of pet food was involved with a potential economic impact of $200 million. CVM is able to devote only two people working full time on pet food issues.
It is crucial that both food-based Centers develop the science needed to fulfill their mandated missions. The strengthening of science in these Centers must be insulated from acute crisis management. This will involve a two-pronged approach. The first is to immediately correct the historical lack of support for staff and infrastructure needed to address current issues. Both Centers have accurately defined areas that need attention, and this Subcommittee agrees with this assessment. Directly supporting these initiatives is largely one of funding, as addressed in recommendation 128.
The second phase is to significantly build a 21st Century science-based regulatory science that could anticipate future food safety issues and develop a cadre of professionals capable of applying the new biology, chemistry and bioinformatics to the regulation of foods that exist in the manufacturing, distribution and consumer use environment of today’s global marketplace. A culture must be created in which such individuals have the freedom and support to pursue the regulatory science needed to keep pace with a global economy using the tools provided by a new biology. These individuals must be isolated from acute regulatory crises.
The Subcommittee recommends that CFSAN and CVM leverage other research programs (e.g., National Center for Toxicology Research [NCTR], the Agricultural Research Service [ARS], Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service [CSREES], Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], National Institutes of Health [NIH] and Department of Homeland Security [DHS]) research programs to address food and cosmetic safety priorities in toxicology, microbiology, human and animal nutrition, and issues of emerging science. However, due to the unique regulatory landscape of products managed by both CFSAN and CVM, internal up-to-date scientific expertise is mandatory. CFSAN and CVM need to have resources that can be brought to the partnership and that could be used to fund joint requests for proposals managed through granting agencies. One very successful example of such joint programs is the Plant Genome Initiative, funded by National Science Foundation (NSF), Department of Energy (DOE) and US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and managed by NSF.
Confidential 23 FDA Science and Mission at Risk Report of the Subcommittee on Science and Technology
This second phase should be conducted in parallel with this Subcommittee’s recommendations for Agency-wide changes in science administration and support as embodied in a Chief Scientific Officer with budgetary authority, as well as modernization of IT infrastructure. The unending series of management by crisis in both CFSAN and CVM has seriously eroded the morale of existing dedicated staff and hampered recruitment of new scientists trained in areas of emerging biology, chemistry and bioinformatics. This situation, coupled with the early retirement of senior scientists and the recent departure of the director of CFSAN, puts the state of science in serious disarray. These issues should be a high priority on the agenda of the new Chief Scientific Officer.
Finally, efforts to strengthen the food safety mission of FDA must not adversely affect CFSAN’s legislatively mandated mission to address the science behind nutrition, and the safety of dietary supplements and cosmetic safety. In fact, these areas must be revitalized and prioritized independently of both food and drug issues to redress decades of neglect before a serious crisis emerges29. The dietary supplement industry has grown to more than $20 billion in annual sales, and millions of Americans use those products every day. But the legislation authorizing FDA regulation of those products has never been funded, the practical effect being that the products and their health claims go essentially unregulated. The same can be said of the cosmetics industry, which has more than $60 billion in annual sales, but is overseen by an FDA staff of 14 supported by $3.5 million budget. This industry is rapidly integrating nanotechnology for product delivery and yet, very limited expertise in this newly emerging area of science exists in the entire FDA.

Discussion board roundup 9/20

Mexican trucks show better safety record than U.S. counterparts Big Apple posts this story covering the Mexican trucks to U.S. controversy:
Mexican trucks show better safety records than U.S. counterparts. Following a fierce debate on whether Mexican trucks should be allowed to access U.S. roads, transportation officials released a study showing that Mexican long- haul trucks had better safety records than their U.S. counterparts between 2003 and 2006. Only 1.21 percent of the Mexican drivers failed roadside inspections during that period, a number much smaller than the 7.06 percent of U.S. drivers, according to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration


Farm bill extended by one month Big Apple posts coverage of Sen. Harkin's statements on a short term extension of the farm bill


No match rule spells trouble for New York Ag Big Apple posts this link on what the no match rule means for NY growers:
Last week, New York Ag Commissioner Pat Hooker wrote to President George Bush, expressing concern over the Department of Homeland Security's new "no match" policy. In short, it would place an undue enforcement burden on family businesses.
DHS's "no match" policy would require all farmers and other employers to match employee names and Social Security numbers via the Social Security Administration. That policy was at least temporarily stalled with a "stay" order by a federal court judge in California. (For more on that, see related story on this Web site.) The decision is scheduled to be revisited in early October.
The DHS guidelines require employers to resolve the discrepancies within 90 days of SSA notification. Failure would invite severe penalties.

Some tainted lettuce from Salinas? Luis posts this story about likely origin of tainted lettuce. Luis writes:
Kind of an oxymoron title (i.e. we don't really know but it might be from here). One would wish the press would refrain from that kind of innuendo. At any rate the article hints at some political situations.

Gene stacking technology for vegetables? Luis posts this interesting coverage of GM varieties of vegetables under development. Luis writes:
Monsanto now controls a sizeable portion of the vegetable seed market and has been pursuing the commercialization of advanced biotech technology that could add MULTIPLE traits (i.e. stacking or pyramiding) like pest, herbicide resistance, flavor, shelf-life etc. all into a single seed. Stuff of science dreams/fiction just a decade ago.
Not likely to see it in vegetable seeds soon but potentally revolutionary. The gene gun descriptions one still sees in the press are so very 70's.

Danger on the border Big Apple posts this link on border enforcement efforts for immigration. Also, this link on the border fence:
From the Desert News:
Border patrol has become a dangerous and costly practice in the last several years. According to the Border Patrol spokeswoman for the Yuma, Ariz., sector, 185 attacks on agents were reported last year at that particular crossing point, while the number of illegal immigrants intercepted trying to cross the border decreased by 68 percent.


NY Senator asks for suspension of Australian bee imports Big Apple posts this coverage of bee colony collapse and implications for imported bees.

Biotech in Thailand?

Are more international produce suppliers ready to adopt biotech fruit and vegetables? From a recent USDA FAS report:

FAS/Bangkok, in cooperation with the State Department and the Biotechnology Alliance Association conducted a series of seminars titled, “Crisis and Solution: The Problem of Papaya Ring Spot Virus in Papaya Exporting and Productions” in Khon Kaen, Nakhonpathom, and Bangkok. The seminars increased awareness and support for biotechnology among Thai stakeholders by discussing global commercialization of biotech crops, Thailand’s problems with the papaya ring spot virus (PSRV), and public communication for biotechnology. More than 200 participants attended the three seminars, including private and commercial papaya producers, media reporters, consumers, papaya processors, and academics. As part of the
seminars, FAS/Bangkok invited a Hawaiian biotech papaya producer, Ken Kamiya, to speak to Thai producers pragmatically about the risks of not adopting biotech, or “rainbow,” papaya when faced with PRSV. Mr. Kamiya who has farmed for nearly 40 years, presented an overview of the papaya market in Hawaii, and specifically how the PRSV nearly destroyed the Hawaiian papaya industry until “rainbow” papaya was introduced in 1998. As a result of “rainbow” papaya’s introduction, producers were able to eliminate PRSV from their fields. Currently, about 95 percent of papaya production in Hawaii is crossed with “rainbow” papaya, and there has not been a single complaint or health related incident among consumers. Furthermore, crossing the “rainbow” line with existing varieties created hybrid vigor, an enhancement in plants nutrition, flavor, and overall health associated with the introduction of new genetics to older plants. Mr. Kamiya’s presentation was well received by the Thai participants, who often posed questions concerning the biosafety and marketability of producing biotech papaya. Several producers and processors inquired about the Hawaiian papaya industry’s experience with getting biotech papaya to Japan. Currently, the U.S. is seeking approval for shipping “rainbow” papaya to Japan and is in the risk assessment process. Non-biotech papaya produced in Hawaii is eligible for export to Japan. On biosafety concerns, Mr. Kamiya stressed that Hawaii has no problem with crosscontamination
with non-biotech papaya as producers apply USDA guidelines on the use of perimeters to mitigate papaya pollen from reaching other crops. Over the course of the week, several media outlets interviewed Mr. Kamiya, including newspaper, radio, and television interviews. The tone of the interviews was positive, with reporters inquiring about Mr. Kamiya’s experience in growing biotech papaya, consumer reaction, marketability, and what management practices are used on-farm. None of the participants or media interviews raised objections to the use of biotech papaya in combating PRSV. Rather, Thai stakeholders were primarily concerned with management practices, consumer reaction, and fruit quality compared with non-biotech papaya. According to sources from within the Thai Ministry of Agriculture, papaya production in some areas of the Northeast is 100 percent infected with PSRV. Plants infected with the disease face stunted growth, lower productivity, and malformed fruit. Although aphids are the primary vector for the disease, herbicide and pesticide has proven unsuccessful in warding off the disease. Genetic resistance has been the only proven method to ward off PSRV.

HR 3161 passes with bells and whistles

The House passed the Ag/FDA fiscal 2008 appropriations bill, HR 3161, yesterday. Here is the link to bill summary status and text. Only 18 Republicans voted against it, but they were abstaining after failing to derail the bill in an earlier vote.The White House has threatened a veto.

Here is a summary of the bill from the office of Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn. Note provision for housing farm laborers, emphasis on food safety oversight and nutrition issues. In the nutrition camp were funds for nationwide expansion of the fruit and vegetable program and specialty crop block grants to encourage f/v consumption.
From DeLauro:

Washington, DC – Congresswoman Rosa L. DeLauro (Conn.-3), chairwoman of the House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, delivered the following remarks in support of the fiscal year 2008 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration Appropriations Bill on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. The bill was passed by the House late Thursday evening. It also needs to be voted on by the Senate, approved by both chambers and signed by the President.

“I am proud of this bill and the goals it strives to accomplish – strengthening rural America, protecting public health, improving nutrition for more Americans, transforming our energy future, supporting conservation, investing in research, and finally, enhancing oversight. I believe they reflect our great challenges as a national community – and our priorities as a Committee.

“Each of these key goals is about finally meeting the federal government’s obligation to its citizens – about assuming responsibility again for the things we are supposed to get right.

“Ultimately, the appropriations included here represent modest increases, yet they make a big difference – providing basic services to rural communities, feeding those in need, ensuring the long-term stewardship of our lands, and transforming our food safety system.

“This year’s budget request would have turned back the clock – sometimes even eliminated effective initiatives that make a tremendous impact in the lives and communities of working and middle class Americans:

“Direct loans for rural multifamily rental housing program. Distance Learning and Telemedicine. Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations. Commodity Supplemental Food Programs.

“Now is exactly the wrong time to be undermining the critical efforts of this bill.

“Let me be clear, the appropriations in this bill are NOT based on the belief that we should just throw money at the challenges we face. With new resources should come a new commitment to responsibility and accountability? That commitment allows us to write a new story which reflects this Congress’s new priorities and I believe, we are setting that process in motion today.

“My colleagues, this is just the beginning. The challenges we address in this bill, will not go away – overnight or with the passage of this one bill. But we have a responsibility to pursue a bold vision, to give the ideas we discussed here today, new life tomorrow. It is up to us to summon the political will, provide the creative energy, and build new lasting partnerships across old boundaries. It is up to us to do it together and to do it for the future of our communities, farmers, and families – and our future as a nation. Nothing could be more important.”


Overview of the
FY 2008 Agriculture, Rural Development,
Food and Drug Administration Appropriations

This bill reinvests in rural America, protects public health, improves nutrition for more Americans, transforms our energy future, supports conservation, invests in research, and strengthens oversight.

Bill Total Discretionary
2007 Enacted: $17.812 billion
President’s request: $17.830 billion
Committee Mark: $18.817 billion

A full 95 percent of the increase above the budget request (or $940 million) is used to restore funding that was either eliminated or cut in the president’s budget, in order to acknowledge and meet our obligation to hundreds of rural communities and millions of Americans.

Reinvests in Rural America

Rural Housing Loans: Provides $212.2 million, $176.3 million above the President’s request, to fund $5.1 billion in affordable loans to provide housing to low-income families in rural areas, with no increase in fees. The President’s budget had eliminated direct loans and shifted funding to guaranteed loans, increasing fees, making these loans more expensive and less accessible for low-income families. This will provide approximately 38,000 single family homeownership opportunities.

Homeownership for Rural Families: Provides $40 million, $6.3 million above 2007 and $30.5 million above the President’s request, for grants to allow low-income families in rural areas to build their own houses. The ultimate goal is to double the number of participant families, from the 2002 level by 2010.

Housing for Farm Laborers: Provides $46.6 million, $14.5 million above 2007 and $36.8 million above the President’s request, to fund $75 million in affordable loans and grants for housing for farm laborers, nearly doubling the 2007 target of financing or constructing approximately 2000 units.

Rural Community Advancement Programs: Provides $728.8 million, $158.3 million above the President’s request, to support:

Community Facilities: $55.7 million, $31.2 million above the President’s request, for grants and loans to rural areas for critical community facilities, such as health care, educational, public safety and day care facilities.
Clean Water: $573.1 million, $70.3 million above the President’s request and $18.1 million above 2007, for loans and grants for water and waste disposal systems, supporting $1 billion in loans. In 2006, 985 applicants needing $2.3 billion had their grant requests turned down.
Business Loans and Grants: $100 million, $56.8 million above the President’s request and $15.6 million above 2007, for economic development in rural communities.

Technology Access: Provides $52.8 million, $14.2 million above 2007 and $28 million above the President’s request, for grants for distance learning, telemedicine, and broadband development in rural areas. This increase provides funding to double the broadband grant program and a 41 percent increase in distance learning and telemedicine grants to assist rural schools, learning centers, and rural communities in gaining access to improved educational resources, and assist hospitals and health care centers in gaining access to improved medical resources.

Protects Public Health

The bill would prevent cuts to the Food and Drug Administration’s field operations and provides additional funding for key activities including processing generic drug applications, drug safety reviews and monitoring prescription drug advertisements. The bill also tackles food safety, fully funding the Food Safety and Inspection Service at USDA, shifting funds to fill vacancies in federal meat inspector positions and investing in research, and funds a transformation of FDA food safety regulations.

Food Safety and Inspection Service: Provides $930.1 million, $38 million above 2007 and matching the President’s request, addressing vacancies in federal meat inspector positions.

Food and Drug Administration: Provides $1.69 billion, $128.5 million above 2007 and $62 million above the President’s request, including increases to begin a transformation of food safety regulation, improve drug safety, monitor prescription drug advertisements and review generic drug applications.

Improves Nutrition

The bill would provide nutrition to our country’s most vulnerable populations by investing in the Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) and the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), and supports programs to teach children better eating habits.

Commodity Supplemental Food Program: Provides $150 million, $43 million above 2007 and eliminated in the President’s request, for food aid for women, infants, children, and the elderly. In 2007, program participation averaged 485,614 monthly. This amount would allow five new states to participate in the program and expand participation in existing states.

Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC): Provides $5.6 billion, $415.6 million above 2007 and $233.4 million above the President’s request, including $145 million to restore the President’s proposed cuts to grants that help states administer the program. 8.38 million Americans are expected to participate in the program next year.

Nutrition: Provides $957.7 million, $45.5 million above 2007 and $69.7 million over the President’s request, for nutrition programs, including the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program ($68.5 million), Fresh Fruit and Vegetable ($21 million) and Simplified Summer Food programs ($5 million) to all states to provide nutritious foods to children in low-income families, and specialty crop grants to encourage more fruit and vegetable consumption ($10 million).

Transforms Our Energy Future

Nearly doubles funding for renewable energy loans and grants to businesses to grow our economy, create new jobs, lower energy prices, and reduce global warming.

Renewable Energy: Provides $1.2 billion, $955.3 million above 2007 and $810.4 million above the President’s request, for bio-energy and renewable energy research and development, including loans and grants in rural areas.

· Wind Energy: $500 million is included in the Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans Program for new wind energy projects.
· Business and Industry Loans: $350 million is targeted for biomass and renewable energy projects funded through the Guaranteed Business and Industry loan program.

Supports Conservation

Restores many of the programs the President would have eliminated.

Conservation Programs: Provides $979.4 million, $127.6 million above 2007 and $154.7 million above the President’s request, for conservation efforts and community development. This bill restores many of the programs slated for major reductions in the president’s request, including the Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative, Resource Conservation and Development, and the watershed programs which are funded $75 million – more than double last year’s levels.

Invests in Research

Provides critical support for ARS and CSREES programs to maintain our edge in areas such as crop development, competitiveness, international trade, nutrition research, food safety and responsiveness to incoming threats. Specifically, the bill provides an overall an increase of $178 million CSREES over the budget request, of that $108.9 million is for research and education.

Strengthens Oversight and Enforcement

Crop Insurance Integrity: Provides $11.2 million, $5.4 million above 2007 and matching the President’s request, for a system to detect potential waste, fraud and abuse in crop insurance and farm loan programs, and an additional $1 million for Inspector General oversight in this area.

Ensuring Livestock Competition: Provides $22.8 million, $2 million above 2007 and matching the President’s request, to enforce the Packers and Stockyards Act to assure fair competition and fair trade practices, safeguard farmers and ranchers, protect consumers and protect members of the livestock, meat, and poultry industries from unfair, deceptive, unjustly discriminatory and monopolistic practices. These funds provide for new agents and other professionals to strengthen enforcement and promote voluntary compliance.

Enforcement Efforts at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission: Provides $102.6 million, $4.6 million above 2007 for additional staff to enforce the agencies regulations.

Other Important Policy Items

Animal Identification: Does not provide new funding for the program because USDA cannot justify money already appropriated. Drastic action is required as this program is far too important to be allowed to continue to flounder. The agency is directed to develop a detailed plan with measurable goals.

Conflicts of Interest on FDA Advisory Committees: Bars FDA from granting waivers for conflicts of interest rules to voting members of FDA advisory committees.

Food Stamp Benefits: Excludes special pay for military personnel deployed to designated combat areas when determining food stamp eligibility. The Food Stamp Program is provided at $39.8 billion, an increase of $1.7 billion over 2007 to meet increased participation. Rejects the Administration’s proposal to restrict eligibility for food stamps by excluding needy families who are receiving certain other services.

Imported Poultry Products from China: Prohibits USDA from establishing or implementing a rule allowing poultry products from China into the U.S.

Country of Origin Labeling: Sets a timeline for USDA to implement country of origin labeling.

GM resistance

The USDA reported June 29 that biotech varieties accounted for 73% of all field corn planted in the U.S. this year, up from 61% from last year. Meanwhile, I got this email from a Germany biotechnology research group over the weekend, clearly frustrated by continued harassment in Europe about biotech research. It reads:

Ladies and Gentlemen,

In a repeat of last year’s events, parts of a trial field with GM maize in Forchheim (Baden-Württemberg) have once again been destroyed. The field is part of the coexistence research programme funded by the Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection (BMELV), which is investigating practical questions of coexistence between genetically modified and conventional maize farming. Another attack happened in Gießen: Once again, parts of a trial field on land belonging to the University of Giessenhave been destroyed. The field is being used to investigate whether genetically modified barley has undesirableimpacts on beneficial soil fungi like mycorrhizas. The project is being publicly funded as part of the biological safety research programme.

TK: Here is a link to the story. Clearly, some fringe elements in Europe continue to hamper research by government authorities and commercial application of biotechnology in agriculture. With three quarter of corn planted and 87% of cotton planted to GM varieties, it is not so in the U.S. The breakthrough for GM in fresh fruit and vegetable production in the U.S. has not arrived, but can it be far off?